Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-16-2001 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday Jul> 16,2001 6:30PM 2750 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Reprcscnialivc: Richard Flint AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please si|*n in for the public record at the front podium if ou 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 Pbnning Commission is an advboiy- body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, lbe>’ will be scheduled for the August |3, 2001 Cit> Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. NEW BUSINESS Review of these items w ill commence licfore or between scheduled public hearings. 1. #01-2690 John A. I’idcn. .330 Big Island, Alkr- rhc-l acl Variances (Stall: Paul Weinberger) 2. #01-2691 J. Eric and Christine Menge. 340 Turnham Road, V'arianees (StalT: Wendy Bottenberg) 3. #01-^ < Thomas Frederick Adams. 500 Orchard Park Road, V'arianee (Stall Weinberger) 4. #01-2697 Gary Hansen, on behalf ofLarry and Shanm Gehl. 1825 Concordia Street, V'arianee (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 5. #01-2693 l)a\ id and Maryann Maiser. 2700 Shady w ood Road, V'arianees (Stafl*: Paul Weinberger) 6. #01-2694 Buywind Christian Church 2477 Shadywood Road, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 7. #01-2692 ABC Supply Company. Inc . 2765 VVayiataBoulcs ard, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Paul Weinberger) SCI lEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM 8. #01-2696 Michael P. and Jcanninc B. Baden, and II. VV'esIey and Elizabeth L. W'olverton. 3420 and 3445 High Lane, Rearrangement of Common Property Lines, (Staff: Paul W'einbergcr) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 9. Report of Planning Commission represcntatiN’Cs attending Council meetings June 25.2001 and July 9. 2001. 10. Pending Boat Storage Ordinance Review - preliminary discussion. 11. Other issues for discussion. 12. Planning Commission appmval of minutes for May 21,2001 and June 18.2001. 13. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on July 23. 2001 and August 13.2001. ADJOURNMENT i Public A ttendance MEirriNCi D ate 7- lu JijC'j □ C ouncil nn*LANNING COMMISSION □ Park COMMISSION □ Other Please nLLOurniE information requested beijow for OCR cm* records . PRESENT FOR (from aftenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NU^fBER I hr.IIL 7JZ to jN-i/lii Ri'/Uimyiir 11:' cn t-Min. f 11 rL > V ------------------------------- 1. McT~?^ *7 7/t-f 1>v ^ MtX>^ 8.i A.J i S r._X »Z}/ ■4U.JL^ 9. T4 -TTF Z V eg SKV II. Wyy»r.iI"T>ftt^L Tili ^ I->?>">«._____ 'U.i c. l\~fl O Swpy^<^/ 13., I4._ «:rArw f a«»«n •uc.*rr City of Orono, Minnesota Street Numbering Index Map 3200 g 2800 p 2400 Q 2000 p| «00 | ttSOO J Bat£a a*** north ww OUO.NO l‘LANM.N<; COMMISSION ManJav Jul> 16. 2001 6:30I\M 2750 Kcitry l*ark\» a> - C'ouncil Chamber AOKiNDA Council RrprncntalKc: Rktuid Flint Al'Dir.NCE MF.MUF.KS: I'lcatc <lsn In for the public record at the front podium If >ou ni»h to addrc^« the riannini; Comniiuinn. Applicanlt nill be aiked to mo«e to the front table to anmer quraliont when the Chair announen the application. The Planninic CommU^lon 1% an ad» l«or> body to the City CouncIL If action it taken on any itemt on this asenda. they will be tcheduird fur the Aocuti IJ, 2001 City Council incctlna unictt otiicrttitc noted hy the Chair. Ni;\V IIL'SIS! SS Ketiew of thrtc itemt will commence berore or between tcheduled public licarinsv t iOl-2690 John A Fiden. 3.10 llig Itland, Altcf-lbcT act Voiianccs (StalT: Paul Weinberger) 2 hOI<269| J Flic and ChrutineMenge. 340 Turnham Road. Variances (SiafT Wendy Holicnberg) 3. «0l-2695 Ihoma* Frederick Ad.mit. .400 Orchard Park Riud. Variance (Siair Paul Weinhcfger) 4. «rO|.2697 (ion ||.aucn. on bdull ol l.am and Sharon Cichl. 1825 Concordia .Street. Variance (SUIT Paul Weinberger) ^ I u- Maryam Maixr. 2700 Shady w^hI Road. Variances (Stair Paul Nkeinberger) ^ 2477 Shady ttoiid Road. Conditional Lite I cmiit (StaR \kendy Uoitcnbcrgi 7 801 -2692 ARC Supply Company . Inc . 2765 Wat rata Riiulet ard. Conditional Use Pcmiil (Stall Paul Weinberger) SCIIFDUI FD PUIILIC IIFARINGS 7 00 P.M * l»aden.andU Wesley and Lli/abelh L Woltcnon. 3420 and 3445 High Lane. Rearrangement of Common Property Lines. (Stair Paul Weirberger) PLANNING CO.MMISSION CO.MMF.NTS 9 Report of Platming Commission rcprcscntatitcs attending CmirKil meetings June 25.2001 and July 9.2001 10. Pending Boat Storage Ordinance Retiew - prclimuvary discussion. 11. OUkt issues lor discussion. 12. Planning Commission approtal of minutes for .May 21.2001 and June 18.2001. 13. Selection of rrpresenutites for City CouiKil fiKCtings on July 23.2001 and August 13.2001. adjocrn .mknt Koaina^ woes, usrr.u t UMe.i WtVHfQ. •e-cuM icn nwet tf»» r(» •,«M 10.UM A«4 t. Ittl IM. M.UM Application Date: 6/20/01 60 Day Deadliae: 8/19/01 TO; Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: June 28. 2001 SUBJECT: *01-2690 John A. Eiden 330 Dig Island After the Fact Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: ListofExhibiu Seasonal Recreational District (Big Island) A AppIleatioa'Statement of Hardship B Plat Map C Survey D Before Site Photos E After Site Photos F Cits Photo of New Deck G Properts Owners Notification List Application Summary Applicant has requested after the fact variances to permit replacement of a lakeside deck on Big Island. The deck constitutes hardcover and siruclurc within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The deck is of similar dimension as the deck that wtis removed. At least two of the existing supports and footings were used for the replaced deck. The deck is located approximately 32’ from the lakeshore of Lake Minnetonka, the same setback as the deck that was removed. According to historic surveys and 1999 photos of the property the lakeside deck did exist and is similar in size and dimension to the replacement deck. The deck is located above the hillside from the lake and pros ides access to the lakeside entrance to the cabin. Mr. Eiden has stated the previous deck had rotted to state of disrepair and was a safely hazard The new deck was constructed above the footing and posts that supported the original deck. Pertinent Code Section 1. Section 10.56. Subdivision \6{L){\)-So hardcover or impervious surface shall be placed located or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level of any lake or tributary, except for stainnys. lifts, landings, and lockboxes. 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - So hardcover or structures are permitted within 75' of the lakeshore. ■01-2690 John A Eiifen * )30 Bif biMt 71601 Pi|tlor3 Lot History In 1983 the Council approved an automatic lot area variance that approved the lot as a record lot. The variance allows the lot to be used for one-family seasonal recreational use without a structure; or a single new seasonal dwelling may be built; or an existing seasonal dwelling may be used, improved and/or added onto; without requiring further City CouiKil review of lot size. A previous propert>' owner had improved and constructed a deck on an accessory building located over the rear property line into the Meta-Comet Avenue right-of-way. The structure, absent a deck, had existed In this location for many years. The previous property owner did the work without obtain a building permit. A stop work order was issued in 1991 while the work was being completed. No building permit has ever been applied and no record exists stating the City of Orono had granted a right-of-way permit for use of the public land for private purposes. The existing owner purchased the property in 1996. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the hardcover and structure variance to permit replacement of the lakeside deck based on the fact that a deck hod existed in that location previously and the size and dimensions of the deck have not increased. Options for Ptonnina Commission Action I.Recommend approval of the variance to permit the after-the-fact variance that would permit replacement of the deck. 2. 3. 4. Recommend denial, stating rca.sons. Table. Other action. •0I-2M0JoImA EMcn 7/|fcOI Pace 2 Of 3 J ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; RS Lot Area Required 5 acre Actual 13.175 s.f. (.30 acre) Structural Coverage ; Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 13,175 s.f.Allowed: 1.976 s.f. (15%) E.xisting: 1.478 s.f. (11.2%) Hardcover Calculation: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover 0-75 ’6.225 s.f.0 s.f (0%)1.120 s.f (18»/o) 75-250'6.950 s.f.1.738 s.f (25»/o)358 s.f (5%) r0l-2690MuA.Eid(n 3MB«fblwd 7/IM)l ' fin lirtiiirfi #2 r*oBO’AppUcaHon U Dale Received ^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original applicaticn) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address v. ^ | Property Identification Number ^3//^ A~33Z.oCa VaVo Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquircd_ I (do) (Jo^n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^_rcsidentii ___mother (specif>)_ Zoning District: ~jTlA£y_________________ _(month/ycar) applicant Name Q Phone (horne d 9 V I 5T Phone (work)_________________ Address; 3J O City: O n ft 0\NTS’ER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: a C.i’ty r*< g ; t> ^ f 4f M- Estimated Construction Cost S ^ttach additional sheets if nccSHlyn^o^ cr\, »Vo variances REQUIRED ^ Arrec/- o. •yTt ■•<--pri-e _nf^€c/ Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback: __Front ___Side Other (specify)_________________ Hardcover ___^Lol Coverage _ Rea: Average Lakeshore H.ARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difHculty^ unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: /Tg kg. _ p (attach addition^ shecM if leccssary) •f'^ost^ rto^A-.n. tV/K 1 Parcel Information Pmcmi ID 2311733320069 Noum Number 330 tlTMt Nam« WO ItLAND CondomlfOuiii #'f.r 77>^ ia hgaify neordad map. It rapiasants a compilation ofMoan^ion fv data from Cdy.Counfy. and Stata mad authoabas and otnaraounaa. w life'’ K^^iar- »*’.--• ■ '.I .nsils! '. * . •-• . • f? W^4i i M {Vvi-'rfPB?;v p>W--- ^’•: '•^'Z ■ • •'^bi!i I I ,■ I . |.'*'l••••••'Mtll|•• >11 •• a ••••■•■••••• K •« . • • BJJJI'J'Miimiihumi . aasaaaaaaaaaaai I • * • I* ' ^ "• .' :'"*"•’••••■. . . . . . . . . . . . . . V' All-, a ftmf .£^'; .'••w |ggiyg:^w angy.-^ >6>v Cf?sa I B«w« k: :^«£' J®:® r aK'fi* ;- u5 ms‘Km,i mJN DATC 04/l«/«i ftAtCH S»S NfNNCPlN COUNTY mOPFOTV INrORtUTION SYSUN rktiiaitiv LIST KfMT NO. riASMtl fkCt 7 ffW ABM OMNEIt NAM TAMfAYfl NAM/ADOR M 2S-117-2S 32 tin tic ISLAND DICHADO 0 HANSON HADILVN LATNAN *2S LAKE ST C WAV2ATA m SS3A1 3D 25-117-25 52 DD5S •tSAD DIG ISLAND RICHARD C NANSON HARILYN lATHAN 423 LAKE ST E MAYZATA TW SSSDl SD 23-117-23 52 M3« ••5SD lie ISLAND 6 M CRASMELL t C D CRASMU GARY N A CYNTHIA D CRASMCU SASl CALLE GUATRO N GREEN VALLEY AZ DSklD PROP AOOR ONNER NAM TARPAYER HAM/AOM SD 25-117-25 32 DD4D 0I5AD BIG ISLAND RICHARD 6 HANSON RICHARD G HANSON 57D UNIVERSITY AVC W ST PAUL NN SSID5 SD 2S-117-25 52 DDDD •051D BIG ISLAND NANCY LEE FARMS NANCY LEE FARNES 2711 FOKGATE DR NINNETOMCA NN SS30S SB 2S-117-25 32 DDDl DD52D BIG ISLAND JOtRI S DEAN JOHN S DEAN D57 N 45RO ST WAUUATOSA HI S3215 PROP DOM OUMR NAM NANC/ADM 3D 2S-117-2S 32 DD44 DDS5I Die ISLAND JOHN ALLEN EIOEN JOHN ALLEN EIOEN P 0 BOX 2A 350 BIG ISLAND EXCELSIOR NN 5S5S1 TOTU BATCH SOS DDDD7 I CERTIFY TlUT TI«E FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORtUTION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERIY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF NY XNOHLEOCE ANO BELIEF. DATEy^-^/S^ liNh — TO: Chair Haw n and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bonenberg, Zoning Adminisirator/Planner DATE: July 9.2001 SUBJECT: <^01 -2691 J. F.ric & Christine Mcngc 340 Tumham Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning DUlricf: RR-1A One Family Rural Residential District (5 acre) Lot Area: 45,366 s.f. (1.04 acre) (1.15 acre before excluding road) List or Exhibits A Application B Variance Request Addendum C Site Plan/Surxey (Existing and Proposed) D Elesation&Tloor Plans E Septic Diagram F Topographic Map of property G Photos of Property H Location Map I Property Map j Permit Record K Property Owner’s List L Letter from Adjacent Property Owner I’ertincnl Code Section: 1. Section 10.27. Subd. 5 (B): Side Yard Setback: The minimum requirement for side y ard setback in the RR-I.A zoning district is 50 feet. To pennit a variance to allow the garage addition to be located 12.27 from the side lot line where 50’ is required, and a family room addition to be located 49 8' from the side lot line where 50’ is required, 2. Section 10.27. Subd. 5 (B): Front Yard Setback: Tlte minimum requirement for front yard setback in the RR-I.A zoning district is 100 feet. To pemtit a variance to allow the garage addition to be K>cated 32.6 feet from the street lot line wherelOO’ is required, and the family room addition to be located 69' from the front lot line where 100’ is required .Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to construct an anached 2'/i stall garage to the north side of the residence, and a two-story family room addition to the rear of the residence. The proposed garage addition Is appro.ximately 675 s.f footprint, the proposed family room has a footprint of 384 s.f. The area below the garage will be additional living and storage space labeled •’studio" on the plans submitted; the existing single stall garage will also be turned into living space. (Exhibit C). The proposed garage location will allow the existing floor plan to continue and will maintain the existing front entry. .Applicant ’s submittal statement describes the reasoning behind the proposed garage addition location. *01-2691 J Erie d Chrutmt SUnge S-iO Turnham RoaJ • Variancii 7 9 200! Piig^ i The area below the family room is not designated as to use on the plans submitted; it eliminates the u'alkout door and being on the same level as the two existing bedrooms, could easily be converted to a large master bedroom. The propert}’ owner has recently indicated to staff that this addition is intended to be a 4-season porch above an open patio; that is a different concept than the plans submitted. The existing residence was built in 1968 and met the I-acre zoning standards in effect at that time; the 1975 rezoning to 5-acre minimum made this site and house location vcr>- non-conforming. No additions have been constructed to the residence since it was built. The neighboring residence to the north is the only adjacent property that will be impacted b> the proposed addition. The residences arc currently approximately 78 feet apart. The proposed addition w ill result in a separation from the adjacent residence of approximately 46 feet. Septic Syslcm The property is served w ith a septic sNstcni. It is located to the rear of the residence. (Sec Exhibit D). The septic system currently has a capacity for 2 bedrooms, and is non-conforming, required to be replaced by the end of 2006. The addition is not intended to add to the total number of bedrooms, but the plans suggest additional space in the additions could easily be con\ erted to bedrooms. Wliile a larger septic system is not technically required at this time, when a new system is constructed it should be designed to accommodate more than two bedrooms if the additions are completed.. The existing septic tanks are located as close as 19* from the house, and adding a 16* addition to the rear will result in a substandard setback from the house to the tanks (required is 20’, proposal results in only 3’). Again, while it may be acceptable to have the tanks 3* from the foundation at the walkout level for a short lime period, they will have to be replaced with the new conforming system tliat is needed within 5 years. Other Factors Structural lot coverage as proposed is 1942 s.f. or 4.3%, meeting the l5®/o limit for lots less than 2 acres and therefore not an issue with the proposed addition.*. The lot is not in a Shoreland area and is not subject to hardcover standards. 1 wo 12-18" ash trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed garage addition. The angling of the garage is intended to allow the 24" white oak to the left of the existing driveway to be saved. None of these trees are specifically protected by City ordinance. The neighboring affected properly owner has submitted a letter opposing the magnitude of the setback encroachment (see Exhibit L). •01-2691 J Enc d Chrutme SUngt 3-tO Turnham Road t'orioftces 7/9 2001 Page 2 ! Statement of Hardship; The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be ask^ for their testimony regarding this issue. lituei for Consideration! I. The proposed location of the garage addition flou-s with the existing floor plan. Staff agrees that the garage location at the north side of the house is appropriate considering the existing floor plan, and significant unplanned interior remodeling would be needed to reverse it if the garage addition was attached to the south end of the house. That would also require significantly more fill than the current plan... 2. The garage is very large at 675 square feet. Could it be downsized and angled differently, resulting in less encroachment into the side yard setback? The residence was built in the late 1960 ’s in its present location, prior to current zoning ordinances but generally in compliance w ith all codes tu that time. The goals of the RR-1A 5-acrc District arc to preserve open space and a rural character. Would a smaller garage that maintains a setback of approximately 30' (the standard for Orono's 2- acre zone) be more appropriate than the proposed 12 ’ setback, given the concerns of the neighbor and the intent of the current zoning district? 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Options for Action: 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval of variances as requested. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. Table for plan revisions or further information. Other action. 601^2691 J Eric A Christine Menge 340 Turnham Road %'cfftances 7/9/2001 Pagt3 AppUcatioa f/ Date Receh-cd 6^ / ^ Cf Amount Paid j2 V O ^ crrv OF ORONO - variance application Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ~7Z>r/Mkoi>i>^ Sc A, Property Identification Number fP.I.D.^ ?// / V 2 COO 7• -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------j a a Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pr^rtv Acquired ^ofoe /5^ I (do) <tfo noj) also oun the adjacent parcels of land. _(month/year) Present use of property; ^ residentid Zoning Disuict:__________________ _other (specify). APPLICANT Name 3. b r.c 4CKr^t.VJt*. Address: ^VQ ~7Z, r/O .vc 0.X_______ OWNER (if dificrent than applicant) Name____________________________ City:. Phone (home). Phone (\\^rk)_ rO roAic# -4/7t ___Zip. Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:. Estimated Construction Cost S.DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ________ _______ Describe request in detail: /\^A rrt^r oo< iQcr-t-Vv. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:/rtFront (Zside Hardcover Rear _Lol Co\-erage Average Lakeshore Other (specify') H.ARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNTJSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Y)ue. j «ryap?rvy T (attach addition^ sheets if necessary) ' ' ' REQUIRED SUBMITTALS V v*~\ JL All.Qf the foHoving information must be lubmittcd bv the nppllcatlftn dgadlin* date In order for vour application to he cornM*r#ri complgte; 1. 2. _kl Completed Application Form Certified Prope^* Owners List of owners within 150 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Go\1 Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Sur\ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s). As an addendt^ to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your varinnee aPDlication is not complete if the nhovc information hns not been Inclndril. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required'or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff lime not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. '5. 6. 8. Applicant’s Signature — / ^ ‘ * /—Date OMTVER’S SIGNATURE The owT.er hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date C-/7-OI Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plarming Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of (he Planning CommUsion and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Variance Request City of Orono Addendum June 18. 2001 Hardship issues for: Eric and Chnstine Menge 340 Tumham Road Orono. MN 952-404-9171 Zone: RR-IA Current House summar>': Located on slightly over I acre this non-conforming single family home faces the following objectives: i\orth Boundary Setback Objective: To economically add adequate living area to the home. Process: Convert the current single car garage into living space and add a 2 1/2 car garage. The property to the nonh is set back from their property line bv approximately 36 feet. The design calls for the new garage to be rotated by 30^ from the house. The proposed construction would set a point of the Mcpge's garage back from iheir property line by slightly over 12’ - creating over 48’ between the two homes. This maximizes the overall separation between the two properties. Variance Request: Allow construction to begin at 12.27 ’front exi.\ting lot line While locating the garage to the south of the existing structure would case the setback concerns, the issue is the inability to adjust the design relative to kitchen location and entry from the garage (mud room). Further it would put portions of the existing updated septic system under the hardcover of the dnveway and garage. West Boundary Setback (From Right of way) Either adjusting the garage to a straight in 2 car garage or positioning the garage so the vehicle entry is from the north, would necessitate more hardcover or in the latter instance, an unw orkably small turning radius for the vehicles. The sightline of the garage is partially hidden by an existing (and to be retained) old oak tree. This approach not only retains a magnificent mature oak. but blunts the visual effect of the rotated garage. Note color rendenngs attached The western most tip of the garage w ill extend 12’ closer to the right of w ay as compared to the cxisung structure. Variance Request: UV are requesting a variance in this area to allow a 32.6' setback from the right-of-way. H 7 “H ■ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ERIC MENGE IN THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 31-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. K*r;NESOTA mtmrn •* •« «»««•••« »««*( .M M •• CSCSBEKIISSCCUTCIUC __________ V> “» • *A4»» *•><■ l»e W«*. • TAT** Sr A V OMM U» l»r* *R MM s!^ri£?SAH5n£! »■'/ A-f-j arar rci-M‘11 'Rec'd niUCI f Chris and Eric Mengc eturum UlWikMfMxamln:. ,Wi.’ MM U'Avl fHfBrt Oheet No. 1 Ocjir. r - sty MN fhone: 090 0/30 f ^ 9b;* 090 26/3 Pjto: JMW* «•« ;. MVia&jiriMihf ■'IW L<ri>rlfurt h>ahrm«*AV la<»••««( !•« Jiiuia / t,' |)>rv^ |4ac. I'rtaunr u< iliai.ha<«.« lu< (••at, maUT«a*« *nj 9t*u.t>o^ thoJJt ^ ,trd*a !•<« (oxUaI^ la >rr>«j aU icrUtlan* m tlw l«U o>U 'O' M«*« rr»W**'*nj» and K/»n«'.^nr» >"rt»matOii •« !►* e*(.>u9»t ptoperlf 0I uP««tHamr, Inc AVl ««r protrUyf** invlc' VS fCf>fr\jht Ian. Iixaylt»'0«tfj «•< >» (<roh*lU4 1 ? ;■ . :? S! II u: f t ,/■_ _ _ >« Copyright tc3e»tHonte.com Inc. 2001 Job Site Location Map e* r t JLfrr.-— Tabic of Contcntd .Mill Plumf'ntntl i »r r, Cr;itJ _______ Ji ng Ifi. 2001 03 _________ Cont/Alor •AnwifjM/ C^r/5 Er/^: Men^c ^ I-t-a «»• Clover t Sct\e\ none 0I-2U^I Ub«*tHomexom Inc. 3312 We«t 132nd 5ueet{ eurno^ac, MN 56337 .^ . rhonc 962 595-5236 • I F*« 952 590 2673 I {Sheet I I ’^pate: >MI0. SEPTIC S YSTEM INVENTOR Y Address: 340TumhamRd. PID: 3 Ml8-23 42 0007 Building Typ residence #BRs/GPD: 2 ^Systems 1 Units Billed 1 Pennit»: 1921 Date of Permit: 8/22/68 Installer: WidmerBros. System Type standard trench Experimental: no Appliances Indry SYSTEM COSDITlOy Conformity; 3 Tank Condition: 9 DF condition: 11 Failure Pot: medium SEPTIC TANKS Material: concrete Setback to Bldg; 20 Capacity: Cesspool: DRAISFIELD Length of Lines 200 Treatment Area: 400 Tile Size: Under Tile Setback DF-Bldg; 40 Soil Type: loam, silt loam « Lines: 2 Type of Filter Trench Width: 2 Soil Boring; yes Perc Rate: DF Ht above Wt: Limitations: \%iiter table WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: Pump Type: subm. 50 Well-DF: Depth: 139 75 Report in File yes Diameter: 4 Method: drilled JNSPECTION RECORD DATE 11/2/81 9/9/86 8/13/90 7/11/91 5/13/93 10'8/96 4/28/00 DESCRIPTION no surfacing no surfacing no surfacing-need risers,pump tanks no surfacing-need risers.pump tanks no surfacing-need risers.pump tanks non-compliant-repair by 12/31/2006 non-compliant. repair by 12/31/2006 PUMPOUT RECORD COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS 11/23/98 1500 bJL. ■ ''”1 ■f^^. *'t* t^rnhoiriN hJ. ( E ' -^1 t ? 9 (Al (/n/ 5U -O ~ -C.C30 c>^ _c (aJ ^ fei fS03 0 0 r 79 6o /2^ 'Ji^hj/r\ f^. M \J^■OOy“ lA. ... A B T| Tn 2^’6 2('0 T7r^Z)'0 36^(9 1)2,^'0 #-*V'i r,i^r^*T«i»-II MIMB im'TTT ';'/( 7 L*. I ^I r<K ad *i. <> . .-^ m ^ ' ‘»rr« * '» M ('V V 'iV - i V® ..j “ kf - - ,. ;->i' '.■■ ;-i^ ■••' •:?•: iL cS?. iti '■ 2:1'’ ••«. ...iiiiL I? ^ r^ h I PERMIT RECORD Permit Wo, Date Tvoe of Permit ^'’C33_______________________________7?. ... .• ■...■r ____________________(s ~_____________/^A: 1Zlt/ir __'S:SL__________________________^ _ jQ^.L______________£-.2rl-Ji.________ _CL'J- iL I’l____ . _________<-<•-/'_______ ^/.c.^?y.._____________kzP.y.?sL _________ J MM MTf •fc/S0/9« UTCN MS rWM ADM (MM» HAM TAXPAVCR mm/kom nor ABM OMMR NAM TAXfAVtR NAM/ABM WNNCriN COUMTV rtOTIRTV IHrORMAriON sysTin fROrCRTV OMNIRS LlSf fROP ADM OMWR NAM TARPAVfR NAM/AOM SB Sl-llB-ZS IS BM2 •M2I TURNNAN RD L f BCRe I K N MRO LIONARS A RATNLEEN N BfRQ B2B TURNNAN RO NAPIC PUM NN SSSS9 SB SI-11B-2S IS BBSS BBSBS NATERTONN RB BONAiB R PEARSON A MIEE DONAID R PEARSON BSAS MATERTOHN ROAD NAPLE PLAIN NN SSSS* SB S1-11B-2S SI BARB BBSBS TURNNAN RB C E PNEIPS A J C PHELPS CHARLES E/JENNIfER C PHELPS SB! TURNNAN RB ORONO fW SSSS9 REPORT NO. PXASMU PAM S IB S1-I1B-2S BZ BSB7 BBSBB TURNNAN RO C E TRUAR A J E NENBE JO C E TRUAR A J E NENCE JR SBB TURNNAN RB NAPLE PLAIN NN SSSSB SB Sl-llB-ZS A2 BBBO BISBB TURNNAN RD B E A 0 r MRZ OQUCIAS E A BIAM f MJU SBB TURNNAN RO NAPLE PLAIN NN SSSSB SB SI«lli*2S 02 BBIS 8BS2B TURNNAN RD J L A R P ZELINSRV JR J L A R P ZELINSKY JO S2B TURNNAN RB NAPLE PLAIN NN SBUB SB S1-11B-2S 02 BRIO RRS2R TURNNAN RD J L A R P ZELINSKY JO J L A R P ZELINSKY JR S2R TURNNAN RD NAPLE PLAIN NN SSSSB SB S1-UB-2S 02 RRIS ROSAR CNIPPENA LA L E NAOTIMAU/J H NARTIHEAU LARRY E B JEAN N NARTIHEAU OSAR CNIPPEHA LA NAPLE PLAIN NN SSSSB TOTAL BATCH BBS RRRRB 1 CERTIFY THAT TM FACTS RtPRESOfTIO ARE AM ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFOONATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON TM RECORDS OF TM MNMPIN COUNTY DEPARTNEMT OP POOPEOTV TAKATIOM. TO TM BEST OF NY RNOHLEOM AND BELIEF. DATE !rf- fr fy.. ■ w 7/9/01 Doug and Diane Merz 380 Turnham Road Maple Plain. MN Wendy Bottenberg City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Dear Wendy: Pursuant to our conversation tf^ afternoon, we would like to register our concerns with the City of Orono's planning commission regarding land use issue 01-2691 by I. Eric and Christine Menge requesting a variance at 340 Turnham road. We are the house immediately north of the Menges and their request for a variance within 12 ft. of their north property line will affect us visually and aesthetically to a greater degree than any of the other neighbors They currently have a one-car garage and approached us last year about adding a second stall. We agreed to this requesting that the addition be slanted away from us to minimize vehicle noise since their garage and driveway are close to our bedroom window. Two weeks ago Eric brought me the plans for thetr current proposal and I was surprised to see it had grown to what he desaibed as a two car garage addition with the current one car garage to be converted into living space. I was even more surpnsed to get the heanng notice and see the addition described as a two and one-half car garage. Our concerns are with the visual affect having another home withm 1 2ft. of the property Ime w# have on our home and also the possible negative impact this variance and addition as currently proposed might have on cur property value. We certainly have no concerns with their original plan, as explained to us a year ago. to add a one-car space addition to their existing garage. We have scheduled time to meet with the Menge's and hopefuBy will have this matter resolved before the hearing on luly 16^ bu* until then we would Ike this letter to serve as formal notice of our concerns with the current variance and and use application. On a final note purchased cjr 1 a.nd three qijarter acre lot in Orono with an ntder home because we highly value the country atmosphere and privacy Orono mahtains via its zoning taws. We do not want to be difficult neighbors and understand the Menge's need for additional garage space. However, we cannot support a 2 and one half car garage addition with a plan to convert the current garage to Uving space. The Menge's do have more than adequate space on the other side of their house to add their living space. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely. Diane Merz '7|lO|Cl 1 3 Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 6/20/01 8/19/01 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATC: SUBJECT: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Pianner June 28.2001 «0 1-2695 Thomas Adams 500 Orchard Park Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IA One Family Rural Residential District (5 acre) 4.8 Acres Lbt of Exhibits A B C D E F ApplicationTiardship Statement Plat Map Survey • E.xisting Site Survey • Proposed Site Plan Wetland Overlay Map Property Owners NoliUcation List Application Summary Applicant has applied to the City of Orono for v ariances that would permit relocation of the existing house to the center of the property . Currently, the house is located at the far southwestern comer of the property. Removal of the house from its existing location requires a variance because the lot is less than 5 acres in the RR-l A district. Actual lot size is 4.8 acres. Excluding 'he areas designated as wetland the lot has a defined lot area of approxirnaicly 4.0 acres dry buildable An accessory building is located behind the house. If the house is relocated the building would be closer to the front property line than the principal residence. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits accessory buildings from being located closer to the front property line than the principal building A variance would be required to permit the existing accessory building to remain on the property subsequent to relocation of the house. Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.27 - Standards for the RR-1A Zoning District 2. Section 10.03, Subdiv ision 9(D)- Location of Accessory Structures ■01-2695 TVxnM AdJim 500 Orchard Pari Road \muKci Par I of} Discussion The applicants property is one of many lots with a lot area just under 5 acres along Orchard Park Road, Exhibit U is the plat map of properties surrounding the site. The lots east of Orchard Park Road are developed residentially. Relocating the house on this property will not change the use or character of the property. 1 he existing house is located only 20 ’ from the side lot line an 141' from the front property line. No variance for the new house location is required In 1992 the City of Orono issued a permit for construction of a garage. The garage is the accessory building that would remain on the property following relocation of the house. The building is functional but has not been completed. The Planning Commission should discuss the completion of the building and determine what condition the building should be in prior to remoxal i-.d relocation of the principal building, or if the building should be removed. /If/in/ about future of other acc. bldgs?I Required Setbacks Front 100- Side 50 ’ Rear 100' Proposed Setbacks Front 350 ’ Side 126- Rear 230- • Existing shed is 167* from the front property line. A variance is required to permit the building to remain. Applicant ’s statement of hardship The applicant's hardship statement is included as part of E.xhibit A. Applicant should also be asked for his testimony regarding the variance requests. Options for Planninu Commission Action 1. Recommend approv al of \ ariance to permit the lot to be considered a RECORD LOT. 2. Recommend approval of the variance to pemiit the accessory building to remain on the property ’ located closer to the front property line than the location of the principal building. ■Oi:695Thonui.Ai<mi 500OrchafilP«kR<MJ Vmjncn Pifc^orJ Discussion The applicants property is one of many lots uith a lot area just under 5 acres along Orchard Park Road. Exhibit B is the plat map of properties surrounding the site. The lots east of Orchard Park Road arc developed residcntially. Relocating the house on this property will not change the use or character of the property. The existing house is located only 20’ from the side lot line an 141’ from the front property line. No variance for the new house location is required. In 1992 the City of Orono issued a permit for construction of a garage. The garage is the accessory building that would remain on the property following relocation of the house. The building is functional but has not been complet^. The Planning Commission should discuss the completion of the building and determine what condition the building should be in prior to remoxal nd relocation of the principal building, or if the building should be removed. Ill’hat about future of other acc. bldgs?I Required Setbacks Front 100* Side 50 ’ Rea.- 100 ’ Proposed Setbacks Front 350 ’ Side 126' Rear 230* • Existing shed is 167’ from the front property line. A variance is required to permit the building to remain. Applicant's statement of hardship The applicant’s liardship statement is included as part of Exhibit A. Applicant should also be asked for his testimony regarding the variance requests. Options for Planninu Commission Action I. Recomntend approx al of variance to permit the lot to be considered a RECORD LOT. 2. Recommend approx al of the variance to permit the accessory building to remain on the property located rloser to the front property line than the location of the principal building. ■01 *2695 Thonui AJjm* 500 OrchatJ Pjik RojJ Vartaoett Pa|(2or} A recommendation of approval shall include findings and*or conditions regarding the following iSlUfiS. 2. 3. 4. A finding the hardships arc unique to the property and the development pattern is consistent uith the surrounding properties. Future of the accessory building shall be determined. Primarily a determination shall be made when the accessory' building, that has had an active building permit open since 1992. wUI be completed. Recommend denial, suiting reasons. Table. Other action. •0IO64S TlWRUt 300 Orchicd firik Road Varijncei riecjoTj #269 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION 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 S250.00 After-the-Facl Fees (Double application fee) Applicadoa H DateRecch ’ed O-HC Cf Amount Paid “Sd O . c. o PROPERTY INTORNUTION , , Site Address 50O Or'cWaV'4 ?oy\< Property Identification Number (H.I.D.) 3Z-M8-2.3 Z3 0003 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pt^ertv Acquired Oc4o!oev~^ 19 88_______________ I (do) ^0 n^ also o\nti thc^adjacen*. parcels of land. _(month/year) Present use of p.-opern-; resident!^ Zoning District: _other (specify)_ APPLICANT Name TTfoMAS RFQEgldC Address:.^QO CtvCilA^'!rmR< RQAD Phone (home) ^ ^2.- M-7C^ - 037 3 _____ Phone (work) 9 5^-2757 2.3c City: IX*S(b lAfe Zip: 653SU OWTs’ER (if different than applicant) Name ________ Address: Phone (homc)_ Phone (work)_ City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S___________ Describe request in detail: ^t\XSB7C 6F P^CP^^TY,8uiu> Mei/V FCU/VPATin^ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover _Lot Coverage Setback;Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore ^ Other (specify)smicnd^^ incise ^ Smee-r sec. /o 03 7-/5* RARDSmP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue har-^ship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing c^pliance with Zoning Code requirements: WETLANDS FRECmOEK£MCt>£U^G AT £XI$T//V(S ^USe / CfATtaA/. 2>0£S sef-B/^cK ^ET^lLlZENENVs • HOMING TH-F l4nn<iP to a CCl^Fot^Ml n/G LCCf\T(CN "JHBN t^A fCES (attach additional sheets if necessary) B^isvfNq Aa:esgi:>iZH' ^rmcTvt/ze A/s/Z-C^A/FC/^nUAlG.I tlENMEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION CYCTOt PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 31 11 111 n 14 0003 PROP ADOR S3S ORCMAHO PARK RO OMMia HAMt R J MCSSTRAMO RT AL TAXPAYER RAMOAU. J MKCSTRANO NANE/AOOR S3S ORCHARO PARK RO U»n LAKE Ml IR 11 lie 3) 14 ODOR 4100 MATERTOUN RO CPV OEVEUIFMEWT COMP IXC CPV DSVKU>PHENT COMP LLC 1100 HILUMBROOE OR UAVZATA MN 1S191 COHOMI • 10 13 lit 31 31 0001 SOO ORCHARO PARK RO T P AOAMS A J L HEAVER TIKMUS r ADAMS SOO ORCHARO PARK RO LOMO uum Ml SSISC II 13 111 31 31 0004 PROP ADOR SIO ORaiARO PARK RO OUNER NAME B H OKHITT A M II DEWITT TAXPAYER B H DEHITT A M H OEWITT NAME/AOOR 510 ORCHARO PARK RO UWO LAKE Ml SSISC CONOIM • IR 13 III 31 31 OOOS 4(0 ONaiARO PARK RO ROBERT J A LORRAINE K ROOKM ROBERT J A LORRAINE E ROOCM 4(0 OROIARO PARK RO LOin LAKKMI SS1S( CONDMI I II 13 III 31 31 0010 410 ORCHARO PARK RO NATIULIE CRAY NATHALIE CRAY 410 ORaiARD PARK RO LOMO LAKE Ml (%1S( COMOMN • PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR // .. / *• o I'’ #.'AI . ;/ . ) I CBRTIPy THAT THE PACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OP INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OP MY KNONLEDOE AND BELIEF DATE BY _ _ _ _. AppUcallon Dale: 60 Day Dcadliae: 6/20/01 8/19/01 TO:Chair Havsn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner July 10.2001 #01*2697 Larry and Sharon Gehl 1825 Concordia Street Variances - Public Hearing Zoniaf District: List of Exhibits LR-IC One Family Lakcshorc Residential District ('/j acre) A B C D i: I (i II I Application Hardship Statement Plat Map Suney Hardcoser Calculation Worksheets I loor Plans Flex at ion Views Site Photos Site Plnn/Stafl' Recommendation Application Summary Applicants have requested variances to permit a two story addition to the house, including a garage and second floor living space above the proposed garage. 1 he addition would be 8* from the side property line, where a 1 5* setback is required. A 1 5’ side setback is required because the property is adjacent to a platted, but undeveloped right-of-way that extends from Concordia Street to l*e lakeshore. In the LR-IC district interior *ide lot lines, directly adjacent to another residential lot. require a 10* setback. Pertinent Code Section I.Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (U) • To permit an 8' setback where a 15* side setback is required. LR-1C Standards Froni/Rcar Setback = 30" Side Setback = 10' Side Adjacent to a Street “ 15* «0I -3617 Lirr> «Ml Shvon CcM ItlSCoiKorduStrret 7/|(kOI p^ior4 Discussiun Property owners have requested to expand the home and add a bedroom and bathroom on the main level. In the hardship statement it has been stated the additional living space would be for either a mother-in-law bedroom or for future living space if ever handicapped. Pan rf the project includes removal of the existing 22’ X 28’ detached garage and part of the existing driveway. The right of way that is located betw een 1825 Concordia Street and the adjacent lot was dedicated for public U.SC in the plat of Coffee ’s Addition in 1906. There is no specific plan by the City to develop the right-of-way or use it for any public purpose other than drainage, although the Park Commission has considered whether it eould be used for other purposes, such as pedestrians or e\ en snowmobile access. Because the land is public it could be used for public pedestrian access to the lake. Orono has established greater setbacks for side lot lines that arc along a sueel (in this case a platted, undeveloped road). There are two primary reasons greater side setbacks to roads arc required, rather than the standard side setback. One is to maintain a consistent setback as other houses that front on the street the setback requirement applies to. and second is to have residential buildings located further from a public area. 1 he second issue may apply in this case because the future of the fire lane is not known. In the event the fire lane is designated fi»r a greater public use the I S' setback standard may be necessary. The 8’ setback has been requested to meet the minimum setback from the property line and to not encroach closer than the existing comer of the house. The total distance required betw een principal buildings on the lots that front on the fire lane is 45 ’. That accounts for two 15 ‘ side setbacks and the 15' w idth of the fire lane. Distance between this house and the neighbors house is not an issue. A common property line would only require 20' between hoases. Currently, the City of Orono has a policy to not vacate lake accesses. The Park Commission has been reviewing the lake access and has been determining the best use for each individual public access. They have not made a final determination on the use of this access as there are others of higher priority. Staff Recommendation Stafi'could recommend approval of the option to allow a 10’ setback since the fire lane likely would not be used for vehicle access. An 8’ setback would encroach into the standard 10’ setback for the zoning district. For an 8’ setback the builder property owners should provide additional input detailing why an 8' setback is necessary. A site plan illustrating StatTs recommendation is attached as Exhibit H. litis recommendation to pcmiit a 10’ setback where a 15 ’ setback is required is based on the following: 1. In the event the fire lane is designated for a greater public use the 15 ’ setback standard may be necessary . It is rcasoiuble to assume the access likely would q21 be used for a road or boat landing area, but if it was to be used for snowmobiles or pedestrians, the lack of doorways and only one proposed window along that building facade would tend to reduce any impacts on the residential use. •01.2697 L«t> and Shjfon GthI 1125 CoiKocJu Slrttl 7 1601 Pj(c2of4 2. Distance bcmtcn this house and the neighbors house would not be closer than what would be permitted for a standard interior lot in the neighborhood. A common property line would only require 20* between houses. 3. No other variances are required as the existing detached garage and port of the driveway would be removed to not exceed the allowed hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Options for Planning Commission Action 1 . Recommend approval of the variance. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table. 4. Other action. •OI-2M7 Uny and SIutm (khl ll25Co(K«diaSticct 7/l6fOI p^)or4 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LoLAtn: LR-IC Lot Area Required Vi acre Actual 36.196 s.f. (.83 acre) StnictTal Coverage; Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 36,196 s.f.Allowed; 5.429 s.f.( 15%) Proposed: 3.531 s.f. (9.7%) Hardcover Calculaiioii; Distance from shoreline area in seioack Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 75-250*28.316 s.f.7.079 s.f. CS^o)7.086 s.f. (25%)6.812.5 (24«i) •01 >2697 Uro SlunM Gthl IS25Coac«dia Street 7/l6«l Paec4or4 A JuiHI-2001 IO:OlM Frc«<<m P' 1R0III0 «IS224l4ir T-214 P 001/017 Mtr Appttcaikm 0 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION InitUl Applictiioa Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additiooal variaAce) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confoimiog structures $250.00 Afrer-the^Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address \^2.S Cou c^ot2.t^ yrQgE.r- DateRtcalvfld __^ Amount Paid Propeity Identification Number (P.IiD.). Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prope^Acquiitd 1 (do) (^op^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: >< residential ___pother (specify)________ Zoning District:^___________________________________________ _(mooth^ear) appucant . Phone (honne^4ii-'^4*f->*tro Name mO Phone (work)9ft'^•*! ^ Address: M2o KgVB»t W Citv: ___ Zip: OWNER (if different titan applicant) Name lAgwyASHaaetJ ftgy\A- Address: 5 Ca^ ce^miK 'Sr, Phone (homt). ______ Phone (work)_ Clcv: 0^ov>o__________Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ZOO^rfo Describe request in detail: tor&t noM tn ~TP A ~to 4>oo^E._____________________________________ (anach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover ___^Lol Coverage Setback: __Front Other (specify)_____ X Side __Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirtnents:___________________________________ (an?ch additional sheets if necessary) /• ‘/7 Hardship for the property of 1825 Concordia street. -Owners would like to expand their home for additional bedrooms and create a bcdroomfoalhroom on the main level for either mother iii-bw room and for future living if ever handy ci^jped. •Owners will be removing the existing 22x38 detached garage which is 4' from the lot line. In order to attach the new garage addition to the house. In order to fit the addition so that it does not block the entry way and not having to remove a 40' Maple tree We ore asking to be able run the new addition along the same comer as the north west part of the house. That comer b 8* from the lot line, or has a existing 7 set bock. S Thank >*ou. =z=i niU 7^^ Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department \ I /ie C/)- - [Ai m iH "4. 02)J_1 281.8 d ( Orre; f \J00 7-., ::: » 773 149*30* / ___/ (22) .# * ^, / f3.i; 8 ^-// ^ ---"■■■■• M^fiLes^Tf /A/4£T ff 'V Arcef/i'nformatlon Fareel 10 1711723220018 HouM Number 1028 OtTMt N«m CONCONOIA ST CewOemimurn This a not a tanally racontaa map It npr/tants a compilation o/bitetmation and Oats from C4y. County, and Stata n.^ authonltas and olhar aounoa. Certtitcate ^utVty Survey For Larry Gohl>Book ;^4 8 Page 8 File 1825 Concordia Street Orono, MN 55391 / '/ ' '■' '\ / • './A’ S«.*« XONE-. (CIRCLE ONE. 0 75' mi-mnc- mgaomB-i:!^ ^ X Hot*** -----"^"1-----Lttid tic- 2Jl Wi4u*t 32^ MM f OlJ/oa M\0 SOO*tMM' S.F. SF. SF. ■ S.F. B. CiArs<« C. Driveway p. SldowaOc E. p*tio/UecW f, L»nd»cape Un<letl»«n By Plastic Q Other Jd.Ji. Zo *. -li 16 ___3 Li?_____ * ^----------- J_j40_ SF. _X^3ZZH ^ iCT S.F. S.F. I (*« -'5T Jll. S.F. [SJ. SF. " S.F. ' S F. : z " /C» ftC.St2_s.f- ^ — I f ■'• A' X. Hous titfr I* B. Garage C Driveway ----------- -------------------- WiJi't ^17 _ % — — SF. SF. S.F. U. Siii' '<»i^ E, PaiijDeck F. Landscape Uodr*'*’*' By pl*ll« Q. 0th#'- _zo ___ r ___ ^7 A X X X X X X X X ____ii:— ~r ___ ___ SF SF. SF. ' S.F. va SF. .S.F. SF. ’SF. ■ SF. BK'»ss‘:i”.‘r5~ i.m.s ■ "B {>Jdw.i ...«"» Ji41i4-ir B trUV. ^1- / f L- 1. / y_ •• Z’ r'I » .crtr.-7 • • ? 1 V .« Kiocrti efs*>r tiLtV' KjEf^UgrtC. •:5f - ■ : ' - :i ^y-*v^ y .•; vi^ ^ >G^ y. PF V i ■'A . .• 4y PI r.V: ■'< r ■1 I iyii i •&— ii .s#l k 'i *' ■■ r-jr-mm k-- > -. V • ■ '"'vS' I ;■#:m 1 < riiiii }:W ' : • • / . -L 0^4^cU#J r-i',: %t: .-■ .:v"' I ■* '^ '■ . :*2 y//vs-.v- -^.;tr;.^y -■•• :>' ' ; ■, . ‘ .• ■'.S •«^:;*. • k. 5 1 Dale of Complete Applkatfon: 60 Day Dcadliae: 7/2/01 9/1/01 TO:Chair Haun and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: DATE; SUBJECT: Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator/Planner jui> 6. :ooi #01-2693 David and Marvam. Maiscr 2700 Shadyssood Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning DbtricI:LR-ID One FamiK Lakeshore Residential District LUt orEihibita A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Survey r Floor Plan 2-^ Floor Plan Hardcover Calculation W orkshccts Site Photos Property Owners NotlHcation List Application Summary Applicant has submitted an application requesting replacement of an attached 9 ’ X 28' deck within 75’ of the lakeshore. a 23’ X 28.8’ garage addition encroaching within 75’ of the lakeshore. and a 12’ X 20’ porch w ith attached 12’ X 11’ deck w ithin 75’ of the lakeshore. The existing attached garage on the lower level would be converted into a bedroom and study. The application requires review of the following variances: 1.Section 10,22. Subdivision I and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) (1) - Ao hardcover or imperv ious surface shall be placed, located or constructed w ithin “5 feet of the Ordinary High IVater Level of any lake or tributary, except for stairw ay s, lifts, landings, and lockbo.xes 0-75’ Lot Area - 19.223 s.f. Existing Hardcover ■ 1,159 s.f. (6.03%) Proposed Hardcover" 1.185 s.f, (6.16%) •Ol-W) and NUim 2700 Shad)'«>ood Road 7/l6it)l I Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.36. Subdivision 16 (L) (2) • Hanicover shall not exceed 25% in the 75-250' setback. 75-250’ Lot Area = 15.320 s.f. E.xisting Hardcover = 4,435 s.f. (28.95%) Proposed Hardcover = 4.593 s.f (29.98'?«) 3.Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - So hardcover or structures are permitted within 75' of the lakeshore. Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B) - To permit an 8' encroachment into the side vard adjacent to street setback for a new porch proposed to be located off the southeast side of the hou^e The required side yard setback to C.R. 19'Shadvnvood Road is 35' where the porch is proposed 27* from the lot line. Discussion Applicants lot was originally developed in the early 1960s. The detached garage w as later added in 1975. To meet the needs of the applicants they have proposed an addition to house that would remodel the existing attached garage to create more living space The existing garage is propv>sed to be convened into a bedroom and mud exercise room Extending out from the old garage would be a new 23 ’ X 28.5’ 2 ': car garage. The garage would not increase hardcov er because it is being built over the driveway. The proposed garage encroaches approximately 5’ into the lakeshore setback. The garage was designed to follow the existing house, thus no* encroaching any closer to the lakeshore than the house. At the time the house was built there was no requirement to meet a 75’ setback from the lake. A deck located on the lakeside of the residence had collapsed due to heavy snow this past w inter. The deck has not been replaced because a variance is - equired to replace the deck. Applicant ’s hav e staled Uie deck would be a replacement, not an enlargement of the deck that had collapsed. The deck is structure and hard<:ov er within llie 75’ setback. Access to the deck would be through sliding doors that enter from the second level of the house. No stairway access to the deck has been proposed. A 1 2' X 20’ porch and deck are proposed off Uie southeast side of the house. The porch and deck are new construction not replacing any other structure or hardcover. There are several issues with the porch and deck proposal The pi>rch encroaches 8’ into the side yard adjacent to the street setback. Code considers the Shadyx\ood Road property line as the side property line because it is floi the shorter ot the two dimensions along a street for a comer lot. Therefore the property line abutting \\ est Lafayette Road is the front property line. Also the porch and part of the deck contribute to increasing the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback The deck is new siructun* and hardcover within 75’ of the lakeshore. The three proposals arc numbered I) garage. 2) deck, and 3) new porch ’deck on the surv ey /site plan attached to this report. •010693 Datid and .VIar%*nfK M;uact 2'(X) Slud>v<x>d RaMd 7 IbOl race : of 4 mum Statement of Hardship The applicants have not submitted a statement of hardship. They should be asked for their testimony regarding this isstic Hardships must be inherent in the land and should not be granted as a convenience to liie propcrt> ovsner. Recommendatiuos/Discussion Items The City c Orono has approved variances to replace decks in the past. The deck would replace a deck that had e.xisted on the house, likely since the house was originally built or shortly after. The garage addition would not increase the hardcover on the property, however it is new structure within the 75* setback. Redesigning the garage tc stay outside of the 75’ setback would still require a variance because the garage would constitute an alteration to hardcov er that e.xceeds 25% in the 75-250’ setback. No other variances would be required because the garage would meet all other lot requirements. Additional variances are required because the garage is w ithin 75' of the lakeshorc. As stated previously, the garage addition was designed to meet the same setback from the lal;eshore as the house. The new deck and porch are each within required setbacks and mciease overall hardcover on the property. Please refer to the Analysis NV'orksheet on page 4 and hardcover calculations tliat have been attached for a breakdown of the overall hardcover on the property. Options for Planning Commission Action I. Recommend approval of one or more of the variances listed above. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table. Othe: action. •0I-2643 0»i4 and Mar>annc Mana 2700 Shad>«ood Rond 7/16^1 Lot Area; ANALYSIS WORKSHtET LR-IB Lot Area Required 1 acre Actual 34.543 s.f (0.79 acre) Strociural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 34.543 s.f.Allowed: :,iCI s.f. (l5®/o) Existing: 2.133 s.f. (6%) Proposed: 3,423 s.f. (10®/o) • Proposed New Structure Garage = 662.4 s.f. Deck - 256 s.f. Porch/Deck = 372 s.f Hardcover Calculation; Distance from shoteline Total area in setback Allowed hardcoNcr Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'19.223 s.f.0 s.f (0®/o)1 159 s.f (6.0®/o) 1.185 s.f (6.1“/o) 75-250*15,320 s.f.3.830 s.f. (25%)4 435 s.f t:S9®/«) 4.593 s.f vJ9.9®(») Hardcover if landscape plastic is removed. Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover E.xisting hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75*19.223 s.f Os.f (0®/o)1.035 s.f (5®/o) 1,061 s.f (5.5%) 75-250*15.320 s.f 3.830 s.f (25®/i)3.909 s.f (25.5®/o) 4.067 s.f (26.5®/o) •0I-269} Da*Id t': Mar>JAM ^taitcr :toO ShJd.v»D0d Road 7 l&OI Pa|c4or4 Application # Ol'2-093 Date Received ^ - /Q'Soci Amount Paid J0jS~O, oo CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee Si50.00 (no change from original application) Varianc. Lot non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORi\UTION Site Address Property Identification Number (RI D.) Jy «y/0 JV ooJ/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquhed JV Jooq__________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also o\mi the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___^other (specify). Zoning District: /.R-IR___________ ____________ applicant Name i htAiryrtfHl k\AtS^ AddressiJ^^ tfp______ Phone (home) ____ Phone (work) 9A2- City: ________Zip: O^V^S’ER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Consmiction Cost S coo Describe request in detail: L'^ CnatJAt (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback: __Front ___Side Other (specify)________________ Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage j Average La):eshore .i HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTIO.N OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describr undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preven:ing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ “r? o o;h' ..........c; .V oor Nt\o AT« MOV tf<»i*TRue.nns V-i'o* / •D avio HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZOI'fE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-25W 2S0.500* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^ A House X ” SOO-1000’ 440 SF Ufi|ih X WiCJi m SF. X ■SF. X ■__36 SF-Bowlder B. Osrage C. Drivewiy 2*6AftAeiE X 1T-AeffMUA/SC ■17 S.F. X m 234 SF. X m SF D. Sidewalk X ■xo s F.-*!oi^a«eu< X m SF E. Patio/Deck X u iza - - ceHC«a'T\i S F. - i^xio X ■13 S F.-s-*»u.cPA*ciel» F. Landscape X m 124 SF. Underlain X m SF. By Plastic X m SF Or Fabric 0. Other X m s F -W«»0 WMIX5 TOTAL hardcover IN ZONT « ■ # SF. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 1T223 Z SF. B A - B X ICO m t y. PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE'•• A House X m SF. Unph X m SF. X m SF. X m SF. B Oarage X m SF. C. Driveway X m S.F. ■ X ■SF. D. Sidewalk X ■SF. X •SF E. Paiio/Deck X m + 24 __ 9Q097ifO S F “ofc*4-N£T 6^. X m SF. F. Landscape X ■SF. Underlain X •SF. By Plastic X ■SF. Or Fabric 0 Other • X ■SF. total hardcover in zone iifls SF. A TOTAI. PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE Id Z2> l SF. B A - B X ICO -4.14 :H / DaviO C-lo-Oi flj/. 7.2-^1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSUEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER TN ZONE A House _____________ <^B> Un(ih B. Oarage C. Driveway 2 - D. Sidewalk E Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0 Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A House _____________ Ltngdt B Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0 Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAI. PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B 75-250*250.501)' W.tf;h IT \ ICO X ICO - soo.iooo* 460 sF ___ 110 \ 11.221X A.ol t Id, 22) i 6.I& i SF. SF. SF.-Boulp CR SF. SF SF. - - SF.- i^TfO S F.-s.i*»u-6»f*e<X*9^UC^ iN 6^i9tf SF. SF. SF _____SF-'T««v *hx» SF. SF. V. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF SF. SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. ■ H Da>/;D «?tN. I’Z.ff, SETBACK ZONT: (CIRCLE ONE) 0.75* UARDCOVEK CAl.CULA" ORKSUEtTno.N U 50-5CO*5UU-IOOO* K House .\m \o\o SF Ur.f.S X 1.V.SA m 10 SF.-S5S1*a X m SF. X m 41 sf-|^X h#<- B. Oarage 2B.2*2».3(-2)X m 6^A u/Attb- S F -iNCLy0ir<4 C. Dnvevviy X m 1456 frflcfMHflWSc SF X m SF D. Sidewalk X m CJNd. • S F - • If ekAit/£^i X m 2c»Z SF - WAt< i E Paiio/Deck X ■SF ... .X ■SF. F. Landscape 107 -RP t X m S26 SF. Underlain 1^9 X m SF. By Plast.c X m SFOr Fabnc 0 Other Zl X .67 m /4 s F • 0.a. T(f$ 1OTAL HARDCOVER (N ZONE 443^SF A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN 20.NH •1'?SF B A - B X is:m V, PROPOSED RXRDCOVER IN 70VE Qoopo^eo 5 r ” PbiSr’uA. House X m l3iT UnfA X W 1*1 m — rw f* NET 6AIH SF X m SF X m SF. B Oarage X " ..'y »* ^ /•*/? *^r /SF C Driveway X ■SF... .X •SF D Sidewafic X ■SF X m SF E Pa:.oT3eck X + 23 - P .PanftjsEO Cfc. X Bl — _ nfei op^in SF F. Landscape X ■SF Underlain X m SF By Plastic X m SFOr Fabric 0. Other X SF. total Hardcover in zone .4S93 SF. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE .IS 3^0 i SF. BA- B X 100 ■29.*?? :9k t Da'/iO C‘Zo-0/ BJvi 1-1.01 HARDCOVER CALCULATIO.N WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A How _____________ B. Otrafe C. Drivewiy 2 - fiAnAAt. D. Side^viUc E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain Bv PluUc Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A House _____________ UflfOi B Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0 Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAl. PROPERTY AREA IN ZON*E A _____________ - B 75.250*250-500 ’ W.tfji ^ ICO xlOO SOO-IOOO’ 460 ___SF ZM-im. ___(,.o% t t 26 lies \0. 22) I 4.14 t SF. SF. SF.-BoutOCR SF. SF , S F.- SF. - c, S r. - Pax to S F.-Si‘¥tU.C9r*ct£1 is| SF. SF. SF. :eo6,fs SF. SF. 54 SF. SF. SF. SF. SF SF. SF SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. H <■/ i • L_ \ i "mm , -^im M / • irf MM DA1C as/fO/d MTCH tM HCNNtriN coumv raorcRTv iNromunoN STSUn morcmir ownciis list rirop AOOR OtmfR NAMC TAMrAVCR NANC/ADN rAOP aDDR OWHCR NAHC TAHrAVER NAI1C/AD0R PROP AOSR OWICR NANC TAIPAVIR NAttC/ADOR •HOP ADDR OWNER NANC 1AIPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TANPAVfR NANC/AOOR M 21-1W-2S 20 tiRS R27RS SIIAOVNOOD RD e 0 i j n roR CATIORO 0 I JON lURlE POX 27RS SMAOTNOOD RO EXCELSIOR tM SS3S1 38 2X-117-2S 20 OORO 0272S StUOVWOOO RO N 0 8 R A NECK niCIUCL D I RORERTA A NEEK 272S SlUDVWOOO RO EXCELSIOR im SS331 PROP AOOR OWNER NANC TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 21-U7-23 20 RR3R RRR38 ADORESS UNASSIONCD OAVIO P NAlSER/rURT A NAISCR DAVID P IIAlSER/rtARV A NAISLI 2700 SlUDVWOOD RD EXCELSIOR NN SSS31 38 21-117-23 20 CRSl 02700 SlUDYWOOD RO DAVID P HAISER/MARY A HAISER DAVID P nAlSER/HARV A RAISER 27R0 SHAOYWOOO RO EXCELSIOR RN SS3SI 38 21-117-23 20 RR30 0RR38 ADDRESS UNASSICNLO VICTORIA L 6ACNE VICTORIA L CACNC 2blS W LArAYETtC RO EXCELSIOR RH SS331 38 2I-II7-23 20 RR37 R0R38 ADDRESS UNASSIOEEO VERNON E TURUA ETAL VERNON E TUKUA 2<>8R SlUDVWOOD RO EXCELSIOR RN 0S33I 38 21-117-23 20 RR30 R24S5 WEST LAPAVETTE RO R H RARTENS 0 E L HARTENS RONALD I ESTHER RARTENS 24SS WEST LAFATEIIE RO EXCELSIOR RN SS331 38 21-117-23 20 RROS 00R3O ADDRESS UNASSXCNED RARCARET L LOWE RARCARET L LOWE 2430 lAPAVETTE RD M EXCELSIOR RN SS331 38 21-117-23 20 RR07 024SS WEST LAFAYETTE RD R H RARTENS 8 E L RARTENS RONALD 8 ESTHER RARTENS 24S5 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR RN 5S331 30 21-117-23 20 OOSS 02403 SlUDVWOOD RD 1000 A R08IOCAU TOOO ROBIOEAU 2403 SHAOTNOOO RO EXCELSIOR RN SS3SI TOTAL BATCH BOO otais REPORT NO. P1O1V401 PACE 13 38 21-117-23 20 OOOS 0273S SlUDVWOOD RO R C CAY 8 S L 6AV RICHARD CAY 8 SUE CAY 273S SlUDVWOOO RD EXCELSIOR RN SS331 30 21-117-23 20 0032 02720 SlUDVWOOO RO B A KVAR 8 J C WAR TRUSTEES JOHN C 8 BEVIRLEE A KVAR 2720 SlUDYWOOD RO EXCELSIOR HN SS331 ;1p 38 21-117-23 2H 8038 88038 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO RARCARET L LOWE RARCARET L LOWE 2b38 LAFAYETTE RO W EXCELSIOR HN SS331 38 21-117-23 24 8844 02480 SHAOYWOOO RO VERNON E TUKUA ETAL VERNON E TUKUA 24R0 SlUDYWOOD RO ERIELSIOR RN SS331 38 21-117-23 24 0044 82738 SlUDVWOOO RD JOHN L FIEBELKORN JOHN L FIEBELKORN 2738 SHADrWOOO RO EXCELSIOR RN 55331 ;i r . ^r-.SA-i ApplictttioD Dale: 6/20/01 60 Day DcaiMhie: 8/19/01 TO; Chair Maun and Oronu Planning Commission Members Ron Muursc. City Administrator FROM: Wend) Bottenherg, Zoning Adminlstralor'Planner DATE: Jul> 9.200l SL'BJECT; *<01-2694 Ba> Wind Christian Chureh 2477 Shad)\UH>d Road Conditional Use Permit — Public Hearing Zoaiag Dislrkl: Lot Area: List uf Exhibits: B-4 oriice & Prol'essioiul Business District 62.943 $.f. (1.44 acres) A Application B Project NarratiNc C Site Plan - l-xisling D Site Plan - Proposed U l loi^r Plan F Zoning Map G Photos of Property II Section 10 43 and Ord. 204 2'^ Series Application Summary : The Bay Wind Christian Church is proposing to occupy an existing structure located on properly at 2477 Shadywood Road for religious purposes, lltc building was built in 1969 and has previously been used as a realty otlicc and environmental serv ices business. The building is located in the B-4 zoning district. On June II. 2001. Council approved an amendment of the zoning code to allow “churches ” os a conditional use in the B-4 OHice and Professional Business District. I he Bay W ind Christian Church lias slated they would like to move into this building for several reasons. The church has steadily increased membership ov er llie past sev eral y ears and because of this has lud to relocate sev eral limes. Also, the church anticipates the purchase and occupation of the building as an interim step toward constructing a church building of its own. The church plans to purchase and occupy this building for several years and then resell the building os ofRce space at a later date. The church Jix*s not plan on making structural changes to the building, but will remodel a number of interior spaces. The building consists of two floors, each being 4,840 s.f. lor a total of 9,680 square feet. Of that, 6.390 square feet w ill be used for church activities and the remaining 3 J!90 square feet w ill be leased back to the current ow^ner/tenant as ofl'ice spate. I he entire second floor will be occupied b> Ba> Wind Church. It w ill be used as a sanctuar>. conference rooms and church offices. The church will also occupy a portion of the first floor for Christian education. The rest of the first floor will continue to be used as professional ofllce space which will be leased back to the current owner. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.43 - Standards for the B-4 Zoning District 2. Section 10.61 - Parking and Sign Provisions 3. Ordinance No. 204, Second Scries Surrounding Properties: The building is located on Shady wood Drive w ith property surrounding the lot on three sides. The two adjacent properties arc in the B-4 zoning district and the properties to the rear on Kelly A\ enue aK* zoned residential. LR-IB. Code Amendment- Adding **Kcligious Institutions and FacUittes** to B-4 zoning DbtrkI Performance Standards: Site Area: Building setback: Setback from residential Required Existing 5(T Ave. 5(T Parking: Number of parking spaces: Churches require the following parking standards: One parking space for each 4 seats of capacity in the main ossemblv hall or sanctuary’. 'Dte plan indicates 214 seats in the sanctuary. Divided by 4 requires 54 parking spaces The site plan indicates 54 spaces. The parking does meet the require amount however, some are denoted compact and others are located in unusual positions. The church docs have an agreement with the Freshwater Biological Institute to use their parking lot for overflow purposes. Should the city look at putting in a sidewalk along Shadywood Road to gain parking without having to cross Shadywood Rood? BOt-2694 BayH'mJChristian Church 2477 ShaJiMooJ RoaJ Condiiional Use Permit — Public Hearing Page 2 i The churches primar>' use is Sunday morning services, but will also have ongoing limited daily activities. Fore the most pan the church will have diffenmt hours than the business occupying the rest of the building. If for some reason there is un overlap, Frank Swoboda, the business owner occupying the rest of the building did indicate during a meeting with stolT he would move his business related vehicles of the site. The Fire Marshall is reviewing the proposed parking plan. Comments had not been received at the time this report was written. Parking spaces in rear yards must be set back 10’ from residential property: The rear yard abuts residential property and as depicted on the site plan, the parking spaces are 10* from the rear yard. Churches abutting a local residential street and collector, access shall be onto the collector slrcii: The church entrance is on Shadywood Road. It is the only entrance and c.xit from the property. There arc not any proposed changes to the entrance; however, a center line to denote entrance and exit lanes and a stop sign is contemplated by the church. B-4 Performance Standards: Site area: Dcftncd lot width; Building setbacks: Front lot line: Rear lot line: Side lot line: Setback from residential: Rcquircd'Allowcd 20,000 s.f. 100* 35’ 30’ 15 ’ 50’ ENisiing 62,943 s.f. 252.43 s.f. 74’ Ave. 50 ’ 58’ and 110’ Ave. 50' Building Height: The building was built in 1969 with an addition in 1990. The height docs conform to City ordinance guidelines of 2 '/i stories or 30 feet. Signage Allow ance:1 s.f. per foot of lot width, not over 50 s.f. With a 10* required setback. 252 s.f. A signage plan was not submitted with the application. The church would need to submit a plan for review prior to Issuance of a permit. WI‘2694 BayW'md Chrauan Church 247'' ShaJ^MOod Road Condtuonal L'le Permit — Public Hearing PogtJ Gradioi/Dralnafc: This is an existing site and building. There arc no proposed changes to the grading or drainage on the property, and the building footprint and drainage impact arc not changing. OIT-Strcct Loadiaf Areas/Tnuh CoMecton: An existing serv u*c entrance is on the cast side of the building. This would be the area used for truck delivery The plan provided docs not indicate the location or screening of trash receptacles. On a site visit to the property a trash receptacle was not noted. Planning Commission needs to decide if one b needed, where it should be located and if any Krccning is required. Lighting and Landscaping: A lighting plan has not been completed for the project City Ordinance requires that light sources not be visible at property lines. Staff has not met the applicants on site to review the exuting lighting and possible changes they may make. The property is landscaped and the church plans no substantial modification of the e.xisting landscape. Impacts on Adjacent Properties: To the rear of the property is a residential area with a single family home. The house is immediately adjacent to a parking area. The homeowner does use the abutting area for parking and storage of an ice house. There is vegetation to screen the parking area, however the hedge is a type that will lose its leaves in the winter. An evergreen hedge or one that would have leaf on year round would provide more screening to the property. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of tlie conditional use permits. Ploruiing Commission should provide direction on each of the issues discussed above and any other issues that are rde\ ant 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table. 4. Other action. MI-2694 BayWind Christian Church 2477 Shadywood Road Conditional Us* Permit -- Public Hearing Page 4 Applkrtfcm<^ Date Received 6? ■( I Amount Paid CO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address a«n*7 3ha<tyifliiwf llotj >k/ant hAA Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ APPLICANT Name BaVyilH/ Addr^Wr HttAtt Phone (home) Phone (work)^^- -PlMt City AiMieinabA ZxoSS&H^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Address ‘iSS'to ow. Phone (home) L. Phone (work) 9SZ-•/7I-ttoo _____City &V\orcui>eo<l. jia^ Zip i Date Property Acquired Jkm\ . /99^________ I (do) fdoTnop also on^h the adjacent parcels of land. FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ______$200.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg ______$325.00 Coramercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore ______ PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____ $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) (month/year) After-the-Facl Fee • Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review. (+ consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoiting (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. __ Describe request in detail. ___■ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). __ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. __ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. __ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). __ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). __ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other • Arsons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (lU* X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Ow.icr must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Larul Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:___________________________Date____ APPLICANT S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review’ of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is trtic and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date 0\\TS'ER*S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date L9, A-50 L Applicint must have all submituls into the City ofTices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants roust be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 6 Request for Conditional Use ^^LLLL BayWind Christian Church, a Minnesota chartered, four-year old. Lake Minnetonka area church requests the City of Orono issue a conditional use permit tor occupancy as a religious institution for the building at 2477 Shadywood Road. Orono. Minnesota. A portion of the building (3290 square feet) will be leased to the current owner/tenant. The remaining 6390 square feet will be used for church activities. 2477 Shadywood Road is a two-story concrete masonry building with a precast coTKrete structure and an ornamental stucco finish. The 9680 square foot building is situated on a 62,943 square foot lot with 7228 square feet dedicated to parking. Parking The building has 7228 square feet of asphalt paved parking, the maiority of which is located outside the 1000 ft shore land protection zone. Parking spaces are currently not delineated. BayWind plans to have those spaces marked and signed. The church will have: 45 standard 9' x 20* parking spaces 2 staivdard 12* x 20* handicapped spaces 2 compact only 9 ’ x16" parking spaces 5 Sunday only (loading dock area) parking spaces 24 foot or wider aisles (total 54 spaces available for Sunday services) Building Exterior BayWind plans to use the building as an interim step toward constructing a church building of its own. The church plans no structural changes to the existing building. The value of the building to BayWind*s future plans lies in its future resale as office space. The church plans no substantial modification of existing landscape unless required to meet City of Orono requirements. Building Interior BayWind will utilize the second floor as a sanctuary, conference rooms and church offices. The sanctuary is expected to seat 200 persons (based on 24- inch seating) with extensive space dedicated to support the elements of a contemporary worship service. 0!-3 lGW BayWind vvill occupy the entire secorxt floor (4840 square feet) artd 1550 square feet of the first floor. The church will use its portion of the first floor for Christian education. The leased space (3290 square feet) on the first floor will continue to be used for the existing professional office space. Planned Ueea BayWind wiH use its portion of the building for church related business. There will be ongoing limited normal daily activity pertaining to pastoral and administrative functions. In the past. BayWind has held Bible education on a weekday evening. Total participation was typically lets than fifty persons. Today BayWind holds it Sunday service at 9:30 AM and those services conclude around 11:00 AM. Attendance typically ranges from 100 to 140 persons. The church also plans a number of srrtall group activities designed to meet community needs (hosting West Lake Minnetonka Police Chaplain's Corps.. West Tonka Community Action Network and Heart for the West Pastors Coalition meetings for example). Summary BayWind began its public senrices at the Freshwater Center (across the street from 2477 Shadywood Road) on October 21.1997. The church held services and Bible education at that location until April 2000. The church and Its members look forward to returning home. BayWind Center on 2477 Shadywood Road i> I ^,k'. •■' ^'1- M y / sirs: PLMj_________________ f^fOPDSep FAFKm 4^' STMtW? q'xeo ’ STALLS a HMPICM> ^STALLS £ COMf^CT ^INu.'S tMH 9 5(/WW,y PMtv fMUHC, <i'KZo' 94 TOTAA, CJIf/snMj OMCU C.U.P. AffUCKTlOtJ OfONO, MWMEiSCTX ao juM£ . acoi E m MBp0I9^l3 nsrm n■ i^m IDMiiiir r. VU7 OKOMO-t) •fRINQ PAJir.17 ®M.. /'«7>-:jr vV^-\ f / /! ' ! —♦-- '^‘r ^1 K: f- | bJ* ;«siE. *^ « «•« • •«4*f» •!(«■«> «i» «• l**i PftM i-4*. C«»*« •« »•••( U$M M^)^A ■ — — »*i««** •*«V^ «••«•» »»*•’«•# <? /Wlf --_v \cLvc'-v. / f\<'^.^U t<^C >*.^4 Hi. '■ - *5 ffci-K'ii j‘/m SM<' ^'4'^ V' *•' *■ 4' ; *.v,r--^^.;-\;.’?.^/: */■ ■ t '*: ■! ■' ' •» ^ -%• H VIV I . - i •- ■ '• • "• 'iL' O y' rji-9-/ •/■/■I Ji:< »V«'I- • .,•• 'liiC '*-> ■:U > }/•'/'/ \, ^ V. ■■( v( K\ • -a. i V. . K . . ^ I ■) ' f ^ u.2m ■3r’ r7^r' «. • > ..VIJ / • _ s^-: ., 'iH. V.- ' , ...-♦ rft^ " L ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ 'Vrr—^J»J § 10.42 M. Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40. Subdivision 6. Subparagraph G. N. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirt> feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. SEC. 10.43. B-4 OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The Office and Professional Business is intended to provide a district which is related to and ntay adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative office buildings and related offccs. The office uses allowed in this district are those in which 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. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-4" Office and Professional District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-4" Office and Professional Business District, no structure or land shall be used e.xccpt for one or more of the follow ing uses; A. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customaiilv considered to be an office use. B. Offices. Professional offices and offices of the general nature. C. Clinics. Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only. D. Bonks and Insurance Offices. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-4" Office and Professional Bu.siness District no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit; A. Nursing Homes. Hospitals. Nursing homes, hospitals, rest homes or retirement homes, provided the site shall contain not less than 600 square feet of lot area for each person to be accommodated and that no building be located less than 35 feet from the side lot line. B. Schools. Private academies, schools, trade schools, colleges and universities for teaching. ORONO CC (4-1-84) JH 1 § 10.43 C. Research Centers. D. Veterinary Clinics or Kennels. Animal hospitals, clinic or kennels. E. Libraries. F. Museums. G. Galleries. Etc. Historical buildings, museums, art institutes, galleries and playhouses. H. Restaurants (Class 1). Restaurants which are located within and mainly servicing an office building prov iding there is no outside display or advertising of the restaurant use. I. Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B* or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the- "B" or "1" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61. Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. J. Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to. electrical transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless scrv ices and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential scrv ices. Source: Ordinance No. 161.2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-4" Office and Professional Business District the following uses shall be permitted accessorx' uses: A. Any accessorv’ use as regulated in the "B-P District. Subd. 6. Area. Height, Lot Width, Yard. Setback and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20.000square feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet and unless the rear yard has access from a public street or alley, a side driveway of 12 feet shall be provided to assure access. ORONO CC (4-1-84) § 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line. 35 feet to any rear lot line. 15 feet to any side lot line. 35 feel 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. WTierever a ”B-4 ’ Office and Professional Business District abuts an "R" District along the side or rear lot line, a fertcc or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height (no less than three feel nor higher than four feet adjacent to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines except wthin the required from >-ard. Subparagraph G. G. Building Design and Construction. Sec Section 10.40. Subdivision 6. II. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitled that results in vs-atcr runoff causing 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 and tho.se plans shall be reviewed by the Cit>" Engineer before submission to Uk Plaiming Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height e.Ncept as provided in Section 10.75. SEC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which arc subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the "B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Naxarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC (4-1-84) ordinance no . 204 SECOND SERIES AN ORDIN ANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE BV AMENDING SECTION 10.43, SUBDIVISION 4, ADDING "RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND FACILITIES" TO THE LIST OF ALLOWED CONDITIONAL USES IN THE B~l ZONING DISTRICT The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10. Section 10.43, Subdivision 4 is hereby amended by adding "Religious Institutions and Facilities" to the list of allowed conditional uses in the B-4 Office and Professional Business District. SecUon 10.43, Subd. 4(K) is herebv added as follows: "K. Religious Institutions and Facilities. Religious institutions and facilities, including those related structures located on the same site which are an integral pan of the religious institution, con\ ents or homes for persons related to a religious function on the same site. Religious institutions and facilities shall meet the standards of the B-4 District and shall further meet the follovsing requirements: 1.All buildings shall meet a setback of 50' from lot lines abutting a residentially zoned property. One parking space shall be provided for each 4 seats of capacit>- in the main assembly hall or sanctuary, with additional parking required per the standards of the Zoning Chapter for other facilities such as classrooms, licensed daycare facilities or offices when such uses will overlap with the use of the main assembly hall. 3.If required parking is not provided on site, an off-site parking plan satisfactory to the Cit> Council shall be provided. Parking areas in side or rear yards shall be setback 10 feet from residentially zoned property. If the religious institution property abuts both a local residential street and a collector or arterial roadway, the access shall be onto the collector or arterial. -H 1 ■H- Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council ofOrono, Minnesota on this 25th day of June, 2001 by a vote of_5 _^ayes and n navs. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City- Clerk Barbara Peterson, .Mayor Application Date: 60 Day DeadKnc: 6/19/01 8.18/01 TO: Chair ila^n and Orunu Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator Planner DATE: July 11.2001 SUBJECT: «01.2692 ABC Supply Company. Inc. 276S West Wayzata Boulesard Outdiwr Storage Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: LislorEsliiliiis I. Industrial A Application B Applicant Summary of Request (June 18.2001) C Zoning Res icw Letter (April 4, 2001) D ABC Letter (May 11.2000) E Plat Map F Additional Applicant Submittals G Site Photos H Standard lor the L Industrial District 1 Map 3B-7. Future Land Use Map J Table 3B-5b. Future Land Use for Residential Properties West ofUld Crystal Bay Road K Property Owners Notification List L Site Plan Applicntion Summary ABC Supply Co.. Inc. has been leasing the VCI Capital Building since March. 2000. ABC Supply is a wholesaler/warehouser of building and construction supplies, including roollng materials, siding and windows, as well as other smaller supplies that are for sake to contractors. Wholesale and warehouse businesses are listed as "permitted uses" in the I. Industrial district The wholesaling operation permits ABC to receive and deliver materials in bulk amounts to and from vendors and contractors olV-site. No individual retail is permitted in the Industrial disuict. ABC's current use of the property is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensise Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Please review Exhibit H a list of permitted and conditional uses in the distnet. ABC is requesting a conditional use permit to permit permanent "outside storage" of stock materials on the property They have been storing materials on the site since moving to the property The warehouse is used when possible, however when the amount of stock exceeds the storage capabilities of the warehouse certain items are stored outside. This is primarily the case in the Spring and early Summer when there is excessive stock on hand for the upcoming construction season. Some materials are delivered and arc stored outside the building when it is anticipated the items will only be on-site for a few days before deliverv. •01-3692 ABC Surpl> Co. Inc 450 Oil Cr>tulBj> Road 7 I6UI ri«Kior5 PcrtincMt Code Section Section 10.50 - Requirements for the I, Industrial District. IProperty Info] Lot Size 450 Old Crystal Bay Road Lot Size Outside Storage [.eased area Warehouse building size 2.3 acres 194' X 125' = 24,250 s.f. Located on property south of the 450 Old Cr> stal Day Ro^ Lot 32J>50s.f. Outside Storage Review The Municipal Code docs not have acriteria that spc'cificolly defines permanent or temporao outside storage. Some cities allow teinporor)' outside storage for a period not e.xceeding a defined time limit, usually 72 hours. Some of the materials that arc delivered to the ABC site arc not warehoused indoors. Those items are stored in a large area, approximately 24,000 s.f in size, located on the south side of the building. Most of the stock is stacked two pallets high in the outside storage area. The Conditional Use Permit/Industrial district standards require the applicant provide screening to buffer the storage area and activity associated with the outside storage area. The property is located adjacent to residentially zoned property across Old Cry stal Bay Road Other lots located around the site are located in the I. Industrial District. The primary screening that is exposed to residential or public property arc the properties w est of Old Cry stal Bay Road. The screening of the open storage area shall be screened by a fctKC or wall not less than five feet in height and not less than 50% opaque. Lots ore also required to be landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with a plan acceptable by the City. No official landscaping plan has been provided with the plan set that has determined the size, number and size of trees to be planted. The applicant has considered two options. 1) To provide slats in the existing perimeter fence that break up the view from the properties to the west and 2) provide an option to plant trees along the west side of tlic property to provide a natural bulTer. Planning Commission is asked to provide direction to the applicant as to size, type and location of trees. Staff would recommend a staggered planting plan of evergreen trees outside the fence and constrticted on and aroutKl an elevated berm. Parking Parking areas are permitted within required setbacks on the property. Required setbacks for the subject property arc as follows: 75' from Old Crystal Bay Road 10' from the side or rear property litres •0I-3S92 ADC Supply Co. Inc 450 0UCr)«Ul Bn Road Page 2 of5 Parking areas containing more than six spaces that face cither a public street and/or rcsidcntially zoned property shall have a solid \%-all or fence of not less than four feet nor more than six feet in height for screening. The material for the screening shall be designed to be architecturally harmonious uith the principal building on the lot. The Council may approve a screened planting may be substituted for the fence or wall. The property owners had relocated the employee parking area inside .* fence, but have requested to relocate employee parking outside the fence to the west side of th 'uilding and fence. Please refer to the anached site plan depicting the parking areas. The parkin^ area is outside the required 75' setback, but is located closer to the front property line than the building. Customer and visitor parking is located on the south side of the building. Code requires parking areas to be located a minimum of 10 ’ from the building. Because the building is existing they have requested to use the parking areas tliat have served the building and not to relocate the parking. Parking areas are required to be a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surface material. The spaces to the interior (customer/visitor spaces) are existing asphalt surface. Proposed employee parking spaces west of the building are natural and gravel ground cover. Noisc/Hours of Operation The Noise Ordinance docs not limit hours of operation in the I district. The operation hours for ABC Summer hours: Winter hours; 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 7:00 a m. to Noon Closed 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Closed Nionday through Friday Saturday Sunday Monday through Friday Saturday and Sunday The hours of operation arc the hours when ABC is open for business. Outside regular business hours delivery tnteks enter the property or park outside the gate. The deliveries are t>pically made with semi trucks that may sit outside the yard idling until ABC opens and deliveries con be made. This type of activity has the potential to generate excessive noise and odors from exhaust while Uic trucks maneuver or idle. The Zoning Oidinancc has performance standards to protect the public safety and health against such things as noise, smoke, toxic or noxious matter, odors, vibration and glare. Applicant should be asked to comment on any off hour activity that may occur on the property. Lighting Sev eral wall pack lights are located on the building to provide basic security of the property and ore illuminated in the evenings. The lights ore consistent with the type of lighting normally associated with industrial or commercial areas and pose a minimal impact on surrounding properties. MI-2693 ABC Suppb Co. lac 450OMCr>ttalBc> RMd 7>I6DI The primary lighting issue is a large flood light that was installed on the south side of the building that can illuminate the entire yard outside of normal daylight hours. The City required the light to be disconnected or screened to not allow the source of the light to be visible from adjacent properties. The light is primarily an issue only in the winter months. The Code prohibits light sources from being visible to property lines. Traffic TrafTic to the property consists of regular deliver)- of items to the site. Much of the trafllc leaving the site arc ABC trucks delivering materials to construction sites in the area. Contractors will occasionally travel to the site to pick up additional construction materials not requiring delivery ofl' site. Surrounding Residential Land Use The 2000-2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CMP) has designated the propertie- located west of Old Ciystal Bay Road as a Mixture of urban single and multi-family residential uses at a suggested density of 2-4 units per acre. Exhibits I and J. Table 3B-5b and Map 3B-7 from the CMP are attached and provide background infonnation regarding the guided use fur these properties. Issues for Dbcussion Planning Coimnission should individually consider each of the items listed above uiJ make conclusions on each issue in relation to the openition of ABC and the impact on surrounding properties. A.Location and Operation of Outdoor Storage Area, Including Screening Parking DLocation 2)Screcning Noise 2. 3. Hours of Operation Lighting Trafllc Is the proposed use of the outdoor storage area compatible w ith the surrounding properties? What areas of the property should be designated for permanent outside storage? D. E. F. fOI-2692 ABC SuppI) Co. Inc 450 OM Cr>ual lii> Roid 7 IM)I Pj«c4or5 The primary lighting issue is a large flood tight that was installed on the south side of the building that can illuminate the entire >1^1 outside of normal daylight hours. The City required the light to be disconnected or screened to not allow the source of the light to be visible from adjacent properties. The light is primarily an issue only in the winter months. The Code prohibits light sources from being visible to property lines. Traffic Traffic to the property consists of regular delivery of items to the site. Much of the trafllc leaving the site arc ABC trucks delivering materials to construction sites in the area. Contractors will occasionally travel to the site to pick up additional construction materials not requiring delivery' olT site. Surrounding Residential Land Use The 2000-2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CMl*) has designated the propertie- located west of Old Cry*stal Bay Road as a Mixture of urban single and multi-family residential uses at a suggested density of 2-4 units per acre. Exhibits I and J, Table 3B-5b and Map 3B-7 from the CMP ore attached and provide background information regarding the guided use for tliese properties. Issues for Ducussion 1.Planning Commission should individually consider each of the items listed above uid make conclusions on each issue in relation to the operation of ABC and the impuci on surrounding properties. A. B. C. Location and Operation of Outdoor Storage Area, Including Screening Parking l)Location 2)Screening Noise D. E. F. 2. 3. Hours of Operation Lighting Traffic Is the proposed use of the outdoor storage area compatible w ith the surrounding properties? What areas of the property should be designated for permanent outside storage? MI-2692 ABC SuppI) Co. Iiie 450 0<<ICr>tulli4> RoaJ 7 1^91 Pi«e4or5 J OptioBi for Planning Commbtion Action A. Recommend approval. A recommendation of approval shall include conditions that would protect the surrounding properties and uses from the activities that would be related to outside storage. 1 . Activity related to outside storage shall be limited to the hours specified by ABC as their regular business hours. 2. All parkii^ related to the operation of the business shall be limited to the areas designated on the plan and approved by the City of Orono. Parking areas are required to be a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surface material, and appropriate screening shall be provided for all parking areas on-site. 3. Light sources must not be visible beyond the property boundries. 4. Conditions shall be placed on the limits of activity that occurs during non-business hours, including deliveries, transporting materials on site and parking of business related vehicles. 5. Screening shall include an elevated berm with evergreen plantings on and around the berm with the intent to protect the residential properties located west of Old Cry'Stal Bay Road, a final landscaping plan shall be submitted for review prior to the Council Action. 6. All noise generated by the operation of the business shall not exceed the allowed noise levels as set by the City of Orono Noise Ordinance. 7. Any other conditions os the Planning Commission feels necessary to protect the public safety and health from noise, smoke, toxic or noxious matter, odors, vibration and glare. B. Recommend denial, suiting reasons. C. Table. D. Ollier action. tol-3b92 ABCSuppK Co lac 4)OOUCr>*ulB«} RiMd 7 IbOl PaicSori -AAO z' ft /Tt ^2 r--«»---»■“* i’/f-e/ AB0uiitPili)_^2£^£------- city of ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT/ lessee Name «;iinQiv_ Co. Don Jezlorskl T»^. ■ AttiL: ,->r1r1r “ii Parkway. Phone (home).aiiJ4Jjifi^l2_ Phone (^vYirk) riry t^lolt, WT----------Zip_535ll _ 0\>T»^ER(»f different than applicant) gteve White Mnrr* yri Tnr>-> ^hLn . . ^ mm ^ ^ • * t.t » Ri Phone (home).rnor.c ____—-------------— Phone fii 7 citmn3_LaSei_W!— 2000. r\amc vm_L.rni i n ■ ■ Lease_d,by ABC Supply: ^ wiO. CUP appUcion --------SI75.00 Residential Accessor>- Use --------$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5225.00 Guest House/G^esl Apartments 5200.00 Duplex CrediiBldg ^ S3 ”’5 00 Commercial/Industrial Use ---------* - d.sigaa«d «a.land or floodplain = Of— — f- oHgln. .^^.callon) --------- Afier-Ihe-Fact Fee • Double Cunent Application Fee other applicatw «^^^,^^ f„.) S300.00 Vacation S‘»00.00 Easement Vacation ^ . ------- sloo.oo Easement Vacation With Subdivision ---------- $350.00 Reaoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) ----------$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ' SI00.00 Appeals ~ Other - see Fee Schedule (month/year) ABG Supply Co. Inc. B AMERICA S LARGEST ROOFING S SIDING WHOLESALER June 18.2001 Via Federal Express Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Adminisiralor Ciiy ofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 RE:Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage for ABC Supply Company. Inc. at 450 North Old Cr>'stal Bay Road, Oronn, MN Dear Mr. Weinberger: This letter is being written in response to your letter dated April 4,2001 requesting ABC Supply to submit an Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage. In accordance with your letter, please find the following: 1. 2. 3. 4a. Completed Land Use/Conditional Use Permit Application form. A check for the application fee in the amount of S325.00. Certified list of all property owners within 350 feet of the property. Detailed description of the proposed use of the outdoor storage area for palletized stacking of roofing shingles. 1 he roofing shingles w ill be stacked two high in rows. The maximum height of palletized double-stacked shingles w ill be 6 feet (sec photographs enclosed). Lighting of the outdoor storage area is from wall packs located on the building. An emergency floodlight is available, when necessary, to light the area for personnel safety reasons. There should not be any impact on adjacent properties to the north, east and south as there arc no homes in those directions. West from our site there is one residential home, across Old Co’stal Bay Road.#2692 One ABC Pjrkmy • BeW \\i 5J5? • eV? Je ’*/V/*r • 6QS-362-62r5 City of Omo June 12.2001 Page 2 The only noise created by ABC Supply would be from inicks moving in and out of the propcTt)-. The hours of operation for ABC Supply are as follows: Summer hours: Winter hours: 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon Closed 8:00 a m. to 4:30 p.m. Closed Monday through Friday Saturday Sunday Monday through Friday Saturday and Sunday 4d. See attached site plan for areas of outdoor storage, traffic areas for loading^unloading trucks, and parking areas. 4e. See attached landscaping plan. For the record, tlicre is no retail component to our use of the property. ABC Supply is a wholesaler of building materials. No cars will be parked within 20 feet of any right-of-way. All lighting units used arc diflused wall packs located on the building. W’c resers e one floodlight in case of emergency. We arc enclosing some general information on ABC Supply for your review. Please be advised that ABC Supply only leases a portion of the site as shown on the attached plans. We have no control over other areas of the site that are not leased by ABC Supply. In closing, we would like the City to recommend a buffer, be it additional landscaping by mounds along Old Crystal Bay Road or by privacy slats being placed on the fences along Old Crystal Bay Road. Again, please keep in mind that we only lease a portion of the property. We await your positive response to our request for a Conditional Use for Outside Storage. Enclosures ( •Trr / ' ‘<1 • CriYarOHONO Municipal Offices Strait AMrau: 27SO Ken«y Parliwiy Orono, MN SS3S6 ManaiAMress: P 0 Boi 66 OpUl Bay. MN 55323^66 *• I Mr. Don Jeziorski. Regional Asset Manager ABC Supply Co. Inc. One ABC Parkway Beloit, \VI 53511-4466 April 4,2001 RE; Zoning Review ABC Supply Company -450 North Old Crystal Bay Road Dear Mr. Jc/iorski: The intent of this letter is to review for >ou the zoning regulations applicable to the site ABC is occupying at 450 North Old Cry stal Bay Road. The property is located within the I, Industrial District ABC Supply Company has been operating as a wholesale building products warehouse and oftlce within the existing building. The Orono Municipal Code permits •warchousing'and wholesaling" in the 1 district. It is our position that the proposed use of the building for warehousing and wholesaling is pemiitted. Last year ABC moved onto the property and had used the outside lot for stop j of product. It was our understanding the outdoor storage used on the lot last year w as due to the lack of interior storage racks and those racks would be installed eliminating the need for outdoor storage. The zoning regulations do 02l permit outdoor storage of any type No outside storage w ill be permitted w iihoui a conditional use permit. Outdoor storage is only allowed by a conditional use permit issued by the Orono City Council. The required submittals for a conditional use permit will include at a minimum; I. Complete Land Use/Conditional Use Permit application form (attached) 2 S350.00 application fee 3. Certified list of all property owners within 350‘ of the property. 4. A detailed description of the proposed use including: a) Outdoor storage areas and screening, as the propeny is located adjacent to residential property b) Lighting plan for outdoor storage area(s) c) Potential impacts on adjacent properties, such as noise, hours of operation, and visual impacts d) A site plan indicating outdoor storage area(s), traffic areas, and parking e) Landscaping plan . Td<plMNM>(952) 249-4M0 • Fu (952) 249-1616 w«rwxl4)roiiojnn.tts ABC Supply AprU 4.2001 Page 2 The conditional use permit review period is approximately 60 days, and requires a public hearing with the Planning Commission prior to City Council review. The earliest possible dale at which a public hearing could be held is May 21, 2001. The application deadline for the May 21, 2001 Planning Commission meeting is April 18. 2001. The City Council has the authority to set reasonable conditions as it relates to outdoor storage on the property, should the conditional use permit be approved. The primary concerns will be screening, lighting, noise, parking, signage and hours of operation. Because the property is located adjacent to residential uses, the preferred screening would be some form of natural buffer (trees, shrubs, etc.). It is our understanding there is no retail component to the use of the property. Retail uses are not permitted in the I. Industrial District. I have attached a copy of Section 10 50 of the Municipal Code relating to properties in the industrial district. The parking standard does not permit any parking within 20* of any right of way. Currently, cars are being parked along Old Crystal Bay Road and may be in violation of the setback requirement. (Section 10.61. Subdivision 5 (C)). Section 10.60. Subdivision 8 requires that lighting shall be directed downward to not be visible at any lot line. Lighting in all instances shall be ditTused or directed away from any residential district. Residential districts arc located to the west of the property across Old Cry stal Bay Road and to the south of the property across the railroad tracks. 1 have attached a copy of the conditional use permit application form, noise ordinance and above referenced code sections. Please contact me at your earliest conv enience to discuss the issues noted above. I can be reached at (952)249*4600. Sincerely. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator t cc: Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Greg Gappa, Director of Public Serv ices Mike GafTron. Planning Director Lyle Oman, Building Official Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator Marc Davis, Building Inspector r i Supply Co. Inc. mniCAS LARGEST BOOfm A StmG VfilOLESALER May 11.2000 Mr. Paul Weinberger Cily ofOrono 2750 Kelley Park^vay P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: ABC Supply Co. Inc. 450 North Old Crystal Bay Road, Orono, MN Dear Mr. Weinberger; This letter is being written to provide the City of Orono with information concerning our company, ABC Supply. ABC is America’s largest roofing, sidirg and window wholesaler. As you know we have leased a portion of the VCI Capital Building in Orono and are in the process of making improvements to both the interior and exterior of the building and lands that surround the building. 1 am sure you will agree that the improvements we ore undertaking will improve the look of the building and the grounds. We would first like to address and clarify some issues raised in a letter from Mr. Moorse on February' 17,2000 (a copy of which is enclosed) on how our on site activities work. The types of activities that ABC performs outside of the building consist of unloading product by small forklifi trucks that comes from our suppliers. Once the truck is unloaded we place that product in the warehouse. The types of products we handle most arc roofing materials along with siding and windows, which all come on pallets. Since we are w holesalers of roofing materials and siding most of our o'ders are generated by phone or by our outside sales staff and are delivered to a locati.^n specified by the customer. Customers typically come in to pick up only small orders or when a job falls short of materials. Delivery of product to the customer is why we have been successful in the wholesale business and is the most important factor is servicing a customer. From lime to time and mostly in the spring and early summer it is necessary for us to temporary' store some roofing materials outside on pallets because demand for the product is great and the product moves so quickly. We also stage products outside for CORPORA TE OFFICE • Ont ABC Piriewiy • 1 loading onto our trucks for deliveries to the customer on a daily basis. Please refer to the enclosed site plan for the location of the proposed loading areas and outside storage area. Our hours of operation for this location are as follows: Monday through Friday 6:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday 7:30 AM to 11:30 PM Sunday Closed Concerning the issue of noise, the only things we can think of that will produce some noise arc the loading and unloading of trucks in the staging area during our hours of operation. Again our business does not produce a lot of traffic from the public because we are a wholesaler. On the issue of exterior lighting we arc agreeable to using wall packs on the south side of the building for security lighting purposes but request permission to use flood lighting during business hours when it is dark in order to be able to load and unload our trucks, if necessary. Please review this letter and let us know if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to working with the City of Orono to resolve any concerns the City may have concerning our business operations. Sincerely, Regi6i^yassel Manager Enclosure cc. Ronald J. Moorse City of Orono Myron Dahl ABC Supply Orono Sue Christensen t;.. .j >) tr " j - j ^HilPiPln County Taxpi^r Services Department //vm «nii MMirw WAYZATA BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR PbtcbI Infomatlan m minsijooia 4M OiD OimAL lAY n N iiwlwl— 7hi* * nnl n trcoMM H t t.f < cfjiLt Atv*'C4y. .tn-l n.v-. CB*d Z.ZBI 8£G ZI9«ai AlddnO 08V »»:6« TS-St-98 L Exhibit F Additional Applicant Submittals Site Plans Site Photos Legal Description a/23/^ te:4e tXITED PROP * 916ee3Mei72 BK-23-im «!« UCI CPPtTa- ■ X 1 f............ "U.8. Highway,No. 12 •la « r0.48B 0B5 i ^.K/f8 I toCK c:^ fT. »©T* r» ao «,»‘04 ^ •***'tflW P.^ . ►- — - EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 1. Van Dale Addition, City of Long Lake. Hennepin County. '.-v. •V. i ABC CEN'^ 2R LOCATED AT RONO, MNm" L , K -■ r 9-^1 r------- ^—i 01 01 ABC CEN'. 2R LOCATED AT e RONO, MNpr flWi r ■ < V I- ^ .Wq Higii i:- (M ^0 Oi ABC CEN'. ZR LOCATED AT V.RONO, MN l_l I'll U1 l*2L=r> - ABC CENJ:R located at V, RONO, MN ^jex •^i .J2f ■i I aiiiamis ; .. ABC CEN .. ZR LOCATED AT v. RONO, MN (?■ r V; V.'. . p ' \ .. .• • ti - :r<a J .■ ’C'.r"-V ■- J '--' ■ \^ * » - ■: . . . -■v\;- •' .i- . ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■■ ■ . ' -r-V'.- ^ » . • V .■ ■ ■ •■ ■ .’ - ■• • •.-■ . .-'V- % - •> .• •*•«.___^■”:^v c- l\ • * m3' rVu"/ rI I- I .« § 10.50 SEC. 10.50.I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. .Application. All applications for a building permit in any "I" Industrial District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "I" District, no strticture or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Processing. Etc. Conducting a process, fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling operation or providing of a serv ice as listed hereaher: 1 . Apparel. 2. Artificial limbs. 3. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, bodv and fender work, up^’olstering. tire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed buildin ;. The storage ol avitomobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be within a fenced area. Open sales lots shall be subject to a conditional use permit. 4 5. 6. 7. 8. Bakery, commercial. Bicycles and toys. Boats and marine products. Bus. truck and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards. Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and millworks. electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop. 9. Camera and photography. 10. Canvas and cloth products. 1 1 . Ceramic and cloth products. 12. Ceramic products. 13. Cork products. 14. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceutical and toiletries. 15. Electric motors, generators, electric products. 16. Engraving and printing. 17. Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works. 18. l.aundries. commercial. 19. Machine shops. 20. Metal polishing and plating. 21. Musical instruments. 22. Novelties 23. Paper products 24. Pharmaceutical products. 25. Products in.: of glass, cellophane.lcalher. plastic, wood. 26. Shoes and footwear. ORONO CC 352 (4-1-84) ' # § 10.50 27. Sporting equipment. 28. Television, radio and appliances. 29. Tools, hardware and sm^l metal producu. 30. Warehousing. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. A. Within any T District, no stnicture or land shall be used for one or more of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Accessory structures. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage. Heliports as an accessory use for that property. Motor fuel stations. Open sales lots. Outside storage. 7. Public serv ice structures. 8. Railroad switch yards, team tracks or freight houses. 9. Research laboratories. 10. Residence necessary for security and safety in relation to a permitted use or conditional use. 11. Restaurants (Class I) which are located in and mainly servicing the personnel employed in that structure. 12. Planned Industrial District as regulated by Section 10.51. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: M-75 D. Antenna Stwietufc. One iwdepewdem antenna stfuetufc, with antenna of combination of antenna aHaehed thefete, subordinate to and sefvieitig the principal use of stfuetufe on the same let and customarily incidental thefcte that is net attached t6 anethcf stnieture provided the height of the antenna stnietuie dees net exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any let line a distance at least equal te the total height ef the antenna stnicture. (Seufee; Ordinance Ne. 177; Effective Date; 6-5 ‘75) Deleted via Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 ORONOCC (4-1-84) § 10.50 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Wiihin any "I" Indusirial District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Any accessor, use as regulated in the "D-1”'District. Subd. 5. Area, Height, Setback and Design Requirements A. Lot Area. The mini.num lot size shall be two acres. B. Building Area. Hach individual building shall have a gross floor area (not including basements) of not less than 5.000 square feet when designed for a single tenant nor less than 15.000 square feet when designed for multi-tenants. C. Lot Coverage. Not more than 30®/o of the total area of any lot. tract or parcel of land three acres or less in size may be covered b\ buildings or other structures. Not more than 45% of the total area of any lot. tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may be covered by buildings or other structures except that when the total building floor area on a site is contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks and berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60® b will be permitted. D. Height. No structure or building shall e.xcccd three stories or 40 feet in height e.xcept as provided in Section 10 75. E. Building Setback and Yards 1. Street Setbacks. All buildings and structures must be set back at least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or sueet w hich has been designated as limited access, freeway or expressway; and 50 feet from those designated as thoroughfares, collectors, minor or secondary’ streets. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District there shall be a building setback from that street of not less than 75 feet. 2. Side Yards or Rear Yards. Any building or structure required by any building code adopted by the City to have openings in the rear wall, shall be erected no closer than 30 feet to a rear property line. Where rear wall openings are not required by any such code, and the rear wall has no openings buildings or structures may be constructed to wiihin 10 feet of a rear property line. No building or structure shall be erected any closer to a side property line than a distance equal to one and onc-half times the average building height. Wltcre the district abuts or adjoins on "R" Disuict. the side or rear yard abutting such residential district shall be not less than 100 feet. ORONOCC (4-1-84) ^0 1 t § 10.50 F. Building Design and Consuuction. ^Fhe In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use. construction, alterauon or cnJargemcnls to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick; or. (b) Natural stone; or. (c» Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture; or. (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and ic ) above, glass, prefinished metal (oilier tlian unpainted galvaniiicd iron) or plastic; pro\ ided ilut if any wall of the building or structure faces a street or abuts an "R" District, then that wall shall have at least one-lfiird of its surface of materials other than prcfmishcd metal and the remaining walls shali have at least one-fifth of their surfaces of materials Outer tlian prefinished meuil; or. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings conslructed after the erection of an original building or buildi.'tgs shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original consiruciion and shall be designed in a manner conforming w ith the original architectural design and general appeara.t:e. 5. No bui!i;.tg or structure of a tempv’rary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessi>iy to and during the construction of permanent buildings. OIT-Street Parking. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, off-.strect parking areas of sufficient si/c to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppliers, visitors and employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. Parking areas shall b«p ^urfaegd u-ith a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material and occu|TwnvM£2uitc^ct^^ on lots. uactT ’oTparceTniavmgTxr^rmoresIrccnTO^^ On lots, tracts, or parcels navmg two or rr.cre street frontages. 50*/o of the required setback from one of the streets, designated as a thoroughfare, collector, minor, or sec. Jaiy street and not adjoining a residential oistnet. may be occupied for parking purposes only; provided, however, that parking shall not be located within the required setback area in front of the building. No parking shall be located closer than ten feet to a side or rear lot line, nor closer than ten feet to any building. Each parking space shall hjve a minimum width of nine feet and a minimum depth of twenty feet c^n^nancu\xrmg7pac?Tin^an!jn^arcasc^^ more than six spaces whichexc ORONO CC (4-1-84) § 10.50 than four feet nor more than six feet in hcjjthLalong_5udi_f^inji. Such fences or walls shall^gjo_ 3Signc3T!unK?r^e architecturally hannonious \sith th: principal structures on the lot. A screen p!anun^pprove?Ty7ncC^ may be substituted for the required uall or fence. H. Loading Facilities. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all loading or unloading into or out of trucks in excess of three-fourths ton capacity or railroad cars, shall be conducted at facilities specifically designed and designated for that purpose. Those facilities, hereby designated as "loading facilities", shall be subject to the following regulations: I. Amount Required. Loading facilities of suflicicnt number to provide for the requirements of each use shall be provided on the premises of each principal and accessory use. The e.xact number required will depend on the nature of the principal and accessory use and the type of transport service used, but in no event shall there be less than one truck transport loading facility for each 50.000 square feet of building floor area or major fracti*'-*. thereof. 2. Design. A loading facility includes the cock to or from which the transport vehicle is being unloaded or loaded and the berth for the vehicle while it is being loaded or unloaded, and the maneuvering areas needed to maneuver the vehicle into or out of its berth. All docks shall be located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use and they shall be completely enclosed except for the opening needed for access to a vehicle during the time it is standing in the berth. All berths shall be screened from view from the property’s street frontages by a solid wall of not less than ten feet in height. Such walls shall be so designed that they arc architecturally harmonious with the principal structure on the lot. At least one and not less than 50*/o of the required number of truck transport loading berths shall be not less than 50 feet in length. 14 feet in width and 15 feet in height. All truck transport berths and maneuvering areas shall be surfaced with a hard. alUweather. durable, dust-free surfacing material r operly drained and maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition. 3. Location. Loading berths shall not be located on a street frontage unless located w ithin the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use. Where located on a street frontage, they shall be completely enclosed. No berth shall be located witliin the required side or rear yards. All berths shall ^ physically separated from areas used for off-street parking except for connecting driveway s or aisles. No maneuvering area shall be located within ten feet of a side or rear property line. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all raw materials, supplies, finished or semi-finished products and equipment shall be stored within a completely enclosed building; or shall be screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less than 50% opaque; provided, however, that motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use and of not more than three-fourths ton capacity may be stored within the permitted parking areas. ORONOCC (4-1-84) A § 10.50 Jj^andscagjfli^ All open areas of any site. lot. tract or parcel shall be graded 10 provide pro^r drainage, and except for areas used for parking, drives or storage, shall be landscaped uith trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform uith the planting plan approved by the Council at the time the building permit was issued. It shall be the ou-ners* responsibility to see that this landscaping is maintained in an attractive and well-kept condition. All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall also be properly maintained. ^ ^ developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runt IT causing kxIs. erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall he submtued by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be revic\%-ed by th .7ii> Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such ru:.jlT may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Source. Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date; 1-1-75 .SEC. 10.51. PIU PLAN.NED l.NDL'STRIAL DISTRICT. ^bd. I. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish provisions for the granting of a conHi(mnaI use permit to erect a multi-building industrial facility in relation to an over-all design, an int^^q^cd physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures as provided hereafter. Subd. 2. Submissionof'^Jans. The owner or owners of any tract ofland within an "I" District may submit to the Council for ap{lhq^l a plan for the development and use of such a trad ofland for a Planned Industrial District for comh^rcial or other uses permitted in the district within which the land is located by making an applicaHqn for a conditional use pennit authori7.ing completion of the development in accordance with th^ft^^. The plan for the development shall conform to the requirements of the district within which it iN^jcated except as herein amended. Subd. 3. Size Required. The tiact ofland for which o' a pcmiit requested shall not be less than five (5) acres. ^lopment is propo* ■ d and Subd. 4. Sewer and Water. The tract shall L-* serx'cd by the CityM^^cr and sewer system when available and fire hydrants shall be installed according to a plan approvet^tiy the Fire Chief as to type and location. ORONO CC (4-1-84) ----— _jyATCTTOWNRO.;_.u i,/ City of PiroilOfouol:_________ EaMogZowv RA tB f*r-, Rural 2 AcnMwnT OUM. Pl.» i;!2Si.?S:ry%5SS^ 1? « «• • . . .* rr,«,K.-, «ort^ o» •'.-.y P.rt*.y p.^ d fO» Cfyngw y lyw^nfy »i th« wuMbNt^ rrorp oP^ wm»d »*<v<* u»«» andrMMuM* acMtK vm §t % of 3*6 urwu pt< acr« PtcbI Group 2: _______________________ CusangZorwig RA-1B Stfifltt FpirXy Rural RMiOanM. 2 Acrt Mnniui^ E.tWngOo^JoPtan P»M) Smgi. f*n-^iNWl»«»,nft*luM at .tf^vMy oM uMpo# PrepoMBGwdaPlvi M“Su# of urt«n wiglt «nd rruft lamay u»« «i ■ a*n»ay ^ 2^ urwu par »Cf» ParcBl OrauD 3: K»52»W W-1B fairt,ftini RnitfviMi. 2 Acn----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------ •• Cm)knflOuidaPI«i (i960) Sngl#f«fl.#, w»|„,*donajlu„ «,a«.Hifyo» t »/v»p*. 2 Piroi tdGoiBtPlM Saigt«*«m«y vtMnmidw*«iuM«adMMyol29u«tip«racra CommtfdBl Araa Batwfn Willow Df. and Brow« Rd.!_______ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ E»>Sn«CuieaP>aii »’»«)0»Va«..r,-#.«i»rtaiacca»wi9vv*am Or*a -Wnotf«etacea.itoMV**ay 12 PropotadOoaloPlan Chaj^j^.,„ti.ofnwadaWJ<Ja>ai^ a^.cfof'<a »r^aP»a«m»iv>ria«afoeuMBwoo.rpia.»^^ Highway 12 Areas Proposed for Change City of Orono Minnesota ■f me g^-mo fm4 0*'°^', MAP 3B-7 ■J CMP Part 3B. L—dUscPUiB Site Description: 55 acres located between Highway 12 and the Bnriington Northern Railroad proper!)-, abutting and Just west of Old Crystal Bay Road. Property iitctudes SITE B 5 separate lax parcels with 5 existing residences plus outbuildings, and is (Parcel Group 2, currently zoned Tor single family rural development at a density of I unit per 2 Map 3B-7) acres. The new Highway 12 route is planned to abut the south side of this property, paralleling the railroad track. SheCbaraH -^btlcs: Gross site area east of major wetland: 55 acres ♦ Area of additional wetlands in east half of site: • 4 acres Area to be lost due to Hwy 12 b>pass: • 2 acres ± Net dry buildable for development: 49 acres ± Easterly 25 acres is relatively flat with high*walertible soils and interspersed wetland pockets Not easily developable with septic systems. Mostly open fields that have been farmed previously. Westerly 30 acres has 5*•-IS*• slopes, eventually dropping a loul of SO* down to major wetland basin .Soils are belter suited for use of septic syster>'->. but slopes may be a factor for individual sites. This area is more wooded and contains apple orchard This site has a number of factors which make it unattractive for 2-acre rural residential development as currently zoned, including: • Location between two highway corridors is not conducive to ratal development • Location across from Industrial Park is not conducive to rural development. • S.te abuts one of the busiest intersections in Orono. • East half of site is poorly suited lor development with septic systems. Municipal sewer and water are relatively available as compared to most other areas of the City; the site i* adjacent to existing MUSA and is a logical MUSA expansion point fhis site has direct access to arterial and collertor road system, and is relatively near urban services as compared to most oth%r areas of the City. Furthermore, this site is separated from existing rural neighborhoods by the Orono Schools, by existing wetlands, by the existing railroad, and by cxisung and future road, railroad corridors. Because of these separations, development at higher densities will have linie impact on adjacent rural character neighborhoods. _____ Site B Restdenllal Pevelooreent Options: Density parameter Dwelling Units Deositv Current 2-acrc zoning 16-18 Uniu 0Junits.ac. (septic systems) 2-acrc zoning 20-22 Units 0.4 uniti^ac. (sewered, standard plat) 2-acre zoning 24 Units 0.5 units, ac. (sewered. PRD) I-acre zoning 42-44 Units OJ units'ac. (sewered standard plat) l-acre zoning 47-48 Units 0.9 uniLi'ac. (sewered. PRD) 1^-acrr zoning 80-85 Units . 5 uniis/'ac. (sewered, standard plat) 1/2-acrc zoning 95-IOC Units l.Bunits'ac. (sewered, PRD) 3 unit/acre PRD 140 Units 3.0 units'ac. Preferred Dcveloitmru t Option; Mil of b.S units/ac SFR & 4 units/ac lownboous 120 Uniu 2 J iiniu. ac. City of Orono Community Management Plan Sepwaber MW PageSB^S 3 CMP PTt3B. Liiad Use Ptan Site Description: 55 acres located between Highway 12 and the Burlington Northern Railroad propert)', abutting and Just west of Old Crystal Bay Road. Property includes SITE B S separate tax parcels with S existing residences plus outbuildings, and is (Parcel Group 2, currently zoned for single family rural development at a density of I unit per 2 Map 3B-7) acres, flic new Highway 12 route is plaitncd to abut the south side of this propert>‘, paratlcling the railroad track. SiteCharart-ristks; Gross site area east of major wetland: SS acres i Area of additional wetlands in east half of site; • 4 acres *, Area to be lost due to Hwy 12 b>pass: - 2 acres ± Net dry buildable for development; 49 acres ± Easterly 23 acres is relatively flat with high-waiertable soils and interspersed wetland pockets Not easily developable with septic systems Mostly open Helds that have been farmed previously. Westerly 30 acres has S^^IS^* slopes, eventually dropping a total of 50' down to major wetland basin. Soils are better suited for use of septic s>stei>-:.. but slopes mav be a factor for individual sites. This area is more wooded and contains apple orchard This site has a number of factors which make it unattractive for 2-acre rural residential development as cunently zoned, including: • Location between two highway corridors is not conducive to rural development. • L'.cation across from Industrial Pork is not conducive to rural development. • Site abuts one of the busiest intersections in Orono. • East half of site is poorlv suited for development with septic systems. Municipal sewer and water are relatively av ailable as compared to most other x eas of the City; the site i* adjacent to existing MUSA and is a logical MUSA expansion point. This site has direct access to arterial and collector rord system, and is relatively near urban services as compared to most othvr areas of the City. Furthermore, this site is separated flom existmg rural neighbourhoods by the Orono Schools, by existing wetlands, by the existing railroad, and by existing and fumre road, railroad corridors. Because of these separations, development at higher densities w ill have little impact on adjacent rural character nvighborhoods. Site B Retldewtlal Development Options: Density parameter Dwclline Units Dcniitv Current 2-acre zoning 16- IS Units OJ uniu'ac. (septic systems) 2-acre zoning 20-22 Units 0.4 units.'ac. (sewered, standard plat) 2-acre zoning 24 Units 0.5 units oc. (sewered. PRD) 1-acre zoning 42-44 Units 0.8 umts'ac. (sewered standard plat) l-acre zoning 47-48 Units 0.9 uniLs'ac. (sewered. PRD) l/2-acre zoning 80-85 Units i 5 unils'ac. (sewered, standard plat) 1/2-acrc zoning 93-10( Units I.Sunits'ac. (sewered. PRD) 3 unit/acre PRD 140 Units 3.0 units'ac. Preferred Dcvelonmrot Option: Mil oMl.5 units/ac SFR i: 4 units/ac townbomts 120 Units 2.5 units'ac. City of Orono Community Management Pbn Septtwbcr 24M Page 3B-35 RUN RAU BA/12/0L UTCM SB« M M*1U<2S IS Mil raof ARM M7AS MAV2ATA RtM M RMMER NAMi VfM INC ITAt TAMRAVCR «IRA INC NAHC/ARM ro RM S7S . . LONG lARf NN RAISA NFNNEriN COUN1V MDRCRTV INTORNAUM BVS1IN Moruiv RUHOS IIST M 9S-11A-IS II Mil AfASA RLR CRVS1AL RAV RR H WlOA INC «C1 CAPITAL INC ro RM I7S lONO LAK^ MN RAISA Rcrwr HR. RMUAtl rAW 11 SI SS-llB-IS 11 AAIS •IMA NATZATA RLVR M VfRA INC VfRA MC PO ROM S7S LRNO UCf IRI SRfSA SA SS'IIR'ZS IS RAIA PROP ARM RZ72S NATZATA RLVB H ONNCR NAHC VCRA INC TARPAVCR VIOA INC NANC/AMR M RM S7A lONB LAKC tW RISRA M SS-llA-ZS IS MIA tZAIR NATZATA RLVO U NASNZNCrM SCIfNTirXC INO UAlNtNCTRH SCICNTiriC UR IRZRI NATZATA RLVR RIOR MATZATA NN AAin SA SS-llA-tS ZA AIAZ OAOSR AOCNtSR UNARAICNIR TNONAS r JAMS TAUSTEi THONAS P JAMS TRUSTEE TFJ NONIMC TRUST 7717 T STRUT imiC ROCK AR 7ZZ17 SR SS*ilS*ZS 2A SttS RMP AMR SAMS OLD CRTSTAL RAV RR N ONNCR NAME T F JAMS TRUSTEE TAIPATER TFJ NOMMCE TRUST lUM/AROR 77A7 T STREET IXTTlf ROCK A«( 7Z2Z7-AMA TOTAL AATCM ASA RSABZ ’ * •: * ; / ’ y X CCRTXTT THAT THE FACTS RCPRESCNTFO ARC AN ACCURATE ANS TRUE REPRCSENUTIM OF INFORnATIM AS XT APPEARS THIS RATE ON TNt RCCOROS or THE HENNEPIN COUNTT DEPARTHCNT OF PROPCRTT TAFATJON, TO TNE REST OF nt KNOMLCROC AND RELIEF. DA1E Rtc*w^M*JL»4 A^#a j iMonn uia urysiai Bay Road r j L '5»* y.^0 ClJ CryxAJi 8^^ teo4 --OrW» ^_3 ?r#ptr+y l»«e^\u.z:'^:aL—c._--------•>;:>;•:•:• J-------- Jc:'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'.*y"-'----.---.-.-J-^ --------------- s> TO; Chair llawTi and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, Cil>’ Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE; Jul> 11,2001 Sl'BJECT; #01-2696 Michael P. and Jeannine B. Baden H. Wcsl**)’ and Elizabeth L. Wolverton 3420 an.: <445 High Lane Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Class 1 Subdi\ision - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: (Existing) RR-IB One Eamily Rural Residential District 3420 High Lane 3445 High Lane Lot Area: (Proposed) Required Minimum Lot Size 3420 High Lone 3445 High Lane 1.95 acre 1.1 acre 1.86 acre 1.19 acre 2.00 acres LulofExbibiU A Application B Plat Map C Survey/Proposed Property Line D Site Topography E Site Photo F Property Ovsiiers List Summary of Request: The applicants are owners of properties located at 3420 High Lone and 3445 High Lane in the Cit> of Orono. They have proposed a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement between the lots. I'he purpose of the lot line reanangement is to provide a building site for a detached garage on the 3445 lot. The property owner has looked at se\eral options to construct a garage and has determined the best option is to acquire property to build on the lot as shown on the survey. M7/>.'6M BaJtn Itotimom )4:ai44iHttkLam '‘1601 fdfr lofj Any options of locating the garage behind or next to the existing house on Lot A arc a challenge because the lot slopes down from an elevation of 1038’ at the top of the hill near the houie to 1010* at the south end of the lot. The slope Is too steep to support a driveway for a garage located behind the house. The propo.sed garage location would not require variances should the property line rearrangement be approved. PeiiincBt Ordinance Section 10.28 KK-IB One Family Rural Residential District Lot Lot Front Side Rear Yard laid Yard 2 acres 20U feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet Lot Area and Yards 3420 High Lane Existing Lot Si/e Lot Width 1.95 acres 264 feet Proposed Lot Size Lot Width 1.86 acres 264 feet 344S High Lane Existing Lot Size Lot Width 1.1 acres 148 feet Proposed Lot Size Lot Width 1.19 acres 58 feet The lot w idth of the 3445 lot changes because the lot w idth is defined as the portion of the property that is adjacent to the road. The new property line leaves 58 ’ with frontage on the road The new north property line would become a side lot line. The definition of the front propertv line is also important for the south lot because it would allow the garage to be built in the location aj shown on the attached survey. 34:a i44i Htijh Lam ' l&OI rat4 2oti Boths lots were originally developed prior lo ihe adoption of the current zoning standards. The lot line rearrangement would meet the intent of the comprehensive plan because it would not increase the existing density and would not create additional building sites. Maintenance of High Lane High Lane is partially maintained by the City of Orono. The entire driveway leading to the applicant’s properties is private and is maintained by the properly owners. Septic Review The lot area proposed to be transferred from 3420 lo 3445 has been used for driveway and parking purposes since the lot developed. Future septic sites would be required to meet a minimum 20' setback to the new property lines. The minimum setback to the edge of driveway is also 20’ The existing systems for both properties arc not in a location that would be within the 20* setback to property lines. Staff Rcco idation • Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement subject to the following conditions: I.Applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easement along new property lines and vacate any drainage and utility easements along old property lines. .Applicant shall provide to the City any documentation relating to easements on both properties. Prior to City Council review 3 original surv eys of the sur\ ey completed by a licensed surv eyor in the State of Minnesota shall be submitted, w ith signature blocks. •OI-:t96 BaJtn Ub/wlM i4:o J44i High Um '16 01 Fagtiof} Application # D ! Date Received C Amount Paid /^QO. £2 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress 3 M HST La.r\C LnYo, MM SSISX Property Identification Number (PID) OS' //7 /5L OOP I Please check one - Property____abstract or torrens? -» Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT/Oa)ne»r Name Htchag-l P. af\e(. Jccxonire. 6 6<id^r\ Address Lmp. City Lcnr^ U3.hp. MfJ Phone (home) 9y2-v7i;-A0V<y . Zip 5S^5fc Phone (work) 7t3-V/<>-3fl36 (indifferent than opplicam) Name f4. I/Uesle.*^ iVoivcr^on L.Ufoiv*<riof\ Address City fo-Kr, MfJ . Phone (home) <?5 ’:^-^73- (, (attach list if more than one) . Zip Phone (work) — EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units , Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ^ Existing Units O New Units 2. Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) , Units per ___Acres , Sq. Ft Dry Buildablc Land , Rnidential . Other (specify)________ #2696 yii& B ■///- Jl3-yj SENN 1 yl. : ORONO |i > ^ isrur _ i. -vv^-,A>*'>» ■•' ♦vVSS^ M’"':*r- '• .. ;v.;,r->,4,;§ K'v5>Hr4>>^%t:i^3rifrs>iaM w'-.iS .••• ;s-'-';.\'V # ymh* > V. * ■? .' t 'A* • Ji:i • y ■^ ^ •' V ; .; >:•«;] ^.': ;-^ • iS^aaiiSa 3VZ0 O 1044.8 X ^ H43 Lor A \ Lor O Q JVV5- (_r^ —<n_r f 1 O ■Q. O O O \ \ A 1 j ;■ te«^. ■ - . r-'- ■ v-iT ?* »->.r <•■!: i V ‘ • Ji, •■ . • ■ ■••■'/•) -^i/i . .\C- ^>as 'vjfVr ■i'i E' M6W pRo»*eRTY L c c r RUN DATE 0A/a7/*l BATCN BA2 rirop ADDR OWNER NANC TAMPAYER NANC/AOOR PROP AOOR OtMER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANC/ADOR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANC/ADOR c c r PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER HANE/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR S« RS-llF-SS 11 I0R2 •MRS HICN LA X H ■ 0 0 REILLY KEVIN t DENISE REILLY SAIS HIGH lA LONG LAKE NN SSSSk U RS-llF-ES 12 RRIR •3A2I NIGH LA N W WOLVERTON ETAL N WESLEY WOLVERTON SA2t NIGH LANE LONG LAKE MN SSSSk SR R5-117>2S 12 RR21 R3<«8S CHRISTINE OR N H t C 0 HAC8ERG MARIE N t CARLTON O HAGBERO 3AR5 CHRISTINE DR MAPLE PLAIN MN SS3SR 3R RS>117*2S 12 002^ RORSR ADDRESS UNASSICNEO BETZ ADDITION MOMWNRS ASSOC BETZ ADDITION HONEOWNRS ASSO AR STUBBS BAY RO S MAPLE PLAIN MN S53SR 38 32-118-23 A3 RORR R3AAS WATERTOWN RO J D 8 R T OUADY TRUSTEES ROBERT T A JEANNE D OUADY 3AAS WAIERTOWN RO LONC LAKE MN BS3SA 38 32*118-23 AA RRRA R338R WATERTOWN RO R R REPKE A J M REPKE ROSS R 8 JOSETTE H RCPXE 3S8R WATERTOWN RO LONG LAKE MN SiSSA REPORT NO. PIA3SAR1 PACE S 38 RS-117-2S 11 RRRS RRRRS LEAF ST E C GRAHAM JR ETAL E C ORAHAH JR <*S LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN SSSSfc 58 RS*117-2S 12 RR17 03A15 HIGH LA RICHARD C HARKLUNO ET AL RICHARD GUSTAV MARKLUNO 8 NINA E CUERTIN-MARKLUNO 5A1S NIGH LA LONG LAKE MN SS3SA S8 RS-I17-23 12 R022 RRRRO STUBBS BAY RO S C C KROLL ET AL TRUSTEES CLEMENT C KROLL *R STUBBS BAY RO S NAPLE PLAIN MN 5S35R SB 32-118*23 A3 00R7 R35RS WATERTOWN RO ANNICK R n PRATBERNON ANNICK R H PRATBERNON SSRS WATERTOWN RO LONO LAKE MN S53S4 38 32-118-23 A3 RRIR S3A25 WATERTOWN RO WANDA L PETERSEN WANDA L PETERSEN 3A2S WATERTOWN RO LONO LAKE MN S53SA S8 32-118-23 AA RRRA R3AR5 WATERTOWN RO S E ESKOiA 8 L J ESKOLA SCOTT E 8 LORI J ESKOLA 3AR5 WATERTOWN RO LONO LAKE MN SSSS4 6 >;vV ■ .0 I o 38 RS-117-2S 12 RRRl RS44S NION LA H P BAOCN 8 J 0 OAOCN H P BAOEN 8 J B BAOCN SAAS HIGH LA LONO LAKE MN BSSS4 38 RS-117-23 12 RR2R R3SRS CHRISTINE OR S L HANIKOWSXI ET AL SUSAN L MANIKOWSKI SSRS CHRISTINE OR NAPLE PLAIN MN SS3SA 38 85-117-23 12 0R2S 8RR38 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO BETZ ADDITION MMOWNRS ASSOC BETZ ADDITION HONEOWNRS ASSO 48 STUBBS BAY RO S MAPLE PLAIN NN SSSSA 38 32-118-23 AS RRR8 R3A4S WAHRTOWN RO CREO J ENALT CREO J CHALT IRS SYCNET PL LONO LAKE MN E53S4 38 32-118-23 AA RRRS R334R WATERTOWN RO V 8 N NUBBELL VERNE M NUBBELL S3AR HAH kTOWN ROAD LONO LA^*^ MN SSSSA 38 32-118-23 AA RRll R3A1S WATERTOWN RO L K FERRELL ET AL SUBJ/LE WARD 8 MARY FERRELL 3A1S WATERTOWN RD LONO LAKE MN SSSSA To: From: Date: Subject: Chair HavvTi and Planning Commissioners Mike GafTron, Planning Dircclor July 10. 2001 Pending "Boat Storage" Ordinance Review - Options: Preliminary Discussion on July 16 or Set A Work Session Date The City Council on July 9 held a public hearing to obtain public input on whether the existing ordinances regarding boat storage on residential property needed to be changed. Approximately 25- 30 residents were in attendance, and excellent comments were received. The result is that Council has unanimously referred this matter to the Planning Commission with the following general direction: Consider increasing length of boats allowed to be stored w ithout screening Consider expanding and clarifying where boats can be stored on various t\pes of lots Consider what types of screening arc necessaiy and under what circuntstanccs or conditions, as well as wha' •' i-olor of boat co\erings arc appropriate If Planning Commission feels boat storage r guiaiions should K* more restrictive rather than less restrictive, or if you feel there shouldn't K* an\ limits on boat storage. Council is open-minded in terms of your recommendations; i.e. they didn't want to tie \our hands by providing the general direction above. Proccdurally. we can have some preliminary discussions at the July 16 meeting, or we can have a work session in late July or early August to discuss boat storage issues, so that stalT can draft an ordinance amendment for consideration at a public hearing at your August meeting, and final Council action in late August or early September. While Council acknowledged that their July 9 hearing may seem to have pre-empted Planning Commission's review process, stall'and Council wanted u sense of the public's position on this topic before sending Planning Commission on a w ild goose chase. It w as clear from the public comments ilut. w hile there are a w ide • .nge of opinions on boat storage, this is u lake community and people bought pror'.iy here expecti*', ‘ e able to store a boat on their property, to avoid high off-site storage costs, to be able to work o.. .leir boats at home, and to be good neigliK>rs. Many acknow ledged they are out of compliance now . and would prefer to be in compliance w ith an ordinance that they can liv e w iih. They generally don't want to ha% e or Jinances that aren't enforced or that aren't enforceable, but also don't want the City to create ordinances that will require added stafling. Many are satisfied with the current 'enforce only upt>n complaint' policy, although this generated discussion regarding neigliKirs "ratting" on each other for storage violations versus working it out in a neighbtuly way without bringing the City into it. I'm attaching a copy of the Council staff memo and the draft Council minutes from July 9. Please be prepared with some thoughts or questions on this topic for Monday evening's meeting. If PC wants to set a work session for late July/early August, that is also an option. 10 ORONO CITY COUNCTL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 9.2001 PUBLIC HEARING 2. Storage of BoaH and Boat Trailers Masor Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 p.m. Mayor Pclerson slated that the hearing was only concerning boats and boat storage, and that other recreational vehicles would be discussed at a later date. Moorse stated that the purpose of the hearing was for the Council to receive comments from the public regarding the issue. Gaffron stated that the public hearing had been publicized by a standard hearing notice, was posted at the City Offices and on the web site, a press release was issued, and an announcement was run on cable channel 21. He slated that the current ordinance has been in effect since 1967. The ordinance, 10.60, Subd. 13. states; “Exterior Storage in “R" Districts. In all “R" Districts, all mobile materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except boats and unoccupied trailers less than 20 feel in length, w hich are not stored for commercial purposes, if stored to the rear of the house and a distance of 10 feet or more from any property line.” Gaffron stated that the City has interpreted the ordinance to mean that all mobile materials should be stored out of site of all adjoining properties (abutting, but not across the street). Boats and trailers up to 20' in ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 9,2001 length ore the exception, and are allowed to be stored unscreened to the rear of the house. Boats longer than 20’ must be in a building or fully screened. Gaffrcn stated that staff had done a windshield inspection of boats appearing to be in c.xcess of 20* stored on residential lots and found the following number of boats in each neighborhood that were visible from the public right of w^y: % Casco Point 40 Forest Arms 6 Carman Bay:12 Rest Point 4 Navarre 10 Wildhurst 8 Fagemess Point 23 Highwood 4 Cheny/Loma Linda 21 Historically staff has only enforced the boat storage regulation upon complaint, or when a boat is placed where it has a potential impact on t.'affic sight distances. He described the problems in fully screening a larger boat; lack of foliage in winter, lack of suitable building, the color of the tarp or shrink-wrap. The cost of off-site w inter storage is prohibitive for many boat owners, ranging from S700 to S2800. Mayor Peterson opened the hearing to public comments. Chris Morgart at 1003 Wildhurst Trail stated that he would like the ordinance thrown out. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 9.2001 Pat Fleming at 4760 North Arm Drive stated that the ordinance is outdated because boats are larger today, and wanted the size restriction expanded. Chuck Boehn at 997 Wildhurst Trail stated that people should simply be considerate of their neighbors and work things out themselves. He stated that he could not afford storage prices, and he fell there were a few people complaining who had decided to act as the conscience of Orono. He suggested dropping the length restriction and only enforcing complaints. Jim Theison at 1295 Elmwood stated the ordinance is outdated and the current regulation is too stringent for a boating community. He suggested increasing the allowed length to 30’ and only enforcing the ordinance alter two complaints are received from different parties within one year. Natalya Cherherskayi at 2480 Casco Point Road stated that besides being unattractive out of w ater, boats stored in yards are a safety risk. She was recently sitting on her deck and watched as her neighbor’s boat trailer rolled off of his property, down a slope and into her yard. She had been gardening in the path of the trailer only the day before. She was concerned that many trailers are not properly blocked and could roll away. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY. JULY 9.2001 Paul Schueller at 1280 Spruce Place stated that the boat length should be changed to 30* and the rest of the ordinance left alone. TimH %at 1280 North Arm Drive slated that the cost of living in Orono is high and if he had to store a boat off-site, he would not be able to afford having a boat, denying the use of the lake to the some extent of others. He suggested people be neighborly. Bob Albertson at 2100 Shad>'wood Road staled that he has been boating on the lake for 38 years and always gels the permission of his neighbors before storing his boats on his property. This was the first time in 38 years he’d heard of a problem with boat storage in Orono. Sansevere slated that the intent of the meeting was to review the ordinance and possibly change it, but the intent was not to eliminate tlie ordinance. Bill Wolfe at 3255 Ciystal Bay Road stated that he would like the ordinance to be less restrictive. Tom Theisen at 4175 Forest Lake Drive slated that he would like to sec the ordinance repealed, and he agreed that people should work issues out with their neighbors. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY. JULY 9.2001 Betsy Ncusbaum at 3480 North Shore Drive asked for a definition of screening. GafTron stated that in her situation the storage area would be in the yard between the house and the alley, but that the 10 ’ setback from property lines eliminates ..luch of the yard. Lorraine Ka\ ey at 1395 Brown Road stated that she also has a lot that does not fit into the e.xamples given, and suggested the ordinxicc be thrown out, and felt that complaints should be anonymous so that she could talk to the complaining neighbor. Gabriel Jabbour at 985 Tonkawa Road stated that he feels that requiring off>site storage would hit the people hardest who can least afford it. He also stated that Orono has 33*/o of Minnetonka ’s lakeshore, but only allows storage of about 350 boats in its marinas and prohibits outside storage in the industrial and commercial areas, which creates a hardship for the residents. He felt responsible to his immediate neighbors, but did not people who could see his boat in driving past his property would have a reason to complain. Tim Line at 4415 Casco Point Road stated that his definition of a neighborhood is broader than many others. He does not care to drive by boats covered in blue 7 months out of the year. He suggested Orono adopt an ordinance like Wayzata’s that requires screening from public right of ways. He feels that a few people take advantage and do not comply with the ordinance. He stated they ha\ e guests coming to their home from around the world and does not appreciate boats being visible from the public right of way. He docs not object to boats being stored outside on commercial property. ORONO CITV COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 9,2001 Gary Welsh of 1214 Wildhursl Trail stated that requiring off-site storage \souId be like having an extra tax. He has traveling to other lake communities and feels Orono’s storage situation is very common. He also stated that one is not allowed to work on a boat in off site storage. Nan at 999 Wildhurst Trail staled that her family moved to Orono specifically to be on the lake and not have to pay to store their boat in the off-season. May Beth Christianson 941 North Arm Drive stated that w inter in Minnesota is not pretty no matter what and putting a boat in someone's yard docs not detract from the winter scenery. She staled it’s the ultimate snob who is upset by the tarps. Curt Quady at 1223 South Brown Road stated that he has lived in Orono since 1927 and has a blue cover on his boat. He talks to his neighbors to make sure there aren’t any issues with his boat. Lorie Line at 4415 Forest Lake Landing stated that she felt winter is the most beautiful time of the year, and blue tarps wreck it. She stated everyone could compromise and agree on the placement of boats and to use w hite tarps instead of blue. She was not so concerned w ith the size of the boat as how it is stored and that it be concealed from the right of way. i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 9,2001 % \ Bruce Ncusbaum at 3480 North Shore Drive stated that he would not be able to afford off site storage for his boat and asked if they only wanted the very wealthy In Orono. Tom Theisen at 4175 Forest Lake Drive stated that although they would like to resolve differences with their neighbors, it seemed impossible in some cases. He asked how they could get the ordinance changed or removed from the books. Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing, then make recommendations to the Council for final action, and it would require a 4/5*^ vote to change the ordinance. He stated that there is no referendum for the public to initiate such a change. Barrett stated that a property owner who is affected by the ordinance could make an application for change to the City. Mayor Peterson stated that if the Council decided to send the issue to the Planning Commission for further consideration, the public would then be able to send further comments to the Planning Commission. Gaffron stated that comments to the Planning Commission should address specific concerns to give them direction. Moorse stated that the Council and Planning Commission might want to hold a work session on the issue. Richard Edwards at 2480 Carmen Street stated that he has lived on the lake since 1955 and is now retired. He could not afford off-site storage and likes to work on his boat. He felt that people should respect other’s choice of colored tarps. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 9,2001 Ward Edw-ards at 2474 Carmen Street stated that he is also retired, can’t afford off-site storage, and likes to work on his boat 1^.Tom Albertson stated that if the ordinance were made more restrictive or enforced, he money to determine if people deserv ed a variance to the ordinance. would pursue a variance, as would others. It would cost the City a great deal of time and Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. Sanseverc stated that some size restriction was needed, but he felt it should be increased to 30* and require that anvthing over 25’ long should be covered in white shrink-wrap. Mr. Welsh interrupted to state that shrink wrap was not practical for people working on hobby boats. Flint had no comments. Nygard stated that he felt the ordinance is not suitable for a lake communitv'. He agreed that blue is a bad color for tarps and felt it reasonable to ask people to use white tarps. WTiite stated that the fact people can’t work on *hcir boats in a marina is a compelling reason for allowing storage on properties, but agreed there should be a length restriction. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY. JULY 9,2001 \ He stated the City should pursue complaints, and should loosen the specificity of the ordinance. Mayor Peterson staled that she agreed they should relax the ordinance. She encourased neighbors to communicate. The ordinance should go to the Planning Commission to research possible changes. She also stated she is not in favor of blue tarps. Mr. Quady stated that some lots in Orono arc so small, that with the current ordinance a person couldn't store an>thing on his or her property. Ms. Kavey asked if there was a rule stating that complaints be kept anon\ mous. Gappa stated that there is a Minnesota Stale statute requiring that names not be given out when a complaint is made. Njtard moved, and Sansevere seconded, to have the Planning Commission address the Issue of boat and boat trailer storage, specifically considering expanding the allowed length of boats stored on properties, the appropriate areas for boat storage on a property’, issues of screening including tarp color, and if the ordinance should even exist. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. REytEiT FOR COLNCiL ACTION Date: July 5,2001 llcm No.: p Dcparlmcnl Approval: AiJminUlnilor Approval: Name: Michael P GafTron^^ttSi^ Title; Planning Director 7*^ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Public I tearing - Review of Boat Storage Ordinances Summar> A Public I tearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at the Monday July 9 Council meeting to take public comment and consider whether e\isiing ordinances regulating boat storage on residential properties should be revised. IfCouncil determines an amendment is appropriate. *t couiu he rev iewed at the .August Planning Commission meeting and an amendment adopted by Council in late August or early September, so any code revisions would be in place in time for the boat storage season. Public notification of this bearing bas included the following: I) Publication of the standard Public Hearing notice in the Pioneer newspaper; Posting at the City Offices and liKal Post Offices. Issuance of a press release to the three local papers (as of this writing, the Pioneer had a front page article in the June 30 issue) .Announcement running on l.akc Minnetonka Cable Channel 21 2) 3) Lbt of Exhibits \ - Skekhes of cuiTcnl boat storage allowed locations B - Pcrfomiancc Standards: Section 10.60. Subd. 10-1.3 C - Rev icw of Other Cities* l:\lerior Storage Ordinances D - Parking of Recreational Vehicles: Section 9..S2 n - “Yard" Definitions. Section 10.02 Current Ordinance, Interpretation and Enforcement The current City ordinance regarding boat storage is 10.60. Subd. 1.3 which reads as follows: Subd. 13. Fxterior Storage in “K“ Districts. In nil Districts, all mobile materiab and equipment shall be stored within n building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, evrepi boats and unoccupied trailers less than 20 feet in length, w hicb arc not stored for commercial purposes, if stored to the rear of the house and a distance of 10 feet or more from any property line. w-/,. Boat Storage July 5.2001 Page 2 Depictions of currently allowed K kii storage liKations on lakeshoa* and non-lakeshorc lots appear in Exhibit A. I hesc depictions arc based on the yard definitions of the zoning code, as interpreted and cnlbrced by City stall'. Becau.se the street yard of u typical lakeshore lot is by definition its rear yard, the visual impact from the street of boats stored on lakeshore lots is potentially much greater than for non-lakeshore lots (Section 10.02 “Yard" definitions ore attached os Exhibit E). A stall w indshield inspection of boats of length appearing to be in excess of 20* stored on residential lots early this spring revealed the following, by neighborhood: Casco Point: Caniian Bay: Navarre: Fagemess Point: Chcrrs 'l oma l.inda: 40 12 10 23 21 Forest Anns (t. side of I orcsi Lake): Rest Point: Wildluirst: llighwood: While photos were not taken and individual l>oat lengths and storage locations were not speeilkally diK’umented. these K>ats were all visible from the public right-of-way. Staff has historically enforced the Kiat storage regulations only upon complaint, or when a boat is clearly placed where it has a potential impact on trafllc sight distances. I'hc unav'ailability (or high cost) of ofl-site storage is a common response from boatowners who are found to be in violation of the ordinance. Although property owners are given u reasonable amount of time to comply, quite oAen a complaint will be received after the boat has been snowed in or frozen in place for some time and is impossible to move until spring. Screening commonly becomes an issue with adjacent property owners. With the leaves gone, storage locations that are nearly in\ isiblc in the summer may be in full view all winter. The color of the canvas, tarp or shrink wrap, the height of the boat, its pro.ximity to neighbor's windows and views, all factor in to whether a storage situation is acceptable to adjoining property owners. The ordinance does not clearly indicate what is meant by “fully screened so us not to be visible from adjoining properties". Is covering a boat with a tarp cons^lered as “fully screened**? The general .screening Standards of Section 10.60. Subd. 11-12. would appear to be inelTective in providing adequate screening for most boaLs. since only a 4-5* fence is required. Screening a boat by placing it in an accessviry building is a rare option, given that such buildings on lakeshore lots constitute hardcover and count against structural coverage. Storing boats over 20’ long in garages meant for cars also is usually not an option due to the height of such btiats. Summer boat storage has generally been less of a concern than w inter storage. A trailerable boat stored in the driveway from May to September is more common for non-lakeshore lots than lakeshore lots. Long-term storage of boats during spring^summerTall seasons on lawn areas could be a hardcov er issue. Planner W'endy Uottenberg has reviewed other cities* ordinances regarding exterior storage, summarized in Exhibit C. Most include boats within the definition of recreational vehicles or similar equipment. Orono*s regulations regarding storage of recreational vehicles appear in Section 9.52 (see Exhibit D). - Of^77M-^L — Boat Storage July 5.2001 Page 3 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Provide stair with direction os to whether the planning Commission should proceed with an amendment to the ordinances pertaining to boat storage. P/3AT" A<®€TL (,^T*cpfs i/[rnaU‘fi.pT»ru>t^ M HReauwa^te. YA^s A ftwtJT T 1 lx X 1 VI t '\ /V / 1 VI 1?/ \ 1 V le d,TY on dOfAtJT^ (iX>^ ......rr'^t^rt-—» ALLOWED BOAT STORAGE LOCATIONS Based on Current Orono Ordinances Notes 1.For a lakcshorc lot, the yard adjacent to the street is denned by the zoning code as the "rear yard", and the yard abutting the lakcshorc is the "lakcshorc yard". l4ikcshorc lots technically do not have a "front yard", although the lakcshorc yard is sometimes called the front yard. Therefore, boat storage "to the rear of the house" b considered to be wthin the area between the house and the street. For a comer lot, by dcHnition the lot line with the shorter frontage along the street is the "front" lot line (or in the case of a lakcshorc comer lot, the "rear"). The longer frontage is considered as the "side street" lot line. Absent any clear direction in the code, staff has suggested that in order to be located "to the rear of the house" on a comer lot, a boat must be stored no closer to the side street than the line of the house along the side street It could be argued, however, that only 10* from the side street lot line should be required for a lakeshore lot, since a boat could be stored only 10* from the "rear" (or "street") lot line. 0/wr A^z."(CtT>VMA«*^. VAtf^kC** fcT* Al l (IU>:i> IM)AT STOKA<;i; UK ATIONS iUtrA Ml C'Brrral UrMM UtAMUMn Note* Tor a ULnlmit lot. ikr pH H)arcm to tke itnd It AtfinH l>y it« mont cikIc at liw *irai )ai(l*, and the )aH abullin| the bictttorc It the 'UAcikiirt ytod* Lakniiarc lou Mtaiicaily do iM ka«« a ‘front yaH*. alitiott(h the Ukrttwre ywJ it tonittitiies catkd the front yard Thcfrfotc. bcMl itonfc ‘to dM teat of the houta* it eonttdered to be within the area 2 Fotacaraetlo(.bydcflnilioothelo(linc with the thortet fttMUce along the ttrcct it the ‘front* lot Imc (m in the cate of a Uirihorc comer kn, the‘rear*) The longer hontage it coniiJeiH at the *iide ttrcct* lot Imc Abtmt any clear dirtcunn in the code. lUlT hat tuggctlrd that to older to he located *to the rear of the hoctc* on a comer kx. a boat matt be ttoted no ckraer to the tide itrtet than the line of the botite akay the ude ttrcct It could be ergned. boweter, tkM only Iff from the tide ttrcct lot line ihould be minted for • lakcthote lottuKcaboalcauldbcHarHtmly Iff from the ‘rear* (or ‘ttrcct*) kn line I iCM IT imrTt* where: § 10.60 Subd. 7. Vibration. Any use creating periodic earth-shaking vibrations, such as may be created from a drop forge shall be prohibited if such vibrations are perceptible beyond the lot line of the site on which the use is located. The standard shall not apply to vibrations created during the process of construction. Subd. 8. Glare or Heat Any use requiring an operation producing an intent heat or light transmission shall be performed with the necessary shielding to prevent such heat or light from being delectable at the lot line of the site on which the use is located. Lighting in all instances shall be diffused or directed away from "R" Districts and public streets. Subd. 9. Explosives. Any use requiring the storage, utilization or manufacturing of products which could decompose by detonation shall be located not less than 400 feel from any R District line. Subd. 10. Screening Required. Screening shall be required in residential zones A. Any ofif-strect parking area which contains more than four parking spaces and is within 30 feet of an adjoining residential lot line, and, B. Where the driveway to a parking area of more than six parking spaces is within 1 5 feet of an adjoining residential lot line. ^ Subd. 11. Screening. T>T>e of. The screening required herein sliall consist of a solid ^ fence or wall at least 5W'o open, not less than four feel nor more than five feel in height but shall not e.v.end within 1 5 feet of any street or driveway opening onto a street. The screening shdl be placed along the property lines or in case of screening along a street, 15 feet from the street right- of-way with landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass and other planting) between the screening and the pavemeoL A louvered fence shall be considered solid if it blocks direct vision. Planting of a type approved by the Plaxming Commission may also be required in additiori to, or in lieu of, fencing. ^ Subd. 12. Maintenance. In all districts, all structures, required landscaping and fences shall be maintained so as not to be unsightly or present harmful health or safely conditions. ^ Subd. 13. Exterior Storage in "R" Districts. In all "R" Districts, all mobile materials ^ and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except boats and imoccupied trailers less than 20 feet in length, which arc not stored for commercial purposes, if stored to the rear of the house and a distance of 10 feel or more from any property line. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC (4-1-84) c TO:Mike GalTron, Planning Director FROM;Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:July 5,2001 SUBJECT:Boat storage In reviewing Orono*s boat storage ordinance, eleven cities were contacted regarding tlieir boat storage ordinances. The cities all have lokeshore or lakes within their city limits and varied in population size. The information collected from each city was reviewed and compiled in the attached table. CITY BOAT STORAGE MAXIMUM ORDINANCE LENGTH SETBACKS COMMENTS Bloomington yes 20 feet Side yard/rear yard • 5'Hard surface required. 2 ttoats allowed Front yard-not more than d’ In front of plane of front wall of dweUing. If in front must be in driveway or side yard adj to drivevray. Chanliassen yes None Side yard/rear yard -10*Hard surface not required. Deephaven no No exterior storage ordinance* nuisance o.'d. Edina yes Nono Rear yard* 25* Not in required front or side street Hard surface required. Excelsior yes None In rear yard Lima of three Hems stored: includes boats. RVs. ice house, campers, snowmobiles. Mahlomedi yes 25 feet rear yard Subject to setbacks for accessory bldgs. Maple Grove yes None Not in fronlyard Not more than 2 rec vehicles stored In yard, exempt from paved storage area. Mound yes None Side yard/rear yard • 5*1 vehicle per each 1500 s f of lot area to maximum 7 vehicles. Orono yes 20 feet R’ ar yard • 10*Hard surface not addressed. Shorewood no Exterior storage ordinance* does not specifically address boats • Tonlu. Bay no Exterior storage ordinance-does not «M»HrieiiUv vddress boats SBC. 9.52. PROHIBITED USE AND PARKING OP MOBILE HOMES AND RECREATIONAL CAMPING VEHICLES. Subd. 1. Definitions. The terms "mobile home" and "recreational camping vehicle" shall mean and Include the following definitions, and shall not Include any manufactured housing unit bearing a State of Minnesota Manufactured Housing seal or certificate. A. "Travel Trailer" - A vehicular, portable structure built on a chassis, designed to be used as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational, and vacation uses, permanently Identified "Travel Trailer" by the manufacturer of the trailer. B. "Pick-up Coach" - A structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis for use as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreation and vacation. C. "Motor Home" - A portable, temporary dwelling to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, constructed as an Integral part of a self-propelled vehicle. D. "Camping Trailer" - A folding structure, mounted on wheels and designed for travel, recreation and vacation uses. Subd. 2. Unlawful Acts. A. It Is unlawful for any person to park a mobile home or recreational camping vehicle upon public property for human habitation, except In a licensed mobile home park or City-owned campground. B. It Is unlawful for any person to park or store a mobile home or recreational vehicle In any "Residence District" for more than twenty-four hours, except In a side or rear yard at least ten feet from any property line. C. It Is unlawful to use a mobile home or recrea tional camping vehicle for human habitation on any private property for more than seventy-two hours without a permit from the City. 75. '*Use-Principar • The main use of land or buildings as distinguished from subordinate or accessory uses. A "principal use” may be either permitted or conditional. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 76. "Yard" - A required open space on a lot, which is unoccupied and unobstructed by a structure from its lowest ground level to the sky except as expressly permitted in the Zoning Chapter. A yard shall extend along a lot line and at right angles to such lot line to a depth or width specified in the yard regulations for the district in which such lot is located. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 76(a). "Yard Requirements" - Those requirements which relate exclusively to the size of yard areas when such are required within specific zoning districts. Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 77. "Yard, Front" - A yard extending across the front of a lot between the side yard lines and lying between the front street line of the lot and the required front yard setback line, which front yard shall be provided on both street frontages of comer lots and double frontage lots. A lakeshore lot shall not be considered as having a front yard, but rather shall be considered as having a lakeshore yard on one side of the building and a rear yard on the other side of the building. 78. "Yard, Lakeshore" - A yard lying between the natural ordinary highwater mark on the lakeshore and the required lakeshore setback line, for the full width of the lot. 79. "Yard, Rear" - A yard lying between the required rear yard setback line and rear line of the lot, for the full width of the lot. On a lakeshore lot, the rear yard shall be the yard which fronts on the street lying between the street line of the lot and the required rear yard setback line. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 80. "Yard-Side" - A yard extending along the side lot line between the front and rear yards, having a width as specified in the yard regulations for the district in which such lot is located. 81. "Yard-Side Street" - A side yard abutting a side street. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONOCC 250-3 . (4-1-84) . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday, May 21.2001 ROLL The Oruno Planning Cominissiun met on ihe above dale with the following memlKrs present: Acting Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners Janice Berg. William Stoddard, and Daniel Klulh. Commissioners Jeanne Mahiisth, nii/abeth Hawn, and Date Lindquist were absent. The following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator Wendy Uottenberg. 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 («l) »2W6 <;ARY AND SUS.VN CABLE. 3532 IVY PL.\CE, % ARIANCES. 6:37 p.m. - 7:04 p.m. Gary and Susan Cable. Applicants, were present Weinberger stated this application was rev iewed and tabled at Ihe November 20.2000 Planning Commission meeting, fhe Applicants are requesting a variance to the requirement that an accessvsry building can remain on the property without a principal building. 1 he accessory building in this case is an ice house kK'aicd near the lakeshore. A variance is also required to allow hardcover in excess of Ihe 25 percent limit in the 75*250' setback. WcinlK*rger staled the principal building was a*inoved to allow construction of a new house. The property owners were issued a building permit with the understanding they wtuild agree to uphold the decision by the City regarding the future use of the ice house. A Temporary Ccrtiricate of Occupancy was approved on April 10, 2001 . A condition of approval was the ice house must bt removed or gel City approval, by variance, to allow the ice house to remain on the property within O') days of Ihe Tempi>rary Certificate of Occup:incy »>r a final Certificate of Occupancy could not be issued and the house not occupied Weinberger staled Ihe permtiied hardcover m the 75*250' setback is 25 percent of the area, with Ihe hardcover in the 0-75' setback being deducted from what is allowed in the 75-250' setback. lire 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. That arrangement eliminated the need for a variance that they had requested in the pas'.. The City then issued the building permit to the Applicants because they were under the 25 percent hardcover limit. Weinberger staled when Ihe 96 square feet of structural cov erage for the ice house is included in Ihe hardcover calculations, they are in excess of the 25 percent allowed by 50 square feet. The Planning Commission at its November. 2000 meeting had requested that if the Applicants choose to keep Ihe ice house on the property , they would need to appear before the Planning Commission, with Ihe adv ice that the City docs not approve replacement of foundations fur structures located within Ihe 0-75* setback. Tlic Applicants were also advised that if they wished to increase the amount of hardcover on the properly, they would need to remove the ice house. 1lie decision on how to use the 25 percent hardcov er was leR up to the discretion of the Applicants following the Nov ember meeting. PAGE 1 MINUTES OFTIIE ORONO PLANNING COM>IISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (W2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABI.E, CONTINUED) Weinberger stated the issues fur discussion by the Planning Coininissioti this evening are related to the variances which 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 stated if those items were to be added in the future, they would cause the existing hardcov er 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 this property to accommodate an expanded driveway and/or a sidewalk to the front dtxir Cable indicated they have removed a fia*place 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 hardcover. Smith inquired what the Applicants’ plans are relating to the ice house, the tack of a sidewalk, and the lack of a paved access to third garage stall. Smith statc*d 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 prtKcss. Cable stated if they had located the house closer to the road, it would have required the remov al 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 liardcover in that it di>cs 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 iiiieniion 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 V iew 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 would 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 hardcover. PAGE 2 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21.2001 («2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, CONTINUED) Smith inquired whether the Applicants would be willing 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 lime they built the house. Berg indicated the need for a sidewalk and pa\cd access to the third stall was discussed at the November Planning Commission meeting. Derg 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 witliout allowing for a sidewalk and additional driveway to the third stall. Weinberger stated that issue had been discussed at the time the Applicants applied for the building pennit. but since this site plan did meet all the a’quirements of the City, the building permit was issued. GalTron stated in quite a number of instances Applicants will approach tlie City with site plans that arc in e.xcess of the allowable hardcover, with Stall'working with the Applicants in order to reduce the amount of hardcover and structural coverage being propivsed 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 lime they applied for the building permit, (iaffron 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 staled since this application did not reappear before the Planning Commission, he had assumed the Applicants had taken steps to address the issue of the sidew alk and access to the garage Cable stated at the time they appeared before tlic Planning Commission, the building permit had already been issued Stoddard stated the function of the Planning Commission is to help insure that the site plans arc in compliance with the City's ordinances. Sunldard staled 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 hardcov er somehow and prov ide 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 without the ice house. Weinberger stated the Applicants could prov ide a paver Slone system for a from sidewalk rather than a full sidewalk. PACE 3 Stoddard noted the Applicants arc entitled to another 12 square feet because of the removal of the rircpiacc. which would bring it to 58 square feet. Stixidard commented that is one option the Applicants could consider. There were no public comments. Stoddard stated he would be willing to allow the ice house and have the Applicants provide some t>pe of sidewalk to the front door. Stoddard stated he would be against any type of vehicular access to the third garage stall. Smith stated that means no mulch, no paver stones, no fabric would be allowed relating to the third garage stall. Smith reiterated that once that area is driven over, tlic soil then starts to act as 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 are somewhat tied since the Applicants have procc'cdcd to construct a house to the maximum hardcover allowed and then in his view will later come in and request variances for items that probably should have been included in the original site plan. Mrs. Cable stated at the time thev purchased this properiv and began this process, they were somewhat ignorant of Orono's rules and regulations regarding hardcover and structural coverage. At the time they purchased the property, the ice house was one of the attracting features of the property. Mrs. Cable stated they did not deliberate!) attempt to manipulate the svstem 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 thev have constructed a house up to the maximum hardcover and structural coverage allowed and then later request additional hardcover. Smith stated all Applicants should pros idc for reasonable amenities in their site plans, such as sidewalks and drivewavs. because chances are, in the future, those will be added. Cable commented the house that was removed was considcrobl) in excess of the hardcover and structural limits and in place thev have constructed a house th.it is in compliance with the hardcover limits. Cable stated they did not delibcratclv trv to manipulate the svstem Stoddard stated tvpicallv 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. Gaffron slated one option would be to ask the Applicants to place a covenant on the property restricting additional hardcover, which would e.xplain to this property owner and future property PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday. May 21.2001 (W2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE. CONTINUED) owners whai can and cannot happen on this proper!) with respect to hardcover and structural coverage. Smith commented she is m favor of a covenant. Weinberger stated if the ice house is to remain, a variance would need to be granted Stoddard stated it was his understanding they were under the hardcover limit bv 58 square feel. Weinberger staled that is without the ice house being included With the ice house Ihcv would be 50 square feel over, which would require a variance. Klulh staled if the ice house renuins. ihev would not he allowed to construct a sidewalk or driveway to the third stall. Stoddard inquired what steps the Applicants have taken to reduce hard cover since the November meeting. Cable staled 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 thivughl the Applicants were under the 25 percent limit with the ice house. Kluth slated this application was tabled in November to allow the Applicants lime 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. Klulh moved In o recommend denial of Application «26J6. <iary and Susan Cable, 35J2 Ivy Place, for a hardcov er variance and variance lo allow an accessory structure located in the 0>75* setback to remain on the property. Kluth stated the application was tabled in order to give the Applicants time to reduce the hardcover in order to keep the ice house, which have not been done, and by constructing a residence without a sidewalk and driveway access to the third stall of the garage was simply delaying a request for additional hardcover into the future. Kluth staled in his opinion protective covenants have only limited value since it only puts the next property owner on alert to what is or is not allowed on the property, with the City luving 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. PAGE 5 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI^ANNINC COMMISSION Monday, May 21.2001 (M26J6 OAKY AND Sl'SAN CAIII.E, CONTINUED) Smith noted the Applicants arc 38 square Icct over with the ice house, but bek a sidewalk to the front of the house and drivewav .access to the third stall of the garage. Smith inquired whether they would like to table it or have the Planning Commission viMe on the m«>tion that has been made dcn\ ing the application. Cable indicated he would like the IManning Co. n>n to vote on the application Smith seconded the above motion. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4. Nays 0. (ff2) MOI-2668 MAM.EY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. I97J FAIIFRNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES. 7:05 p.m. - 7:18 p.m. Curt Manley. Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated this is a three-part application, with the Applicants requesting an after-the-fact conditional use pennit and variances to pemiit construction of two retaining walls within 75 feet of the lakeshorc. a variance to permit two dormer window additions within 75 feet of the bkeshore and within the average bkeshore setback, and a request to rcpkice a deck and three fiH»t hand railing around a detached garage. Weinberger stated the retaining walls were constructed approMinatelv one year ag»> to help stabilize the lakeside of the nrsidence and to impnne the walkout area. Weinberger stated the City is unable to verify that there retaining walls in that area prev ious to the construction of the new ones Weinberger stated it is possible sv»me very low level K>ulder walls may have existed in this area which were completely covered by vegetation and do not appear in the City 's photographs A prev ious variance application in 1998. which included a survey, did not depict retaining walls in that portion of the property . I he City also does not luve any diKumentation showing when the original retaining walls were constructed. 1 he second part of the application is a request to allow the construction of two dormer window additions within 75 feet of the bkesliore and within the average lakeshore setback. A variance is required because the donner windows would be an expansion of the building within a required setback. The 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 Ihe two adjacent residences The third part of the request is to pennit replacement of the deck and a thrce-fiH*i hand railing that is liKated on top of the detached garage. Weinberge- indicated there was an original deck located on the garage depicted in a photograph taken in 1998. along with a hand railing, fhe original deck was removed from the lop of the garage s»» the rensf could be replaced Ihe Applicant is proposing to replace the deck and railing in a similar style to what had been there prev iously. Weinberger recommended the Planning Commission consider the retaining walls separate from the other requests. PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday. May 21.2001 (<W)l-266« MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. CONTINUED) Weinberger staled in the earl) l*>8lh. the Council had approved a variance which allowed the garage to be refurbished in its existing hKaliiMv Two of the condiliinis the Council had placed on that approval was that the garage be reduced in si/e and cut back to meet a two foot setback to the street and to be rebuilt with a Hat roof so as to not block the view of the lake from the neighboring residence. W'einbcrgcr noted this property has double frontage on the lake. The railing is required for safelv reasons since access to the roof of the garage is not restricted. City SlatT is recommending approval of the variances to pennit the two dormer window addition and conslniclion ol the replacement deck over the detached deck. Weinberger mned this residence was consimcted prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinances. W'cinbcrger stated the addition of the two dormer windows wmild not change the character or use of the properly. City Staff is recommending tabling the request for the conditional use permit and variances for the retaining wall and would a'quest that the survey be updated to include revised hardcover calculations for the d-75’ setback. Manlev commented construction of the two dormer windows would not increase the building envelope and would allow them to do some re-enforcement 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 nx»f and that a railing is required for vifetv reasons since the nxsf of the garage can be accessed from the ground Manlev noted the si/e of the deck is being reduced somewhat. Manlev stated he is in (xissession 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 l-agerness Point Road, commented he is in favor of the plan being propi>sed, Stoddard moved, second by Kluth. to recommend approval of Application itOI>266M, Manley Brothers Con.ilrurtiun, 197J Eagerness Point Road, granting of v ariances 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 fur n conditional use permit and after-the-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 \Vc‘'fbergcr slated there is an issue with hardcover relating to the retaining walls. Weinberger stated StaiTwould like to review the area in an elTort to determine whxu had e.xisicd previously. PAGE? MIMTFS OF THE ORONO PEANMNd COMMISSION Monifay, May 21,2001 («01-2668 MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, CONTINITD) Smith inquired \%hethcr the interlocking retaining ruck tltat ho!t been utilized to construct the new rciainiiig walls is ncccpiahic. Weinberger staled typically SialT would request that an engineer reviess what is there in order to determine what is necessary. \\ einberger stated since it is an afler-the-ract variance. Stall'will need to Imd out what the recommcndalion of the engineer is for wh.il exists IihLiv. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MO I ION: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (»3) MH-2671 ALISTAIR AND KRISTIN JAC'Ol'ES. 645 OLD LONC LAKE ROAD, VARIANCES, 7:19 p.m. - 7:19 p.ni. Smith moved, second by Ikr|>, to table Application ttOI-267|, Alistair and Kristin Jacques, 645 Old l^ong laike Road, at the request of the Applicants. VOTE: Ay es 4. Nays 0. (M) ttOl-2667 NORTH SHORE MARINA. 3222 NORTH SHORE DRIVE. CONDITIONAL USE I’ERMir, 7:20 p.m. - 7:20 p.m. Smith moved, second by Kluth. to table Application tf0t«2667. North Shore Marina. 3222 North Shore Drive, at the request of the Applicants, and to extend the application review' period to August 5.2001. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS («5) «0l-2674 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLLVN, 1420 SHORELINE DRnX VARLANCE RENEWAL. 7:21 p.m. - 7:26 p.m. Gary Peterson and Dennis Killian. Applicant, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and AfTidav it of Publication were noted \\ einberger slated the Applicants are requesting renewal of a blufl setback variance. I he 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 expired. The v.in.inces approved in 1999 permitted a 20 foot encroachment on the top of bluff setback. Weinberger staled this property is liK'ated along County Road 15 and Tanager l.ake. with double lake frontage. Weinberger slated the bluff setback variance was approved with the four conditions contained in his May 4. 2001 Planner’s Report. Weinberger stated the property has not been altered and conditions on the property have not changed since variance approv al in 1999. PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MoBday.May2l.200l (MOl-2674 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN. CONTINUED) Sta'f recommends approval of the renewal wilh the conditions contained in the resolution approving the variance in 1999, including rcmoval/relocation of the garage and hardcover outside of the 75* lokcshore setback. Killian stated he has nothing to add to SlafTs report. There were no public comments relating to this application. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant was the new owner of the 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 vv ith the condition that this variance be renewed. Kluth moved, second by Berg, to recommend approval of Application Mtil-2674, Dennis and Diane Killian, 1420 Shoreline Dri't, granting of a variance renewal to bluff setback subject to the conditions as approved by the Orono City Council in Resolution No. 2516. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Stoddard suggested the City Council consider allowing variance appanals to be giHxl for two years rather ;!ian one year. GalTron staled there is no statute limiting the eflcctive life of a variance to one year and that it could be extended to two years. Oaflron commented another option would be to have the variances automatically be renewed once or twice before it iK'cds to come back before the Planning Commission. Stoddard suggested this item be placed on the agenda for the next work session. (hb) dOl-2675 DO.NNA LILE, 2765 ETHEL AN EM E, VARLVNCE, 7:26 p.m. - 7;J0 p.m. Donna Idle. Applicant, was present. The Certiftcatc of Mailing and AfTidav ii of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to replace a deteriorating porch and odd a gabled dormer above it. The porch has deteriorate over the years and has become a safety hazard. The dormer is to be added abiwe the porch and provide cover from inclement weather. Ilte donner is dc*corative and will not add additional living space to the residence. PAGE 9 MfNltTES OF THF ORONO PLANNINO COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (WOI-2674 DKNNIS AM) DIANE KILI.IAN.CONTINtKD) Boltcnbcrg slated a side yard adjacent» street \ariance is required to permit the roofline to he 13.4 feet rrorn the street where 15 feel is required. Boitenherg noted structural lot coveraue would not increase svith the nxsflinc expansion. City StafT rec»>inmends approval of the application. t.ile had nothing to add to Stall's report. Tlicre were no public comments regarding this application Smith moved, second by Derg, to recommend approval of Application *01-2675, Donna Lite, 2765 Ethel Avenue, granting of a side yard adjacent to street variance to permit the ro4>f line to be IJ.4 fret from the street where a 15 foot setback is required. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (r7) *01.2678 KRISTI ROESI.ER, 1169 ELMWOOD AVENUE, VARIANCES. 7:30-8:03 p.m. Kristi Ri*eslcr. Applicant, was present The Ccnificalc of Mailing and AlTidavit of Publication were noted nottenberg stated this is n two-part application. Tlie Applicant owns two properties UKated at 1169 North Arm Drive, which is an oO thc lake parcel with a residence, and Lot 7. HliKk I of Sharp and Lindquist's Geniliill. I Jike Minnetonka” addition, which is a vacant lot consisting of 50 feet oflakcshorc. liottenberg stated the two parcels have not been legally combined and arc separated by the Elmwinxl Avenue right-of-way and are offset by approximately 100 feet The Applicant purchased the properties approximately two years ago and has since learned that a d<Kk is not allowed on the lake lot because tiKre is not a principal structure on the lot. Bottenberg stated the first pan of the application is to rev iew variances b^r lot arca'widlh regarding the lake lot to permit future residential construction. The lot is approximately I l.lOO square feel or .255 acres where the minimum lot area requirement is one acre, and approximately 50 feet wide where 140 feet is the minimum lot width required for the I R-IB zoning district. Pan two of the application is a request for a v ariance to permit a lot combination of a propeny not adjacent to the building lot for lake'dock use Ihe two propenies are separated by blmvviHxl Avenue The Applicant is requesting the ability to have lake access'dvwk via Lot 7. which is not combined with 1169 Nonh Arm Drive The lot does not hav ' •« principal structure. Bottenberg indicated a structure could be constructed on the propeny through 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 PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MoDday, May 21.2001 (M0I.2675 DONNA LILE.CONTINUED) Bulicnbcrg staled the lakcshorc lot has been vacant for main \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 diKkage and lake access by the owner. The lot docs not tu\e a principal residence, so such dockage is technically a violation of City Code prohibiting accessory structures w ithout a principal structure. Doltcnberg indicated the lot abuts undeveloped Elmwood Avenue. A City sewer lit) station is blocking the right-of-vsay on the south end. Access to this lot for building purposes would require an casement from an adjacent property owner Tlic 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 Bottenberg stated when the lot anra\\idth variance application was reviewed in 1971, hardship was discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council. A finding for hardship for development of vacant lots would include no adjacent vacant land is available for development. This is not the cose 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 StalT is recommending denial of the variances for lot area and lot width on part one of the application, and is recommending a diKk be permitted without a primary structure by means of a special lot combination agreement. John W aldron. .Attorney-at-Lavs, reviewed Stall's report, noting tliat the paved street ends in the approximate liKation where this property begins, with an existing driveway to the property . The lift station is located very close to the adjoining property owner's neighbor and apparently straddles the two property lines. W'aldron stated in his view the lit) station is really not an issue in detennining access to this lot and vsoulu not 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 unbuildabic or buildable. In I97|. when there was an application made by a previous owner, the lot was then declared unbuildabic anu it was determined the owner did not have to pay the sewer assessment. W’aldron stated this property has been a lot of record since 1933. and was a Tivrrens pn^pcily originally registered in 1933. Waldron indicated the prev ious propeny owner made a similar application to Roesler's application requesting variances to lot area and width, which was denied Waldron stated one of the reasons that application was denied was the fact that there was an adjoining lot which could 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 approved the lot arcalot 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 stated in his view there are really no difTcrences between that application that was approved and tonight's application. Waldron stated Exhibit C is the best record available tliat demonstrates what happened in that application, which notes that the zoning requirements are one acre PAGE II MINLTFS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday. May 21,2001 (lfOl.2075 DONNA LILE.CONTINIT.D) and 140 fool width. Waldron stated those zoning requirements still exist today according to StalTs report. Discussion was also held on the matter of “single separate ownership”, and it was indicated had the property been standing alone and not been adjacent to another property having the same ownership, it would be considered single separate ownership, which was the case w ith the neighbtsring lot. Waldron stated Mrs. Koesler dises not own a lot adjacent to the lot she owns on the lake and has single separate ownership as the lot that was granted appmval of the variances previousl). Waldron stated in his opinion there is no basis for distinguishing those two prx^perties and that this application should be approved as 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 actualK slightK smaller than the subject lot. Bottenberg staled at the time the approval was gran*«.xl. the lot was 50 feet by 190 feet. Waldron stated if a structure w^s pennitted to be built on this property, the ncigliborhsvHi unifonnity would remain the same. In terms of a hardship, aside fnmt the fact that this application does not dilTer from the application that was approved, if a building is not allowed to be placed on the lot. Waldron indicated the property owner is being depriv ed of all practical use of that propertv. Waldron noted the Applicant at the present time is not even a. le to place a dock on that propertv. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicant's ultimate objective is to place a dock on the lakcshore lot. Roeslcr stated at the time she purchased the propertv. she had intended to construct a residence, and was not aware that the lot had been declared unbuildable. Smith inquired whether the Applicant's intentions were to construct a house on the lake lot. Roeslcr stated that it was. Smith commented she is little confused why the other lot was approved at the tint... mid inquired whether Staff has any additional information regarding that application. Gaffron stated that application was approved approximately 28 or 29 ve.irs ago and the records in the City’s possession at this lime give very little indication what the rationale was for the approval. Gaffron stated City StalT could do an analysis of similar sized lots which were approved or denied. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission were to approve this application, his recommendation woald be to only allow the standard hardcover and require that the residence meet all the applicable setbacks. GafTron recommended this application be tabled if the Planning Commission is headed PAGE 12 MLNUTES OF TIIE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday. May 21,2001 (MI-2675 DON-NA LILE, CONTINUED) towards the direction of approving this application in order to allow the Applicant to submit a site plan demonstrating how they plan to meet tiie setback and hardcover standards. Smith inquired whether it would be helpful to have an anal>'sis done of other similar lots for applieations in the future. Caffron slated most lots of this si/c currently have a house erected on the property or have been considered unbuildable for years. GafTron stated the Planning Commission could sec similar lots in the future w hen those property owners come before the City requesting to rebuild on the property. Stoddard stated 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 dock for the lakeshorc lot. Kluth inquired how a prospective buyer might become awnre that the lot has been deemed unbuildable. Kluth noted that decision by the Council is not Piled with the County. Gaffron stated prior to the early 1980s. the City Council did not Pile variance approvals or denials. Since that time the City has Piled them on the chain on title. The property owner could Pind out that information by asking the City to review that Pile. Smith inquired how many lots that have been deemed unbuildable the City has approved in the past w ith no icwer Gaffron stated it is understanding because there was no house on the propcrlv, there was no unit charge assessed or the plant charge. Gaffron 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 SO fool frontage. GalTron stated if the lot area and lot width variances were approved, the Applicant would owe the upilaied unit and plant charge. Smith inquired if a small cabin had e.xisted on this lot at the time sewer was installed in this area, how that property would lutve been treated. Gaffron stated they wt)uld have been assessed the 50 feet that they were assessed along with a unit charge and a plant charge. Stoddard inquired whether there is a dixk currently on the lakeshore lot Roesler stated the dock is not legal. Roesler staled her main purpose • purchasing the property was to construct a residence on the lot. Stoddard inquired if the Pirst part of the application were tabled and the second part approv ed, whether the Applicant would have an opportunity to discuss the Pirst part of the application with the City Council. Stoddard commented he would like to get the input of the City Council on the first part of this application. PAGE 11 i MINITES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (#01-2675 DONNA LILK.CONTINl'FD) Weinberger stated he uould prefer the Planning Commission make a recommendation on both parts of this application rather than tabling one part of it. Stoddard a*itcrated he would be willing to approve the second part of the application but that he would prefer to get some input from the Cii> Council on the first part before acting on it. SiixJdard staled he would 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 staled both options would be presented to the Council. Klulh commented the Planning Commission has only been presented with one example of what might be a similar situation, with SialT indicating that there might be other c.xamples that exist on both sides over the years regarding other similar pn>perties. Kluth stated in his v iew the Planning Commission should look at this applicalim in today's terms and lix>k at recent precedent and how the City Council would deal w ith this. Smith staled if part one of the application were approv ed. the Applicant would be kH'king ut s«nnc very severe restrictions on what could be constructed on the property due to the small size of the lot. Klulh inquired if this property were deemed to be buildable, whether they would be retroactively assessed llte sewer charge. GalTron slated lliey would be. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to table part one of the application or have the Planning Commission act on Ksth parts tonight. Stixldard noted he probably would not be in support of approving part one at this lime. Stoddard stated if part one was tabled, that may allow the .Applicant time to conduct further research to determine whether other similar applications have Iven approved in the p,nst. Koesicr slated sne would like tlic Planning Commission to act on both ports of her application toniglit. Berg stated if the two lots were combined, the Applicant would not be able *o build on the lakeshore lot. Berg slated 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 s*imc years ago Stoddard noted Orono's Comprehensive Plan has changed over those 28 years. W'aldron stated he understands it is the City 's desire not to have residences constructed on these 50 fool lots, but the point that the Applicant is making is that this application cannot be looked at in isohition 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 os that situation w hich existed a number of years. Waldron staled they would like the City to explain how they differ. PAGE 14 MINI TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 («0I-2675 DONNA LILE. CONTINUED) Derg staled sewered lots are treated dilTcrenily than unsewered lots. Uerg staled she needs to deal with the presetu and not what liappencd twenty some \«*ars ago. Smith stated it is her feeling from the discussion so far that part one of the application probably would not be approved but tiuit part two might be approved. Smith stated the Applicant still has the option to table the application or a portion of it if she would like to do s«i. Roesler stated she would like the Planning Commission to vote on both parts of the application. Smith moved to recommend approval of Part One of Application #01-2678. Kristi Roesler. 1169 Elmwood Avenue, grantine of variances to lot arra/width to permit faturr residential construction. ^MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Kluth moved, second by Stoddard, to recommend denial of Part One of Application #01-2678, Kristi Roesler, 1169 Elmwood Avenue, and not grant variances to lot area/width to permit future residential construction. \'OTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Stoddard moved, second by Klutb. to recommend approval of Part Two of Application #01-2678, Kristi Roesler. 1169 Elmwood Avenue, grunting 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. (»H) wOI-2679 SIIARRATI AM) MACDONALD DESKiN CO.MPANY ON HEIIALK OF 450 AND 480 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 8:04 p.r,. - 8:30 p.m. Michael NUvre and Jeff Sweil/cr appeared on behalf of Sharratl and MacDonald Design Company. The Cenificaie of Mailing and AfTidav it of Publication were mvtcd Boltenberg staled the .Applicants have filed a conditional use pcnnil application for a **guesl house**. The lot is approvimaielv 14,73 acres and currently has two residences on the property. The principal residence and bam are addressed as 450 Urono Orchard Road and the c.xisting caretaker house and detached garage are addressed as 480 Urono Orchard Road. The two properties were legally combined in the late 1970s with the dilTerenl addresses remaining. Staffs msearch 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. The Applicants are proptwing to demolish the existing caret.ikcr house and garage and construct a new guest house. I he new guest house will be located where the garage is currently hKatcd. City Cixle allows guest houses as a conditional use permit. A guest house is defined as a "separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided 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 PACE 15 MINUTES OF THE. ORONO PLANNING CO^nilSSION Moaday, May 21.2001 (MM-2679 SIIARKATT AND MACDONALD DESIGN COMPANY. CONTINUED) and occupied h> person!* who would otherwise be expected to li\e in the primary residence on tlie property. The guest house cannot be used for a home iKcupation Bottenberg staled over 13 acres of the 14.73 acres arc considered to be dry buildable 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. The property dtKS meet the minimum area and w idth requirements for a guest house Bottenberg 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 acccssiiry structure. An oversized accessory structure is defined as an accessory structure of fiHMprint area in excess of 1.000 square feet Only one oversized accessory structure is allowed on 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 arc both acccss<iry stmetures; however, the intent of the guest house is to be a separate dwelling on the property for people to reside. Bottenberg noted a new on-site sewage treatment system was installed on the property in October. 2000. Tlie treatment system is sized for eight K'drinmis Flic main residence has five bedrooms, leav ing three for the guest house. The proposed guest house is two bedrooms. An alternate Kvalion wilt need to be IvKated on the property per a letter provided by the treatment system installers. City Staff recommends approval of the requests subject to the property owner filing a restrictive covenant in the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest lumse to iKcupants of the principal stnictiire and their non-paying guests or domestic employees, and that the guest house not be used for a home iKCupation. Stoddard inquired why a second variance is required for the guest house if the proposed guest house is 1.500 sv|uare feet and the bant is 2.000 square feet. Stoddard noted they have a maximum of 6.000 square feel allowed Weinberger slated they are only allowed one oversized accessory structure on the property. Bottenberg staled K»lh structures arc considered to be acccssv>ry structures and K>th arc oversized GalTron slated they arc allowed one oversized accessi>ry structure, with the 2.000 square fool bam being oversized, and any other accessory structures on the property need to be 1.000 square feel or less. Gaffror laled the guest house is 1.500 square feet. Sweitzer slated they have nothing additional to odd to StalFs 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 staled there art* presently nine dogs which are being trained PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (#01-2679 SIIAKR/\TT AND MACDONALD DESIGN COMPANY. CONTINUED) and raised on the property. Osborn commcnied these dogs have gotten out from lime to time due to the lack of fencing. Osborn inquired .vhen 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 stated they have discussed the issue with the dogs before with the City Council and that is not on the agenda tonight. Osborn inquired hovs long the property would be unlenced OsK>rn stated she has safety concerns regarding the dogs. Smith stated the resident would like to know whether any additional fencing would be enreted in the future. Moore stated they are anticipating the main residence will be completed in August, with the site plan shoss ing proposed fencing and bemis w ith trees along the sshole front of Uie property Mikuc stated following completion of the project, the residence and guest house will not be visible from the street. MiH>re slated that fencing and trees would continue along Dickenwm Street. Smith suggested they discuss this lurther with the neighKir following tonight’s meeting. Smith inquired whether the .Applicant had considered mos ing the guest house further back tt» be in line with the principal residence Sweit/cr staled they Itase not considered that possibility. Stoddard stated if the guest house were relocated, a variance may m>t be needed. Sweit/er stated they could look at that option. Sweil/er staled the current driveway works well as far as drainage. Gaffron pointed out the guest house would need to be moved appro.Mmatcly 40 feet back in order to be in line with the principal a*sidcnce. Smith and Stinldard commented they were not aware the guest house would need to be moved that far back Weinberger indicated txhibit F shows the v lew 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 50 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 subdiv ided or sold, the City has required in the past that the oversired accessory structure be removed. Smith inquired whether that was the case in this situation. Gaffron slated the City requires a standard covenant for every oversized accessory structure, which includes that language Gaffron suted if the property is ever divided in the future, the divided property would need to hav e the required acreage to support those accessory structures or they would need tobexemoved. PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PlJ^NNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (W)l-2679 SIIARRATT AND MACDONAI.D DFSION COMPANT. CONTIMTD) Smith inquired ulicihcr the Applicants had any comments or concerns about that restrictise covenant. Moorse stated they would need to speak with the property owner reearding that, but that he dtx’s not have any intentions of selling or suMividing the pn^perty 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 priKccd forvsard. Smith inquired svhether 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 MO I >2679, Sharnitt and MacDonald Design Company on behalf of 450 and 400 Orono Orchard Road, granting of a conditional use permit for a guest house and a variance fur a second usersi/ed accessory atructnre subject to the property owner filing a restrictive cov enant in the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest house to occupants of the principal structure and their nonpaying guests or domestic employees, and that the guest house not be used for a home occupation. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) M01.2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN. 2715 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 8:J1 p.m. -9:IJ p.m. Sid Lesin. Duildcr. and Icrry and Dorothy Lnsin. Applicants, were present. The Ccrtiricate of Mailing and AfTidavit of Publication were noted Weinberger staled the Applicants are proposing to reiuwale and refurbish the existing house. Tlie renovations include some work to the existing foundation, removal of the second flix>r and replace with a new t1(M>r plan. All of the propv>sed amovaiion would be within the existing foundation, lire 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 stated 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 docs encroach into the average lakeshorc lakcshorc setback and within the 75' lakeshorc setback. Any structural work within 75 feet of the lakeshorc and the average setback requires variances. A variance is required to permit alteration to structure within 75 feet of the lakeshorc and the average lakeshorc 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. i PAGE 18 IMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday, May 21,2001 («Mn-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN. CONTINUED) Weinberger stated the existing hardcover on the property consists of 987 square feet or 20 percent in the 0-75* setback and 6,274 square feet or 55 percent within the 75-250’ setback. The hardcover in the 250-500’ setback consists of 1.656 square feet 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, the house, some walkways, and a storage shed. Weinberger noted there would be relatively no change to the building envelope w ithin the 10 foot setback encroachment on the north side of the house. Primarily the areas where changes would occur mert the required 10 feet setback. No variances are required to expand the second level liv ing areas up to the 10 fix>t setback. Weinberger stated one concern w ith the propi>sal is the expanded roof line to the nonh side ot the Applicants’ house that may afTect sunlight and drainage to the adjacent property. Another factor contributing to pi>tcntial 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 optbns 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 s^ime repair work to the lakeside of the residence, with the remaining foundation being intact and in good condition. \S cinberger stated 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. Weinberger commented the shed would require repair at some time in the near future. Construction of the shed was prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards and is located w ithin the size setback and within 10 feet of another structure. Staffcoiicurs that the topography of the site makes any substantial rev isions to the location of the house challenging. The 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 neighK>rhix>d would be necessary to move the house to a liKation where hardcover standards could be met. Renovation of the existing house, with no expansions where it encroaches required setbacks, would appear to be a reasonable approach. Staff recommends approv al of v ariances to allow renov ations and remodeling of the house subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant must demonstrate and confinn 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. Hardcover removals within the parking area should be required to provide additional absorption areas on the property. 3. No expansion of the building env elope shall be permitted w ithin required setbacks. PAGE 19 MIMTTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (Ml-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN, CONTINl ED) Weinberger slated the recommendation of approval is based upon the fact the existing structure is a legal non-conforming structure that uos built prior to the current zoning ordinances and that no further expansion of the non-confomiities uould occur. The proposed expansions are being completed \sithin the required setbacks. I.evin staled he has rev iewed 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. Lev in stated the house has a full basement and the remainder of the foundation is in good condition and would be able to accommodate the e.xpansion. Levin stated due to the steep slope to the road, a turnaround area is neccs>ary. Tlie Applicants are proposing that the driveway area would be reduced by 800 square feet, reducing the hardcover in that setback to approximatelv 47 percent from 55 percent. Levin statt*d the improvements would add character to die house and more aesthetically pleasing. Lev in stated the main level of the residence is scheduled to be fully remodeled, with a new l1iH)r plan being proposed. Levin indicated some walls will be removed and some windows will be relocated. Smith staled one item the Planning Commission would like the Applicants to consider is possible remov al of the shed due to the amount of hardcov er on the propertv . Mrs. Envin stated the shed is used for storage at the present time, with ga.soline for their boat and lawnmower being stored in there as well as other items. Lrwin stated they would like to make some improvements to the shed to make it match tlie appearance of the ' ^use. Kluth inquired whether the Applicants could address the concrete patio. Kluth stated in his view the builder will need to do some work in the area of the patio to work on the foundation. Kluth inquiaxl whether the patio would be replaced following the foundation work. Levin stated they would be vv illing to consider a reduction in the sire of the patio. Weinberger stated they currenilv have a two-stall garage. Weinberger stated the City has had a problem w ith ouidixvr storage and would prefer hav ing a shed for storage on this lakeshore lot as long as the Applicants arc 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 slated he 'ild like to sec the »hed brought into conformance with the setbacks. Kluth noted the shed currently is on a concrete pad. Lev in stated in his v iew the shed could be rotated slightl> to make it more square with the house as well as hav ing some improvements done to it. Levin commented he would be hesitant to say they would be able to move it enough to meet the ten foot setback since 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 CRONO PLANNING COMMISSION Mujda), May 21,2001 (M0I.2677 TERRY AM) DOROTHY ERWIN,CONTINUED) Stoddard inquired uliclhcr the Applicants could come into conrormance with the average lakeshore setback. W'einberger stated the largest encroachment int»> the average lakeshore setback is two to three feet. I evin indicated the encroachment docs m>l impact the neighbors' view of the lake, which is the intent of the setback. Kluth stated the average lakeshore setback tends to var> among the houses in a given area. Kluth stated since there is only a two to three fiH't encnsachment. he does not have a problem with it. Weinberger stated the intent of the average lakeshore setback is to protect views of the lake. Mrs. Hnvin stated the neighbors do approve of this project. Smith inquired how much of the foundation i> Inring replaced. Weinberger stated he does not have a percenuge of the ftnindation that is being replaced at this time. Weinberger inquired whether any repair of the foundation is required to add the second story . Levin stated the foundat on work is required regardless if a second story is added to the house. Weinberger inquired whether a structural engineer’s repi'rt could be submitted on the fc.andation work prior to the Cilv Council meeting. Levin stated he has submitted that already Weinberger stated he would review that rejs^rt prior to the Council meeting. Art Kane. 26‘)"’ Casco Point Road, indicated he is in support »>f this po>ject. William Miller. 2591 Casco Point Road, commented all the houses in this area arc 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 staled he is in support of this project because it would help to improve the ncighb*irluHHl There were no further public comments regarding this application. Klulli moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application M)l>2677, Terry and Dorothy Envin, 2715 Casco Point Road, granting of a variance to permit alteration to structure within 75* of the lakeshore and the average lakeshore setback, and a v ariance 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 wili be relocated off the property line a reasonable distance prior to the completion of the project. PAGE 21 MIMTES OFTIIE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday. May 21.2001 (*<01.2676 BAYWINI) CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CONTINUED) Weinberger <kiaied the U-t unicc and Professional Business District is intended to provide a district uhich is nrlatcd to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of admink'rative office buildings and related offices. Weinberger stated if the Applicant wishes to have a church at this liKaiion. a conditional use permit would be nece '^ary following approval of the amendment to the B-4 District. Grccnley stated they arc requesting that one more conditional use be added to the B~1 District. Greenley indicated the building can presently be utilized as a schoid. and in his opinion a church would have less impact on the neighbi'rhi^ d since most of the aciiv ity iKCurs on the weekend. Heckcl stated they arc currently located in E.xcelsior and would like to relocate in this area Hcckel commented the building would serve their needs well, with the chua'h being a gsHul improvement to the ncighborhvHHl. Meckel 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. Gaffron stated the B-4 Zoning District goes hack to the i960s. and it is his understanding no churches were located in that area at the lime the zoning district was created so they were not included. frai.* SvoKnla 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. Riulney Beesirom added that a sprinkler system is not required by finJe unless there arc more llun 300 people in attendance. GalTron slated one of the issues that was raised early on was whether the change in occupation from an office to a churv'. would require significant changes to the building because of the Building Oxle. Gaffron slated the City has not investigated that yet an * he is unsure whether the church munbers have consulted with the City's building oll'icial regarding that issue. Stinldard requested SialTfollow up on that pi>ssil*le conversion to sc*e what changes would be required Smith staled other issues to address would l« traffic, noise, lighting, and signage. .Smith inquitvJ what discussions have taken place regarding those items. Weinberger slated Staff would :ed a complete site plan in order to determine whether there is adequate parking and appropriate signage and lighting for this site. Weinberger staled Staff has :i:4 gone into those issues at this time. Berg stated she has a major concern with the tiaffic in this a^ea and the speed of tlie irafllc as it goes down County Road 19. I3erg indicated she has a ceneem whh packing across the road from the church and then attempting to cross County Road 19. Berg staicu she v ould prefer that people not cross that roa«* doe to the high speeds of the traffic. PAGE 2J L______ .. MINUTES OF Tlir. ORONO PLANNING CO.MMISSION Monday. May 21.2001 (INIl-2676 BA WIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CONTINUED) Stoddard stated if churches arc added to the B-4 area, it Mould apply to all other B-4 Districts within Ute City. Kluth pointed out issues dealing with trafllc and parVing and lighting would be addressed at the time the Applicant approaches the City with a request for a conditional use permit. licckcl stated at the time they were con'.idering purchase of the Grace Baptist Church, they had discussed parking with the previous City Administrator and they ssere informed at that time that they could use the municipal lot across the street. Berg stated the tralTic going south on County Road 19 is more significant :h:*n the traffic going north. Smith staled at the time the Applicant requests a conditional use permit, he will need to address those concerns. Smith slated the issue before the Planning Commission tonight is whether churches should be added to the B-4 District Stoddard commented the churcli would be used primarily during the exenings and on weekends, with the B-4 District being primarily businesses that operate during the day. Stoddard staled he would like more research done on the Uniform Building Code and the reasons why churches wea omitted from the B-4 District. Smith stated the other uses allowed in the B-4 District, such as nursing homes, hospitals. scIkhiIs. restaurants, and libraries also have weekend and evening activ ities to some extent Kluth slated he personally does not have a problem with the lu>urs 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. Hcckel stated historically in this country churches have not been associated with businesses but have usually been lix'aled in residential areas. Ileckel staled in today's society , churches are becoming moic dynamic and are beginning to be located in business districts. Beestrom slated he lives in this area and it is his understanding the Covenant Church near Lord Fletcher's was pcmuiied parking on the other side of County Road 19 Beestrom staled a majority of Lord FIciches is also on the oihcr side of County 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 trafTlc on IS and 19. with minimal traffic . ting north compared to what is going soi>*h Berg staled the safety of any pedestrians in this ar i a major concern of hers. Kluth reiterated the parking and ..ignage is an issue to be discussed with the conditional use permit. PAGE 24 .MINUTES OF THE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21.2001 (#01-2676 BAYWIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH, CONTINUED) Kluih stated he has not done enough research to determine whether churches would be appropriate in this district. Kluth stated he would like to tabic this application in order to give the members of the Planning Commission and City SufT time to compare the “R** District with the B-4 District to insure that they arc compatible. Grcenley suggested that if it is approx ed tonight, they could simply make it subject to the same requirements as the “R" District. Sttxldard inquired whether the church has a specific lime frame thex xxould like to follow. Heckei staled the church xxould not be a hinderance or an obstacle to the neighborhood. Ileckel stated they are currently liKated at the Excelsior Elementary Scluxil and they are losing families because that is not their target area. Ileckel stated they would like to relocate back to this area as stx^n as they can since a large number of their parishioners come from this area. (Janice Berg leaves at 9:52 p.m.) Smith stated due to one of tlic commissioners leaving, there no longer is a quorum present 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 with City Siafl 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 llic Council would be willing to hear this application at their June meeting without a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission. Smith noted a City Council member has been in attendance at tonight's meeting, and it will be clearly communicated to the Council why there is not a formal recommendatii>ii on this application PLANM.NG CO.MMLSSIO.N COM.MENTS (#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS APRIL 23,2001 AND .MAY 14.2001 Max 29 - Stoddard June 11 - Kluth (#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None PAGE 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday, May 21.2001 («I3) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR ^RCH 19,2001 AND APRIL 16. 2001 This item was not discussed. (M14) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MAY 29.2001 AND JUNE 11.2001 May 29 - Stoddard June i I • Kluth ADJOURNMENT Tttcrc being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Sandra Smith. Acting Chair PAGE 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday. May 21.2001 PAGE 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Ja»e IS, 2001____________ ROLL llie Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members resent: Chair Eli/abcth Hawn. Commissioners William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist. Sandra Smith, Janice Berg. Daniel Kluth. and Jeanne Ntabusth. The following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron. Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. aitd Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Dob Sansevere was present. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC IIEAKI.NGS ((H) M0I.26S2 TIMOTHY F. OLSON, 2510 OLD BEACH ROAD. CONDITIONAL USE : ERMIT, 6:31 p.m. - 6:37 p.m. Timothy Olson. Applicant, was present The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicants arc prop«ising to construct an accessory storage building 20’ by 24* behind their residence appro.ximatcly 50 feet from the side property line. A conditional use peniiit is required bt^ause this lot is considered a “through” lot. By Zoning Code definition, a “through'* lot is a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets and which is not a comer lot. On 3 through lot, K>lh street lines sht II be front lines for applying the Zoning Chapter The lot abuts Mapleridge Lane and Old Peach Road. Bonenbe.-g stated primary access to the residence is currently from Old Beach Road, w ith an undeveloped access from Mapleridge Lone. The Applicants are not proposing a n* driveway. Bottenberg noted the property is sewered, with sewer location not being an issue in this application. Structural coverage and hardcover ore also not an issue with this proposal. City Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to construct an accessory building on the property as proposed, meeting all required setbacks. Olson stated he has nothing to add in addition to Staff s repim. noting he has brought pictures of the property if the Planning Commission is interested in seeing them ) Hawn inquired whether this should really be considered a througli lot since it is located on a cul-de-sac off of Old Beach Road and d»KS not meet the typical definition of a through lot. Gaffro.i staled this is not a typical through lot and that normally a through lot would liave two parallel roads with a lot in between them. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission .so desires. City Staff could amend this section of the Zoning Cixlc to make lots similar to this property exempt from beiiig a through lot. PAGE I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday.Jw IMOOl____________ (#01-2682 Tim Obon. Conliaurd) Ha>«n stated it would be her recommendation that the Zoning Code be changed. Kluih inquired how mans lots in Orono would be affccled by this change. GalTron stated the Planning Commission probably secs a minimum of two to thrcv .iniilar applications a year. Mabusth inquired whether Staff has received any respimse from the adjoining property owners. Bottenberg stated they have not. There were no public comments regarding this application. LindquUl moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2682, Timothy F. Olson, 2510 Old Beach Road, granting of a conditional use permit to construct an accessory building on the properly as proposed, meeting aH required setbacks. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Hawn moved, Klutb seconded, to recommend the City Council consider changing the Zoning Code >egulaling ‘'through** lou. \ O TE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#2) #01-2683 RICK BENSON, 776 NORTH BROWN KOAU, VARIANCE, 6;37 p.m. - 6:40 p.m. Rick Benson. Applicant, was present. I he Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Boitcnlicrg stated the Applicants are proposing to repbee the c.xisting decks on the lakeside of the residence. 1 he existing decks are old and in deteriorating condition. The new decks will be tlic same si/e and in ihe same hKalion as the existing decks. Ibe Applicants arc not proposing an increase in structural coverage or hardcover. The structural coverage on the lot will remain at 6.7 percent and liardcovcr in the 75-250' setback area will remain at 24.06 percent. A variance to the average lakcshore setback is required to permit the deck to encroach 70 feet into the average lakeshorc setback. City Stair recommends approval of the requested v ariance. Denson had nothing to add to Staff s rcfKin Hawn inquired wlietiier tiu* screen porch would also be replaced. PAGE 2 ^ j!•i 1 '■4 MINUTES OF THE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ____________Mondav. June 18, 2001 (W01-268J Rick Benion, Coatinacd) Denson stated the screen porch vsould remain as is. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Klulh seconded, to recummend approval of Application iV0l*2683, Kick Benson, 776 North Brow n Road, cranting of a variance for average lakeshore setback to allow a 70 foot encroachment to replace the exbting decks on the lakeside of the residence. VOTE; Ayes 7, Nays 0. («J) NOl-2676 BAYWINI) CHRISTIAN CHI RCIl, B-4 AMENDMENT, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 6:41 p.m. - 8:12 p.m. George Wells. Ilelmer lleckal. Pastor. Greg Metz. Frank Svohoda, property owner, and Rodney Deestrom appeared on behalf of the Bayvvind Christian Church. Hie Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffron stated the City Council reviewed this application at their June 11*^ meeting absent a formal Planning Commission recommendation. On June 11*, the Council reconvened the public hearing begun ut the Planning Commission, took public comments, and cloved the hearing. The 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 Planning Commission make a recommendation regarding appropriate performance standards for that use. Gaffron stated the conditional use pennit review provides .on opportunity to place conditions on the use that w ill mitigate anticipated adverse impacts of the use, to protect the value of other property w ithin the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the City ’s Comprehensive Plan. Denial of a conditional use pennit for an allowed conditional use can only iKcur if it can be shown that the proposed use does not comply with tfie standards required in tlie Zoning Code. A given conditional use may b * deemed appropriate within a given zoning district only under specific conditions and when certain standards arc met Gaffron stated the general B-4 standards that are in place that apply to all B-4 uses include the following; Minimum lot size of 20.000 square feet Minimum lot width of 100 feel Minimum front yard of 20 feet Minimum rear yard of 30 feel Side driveway 12 feet minimum width for access to rear yard if no alley or side street access Building setbacks: .IS feet front. 35 feet rear. 15 feet side. 35 feet side street. 35 feet from any lot line abutting an ‘R’ District Fence or compact evergreen hedge at least six feet high and at least 50 percent opaque required along side or rear lot lines that abut on ‘R’ District Maximum building height two and one-naif stories or 30 feet except as prov ided in Section 10.75 i PAGE 3 MINirTFSOFTIlE OKO.NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING _________ Mosday, Jmm I§, 2001 (DaywinJ Chrbiian Church, Coalinucd) • Exterior v%all finishes to be a) face brick, or b) natural stone, or c) specially designed precast units if the surfaces have been integrally treated ssith an applied decorative material or texture, or d) factory fabricated am' finished rnclal framed panel construction • All subsequent addi:>uns and outbuildings must be architecturally comparable with the original architecture - No tcmptirary buildings allovscd except as needed during construction of permanent buildings - Drainage plans must be in accordance \sith City and other agency requirements. Gaflron stated the conditional use listing for churches in Residential *R* Districts includes merely a definition that church use includes “those related structures located on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, convents or homes for persons related to a religious function on the some site,” and a specific condition related to location (“provided that no building other than a residence shall be UKate*' within 50 feet of any abutting lot line in an 'R' district”). There arc no other specific standards for a church in an ‘R’ District. I lie Planning Commi: *on should also 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 District is very small, comprising only I • tax parcels and a total of aNmt 17 acres. The Planning Commission may also w ish to consider whether expansion of the church should be limited. Gaffron stated one of tlie issues raised hv the Planning Commission at its prior meeting regarded parking and pedestrian safety. Any use allowed in the B-4 District should be required to provide adequate parking on site or an adjacent property. No B-4 use should be approved that inherently requires pedestrian crossings of major roads at uncontrolled intersections. Gaffron stated the Orono Zoning Code establishes parking requirements for all districts and uses, with church parking requirements being based on the designed seating capacity of the main assembly hall, requiring one parking space per four scats, flic City of Minnetonka uses 2 5 scats per parking space for churches GalTron noted according to the 2000 census. Oroim households currently contain an average of 2.’’ persons. Gaffron slated that while only one properly in the existing B-4 District abuts a IikjI residential strecU it may be appropriate to require that churches with p«>tential access onto btvih local streets and collector or arterial roadways must not access to the local street. GalTron stated the City of Orono currently has eight church properties in Orono. with three of the eight having access to local streets and the remaining hav ing access onto collectors or arterials. GalTron staled Orono Code also restricts 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 as 10 feel to a side lot line and three feel from a rear lot line abutting a revidenhal property. Gaffron noted the City of Minnetonka requires a 25 fiKii setback from residenii.il property for church parking regardless of lire zoning district. Staff recommends a 25 fool rear yard setback for parking for a church when that parking abuts a residentially zoned property . GalTron stated an amendment to the Co rehensive Plan probably is not necessary since Orono has never had an “Institutional District” zoning classification and since schools, libraries and museums PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MomUv. J««c 18,2001____________ (Daywind Cbristiao Churcli, Coatiaucd) could ail be considered institutional uses that have bee.i allowed in the B-4 since its inception and does not change the intent of the B*4 District. Staff is recommending the following specific performance standards for the Church use in the B-4 District: All buildings shall meet a setback of 50 feet from lot lines abutting a residentially »>ned property. The Applicant shall demonstrale that rurking requirements for the expected level of use will be met without necessitating pedestrian movement across a major thoroughfare. 3.Churches shall be located on a collector or arterial roadway os identified in the Orono Comprehensive Plan or otherwise located so that access will be provided without conducting significant traffic onto local residential streets. An alternative is to require that if a church property abuts both a local residential street and a eollector 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 feet from residentially zoned property. One parking space shall be prov ided for each 2.5 scats of capacit) in the main assembly hall or sanctuary-, with additic.ial parking required per the standards of the Zoning Chapter for other facilities such as classrooms, licensed day care facilities, or offices. GafTron stated the Planning Commission should also consider whether this entry should be listed as ‘*RcIigii>us Institutions and facilities*' rather than simply “Churches”. Stoddard inquired whether the applicant would be required to adhere to a hardcover limit. Gaffron stated they would nc'ed to comply with a 35 percent hardcover limit for the portions of property w ithin 500-1,000' of the lakeshore. Wells commented it was his understanding the Planning Commission is not dealing with Baywind's individual situation at this time, but are dealing with zoning fsr churches in general. Hawn stated the Planning ^'ominission w ill be looking at both. W'ells stated he is a resident of Minnetonka and has noted over the years that the City of Minnetonka docs not enforce its parking ordinance relating to churches. Wells stated the City of Minnetonka and the City of Orono also have difrerent demographics, which would result in the Planning Commission comparing apples to oranges. Wells noted Minnetonka has a number of multi-family housing while Orono tends to have larger affluent families. Hawn noted the average size for a household in Orono is 2.7. PAGEb j MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18.2001____________ (Ba>K»ind ChrUlian Cburck, Conlinacd) Berg commented the church would be drawing parishioners from other areas outside of Orono as well. Heckal stated the congregation of the church at the present lime consists of approxinialcly 90 adults, w ith the remaining being young children, and would result in approximately SO cars on a Sunday. Wells pointed out most people who travel to an office building lend to be by themselves. Wells stated the heaviest amount of traffic to the church would also iKcur on a Sundav morning when the other businesses are not open for business. Greg Met/ stated the parking setback for B-4 is ten feel off the property line to an adjacent residence, with ofTicc parking lots t>pically being 7S percent full the majority of the time. Metz staled the church's pacing lot would remain fairly empty for the majority of the time. Metz stated he is unclear why the parking standards for the church would be more stringent than the parking requirements for other businesses within the B-4 District. Hawn commented it was her understanding that Staff had a concern that the 10 fool setback was not sufficient for office use as well as churches. Hawn stated regardless of whether cars are parking in the lot or not, the adjoining property owner is forced to look at blacktop 100 percent of the lime. Metz noted there is a requirement for landscaping along the perimeter of the propcrt>. Metz inquired whether the parking lot standard would be changed f<>r all uses within the B-4 District. Hawn stated they are just looking at churches at this time. Hawn stated church use w ithin the B-4 District would be an e.xcepiion, w ith the Planning Comr! ;sion review ing at this time what standards would be appropriate. Mabusth noted there are given standards for every use within the B-4, including institutional uses. Mabusth slated the church would be required to follow those B-4 standards unless the Planning Commission waives one of the standards. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn noted she was not present at the last Planning Commission meeting when this application was discussed. Hawn inquired whether the church intends this to become a permanent location or is a temporary location. Wells slated the Bavwind Church serves the community and has a substantial positive financial impact to the local businesses in the area. Weils stated their pz' mr also works w ith the other churches in the community. Wells siaieil due to their present location, they have experienced a loss in membership. Wells stated they are looking at relocating in this area in an effort to recoup those lost members, with this building being an interim location until they are able to construct a new church. Wells staled in a few years they would like to sell this property as commercial property and build a new church. Wells noted finding a new location in Orono w ill not be easy since the majority of the residential property is not PAGE 6 I \ i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Juoc 18,2001____________ (Ba>i»ind Christian Church, Continued) currently sewered. Stoddard inquired whether it is possible that this will become a pcimoncnl location for the church. Ileckal stated that is not their intent at this time. Lindquist stated in his view the Planning Commission needs to look at the church as becoming a pennanent use within the B-4 District when establishing standards. Stoddard noted some requirements for tite B*4 District ore nut controlled by the City, such os the Fire CixJe requirements. Kluth stated the Planning Commission cannot do spot zoning and needs to look at standards that would be required for any church that would come into this district. Klulh noted he was present at the City Council meeting where this application was discussed, with the Council e.vpressing some bewildcfiiiciii about why churches had been excluded from this district in the first place. Kluth stated the C oiincil is in f avor of allow ing churches w ithin the B-4 District and establishing standards for this Kluth St* d the task before the Planning Commission tonight is to set standards for this use w iihin the B~t District regardless of the needs of this church. Kluth stated even if the Zoning Code is changed and church use is allovsed within the U*4 District, that does not guarantee the Bay wind Church will be able to meet all the conditions of the conditional use permM. Bob Sanscverc. City Council Representative, commented the Council is suppiirlivc of churches in the B-4 District, with some concerns being expressed relating to parking and pi^Jesirian traffic crossing busy streets. Sansevere staled in his view the fact that churches v«ere not originallv included in the B-4 District was an oversight. Smith inquired whether the standards being recommended by Staff would apply to churches. Gaffron staled the recommended standards would apply to church use and that Staff is not proposing the Planning Commission change any of the general B-4 standards regulating the entire disuict. Lindquist noted all the other B-4 standards would apply as well, and that the other standards being recommended by Staff would apply only to church use. Klulh inquired whether these standards would also apply in the *R' District Gaffron stated the *R' District has a different set of standards than the B-4 general standards. Gaffron suted at the present time the ‘R* District only has one standard regulating churches ut the present lime relating to setbacks. Gaffron stated one of the specific standards for church use would be that they demonstrate sufficient parking to avoid the necessity to have pedestrians crossing a busy thoroughfare. PAGE? MLNL'TES OF THE ORONO PEANMiNO COMMISSION MEETING ___Monday, J«ae 18.2001___________ (Bajiftind Christian Church, Continued) Kluth stated he has a concern if the conditions are too restrictive or are specifically targeted towards churches whether that stand up to scrutin> b> a couit of law. Kluth stated in order to attach specific standards to a church that are not being required of other uses in the B-4 District requires a ver> good reason in his opinion and needs to be able to stand up to scrutiny. Uerg commented she has major concerns regarding the traffic in this area and the possibility that pedestrians will he crossing a busy street. Beestrom stated the •act that pedestrians ma> be crossing a street is not pn.'ccdent setting and that for almost lUO sears the old Grace Church had people crossing County Road 19. Beestrom stated the parking lot for the Fairview Coxenant Church only accommodates 25 percent of their cars, with appr, \imatclv 75 pereem of the parking being located across the street. Beestrom stated the c.xisting parking lot for this building w ill accommodate the majority of the cars that w ill travel to the church, with the majority of the tralllc being on Sunday, and in his opinion is not a major problem. Berg stated she has lived in this area since 1979. and is aware of the iraB'ic situation in the area. Berg stated the trafllc going north is not as bad as the tralfic going south. Berg statc*d she has major concerns about allowing pedestrian traffic across County Road 19. Ileckal stated in his opinion, based on his conversations w ith other pastors in the area, a ratio of one to four persons per cor is more reasonable for chuiches. Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission is in favor of the performance standard requiring a 50 foot setback for all buildings from lot lines abutting a residentially zoned properly. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this standard should be required. Haw n inquired xxhether the Planning Commission r*****. ')crs were in favor of the performance standard requiring that the Applicant demonstrate that the parking requirements for the e.xpected level of use will be met without necessitating pedestrian moxement across a major thoroughfare Hawn staled It was her understanding from Council Member Sansevere’s comments that the Council has concerns that pedestrian traffic not cross County Road 19. Beestrom stated the Freshwater Institute currently utilizes the parking lot that the church will also be utilizing, with pedestrians crossing the road to get to activ ities being held at the Frrjnwatc. Institute. Beestrom stated that situation has been occur'tog for years. Hawn stated the Planning Commission .n in iely a recommending body to the Council. w\h the Council having indicated that they would prefer pedestrians not have to cross County Ro;^; 19 in order to attend functions at the church Hawn stated the Baywind church will need to d,ic tss this issue with the Council. Wells commented it is hard to set policies that will be violated out of necessity. Hawn stated if that is the case, that is not an acceptable solution. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Jaac I g. 2001____________ (Baywiad ChrisUaa Church, Coatinacd) Wells staled it ippcors the Planning Commission is attempting to require standards of the church that are not being required of other places within the City . Klulh staled the Planning Commission and City Council adopt standards in an cfTorl to help preserse the community and best sers e the interests of the community. Kluth stated the Planning Commission is not required to follow bad precedents and that the Planning Commission is unable to stop pedestrian trafTic at all other places. Kluth staled just because other churches may have been allowed to have pedestrian traffic across busy streets, docs not require the Planning Commission to allow that to occur at this location. Smith inquired wny the City is considering setting these types of standards for this particular cliurch and other churches in the area when they are not requiring schools and other institutions like the Freshwater Institute to do exactly what the Planning Commission is attempting to do in this particular case. Kluth stated if the City is going to require standards for this church that ore not required of other businesses, it will be subject to judicial review, and the City w ill need to defend why they are creating these standards for this particular church when they ore not being placed against other businesses. Smith slated in her view these standards may need to be a B-4 standard rather than just standards that apply to this particular church. Mabusth .staled a solution iniglil be if sufl'icicnt parking is not provided on site, that the Council must approve a parking plan. Mabusth stated the City in the past has approved parking lots across County- Road 19 for other places of businesses. Mabusth staled in her view the Council should approve a parking arrangement if ample parking is not provided on site. Mabusth inquired how many parking stalls ore available at this site. Kluth staled there is approximately 45 parking stalls. Mabusth suggested that standard number two be made subject to approval by the Council of an ofT- site parking plan if ample parking is not available on-site. Kluth stated in his opinion the Plan: ng Commission should not be coming up with new standards for churches ••hen they arc not being ap(..icd to other businesses within the B-4 District Klulh staled the B-4 District already has standards that need to be complied with. Hawn suird the U-4 District docs have parking standards that will need to be followed. Gaffron stated the City does have specific parking standards for various businesses. Kluth commented he is okay vviih Mabusth's suggestion regarding appro*, ai by the Council oi an off- sile parking plan. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MopJay, Jut 18.2TOI____________ (Bayi* inil Chrisliaa Church. Continued) HaMn suggested the Planning Commission skip standard number three and consider standard number four uhich requires that parking areas in side or a*ar yards be set back 25 feet from residenliatty zoned property. Stoudord stated the B-4 standard is 30 feet. GafTron stated the B-4 standards allows parking within 10 feet of a rear y ard and side yard setback. Lindquist staled in his view the standard should be 10 feel to be in agreement with the B-4 standards. GafTron indicated the 10 feet setback is in the general parking standards for any B District and not just specifically the B-4 District. GafTron stated the language should perhaps read that parking is allowed in a rear yard in a B District up to within 10 feet of the rear lot line and up to within three feel in a residential district. ivluth slated if other businesses in the B-4 District ore allowed to park within 10 feet of a rear lot line, then why should churches be any difTcrent. Lindquist recommended the same B-4 standards apply. Hawn commented it is her vie- that Staff feels the 10 feet Is not enough for any business. Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of making that a bigger setback for any use. GafTron staled in his opinion changing the standards for other uses w ithin the B-4 District is outside the scope of what is happening tonight. GafTron staled the Planning Commission is looking at a specific use and its impacts in determining whether the standards are appropriate. Hawn stated the standards should be consistent. GafTron stated it was not the intent to change the standards for all uses w i:hin the D-4 District but to come up with some standards specific for churches within the B-4 District. Smith stated the Council could consider changing the standards for the entire B-4 District. Kluth reiterated his concern that if the City adopts standards specific to this church and does not apply them to other uses within the B-4 District, that it may appear the City is attempting to zone this particular use out of this district. Hawn stated it is her sense that the Planning Commission would prefer to leave it at a 10 fool setback, with a recommendation to the Council that if they w ould like more stringent conditions, they consider apply ing them to the entire B-4 District. Kluth slated the parking lots currently in this area would then be grandfathered in if new standards are adopted. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MopJay, June 18,2001____________ (Bayi»ind Chrisliao Church, Coptinurd) Hawn suggested the Planning Commission skip standard number three and consider standard number four which requires that parking areas in side or rear yards be set back 25 feet from residenlialty zoned property. Sto<’Jard staled tJie B-4 standard is 30 feet. Gaffron stated the D4 standards allows parking within 10 feet of a rear yard and side yard setback. Lindquist stated in his view the standard should be 10 feel to be in agreement with the B-4 standards. Gaffron indicated the 10 feel setback is in the general parking standards for any U District and not just specifically the D4 District. Gaffron stated the language should perhaps read that parking is allowed in a rear yard in a B District up to within 10 feel of the rear lot line and up to within three feet in a residential district. rkiuth suted if other businesses in the B-4 District are allowed to park w ithin 10 feet of a rear lot line, then why should churches be any different. Lindquist recommended the same D-4 standards apply. Haw n commented it is her vie that Staff feels the 10 feel is not enough for any business. I lawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of making that a bigger setback for any use. Gaffron stated in his opinion changing the standards for other uses within the B-4 District is outside the scope of what is happening tonight. Gaffron staled the Planning Commission is looking at a specific use and its impacts in determining whether the standards arc appropriate. Hawn stated the stan 'ards should be consistent. GalTron stated it was not the intent to change the standards for all uses w i:hin the B-4 District but to come up with s<>me standards specific for churches within the B-4 District. Smith staled the Council could consider changing the standards for the entire B-4 District. Kluth reiterated his concern that if the City adopts standards specific to this church and docs not apply them to other uses w ithin the B-4 District, that it may appear the City is attempting to zone this particular use out of this district. Hawn stated it is her sense that the Planning Commission would prefer to leave it at a 10 foot setback, w ith a recommendation to the Council that If they would like more stringent conditions, they consider apply ing them to the entire B-4 District Kluth stated the parking lots currently in this area would then be grandfathered in if new sundards are adopted. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ____________Moaday, Jmbc 18,2001____________ (Baywiad Chrbtiaa Cburck, Coaliaacd) HavMi inquired how ihe Planning Commission felt about standard number five requiring one parking space be provided for each 2.5 seats of capacity in the main assembly hall or sanctuary, with addit ional parking stan lards required per the sund4«id^ of the Zoning Chapter for other facilities such as classnxims. licensed day care facilities or officci. Hawn noted the church is proposing a ratio of one to four persons per car. Hcckal slated in his conversations with other pastors in the area, they felt a ratio of one to four persons per car was more reasonable for churches. Heckal stated he is unsure what Ihe reasoning is to change the standard to 2.5. Stoddard inquired what the B>4 standard is. Hawn slated it varies depending on the use. Kluth inquired whether there is this standard for churches located in the *R* District. Gaffron staled the standard is 4 to I for churches no maner what district they are located in. GafTron stated the City of Minnetonka utilizes a 2.5 ratio regardless of the district it is located in. Gaffron stated the City diKS have specific parking standards for other uses. Kluih staled if the Planning Commission docs make this a condition of approval and the church is unable to meet the condition, they would cither need to apply for a variance or the conditional use permit would be denied. Kluth staled the City Council has the discretion of making specific standards under a conditional use permit regulating lighting, ingress and egress. ofT-street parking, berming. and others. Kluth noted the current standard for other churches is 4 to I. Kluth recommended the standard be kept at 4 to I, and to let the Council determine whether that is appropriate. Hawn inquired whether this application was returned to the Planning Commission in order to give the Council a recommendation on tiie parking issue. Sanseverc stated the Council wanted the Planning Commission to have the opportunity to review this application fully. Sansevere stated he would like the Planning Commission to look at churches in general for the B-4 District and not just this specific church. Hawn noted there current!' being proposed. '* a uniform standard regulating parking and that it depends on the use Lindquist and Smith stated in their view they should stick with the current 4 to 1 standard. Lindquist staled language could be added that the Council could change that requirement if it deems appropriate. Sansevere slated he will be looking at the requirements for the rest of the B-4 District. Hawn staled currently there is not a parking standard for churches in the B-4 area and lliat tlie parking standards vary depending on the use. PAGE II MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Jnnc 18,2001____________ :(Baywiad Christian Church, Conliaurd) HavMi inquired uhal thoughts the Planning Commission had relating to standard number three requiring that churches be located on a collector or arterial roadway as identified in the Orono Comprehensive Plan or otherwise located so that access will be provided without conducting significant tralTic onto hK'al residential streets. Kluth inquired whether this condition also applies to churches in the 'R* District. GafTron stated it diK's not. GafTron stated this is new language. Stoddard stated in his view for consistency it should be omitted since it is not being required of other churches in other areas. Kluth stated the Council can regulate ingress and egress. Ilawn staled the conditions the Planning Commission is reviewing are conditions that might be involved with a conditional use permit. Ilawn stated in her view a church within a B-4 District is difTcrent from a church ItKaled in a residential district where it is less likely to be located on a collector or county road. Kluth commented each application is unique in one way or another, and that the Council would have the option of putting certain restrictions on the use. Ilawn staled the Planning Commission is considering perfornunce standards for churches within the B-4 District. Ilawn inquired if there is a problem with hav ing the church have a separate rood ingress and egress for what is ivpicallv a Sunday use. Kluth stated it currently is not a standard in the ‘R* District. Ilawn stated this standard would apply to churches only located in the B-t District. Kluth staled he has concents about placing conditions on churches w ithin the B-4 District where those conditions are not being applied to churches UKated in residential districts. Hawn stated for churches that arc located in a residential district, they may only have residential streets to access the church. Hawn stated in her opinion in general the people will he using the collector street to access this particular site Kluth slated he does not want to be looking at standards for one specific location hut rather at standards that apply to the entire B-4 District. Kluth stated by placing a requirement relating to arterial access may not work for all lots located within the B-4 District. GafTron stated all the lots in the B-4 District have arterial access. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNINO COMMISSION MEETING Monday. June 18.2001____________ (Bayyyind Cbrbtian Churcli, Continued) Ha'^n dated the standard allots residents who list in residential areas abutting a church to come back to the Council and ask for some assistance in correcting the tralTic and parking problems. Ilassn staled in this case the trafTic would not be coming ofT of a residential street. Lindquist commented he could live with that standard. Hawn summed up the IMatiinng Commission’s recommendations by saying that the Commission appears to be in favor of a building setback of 50 feet The Planning Commission is in favor of the Applicant demonstrating that the parking requirements for the expected use will be met onsite or be subject to approval of a parking plan by the City Council. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to go w ith the follow ing language concerning standard number three. If a church properly abuts both a local residential street and a collector or arterial roadway, the access slull be onto the collector or arterial. Hawn noted the Planning Commission is in favor of a parking setback of 10 feet from residentially zoned property and for leav ing tlie parking space requirement at four seats. Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of any additional requirements. Stoddard staled he would like to see a height restriction. Lindquist slated the B-4 District already has standards regulating height. Stoddard stated he is talking about the height of the steeple. GafTron stated anything above two and a half stories or 30 feet would require a conditional use permit. Wells noted that a major issue for most communities is the placement of cellular lowers Wells noted that steeples are one of the common ways to hide cellular towers Smith inquired about signing and lighting. Ciuffron staled the same standards for the B-4 District would apply. I lawn inquiicd whether this building would meet the majority of the B-4 standards. Gaffron stated the property meets the lot size, lot width, and setbacks. GafTron stated there is potentially a side driveway to the rear of the property for emergency accesses, which vv ill meet the requirement for a 12 foot side driveway for access to rear yard. GafTron stated he is unsure whether the fence or hedge which may exist next to the residential area would need to be improved. 1 he building meets the building standard and the exterior wall finish meets the standards. Gaffron stated he does not believe there arc any standards relating to outbuildings which would apply in this case and that drainage diKs not appear to be a problem at this time. Gafl'ron staled in general this building meets the standards for the B-4 District. PAGE IJ MINI TES OF TIIK ORONO PLANMNO COMMISSION MEETING ___ Monday. June 18, 2001____________ (Baywiad Chrislian Church, Continued) Hawn staled it is her understanding a portion of the building will be rented out to SvoKnla. Hawn inquired whether there would be a doubling up of parking needs. Sxoboda staled his m>rmal parking is a maximum ofl2 cars and would occur during the week and not on Sundays Heckal stated the church is planning to have some \\ ednesday night bible studies and possibly some summer vacation bible study classes, which should not be a problem since the students would be dropped olTby the parents and not require much parking. Ntabusih commented she likes the language ' Religious Institutions and I aciliiies'* rather than simply churches. Mabusih inquired whether it would be possible to change this district to institutional and office district. GalTron stated that may make sense given the type of uses that are allowed in this district. GafTron noted Pastor I leckal suggested the temi faith communities. Heckal staled faith communities is the cuirvni term being used by a lot of the parishes, which encompasses mosques, synagogues and churches Kluih recommended the Planning Commission stay with the term religious institutions and facilities since they are acceptable tcniu w ithin the zoning field. Liadquist moved. Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2676. Baym ind Christian Church, IM Amendment, subject to the follow ing performance standards: I.All buildings shall meet a setback of 50 feet from lot lines abutting a residentially zoned property. The Applicant shall demonstrate that parking requirements for the eipectcd level of use will be met without necessitating pedestrian movement across a major thoroughfare or subject to City Council approval of an acceptable off-site parking plan. If a church properly abuts both a local residential street and a collector or arterial roadway , the acerss shall be onto the collector or arterial. Parking areas in side or rear yards shall be set back 10 feet from residentially zoned property. One parking space shall be provided fur each 4 seals of capacity in the main assemhiy hall or sanctuary, with additional parking required per the standards of the Zoning Chafer fur other facilities such as classrooms, licensed day care facilities or offices. 6. The entry should be listed as ‘‘Religious laslilutioos and Facilities'*. VOTE: Ayes 7. Nays 0. PAGE 14 MINITESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ________Moaday, Jane 18.2001________________ Kluth recommended the applicant Murk Mith the City on the parking requirements. («M) W0I-268U RICK WINDENBtRG A SHIRLEY HENDRICKSON. 3200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE This application has been M ithdrawn. SCHEDCLED PI BLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 P.M. («9) #0I-26S8 KIRTLAND C. WOODHOUSE. 1780 SHORELINE DRIVE, REARRANGEMENT OF COMMON PROPERTY LINES, 8:13 p.m. - 8:38 p.m. Dob Mitchell. Representative ofKirtland Woodhuuse. and Mike Winton. property oMner. uere present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication Mere noted. Dottenberg slated tlie Applicants ore proposing a lot line rearrangement for properties located at 1780 Shoreline Drive. The property consists of three separate building lots which were created by Registered Land Surv ev No. 245 in 1953. The three lots w ere separated from the remainder of the land in RLS 245 with the plat ufFoxhill in 1965 Tile cast parcel and middle parcel have residences e.xisting on them. The west parcel is vacant and has been since 1953. Ihc lot line rearrangement is being requested to fulfdt requirements outlined in Resolution «1864 adopted at the time the guest house on the east parcel was granted a conditional use permit in 1985. I he intent of the rearrangement is to create a confonnirig side setback for the e.xisting iiome on the middle parcel and to make the west parcel slightly w ider at the intended building site Dottenberg noted the City *s onsite septic manager has reviewed the septic sites and has detennined bv>th the primary and alternate drainfield sites meet all City and State standards and will not be impacted by the lot line rearrangement. Donenberg stated all three lots currently have access by a private driveway olT Shoreline Drive. This access would remain the same. Tlie driveway is liKated over Tracts E. M. and C of RLS 245. No more than three homes will be served by this driveway. The City would not require upgrade of the driveway to road status unless this was a replal. The survey dives 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. No new drainage/utility easements are proposed or requested, e.xcept where such easements do exist along lot lines being moved, they should be rededicated along the new lot lines. Dottenberg stated the vacant west parcel is a buildable lot of record, assuming it meets the 200 feel width standard. Width is measured at the front 50 foot setback line, fhe 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. Tlie private curved drive surrounds the west lot on the north, south and west. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI annim; commission meeting Monday, June IB. 2001____________ (#01*2688 Kiiiland Woodhouic, Continued) The east parcel and middle parcel have been developed with the residence oriented towards the lake, with the lake side being considered the front yard and the north being considered the rear property line. To be consistent with the yards of the other two properties, the yards for the vacant west parcel could be defined os follows; - Front - lake side along driveway, beginning at the southern point of the reconfigured west parcel and e.stending northward along the curve to the point where the driveway straightens out. • Rear - north as show n by sun e> or • Side yard - west side along driveway and along east property line adjacent to the middle parcel. • It is questionable whether the west side lot line adjacent to the driveway should be treated as a side street. Staff recommends that it be simply a side lot line. noitcnberg noted only the east parcel will have lake access. StalT is recommending approval of tlie lot line rearrangement as proposed on the suney based on the follow ing conditions; 1. The City accepts yard setback demarcation as shown on the suney and neither lot width nor setback variances will be needed to build on the west lot. 2. Tlte applicant shall grant drainage and utility casements, to replace any such existing easements which no longer follow lot lines. Winton stated he dt»es not have any additional comments to Staff s report. Kurt Ket/ler. I lOU Heritage Lane, expnrssed concents regarding hcadliglus from the tralTic on the driveway coming into their a*sidences. Hawn stated the applicant will need to meet all the code requirements. Ciaffron stated there is a 30 fixit required setback, with the closest the home could be constructed being 50 feet from the lot line. Gaffron stated the lot line rearrangement does meet the City *s standards. Lindquist stated as long as the ci>nstriKfion of the house meets the standards of the City, they can build accordingly Melanie Hessner. 1190 Heritage Lane, stated she has lived in this area for seven years and has some concents regarding increased traffic if another residence is built in this area. Flessner stated the private driveway serves three homes and she would like to see some vegetation or screening along the roadway to limit the impact of the headlights flashing into their residences. Flessner expressed concerns that a much larger home than what currently exists in the ncighborhcKHl will be built Hawn stated the house must meet all code setbacks and other requirements, with the height being restricted to 30 feeL MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoBday.JMOc 18,2001 (001-2688 Kirtlaml WoodhuMc, Coatiaucd) GafTron stated the standard height requirement is 30 feet, with the City currently having no standards for screening in residential areas. Smith suggested that perhaps the resident talk w ith StafT if she has additional concerns regarding the codes regulating the construction of a house in this area. Kluth stated since it is private property. tJie owner is free to build on tlie property os long as it meets City Codes. Leo Bullock. 1 160 Heritage Lane, inquired whether the new lot would have lake access. GafTron staled the two westerly lots would not have lake access. GafTron slated only the east lot will have access to the lake. Bullock inquired whether both lots would need to pay a park dedication fee. GafTron staled the new lot would not be subject to a park dedication fee since it is a lot of record. Tom Crosby. Aitomey-at-Law. stated they are not creating a new buildable lot. Crosby stated the west lot currently is a buildable lot and they are merely changing the lot lines at this time. GafTron stated the driveway would only sene three homes. Bullock inquired whether the wetlands in the area would be impacted. Kluth stated they would not be. Snitk moved. Hawn seconded, lo recommend npproval of Application 801-2688, Kirtiand C. Woodhouse, 1780 Sboreline Drive, lot line rearmngemcnl subject to the conditions outiined in the Jnne 14,2001 PUnner ’s Report VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 8:38 p.m. - 8:44 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS. CONTINUED (85) 801-2681 ROGER A. DAY, 1205 SOUTH BROWN ROAD. VARIANCE Roger Day. Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and AfTidavit of Publication were noted. Boticnbcrg stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to permit construction of a 16' by 6’ addition lo the rear of the existing residence and a 12' by 6' porch to the front of the residence. The existing residence w as constructed in 1953, prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Required PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoBday. Jane 18,2001____________ («0I-268I Koccr Day. Conlinucd) setbacks for the propcri) arc 50 feet from l^kcvicw Avenue and SO feel from the rear lot line and 30 feet from the side lot tine. Variances are required to permit the kitchen addition to be located 20 feet from Lakeview Avenue where 50 feet is requ.. d. and 22 feel from the side lot line where 30 feet is required, and to permit the porch to be liKalcd 23.2 feel from lakeview Avenue where 50 feet is required. Roltenbcrg siaicil the property is liKaied in the Crystal Hay neighbiuhixul where most lots arc similar in si/e and dimension to the Applicant's property. A platted but undeveloped alley is located immediately west of the property. The City of Orono has no intention to open the alley for construction of a public right-of-way. 1 he alley is used for utilities. Dottenberg slated the residence was built 3.5 feel and 6.85 feel from lakeview Avenue in 1953. before the 50 fool setback for new construction was adopted Ihe residence was also constructed 8.5 feel and 9 2 feel from the side lot line before the 30 fool setback for new construction was required. No addition could be placed on the house without requiring variances Hoitcnbcrg noted no variances arc required for lot coverage or hardcover. Staff recommends approval of the application for variances to pennil construction of the kitchen addition and pisrch. Day staled he has nothing to add to Stall's report. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the shed that is currently located on the property line lot could be relocated. Day stated the shed has been relocated once, w ith a previous survey done back in 1985 show ing Ihe sh^ being located towards the back of the property and over the propeny line. Day inquired where the shed should be moved to. Smith staled she would like to see the shed moved further onto the Applicant's property. Day staled there currently is a dog kennel attached to the shed and it would be difTiculi to move. Hawn requested if Ihe Applicant decides to rebuild the structure, that the shed be relocated. Lindquist moved, Hawn Bccandcd. to recommend approval of Application MOI-2681, Roger Day, 1205 South Brow n Road, gmaliBg of variances to side yard adjacent to street setback, side yai^ adjacent to street setback, and side yard setback to permit the construction of an addition to the rear of the esisling residence and a porch to Ihe front of Ihe residence. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE It MINUTES OFTIIE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Jhbc IS, 2001____________ (#6) S01-26S4 TERESA KOCH, 2225 BAYVIEW PLACE. VARIANCE. 8:51 p.m. - 8:55 p.i Teresa Koch, Applicanl. was present. The Certificate of Mailing anJAffidas it of Publication were noted. Gaffron stated the Applicanl is requesting lot width and lot area variances to permit the construction of a new residence on the lot. The e.xisiing residence that was built in 1900 will be demolished. The lot consists of. 173 acre where .5 acre Is the minimum lot area for the LR-IC roning district for new construction. The majority of the lot is in the 500-1000' setback area. A snull pi>rlion by the street is in the 250-500’ setback area. The additional hardcover is to allow the driveway to be straight to the street rather than tapered. Ihe tapered driveway will meet hardcover requirements for the 250-500' setback area. Ihe hardcover would be 224 square feet or 29,99 percent where 224.1 square feet or 30 percent is allowed. Gaffron noted the property is serv iced by sewer and water. Gaffron indicated the lot was planed prior to current zoning requirements, with a residence currently e.xisting on the property In a non-confbnning location loo close to the side lot line and w ill be removed. The new residence will meet all required setbacks Gaffron noted there is no additional land which could be combined with the property. Staff is recommending approv al of the requested variances. Koch stated she has nothing to add to Stall's report. Stoddard noted the Planning Commission has been very consistent on new construction with requests for hardcover variances. Hawn stated the Planning Commis.vion has been a little more lenient on hardcover when It comes to driveways. Hawn noted this area does not have off-street parking and that the new driveway will be a reduction from what currently e.xists. Mabusth noted the new residence will meet the required setbacks. Mabiulb moved, Stoddard leconded, to recommend approval of Application 1-2684, Teresa Koch, 2225 Uayview Place, granting of variances to lot arca/Iol width and a v ariance to hardcover in the 250-500’ setback area to permit constmetioa of a new residence based on the finding that the additional hardcover w ill result in nn increased driveway to allow for off-street parking in an nren w here on-street parking is very congested and off-street parking b needed. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moadav, Jaac 18.2001____________ («7) MZOI-2685 JOHN CULLITON, 1131 WILDHURST TRAIL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:56 p.m. - 9:04 p.m. John Culliton. Applicant, and Steve Dchnke. Brenshcll Homes, were present. Tlic Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffron slated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to approve land alteration on the property in c.xccss of 500 cubic yards to construct golf Ices and greens. The tecs 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 ntad construction at Wildhurst W oods, an adjacent subdivision. The Applicant has agreed to remove the fill if the land alteration is denied. The fill w ill not change the hardcover coverage on the property. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has made certain recommendations which are contained in his June 11. 2001 letter and are outlined in the June 11,2001 Planner's Report Gaffron suggested the Applicant submit a dmin.igc area map be submitted prior to this matter proceeding to the City Council. GalTron noted Staff has determined that any obstruction to views to the north and east is not an issue since City Codes do not protect views for the Brenshell Home properties. Staff has also reviewed whether the property is located in or near to a bluff area and hits determined that it does not meet the necessary criteria t»» be considered as a bluff area. Hie Applicant is also required to have the plans reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit prov ided the Applicant submits a plan that addresses the concerns raised in the City Engineer’s letter for review and approval prior to paxeeding to the City Council Bchnke stated he has already directed his engineers to prepare a spliced map for the City Engineer’s review and to prepare the drainage calculations. Behnke stated he is not opposed to this project impacting the v iews of the residences located in the Brenshell Home development Behnke stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District does not act on any plan until they receive preliminary approval from the City. There were no public comments regarding this application Lindquist moved. Smith secondctl, to rccommcmJ approval of Application 601-2685, John Culliton, 1131 Wildhurst Trail, graatiag of a eonditioBal use pcimit to approve laud alteration in cicess of 500 cubic yards to construct golf tees and greens, subject to the conditions outlined in the June 11,2001 Pbnncr’s Report VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoRday.JoMlSJOqi__________ (M) MII-2686 SUZANNE AND TERRY JOHNSON. 543 PARK LANE. VARIANCE, 9:05 p.m. - 9:25 p.m. Su/anne and Tcrr>‘ Johnson. Applicants. \%cre present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg slated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit construction of an attached garage to the street side of the residence. The new garage will be 24’ by 24’. A portion of the e.xistir.g garage will become the new master bedroom. Hie new garage will e.xtend 16 feel closer to the street than the existing garage. Variances are needed because the garage encroaches in the rear setback, side sard setback, as well as increases the structural coverage on the lot over the allowed IS percent and hardcover in the 75-2SO’ setback area over the allowed 25 percent. Tlic second part of the request is to permit including the steps into the e.xisling entiyway on the south side of the residence. The enlr>wa> is alread> covered and the Applicants w ish to include the side steps as part of it. Variances are needed because the entr>xva> encroaches into the side yard setback and hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is over the allowed 25 percent. The entrxway will not increase the structural lot coverage. The existing entrxway and steps are already considered structure. The third part of the request is to permit enclosing a ground level patio. The patio will be enclosed to be a screen porch. A variance is required because it encroaches into the average lakeshore setback. The screen porch will not increase the hardcover in the 75-250 setback area or structural lot coverage. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has reduced the amount of hardcover and structural coverage from their original plan. The Applicant has agreed to remove substantial amounts of hardcover to lower the hardcover coverage in the 75*250' setback area. Tlte structural coverage on the lot will increase with the addition from 1.792 square feet to 2.195.55 square feet above the allowed 1.519.2 square feet. Moving the wall eight feet into the residence reduces the existing house by 169 square feel, but the 24’ bv 24’ garage adds 576 square feet to the residence, resulting in a net increase of 407 square feet. Bottenberg noted the hardcover in the 0-75' setback is not changing, with the existing hardcover in this setback being at 6.3 percent. Bonenberg stated the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area is decreasing from 63.1 percent to 53.1 percent. Bottenberg stated the garage addition to the east side of the residence would be located five feet from the side property line where ten feet is required. The existing garage does meet the side yard setback requirements. The garage addition will be located 8.8 feet from the rear lot line where 3.5 Icct is required, fhe existing garage is located 22 feet and 28 feet from the rear lot line. Tlie entry way addition to the sviuth side of the residence will be located 6 6 feet from the side lot line where 10 feet is required. Hie existing entryway is 6.6 feet from the side lot line. The enclosure of the existing patio to a screen porch will not increase hardcover or structural lot coverage on the lot. It will only L____ MINUTES OF TIIF. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoBday,JaDel8,200l __________ (#01>26i)6 Surannr and Terry Johnson, Conlinned) Bottcn'iK'rg siaictl ihc residence \»as built in l%0 in its present location prior to current zoning ordinances but generally in compliance with all current codes. The adjacent lots are Ksth lOO feet wide, with this lot being 50 feet side and small for the LR*IB zoning district standards. Bottenberg noted a pennit was issued in 1964. for construction of the porch. Bottenberg noted StafTdid receive three leners from the adjoining property ow ners in support of the proposed improsements. Johnson had nothing to add to SlafTs report. lltcrc were no public comments regarding this application. Stoddard inquired whether the amount of driveway could be reduced. Johnson suted the main issue with the driveway is that parking is not allowed on Park Lane. Johnson stated the road is narrow and the street is not quite centered, so there is more area from the garage to the center of the street than what is depicted. Hawn stated she has an issue with the amount of structural coverage on the lot and whether a hardship exists for the garage. Hawn stated the hardship should be impined bv the land. Johnson stated they are hav ing a dilTicult time finding adequate space to parL with the closest available parking ^'ing available on Tonkawa. Johnson stated there arc also some foundation issues with the house, which was built in 1962. Johnson stated their present garage floor is buckled and needs to be replaced Mabusth inquired whether they considered going up with the e.xpansion. Johnson stated thev did look at that option, but due to the concerns with the foundation, elected not to go up. Mabusth stated if the addition were to go up over what is currently existing, the amount of structural coverage on the lot would not increase. Hawn stated the Planning Commission in the past has been very stringent with allowing structural coverage in excess of what is allowed kluth noted this area in general is high in structural coverage. Johnson stated they have removed as much hardcov er as possible and have reduced the size of the garage already. Johnson stated they have reduced the size of the addition as much as possible. Hawn commented it is a small lot. HaMii inquired why parking is not allowed on Park Lane, kluth stated the road is quite narrow. PAGE 22 j MINLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNINC; COMMISSION MEETING MoBilav, Jaac IMOOl____________ (M0I-26S6 SuMoac aad Terry Johasoa, Coatioacd) Smith staled she alsi» would prefer ihe> go up rather than out to help preserse the green space on the lot and to keep the structural coserage down. Johnson commented there ma> be some room to modify the driveway v>mewhat. Hawn reiterated she still has a concern with the amount of structural coverage being proposed. Stoddard fitted he would be in favor of this application if the hardcover is reduced to 50 percent. Kluth commented the limits on hardcover and structural coverage help with the filtration of water to the lake. Kluth inquired whether there is a difference between structural cov .-rigc and hardcover Mabusth stated there is a concern with the massing of the building on the lot. Kluth inquired whether this lot is dilTercni from the other lots m the area. Kluth slated he would like to see what the rest of the neighborluKHi liH>ks like and whether this is keeping with the character of the area. Julmsoii stated the other properties in lire area also have hardcover in excess of 50 percent Mrs. Johnson notc^J they arc adding green space on the east side of the garage. Johnson stated it vvill also prov ide m • gc for snow. Stoddard moved. Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application M0I>2686, Su/anne and Terry Johnson, 543 Park Lane, craatiag of variuccs to side yard setback, side yard setback, rear yard setback and average lakeshore setback, 'variances to structural lot coverage and hardcover in the 75-250- setback area, with the understanding the hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback area will be limited to 50 percent prior to submittal to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 5, .Nays 2. Smith and Hawn opposed. Hawn and Smith indicated they arc unable to support the increase in the amount of structural coverage. PLANNING COMMISSION COM.MENTS (MIO) REPORT OK PLANNING COMMI.SSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COl NCIL MEETINGS MAY 2". 2001 AND JUNE 11. ’001 Stoddard slated he attended the Ntay Council meeting « - all the agenda items were approved. Kluth slated he attended the June 11"* meeting where he explained in detail what happened with the Bavwind Christian Church application. Kluth stated he requested the Council consider increasing the sire of the Planning Commission to insure that there is more than a quorum present. PAGE2J MINITTESOFTIIE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoBdav, Jmbc 18,2001____________ (MI1-2M6 SaMBBC aad Terry JokBsoa, CoBlIaacd) Smith stated she alst» would prefer the> go up rather than out to help pres«r\e the green space on the lot and to keep the structural coserage down. Johnson commented there ma> he s<ime n>om to nuxlif> the driseway somewhat. Hawn reiterated she still has a concern with the amount of structural coserage being proposed. SliHldari! r.t:*ted he would he in favor of this applicatiivn if the hardcover is reduced to 50 percent. Kluth commented the limits on hardcover and structural coverage help with tlie filtration of water to the lake. Kluth inquired whether there is a dilTerence between structural cov u-rage and hardcover. Mabusth stated there is a concern with the massing of the building on the lot. Kluth inquired whether this lot is different from the other lots m thr area. Kluth stated he would like to sec what the rest of the neighborluHHl l«»oks like and whether this is keeping with the character of the area. Johnson staled the other properties in the area also have hardcover in excess of 50 pcrcet t. Mrs. Johnson notcnl they are adding green space on the cast side of the garage Johnson slated it will also provide s* ige for snow. Stoddard moved, Kluth sceondeiL to recommend approval of Application M)l*2686, Su/unne and Terry Juhasun, 54J Park Lane, granting of variances to side yard setback, side yard setback, rear yard setback and average lakeshore setback, ‘variances to structural lot coverage and hardcover in the 75-250- setback area, with the understanding the hardcover in the *'5-250* setback urea will be limited to 50 percent prior to submittal to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Smith and Hawn op|»osed. Hawn and Smith indicated they arc unable to support the increase in the amount of structural coverage PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (MIO) REPORT OK PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COLNCIL MEETINGS MAY 7", 2001 AND JUNE II. 7001 Stoddard stated he attended the May 2d'" Council meeting. « < all the agenda items were approved. Kluth st.ited he attended the June 11^ meeting where he explained in detail what happened w ith the Dayvvind Christian Church application. Kluth stated he requested the Council consider increasing the sire of tlie Planning Commission to insure that there is more than a quorum present. PAGE2J MI.NtTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ____ Monday, Jane 18,2001____________ (Kcporl of Plannine Commbsion, Continued) GalTron Niaicd ihcy do ha\c four alternates that can be catted. Gaffron staled Staff Mill call the Planning Commission members each month to determine whether a sufficient number will be able to attend prior to calling the nltemates. GalTron noted the City Council would like seven members on the Planning Commission at each meeting. Stoddard requested consideration be given once again to a consent agenda for the Planning Commission. Stoddard slated the public in attendance could be asked at the beginning of the meeting whether they are here to comment on any particular application. Sansevere stated this item could be discussed at the upcoming Council workshop. (Wll) OTHER ISSl ES FOR niSCUSSION None SELECnON OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JUNE 25.2001 AND JULY 9.2001 June 25 - Smith July 9 • Mabutsh («H2) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 19. 2001. APRIL 16.2001, AND MAY 21,2001 Klulh moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve the minutes of the May 21,2001 Planning Commkslon meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Haw n nutved, Stoddard seconded, tu rescind the above motion approsing the May 21.2001 minutes. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Berg requested a change be made on Page 24 indicating that there is a significant amount of traffic on 15 and 19. uith minimal traffic going north compared to what is going south. Smith requested the minutes be reflected to show that representatives were chosen to attend the Mav 29. 2001 and June 11.2001 City Council meetings. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve the minutes of the May 21,2001 Planning Commission meeting as amended. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Hawn moved, Mabutsh seconded, to approve the minutes of tbe March 19,2001 and April 16,2001 Plaaning Commission as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0, Berg and Smith Abstained. PAGE 24 MINLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Jua« 18.2001____________ (Report of Planning Commiuion, Continned) GafTrun slated they do have four ultcrnaies that can be called. GafTron slated SlalTMitI call the Planning Commission members each month to determine whether a sufTicient number w ill be able to anend prior to calling the nliemales. GafTron noted the City Council would like seven members on the Planning Coinmission at each meeting. Stoddard requested consideration be given once again to a consent agenda for the Planning Commission. Siixidard staled the public in attendance could be asked at the beginning of the meeting whether they are here to comment on any particular application. Sansevcrc stated this item could be discussed at the upcoming Council workshop. (Nil) OTHER ISSl'ES FOR DESCUSSION None (#13) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COl NCIL .MEETINGS ON JI'NE 25.2001 AND JULY 9.2001 June 25 - Smith July 9 - Mabutsh (#12) PLANNING CO.MMISSION APPROVAL OF .MINUTES FOR MARCH 19. 2001. APRIL 16.2001, AND MAY 21,2001 KIttth mused, Stoddard seconded, to approve the minutes of the May 21.2001 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to rescind the above motion approving the May 21,2001 minutes. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Derg requested a change be made on Page 24 indicating that there is a significant amount of traffic on 15 and 19. with minimal traffic going north compared to what is going south. Smith requested the minutes be reflected to show that representatives were chosen to attend the May 29. 2001 and June 11. 2001 City Council meetings. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve tbe minutes of the May 21,2001 Planning Cunimissiun meeting as amended. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Haw n moved, Mabutsh seconded, to approve the minutes of the March 19,2001 and April 16,2001 Planning Commission as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0, Berg and Smith Abstained. PAGE 24 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ____ MomUy.JMB* IIL200I__________ ADJOURNMENT Berg mmed, SaUth sccoadcd, to adjoani flic mretiag at 9:43 p.n. Tlierc being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn, Chair PAGE 25