HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2001 Planning Packet' ' %
Public Attendance
>CC(j 11'Meeting Date 1' I
□ Council
B'Planning C ommission
□ Park Commission
PUIASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday September 17,2001 6:30 PM
2750 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers
AGENDA
Council Representative: Mayor Peterson
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:
Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning
Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when
the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission b an advisory body to the
City Council. If action b taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the
October 8,2001 City Council meeting unless otberwbe noted by the Chair.
OLD BUSINESS
Review of these items will commence before or between scheduled public hearings.
itOl-2689 Mandeep Sodhi, 4080 Dahl Road, After-The-Fact Variances and
Conditional Use Permit (StafT: Paul Weinberger)
1101-2699 Jay and Kendall Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road, Variances
(Staff: Paul Weinberger)
#01-2702 Fine Line Design Group, 3551 Livingston Avenue, Renewal of Variances
(StafT: Wendy Bottenberg)
NEW BUSINESS
Review of these items will commence before or between scheduled public hearings.
jK #01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark, 815 Partenwood Road, Renewal of Variances
(StafT: Wendy Bottenberg)
/
. #01-2708 Michael and Jeanic McClelland, 2170 Minnetonka Avenue, Variances
(Staff: Paul Weinberger)
(iy W)I-2709 Richard R. Shull, 2285 French Lake Road, Variances
(Staff: Wendy Bottenberg)
#01-2710 Donald and Joanne Davidson, 568 Keene Avenue, Variances
(Staff: Wendy Bottenberg)
8^ #01-2713 Diane and Douglas Merz, 380 Tumham Road, After-The-Fact Variance,
(StafT: Wendy Bottenberg)
^ #01-2716 Brenshell Development, 2200 Shadywood Road, Variances,
(Staff; Wendy Bottenberg)
lOT #01-2717 Ted and Jody Spooner, 700 Tonkawa Road, After-The-Fact Variances
and Conditional Use Permit, (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg)
1 1 . #01-2715 John M. Bailey, 2807 Casco Point Road, Variances,
(Staff: Paul Weinberger)
J,2<^1-271 1 Western Steel Erection, Inc. 2687 Wayzata Boulevard, Conditional Use
Permit, (Staff: Paul Weinberger)
13. #01-2714 Frederick Puzak, 1340 Baldur Park Road, Variances,
(Staff: Paul Weinberger)
SCHDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P.M.
#01-2718 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.03, Fence Standards
(Staff: Mike Gaffron)
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
15. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings August 27,
2001 and September 10,2001.
16. Other issues for discussion.
17. Planning Commission approval of minutes for August 20,2001 .
18. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on September 24,2001 and
October 8,2001.
ADJOURNMENT
y
MEDINA
»ia£tilji4».-Q- MOO H «oo. I
■'ZS
-T^i-a7i3
V ■
•X
. ^
1^1
IfL
wmsSfR
m
\
te
IM
ri?""
laac N rcrc«i>A
y
4400 4000 3200 2800 2400 2000 1600 1200 600 400
^ity of Orono, Minnesota
Ireet Numbering Index Map
I • • *
iCi^TSSQ scscs.
a>
WOOH
»•* north
IAU9C.WgVTSgQ*
w. V ••0 upx ^ IMS 1 cpr r. if torcf t.9M Mi lO.Mf M f. Iff
aiAiisfA SSS: If^SSl JIT^
400
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday September 17, 2001 6:30 PM
2750 Kelley Parkway - Council Chariiben
AGENDA
Council Representative: Mayor Peterson
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:
Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you svish to address the Planning
Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions w hen
the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisor}' body to the
City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the
October 8,2001 Cit>' Council meeting unless othenvise noted by the Chair.
OLD BUSINESS
Review of these items will commence before or between scheduled public hearings.
1. ltOl-2689 Mandeep Sodhi, 4080 Dahl Road, Afler-Thc-racl Variances and
Conditional Use Permit (Stall: Paul Weinberger) Map B-6
2. #01-2699 Jay and Kendall Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road, Variances
(StalT: Paul Weinberger) Map A-7
3. #01-2702 Fine Line Design Group. 3551 Livingston Avenue, Renewal of Variances
(Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) Map D-9
NEW BUSINESS
Review of these items will commence before or between scheduled public hearings.
4. #01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark, 815 Partenwood Road, Renewal of Variances
(Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) Map C-6
5. #01-2708 Michael and Jeanie McClelland, 2170 Minnetonka Avenue, Variances
(Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map G-7
6. #01-2709 Richard R. Shull, 2285 French Lake Road, Variances
(Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) Map C-6
Davidson. 568 Kccnc Avenue, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) Map 1-5
* ■'■“••"hani Road. Aner-Thc-Fact Variance.(Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) MapA-3
9. MOI-2716 Breiishell Development. 2200 Shailvwood Road. Variances
(Staff; W'endy Bottenberg) Map D-9
10. X01-27I7 Ted and Jody Spooner. 700 Tonkawa Road, ARcr-The-Fact V'ariances
and Conditional Use Permit. (StafT: Wendy Bottenberg) Map C-5
11. tfOl-2715 John M. Bailey, 2807 Casco Point Road, Variances,
(Staff: Paul Weinberger) MapC-ll
12. MOI-2711 W'estem Steel Erection. Inc. 2687 Way/ata Boulevard, Conditional Use
Permit. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map F-2
13. WOI-2714 Frederick Piuak, 1340 Daldur Park Road, Variances.
(Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map C-7
SCilDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P.M.
14. «01-2718 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment. Section 10.03, Fence Standards
(Staff: Mike GafTron)
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
15. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council mcclinus Aimusi V
2001 and September 10,2001.
16. Other for discii«;«iinn.
H"’
Date of Compkte Application:
60 Day Deadline:
7/19/01
11/17/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administralor/Planner
DATE:September 12,2001
SUBJECT:#01-2689 Mandeep Sodhi
4080 Dahl Road
After-the-Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit
Lakeshore Vegetation Restoration Plan Review
The applicant has not submitted additional information requested for review by the Planning
Commission. The letter was mailed requesting the information before September 10* to remain on
the September 17* Agenda.
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to table the application until the information requested has been received.
v:^;i .:
CITY of ORONO
Municipal Oflkcs
Stmt AMriu:
2750 Kelley Parimay
Orom. MN 55356
NOTIFICATION OF 60 DAY EXTENSION
Mailiaf Adtfrats:
P.O. Boi 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066
September 4,2001
Mr. Mandeep Sodhi
4080 Dahl Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Application #01-2689
State law requires that Cities shall decide on zoning applications within 60 days from the date an
application is considered complete. The review period may be extended by notification to the
applicant.
Your application was complete on July 19.2001. The 60 day review period expires on September
18. 2001. As discussed with the Planning Commission on August 20, 2001 the following
information is required to for review of your application:
1.Revised survey indicating all existing conditions on the property, including recent
topographic changes and all hardcover. The grading plan reviewed by the Planning
Commission did not indicate recent grade changes.
A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted to adequately screen the stairway and retaining
wall.
The City of Orono is extending review of your application an additional 60 days to expire on
November 17. 2001.
The City is extending your application an additional 60 days to allow time for Planning Commission
and City Council review. The earliest potential date that the Planning Commission could review your
request is Monday, September 17,2001. Please submit the items requested above by September 10,
2001 to remain on the September agenda. If the items are received after September 17 the item will
be heard by the Planning Commission on October 15,2001.
Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616
www,cLoffonojnnjis
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (952) 249-4600 should you have questions.
Sincerely,
Paul Weinberger
Zoning Administrator
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:September 12, 2001
SUBJECT:mo I *2699 Jay Nygard
1386 Rest Point Road
Variances
!a
Application mO 1-2699 is incomplete. The applicant needs to submit a certified survey, hardcover calculations
and a proposed floor plan sketch with dimensions. The application will be tabled.
Staff Recommendation
Motion to table application mOI-2699 and continue to the next available meeting.
Application Date:
Deadline:
8/17/01
10/16/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planncr
DATE:September 5,2001
SUBJECT:#01-2708 Michael and Jeanic McClelland
2170 Minnetonka Avenue
Variance * Public Hearing
Zoning Dbtrict:RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential
List of Eibibits
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
II
Application
Survey
Plat Map
Staff Letter (July 25, 2000)
Staff Letter (July 10, 2001)
Site Photos (New Fence)
Photos (Removed Fence)
Property Owners Notification List
Review of Request Applicants have requested variances to permit a 6 foot fence to be located in
a defined side-street yard where no fences over 3 Vi feet in height are permitted. A 6 ’ fence was
constructed last year to replace a fence that had existed on the property line. The City had notified
the property owners the fence could not be replaced in the existing location because the fence was
non-conforming due to the 6 foot height in a street yard. In addition the fence was constructed
partially in the right of way. The notice alerted the property owners the fence would be required to
be removed from the right of way and if the 6 foot fence would be built on the property line they
would need a variance.
The Municipal Code permits fences as a non-encroachment within required yard areas, however the
height of a fence can not exceed 3 '/j feet if located in a street yard. The applicants property is
defined as a comer lot w ith two street yards. Properties in the RR-1B zoning district have a required
setback of 50 feet to the property lines. A 6 foot fence could be constructed but only it constructed
50 feet from the property line. ________________________________
iOl-2708 Micluitl and Jeanie McClelland
2170 Minnetonka Avenue
9/17/01
Page I of 3
I iru
Pertinent Ordinance
Section 10.03, Subdivision IS (C): This section permits 3 Vi foot fences as a non-encroachment to
required yard setbacks.
Non Lakeshore Lots
Exceptions to the 3 ‘/i foot setback are permitted for fences located outside of front yard setbacks
and side yard adjacent to street setbacks (A fence up to 6 feet in height could be constructed within
the side yard setback and rear yard setback.)
Fence Location and Construction
The existing fence is required to be removed because it is in the right of way. After discussions with
City Staff the property owners were permitted to leave the fence standing until action is taken by the
Council on the variance request. The fence is located adjacent to a street that is partially
undeveloped. The Minnetonka Avenue right of way separates the applicants lot from an adjacent
lot to the south. There are no plans by the City of Orono to extend or further develop the street.
The original fence had the support posts and framing facing towards the north side of the fence (the
inside of the property). The new fence was constructed that exposes the “unfinished ” side towards
the street and neighbors. The existing code does not regulate the construction or materials for fences.
In an uttrelaled fence issue the Council has recently heard from a property owner that had concerns
with the City ordinance that unfinished sides of fences should not be exposed to the outside the
property. Council has requested a review of the existing ordinances pertaining to fences and
consider fence construction standards. If the property owners would construct a 3 '/i foot along the
property line there is nothing in the existing ordinances that would prohibit a fence from exposing
one side or the other towards a neighbor or the street. Because the fence requires a height variance
the visual impact of the unfinished side of the fence is greater on adjacent property owners and the
street. An issue for Planning Commission discussion is whether the side of the fence viewed by
adjacent properties and the street should be the finished side rather than unfinished side (exposing
six foot high support posts and framing).
Options for Planning Commission Action
A. Recommend approval.
B. Recommend denial, stating reasons.
C.Table.
Other action.
«0I-270S MichKi and leanie McCteUand
2170 Minnetonka Avenue
9/17/01
Pafe2or3
Staff Rccomniendation
Staff recommends approval of the application based on the fact the property is a comer lot with one
street frontage located adjacent a non-developed street that is not planned to be further developed
or improved. The side yard adjacent to the street functions as an interior side lot line. The intent of
the ordinance is to not allow fences over 3 */a feet to located in a functional street yard.
The total width of the right of way is 40', therefore the fence would be located 40' from the nearest
adjacent property line. The recommendation of approval includes the recommendation that the fence
shall be constructed to visually expose the “finished*’ side of the fence towards the south to adjacent
property owners and public right of way.
«0l-270i Michael and Jcanic McClelland
2170 Minnetonka Avenue
0/17/01
Page 3 of 3
L
1
A
Application # OI-ZlOB
Date Received 9 Injo /
Amount Paid
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for nomconforming 5tructures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMijgriON ^
Site Address no/V^~bk^a . . C r^sVal OM
Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) loU a L Noct 1Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) a on
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired rUvQ _____________________^(month/year)
I (do) (do not) also own the adjdcent parcels of land.
Present use of prope^: residential ___other (specify).
Zoning District: _________________________
APPLICANT ^
Name rOicnea \
Address: P. O. fcoyanom
taruf todlond Phone (home)Q0^-
IfHQ
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name
Citv:(^f ys4t<j Rtxy Zip:
Phone (home).
Phone (work)
Address:City:Zip:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $
Describe request in detail; Llfa Ajs CMjJt
on nixc pn^or^^ Coe. r
(attach additionJl sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage
Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakcshore
Other (specify)_Q i v\jT C 0~>"\ioi-lx C
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements;____________________________________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
#2708 6
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in
order for vour application to be cnmidcred complgte:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Completed Application Fonn
Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Countv' Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy %Vi" x 11" for
reproduction.
Toj.’ographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/i" x H").
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 owner(s).
As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
The Applicant and Property Owner must‘sign this application. Please remember that your
variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant ’s Signature lAiui 2'c!
OWNER’S SIGNATURE
The owner 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 >u/ ^~H-6 I_________
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 the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
• 4
J ■CP
%
J
IN LOTS 4. 5. & 6. BLOCK 8. MONTEREY ON MINNETONKA
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
.8
•
S B9°2V!08 ” E 175.0 !
I.#
Existing
PORTAI
SHED
152.7)
pe
••(953.8)
/
6vf
; (9 ‘ 3.4)
• M< >Ie
<950.4) ^
4 rp«T
rpxo^osEO r£#(fc
threshold
r
'•“Ie XISTING o'
5 1 HOUSE
J
.V?‘ (955.5)v
elev.-(965.6)*-‘
^*****‘
N 89*25'02" W
end
(962.0)-•>
175.0(T meos. 176:0* | V ’.'a ‘
I iV aV •• •
•---30.0--->
••(963.6)
noa in 20 “ tndM
(963.3)-.^
A-
■ ^ . (9589)
iSiii^NETONM'
• ft
m.' •■ ^ .V ■ .
i,-(962.4)
.^•kri
.->••. .. A
. ■>'
■'w# ' X AVE.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES :
Lots 4. 5. and 6. Block 8, MONTEREY ON MINNETONKA.
EXCEPT the North 12 feet of said Lots 4, 5. and 6.
0 : denotes iron marker
(961.8) t denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level dolum
_ denotes proposed spot elevation, meon sea level datum
Beorings shown ore based upon on assumed datum.
; 24,t9St sa.^r.
This survey intends to show the boundories of the above described property,
and the location of an existing house and shed thereon. It does not purport
to show any other improvements or encroachments.
U >
VI
0)
T)<
O
toro
r—
i
(/)
O oUl
E on
o to•^ 1cd
K>
/D-//7-^3
Hennepin County Taxpayer Services D^p^tr^nt ■i4m.
''<f, iiJSrrREEK
ounorc
fOo,
attis
241%
ouTiori
474 S M€Sr
o rV
s
t ^m a
*a
* 3:»a
* (30) m a
a 'If*
a
a i
f78 a
a i
ITS
a
a
179
a
a •*m >w .a
*1 rA*
a 3 : aS '
9 2^ • 9
" • If* ; *
s
a
a
a 2* .-a
^ (70! : *
a*/ '
* (73;, >
a
iJ3» t40
(72; 140
^OA/M >»\/£
a m
*(M) 77}
t4$ 7/ f<02 • V
,37^
f 140.
fit JOfitJO «1 ,/
fit on 10702 (32;
» f0ro^3O» ai
'a a to «J
,(2»; ., a/
fit JO (23>
a WH• fUSi (75; ^
■ —o
(35» 140*
a (29): a//26 j a
ffio
CRYSTAL AVE
PROSi
(103)(97)
2i Sf f1 (57} «(51) 170
M TtR K VI LkE
8*8
1
18 '*’» a
L_______!79______
8 "* a'* ’ -3 *1 CO 1T * 170 o ' . 1
(5J) 8 K
<0
Parcel Information
Parcel ID 1011723310093
House Number 2170
Street Name MINNSTONKA AVB
Condominium ij <
This is not a legally recorded map. It repfsents a compilation ofMontiitlon' •
and data from City, County, and State road authorities and other sources.
!:O
0
% • ^CITY of ORONO
Municipal Offices
V
Strait Addriss:
27S0 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Mailiig Xddrau:
P.O. Boi 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066
Michael P. McClelland
2170 Minnetonka Avenue North
P.O. Box 45
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
July 25,2000
Dear Nlr. McClelland;
It has come to the attention of the City of Orono that the fence along the south lot line of your
property located at 2170 Minnetonka Avenue has recently been replaced. Staff conducted a site
inspection on July 24,2000 and found a new fence had been constructed in approximately the same
location as the fence that had been removed. Although the Cit>‘ of Orono does not require permits
for fences, new fences shall meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinances.
South of your propert>’ there is a 33 ’ wide platted right of way that separates your property from the
lot to the south. The 33' is an extension of Mirmetonka Avenue and is owned by the City of Orono.
Your fence appears to be located approximately 1 Vi feet outside of your property lines onto the
public right of way for Mirmetonka Avenue. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance does not permit new
fences over 3 Vi feet in height to be located within 50 feet of a property line adjacent to a street.
Your new fence measures an average height of 6 feet, where only 3 Vi feet is permitted.
The City of Orono is requiring the fence to be removed from the public right of way and reduced in
height to 3 Vi feet, or to relocate the fence to meet a minimum 50 foot setback from the south lot line.
The City of Orono has established a deadline of August 21,2000 to relocate or remove the fence.
During the site inspection the following were also noted;
1.A truck is parked on the south side of the residence with e.xpired tabs. The City of Orono
prohibits parking of inoperable or unlicenced vehicles (Section 9.50).
A motor home and boat are parked on the south side of the residence. Recreational vehicles
and boats are required to meet a minimum 10 foot setback to property lines and must be
located to the rear of the house (Section 9.52 and Section 10.60, Subdivision 13).
Telephone (952) 249<4«00 • Fax (952) 249-4416
«nrw.ci.oronojmi.us
%1
Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss these issues, at (952) 249-4600.
Sincerely,
Paul Weinberger
Zoning Administrator
cc: Greg Gappa, Public Services Director
Lyle Oman, Building Official
Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager
Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Marc Davis, Building Inspector
u
/'o
I
*•
A t CITY of ORONO
Municipal Ofllccs
»sho »;
Strait Addrtss:
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono. MN 55356
Mailing Addrass:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066
Michael P. McClelland
2170 Minnetonka Avenue North
P.O. Box 45
Cry stal Bay, MN 55323
Julv 10, 2001
Dear Mr. McClelland:
It has come to our attention the fence along the south lot line of your property located at 2170
Minnetonka .Avenue has not been relocated to come into conformance with the City's local
ordinances. Last year on. July 24, 2000 the property was inspected where it was discovered a new
fence had been constructed in approximately the same location as a fence that had been removed.
.•Mthough the City ot Orono does not require permits for fences, new fences and replacement fences
are required to meet the current requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
To review the issue for you, south of your property there is a 33' wide platted right of way that
separates your property from the lot to the south. The 33' is an extension of Minnetonka Avenue and
is owned by the City of Orono. Your fence appears to be located approximately 1 '/: feet outside of
your property lines onto the public right of way for Minnetonka Avenue. In addition, the Zoning
Ordinance does not permit new fences over 3 '/: feet in height to be located within 50 feet of a
property line adjacent to a street. Your new fence measures an average height of 6 feet, where only
3 '/’ feet is permitted.
The City of Orono is requiring the fence to be removed from the public right of way and reduced in
height to 3 '/: teet, or to relocate the fence to meet a minimum 50 foot setback from the south lot line.
The City of Orono had originally established a deadline of August 21, 2000 to relocate or remove
the fence, it has been nearly one year and the fence has not been relocated. If >ou do request to
maintain a fence at its current height a variance approval process is required .A variance requires
an application be made to the City of Orono. A deadline has been established of August 22,2001
to either bring the fence in question into conformance w ith local ordinances or you to file a complete
variance application request.
I have included a copy of the earlier letter mailed to you, dated July 25,2000. Please contact me at
your earliest convenience to discuss the options listed above, at (952) 249-4600.
Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616
wvw.cLoronoann.us
Sincerely,
Paul Weinberger
Zoning Administrator
f-
cc: Greg Gappa, Public Services Director
Lyle Oman, Building Official
Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Marc Davis, Building Inspector
^nrrmtir ift
F
7^ t
f
“I M ‘
ICl: L■inuSfii'
'V
I ^
jn^fl'
irt'.T'iv^"-:.
Vi »
' •^*«'»-.*f ; w ^
WCW Ff Net -t'^riMStlEO SiftC TeiRNeO TO
O'-'TSiC.e OF PT^orEfetY
—1 *p* * ••
^ Ti‘. ; V'
I .
• .*.*i
.*
if - •V.-'
• »
A'£ W Fer^'CG - FRo(v\ /WTetioii. oF icT
I!
if
f \
I
1
RUN DATE 08/02/n
BATCH SOB
HENNEPIN COUNTV PROPEIITY INIOITNATION SYSTEN
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
REPORT NO. PlASMii
PACE 21
• \
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADOR
SB 1B-II7-23 23 OBBA
BBB3B ADDRESS UNASSI6NED
CLARK J WINSLOW ET AL
SHARON t CLARK WINSLOW
12B5 FRENCH CREEK CIR
WAYZATA tlN 5S3B1
SB 1B-117-2S 2A BBSB
B12S3 BRIAR ST
T E FRANK B • L FRANK
THOHAS I BARBARA FRANK
1233 BRIAR ST
WAYZATA m 55SB1
SB 1B-117-2S 2A BBSl
BUBS ARBOR ST
S B R CARLSON
STEPHEN C i RANOI J CARLSON
IIBS ARBOR ST
WAYZATA NN 55391
BBSB
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/ADDR
SB IB-117-23 31
B127B BRIAR ST
JOHN C RANGE
JOHN C RANCE
P 0 BOX 1B5
CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323
3B 1B-117-2S 31 BBS9
B125B BRIAR ST
LAURIE A PEARSON
LAURIE A PEARSON
125B BRIAR ST
WAYZATA HN 55391
SB lB-117-23 31 BB92
B12B1 BRIAR ST
OIL PRINTUP
CARY N PRINTUP
PO BOX 1B9
CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADDR
SB 1B-117-2S 31 B073
B1295 ARBOR ST
KAREN E BJERKENG
KAREN E BJERKENG
1295 ARBOR ST
WAYZATA NN 55391
SB 1B-117-2S 31 BB74
B1229 BRIAR ST
JANES F HILLIER
JANES F HILLIER
1229 BRIAR ST
WAYZATA NN 55391
SB 1B-117-2S 31 BB75
B1212 BRIAR ST
R B J KIENEN
RICHARD T KIENEN
1212 BRIAR ST
WAYZATA NN 55391
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADDR
SB 10-117-23 31 0B93
B2170 NINNETONKA AVE
N B J NC CLELLANO
NICHAEL P NC CLELLAND
2170 NINNETONKA AVE N
P 0 BOX 95
CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323
SB 10-117-23 31 0102
01251 BRIAR ST
ROBERTA JEAN ROTH
ROBERTA JEAN ROTH
1251 BRIAR ST
CRYSTAL BAY NN 55391
3B 10-117-23 32 0009
02220 FRENCH CREEK CIR
ROBERT W FAVFIELD
ROBERT W FAVFIELD
P O BOX 39
NPLS NN 55990
PROP ADDR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADDR
SB 10-117-23 32 0005
02235 FRENCH CREEK CIR
D S 0 J SIKKA
DALJIT B JASWINDER SIKKA
2235 FRENCH CREEK CIR
WAYZATA NN 55391
TOTAL BATCH 506 00013
AL ('!• •if
\
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Wendy Bottcnbcrg, Zoning Administrator/Planner
September 14.2001
<101-2702 Fine Line Design Group
3551 Livingston Avenue
Variance Renewal-- Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre)
6,725 s.f. (.15 acres)
List of Exhibits
A Analysis Worksheet
B Revised survey with drainage
C Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8/20/01
D Letter from City Engineer
E Letter from Neighbor 8/21/01
F Letter from Fine Line Design Group 8/21/01
G Council Minutes - May 28. 1991
H Staff Report 8/10/01
Application Summary: This application was tabled at the August 20, 2001 Planning
Commission Meeting due to failure of a representative for the applicant to be present at the meeting.
This is a request for renewal with no change of variances granted in 1997 to allow the replacement
of the e.xisting residence on this substandard lot, with a new residence. The e,\isting residence (720
s.f.) and shed (40 s.f.) were demolished June 1998. The variances granted in 1997 and requested for
renewal are:
1. Section 10.25. Subd. 6(B): Lot Width: l*he lot is 50 feet wide where 100 feet is the
minimum lot width for the LR-1C zoning district for new construction.
2. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Lot Area: The lot is 6,725 s.f. (.15 acre) where 21,780 (0.5) acre
is the minimum lot area for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction.
At the August 20,2001 Planning Commission Meeting there were concerns over drainage raised by
members of the audience. The applicant has submitted a revised survey showing a drainage plan.
The City engineer has reviewed the plan and visited the site. Staff has reviewed the neighborhood
drainage issues.
Statement of Hardship :
This is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards. Both adjacent properties
contain existing homes, hence no additional land is available to make the lot larger.
Fine Line Design Group
3551 Livingston Road
Variance Renewal
9/14/2001
Page I
City Enginter Comments:
The City Engineer has reviewed the site plan and visited the property. The revised site plan shows
swales along both side property lines of the lot and that the water will be directed to Livingston
Avenue. He suggests pre and post drainage calculations be provided by the developer, and that
drainage & utility easements be granted along the lot lines (see Exhibit D). Given the narrow width
of the right-of-way (35*), stafl concurs with this recommendation since the City may need added
right-of-way for a future storm sewer or swales along the road.
Neighborhood Drainage Issues
Karen Cuff of 3572 Livingston Avenue has questioned the added drainage that will be created by
this proposed residence (see Exhibit E). Drainage is a long-standing issue for Ms. Cuff since her
property is at the low point of Livingston Avenue, and neighborhood drainage from an area of
approximately S acres flows through her property. This neighborhood was the subject of a proposed
storm sewer system in the early 1 990 ‘s. That $20,000 project was dropped by the City Council when
a high percentage of the affected property owners threatened to appeal the assessment. The additional
drainage added to the mix by constructing a new home a 3551 Livingston Avenue is not significant
in the overall picture, in staffs opinion. This neighborhood is a candidate for use of funds from the
pending Stormwater Utility (which the City expects to mitiate in 2002) to construct storm sewers;
however, this project is probably not the highest prio'ity for use of those funds.
Issues for Consideration ;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements.
A residence existed on the property until three years ago.
There is no change requested from prior approvals for this site.
Applicant has addressed the drainage impacts and provided a plan that meets all City
requirements for handling drainage.
Other issues raised by the Plaiuiing Commission.
Staff Recommendation :
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances with the following provision:
1.
2.
Applicant to prov ide pre and post development drainage calculations prior to City Council
review.
Applicant to grant drainage and utility easements per the City Engineer's recommendation.
HOt-2702 Fine Line Design Group
3551 Livingston Road
Variance Renewal
9/14/2001
Page 2
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Area:
LR-IC Lot Area
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre)
Actual 6.725 s.f. (.15 acre)
Hardcover Calculations;
Structural Coverage;
. i
Distance from
shoreline
Total area in
setback
Allowed
hardcover
Existing
hardcover
Proposed
hardcover
500-1000’6,725 s.f.2,353.75 s.f.
(35%)
0 s.f.1,680 s.f.
(24.98%)
%
I
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage
6,725 s.f. (.15 acres)Allowed: 1,500 s.f.
Existing: vacant (Had 720 s.f. house
40 s.f. shed)
Proposed: 1,100 s.f.
(*. ■
CERTIFICATE OF SURVE'C f
BRENSHELL HOK.
I OT 6. BLOCK 4, NAVARRE III
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNE. 0
LIVINGSTON AVE !i
(IT))) ^ ^
\\
. JCRPTW Of PREMISES ;
4. NAVAflRE HEIGHTS
l.,. iron mofKer
spot eicvotion, mean seo level dotum
•-.'i distance os shown on the plot of NAVARRE ^
- »f
ro..n ore bosed upon on ossi^ned datum.
.v‘> intends to show the txxiodories of the obove •.
•*- proposed locotion of o proposed house thereon. It
.ny other improvements or erKroochments.
MV* • •
'i;u nil UU& ASSOCIATES. INC
1 hvibjr tmUif M 9k smi mi pr*.
f
«iwv mJ Uist 1 on • dir rigntoei
. 4 uio3Mm 9H futas the tons of tht Stott of limetot
•
V !..>. iUUAf LaciAittu^
35H7W14I Mark $. Grofderq ktowt$A
i I
✓
/
1
1^ I ii .J
.• . .i
no'" fli>F‘
OCjltdCt Z 977.0
» i -'t • t 977.3
-. »-/ w'ivl a;^-
11 J S/ifc/jr udif
..
r-20*
OATl
7-6-01
oi-osaA
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COM>nSSION MEETING
August 20,2001
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Daniel Kluth, Janice Berg, Jeanne Mabusth, Sandra Smith,
Dale Lindquist, and Alternate Gary Welsh. Commissioner W'illiam Stoddard was absent. The
following represented City Staff: Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Wendy
Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council
Representative Jim White was present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
(llfl) #01-2702 FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, 3551 LI\TS'GSTON AVENUE, RENEWAL OF
VARIANCES
Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to remove Application #01-2702, Fine Line Design Group, from
the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Item #1 follows Item #4.
OLB3USINESS
(#2) #01-2^kJ. ERIC AND CHRISTINE MENGE, 340 TURNHAM ROAD, VARIANCES,
6:31 p.m. - 6:48 p.m.\
Craig Johnson, TC Best Homes'J'svas present on behalf of the Applicant.
•N.
Bottenberg stated this application was tabled at the July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting to
allow the Applicants time to revise their proposed plan regarding a garage and family room addition.
The Applicants have redesigned their plan and have relocated the garage 24 feet from the side lot line
and 53.7 feet from the front lot line. The Planning Commission had directed the Applicants that the side
setback should be not less than 30 feet. The familv room addition to the rear of the residence remains
the same.*•
'V
Bottenberg indicated a variance to the side yard setback is required to allow the garage to be located .
PAGEl
c t
MINITTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#1) 01-2702 FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, 3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, RENEWAL OF
VARIANCES, 7:06 p.m. - 7:18 p.m.
The Applicants were not present.
Hawn stated this application would be open for public comment only, with the application being tabled
to ne.xt month’s meeting to allow the Applicant to be present. Hawn indicated the Planning
Commission would not be commenting on this application without the Applicant being present.
Harold Windberg and JoAnn Holsbeck, 3541 Livingston .Avenue, stated they have questions and
concerns regarding this application. Windberg inquired what would happen with the e.xisting retaining
wall located along the south property line. Windberg noted a portion of this wall is located on
Holsbeck’s property and is in poor condition. Windberg stated at the time the house was removed from
this property, some damaged occurred to Holsbeck’s yard, which was not repaired by the property
owner. Windberg stated they would like some assurance that this would not occur again.
Windberg inquired whether Holsbeck would need to do anything concerning the drainage, noting
Holsbeck’s property is located four feel higher that the adjoining property .
Hawn stated Holsbeck would not be required to do any grading in connection with this project. Hawn
stated the neighbors’ comments will be taken into consideration at the ne.xt Planning Commission
meeting.
Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, stated this area has e.xperienced drainage problems for a number
of years, with a large amount of water runoff being directed through a catch basin located at the end of
her driveway. Cuff stated this catch basin is not large enough to handle the present water runoff, and
e.xpressed concern that the additional hardcover would result in an increase in the water runoff.
Mabusth recommended Staff require a grading and drainage plan on this application.
Bottenberg noted a letter was received by the City from one of the neighbors expressing some concerns
about the drainage in this area.
Lindquist moved, Welsh seconded, to table ApplicaHon *01-2702, Fine Line Design Gcoup,
PAGE 7
. -k J .1 ^ ^ -w. -
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING C0M>HSS10N MEETING
August 20,2001
3551 Livingston Avenue to the September 17,2001 Planning Commission meeting, due to the
absence of the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
:W BUSINESS
(#^01-2689 MANDEEP SODHl, 4080 DAHL ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARLANCES AND
CONDrUONAL USE PERNOT, 7:18 p.m. - 7:53 p.m.
Mandeep Sow. Applicant, was present.
The CertiFicate oiMailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the City of Orono became aware in late spring of some vegetation removal and
replacement of a stairway ^the lakeshore side of the property located at 1080 Dahl Road. The
\\\
property owner had purchased the property the previous year and hired a contractor to replace the
\
stairway and retaining walls on the HU|side and to remove the vegetation. The vegetation removal
occurred along the stairway leading to thc'l^keshore. Weinberger noted this work was done prior to the
\
City issuing a permit approving the work. Staffissued a stop work order and required the property'
owner to apply for the proper permits.
A
\
Orono’s Shoreland Ordinance does not permit “Intensive. Vegetation Removal" within 75 feet of the
\\
shoreline, on steep slopes, or within the bluff impact zone. W^berger indicated the area w here the
vegetation removal occurred is a protected bluff area, with the sl(^ e.xceeding an average grade of 12
over the length of it. Weinberger stated the area above the stairway consists mostly of an overgrown
grassy area, which suffered some damage due to the equipment driving o^r the area. A walkway also
existed from the residence down to the previous stairway.
Staff, upon discovering removal of the vegetation, reviewed the site and found that a^tortion of the
stairway and retaining walls had been replaced. Staff did issue a building permit to allow the property
owner to complete the stairway and retaining wall replacement, with the condition the property owner
apply for an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit to permit the retaining wall replacement
\
“ PAGE8
J/1 Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
^ \ Associates
Engineers & Architects
■oncstroo. Iloitnc, Anderllli and Atiociaiet. Inc. is an Affirmativa Aciion/Cqual Opportunity tinploycr ^
and Cmployt* Oornad
I
Principals Otto G Bonestroo PE • Marvin L Sorvala. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert C Scnunichi. P£ •
Jerry A Bourdun, PE
Senior Consultants: Robert w Rou*ne PE • Jotepri C Anderlik. PE • Richard E Turner PE • Susan M Eberhn, C PA
Associate Principals: kedh A Gordon. P£ • Robert R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W Easier PE • David O Loskoia PE •
Marii A H.»njon P£ • M'chael T RautnMnn P£ • Ted K Field, P£ • Kervielh P Anderson P£ • Mark R Rolfs. P£ •
David A Bonestroo MBA • Sidney P Will.srrscn PE. LS • Agnes M 7mg, MBA • Allan Rick Sthntrdl. PE •
Tho'^as W ®eter\on PE • J.smes R Valisnd PE • Miles B Jensen. PE • I P^i ’fip Gr»vei ill. PE • 0«tfsiel J Edgerton PE •
Ismael Martaie/. PE • Thomas A Sylkd PE • Sheldon J Jofsnsors • OtSle A Grove P£ • Thomas A Rouirutr. PE •
Robert J Dev cry PE
September 10.2001
Offices: St P.Hil. St Cloud. Rochester and Wnirnar. MN • Milwaukee Wl • Chic.»go II
VMrbsite: www bonestroo com
Wendy Botienberg
Assistant Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323
Re: Brenshell Homes. Livingston Avenue
File No. 139-01-000
Plat No. 01-2702
Dear Wendy:
We reviewed the proposed grading plan for the house construction on Lot 6. Block 4. Navarre Heights. We
have the following comments with regards to engineering matters:
The site drains to the northwest across Lot 7 to Livingston Avenue. The proposed grading plan
provides swales along the east and west sides of the lot to direct storm water to Livingston Avenue.
This appears to be u reasonable approach to minimize impacts to Lot 7.
The developer should provide pre and post development drainage calculations for this site to quantify
downstream impacts.
Drainage and utility casements should be provided 10-fect wide along Livingston Avenue and 5-fect
wide along all interior lot lines.
Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Yours very truly.
BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Tom Kellogg
Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono
2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 5SII3 • 651-636*4600 • Fax: 65I-636-I3U
August 21, 2001
CityofOrono
Attn; Planning Commission
Wendy
Orono, MN 55323
I
Per the planning commissions request of August 20.2001 , please find attached the City
of Orono’s feasibility study dated 4/18/89 for the Navarre Heights Storm Sewer
improvement project.
As I stated In last nights meeting in reference to Fine Line Design Croup s request for
renewal of variance permit for 3551 Livingston Ave, I am concerned about the drainage
issue.
The property adjacent on the west lot line has already been affected by this builder.
Removal of the old house, tree removal, stump pulling and heavy equipment has altered
the topography of this lot causing ground water run off to enter into their basement This
should be corrected buy the developer. The builder has not displayed any thought of
alteration effects on the neighborhood at this point.
By allowing Fine Line Design to build on this lot they would have to put a swale on the
west side of the lot to prevent ground water damage to the property west and down hill
from It This proposed house has approximately 3 times the hard cover as the original
house. All of the run off from this property would be forced to drain into the street, thus
directly effecting my property.
I have lived at 3572 Livingston Ave for 21 years. We have had to deal with the drainage
issues of the neighborhood at our expense totaling approximately $40,(W0 during this
time. This figure supercedes the amount of the original storm sewer project. We have
replaced 50% of our foundation and have re-dug the swale 3 times over the past 10
years due to fill in from sand/dirt that Is In the ground water coming off of the street. How
much water are we expected to deal with and at who's expense? When is enough to
much?
The volume of water coming through our property is huge. Approximately 7.1 acres per
your study. This run off has Increased in volume and intensity over the years with people
paving their driveways, adding decks and sheds. I feel that this additional run off would
be adding insult to injury. The City of Orono was going to have a storm sewer fund to
assist in these Issues, what ever happened to it?
By allowing this additional volume and Intensity of ground water to drain
property, the City of Orono is violating the contract that we have with them dated 1991.
Sincerely
Karen Cuff
3572 Livingston Ave
Orono. MN 55391
'=S|>i|C(
1-
I
•V"
5?
• f
%V
% ~
• •.
• •'Mc --■■
^ ^ Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
^ I Associates
Erijlnccn • Arehitteti
MC
IC
BA.
PC.
PC.
WJL
PC.
wc
MVWiLSOii
Ft MMPCUF-SfVPC.
FC /«mHf Meiwc> PC.
Pt <««lPAndWPlPl
iaiy ^ ^mn. Pi. ^ ^
MM A. HiMOa PL MM t. aAPC.
cbmacb ^mlaia
(IMM f MiBUMV P& TAMAM I. A#9A Pf.
MmLPWMPC »«wMASMlBiAPf
DMOMMMPC- CMXSipNVSPC.
MMA.IMPL
PriM 1 Cmmc PC.
MMOMMPl.
ThoiflM A AAfMW. AiA
omp <iP**<r.PS
CnMfi A CndTO
UOM
SmmM
AprU IB, 1989
Bonorabls lUjor tad City Council
City of Ocooo
Box 66
Cryitnl Boy. MM S9323
B«t BaTorre BelBbt* Stocm Sowor Inprowaont
Pcojoet Vo. 89«2
Our Flit Ho. 13946
Betr Mtyoc ond Councils
TransBdtted herooith it the ftasibility rtport for the construction
sewer In tho Htwarrt Heights Subdivision west of County Road 19 and North of
County Road IS.
the report provides a detailed cost estiaate of the work being considered and
a plan of the area.
Ve would be pleased to neet with the City Council at your convenience to
review the proposed project.
Bsspectfully subaitted.
BONSSIROO, ROSIHE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Glenn R. Cook
CRCtcl
Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of tne
State of Minnesota.
Glenn R. Cook. F.B.^
Date t April 19. 19B9 Reg. Vo. 9431,
RVT1B94B
• St. Paul, Mlfwiesota 5S1I3 • 6I2-636-4600
1
.vj
* •
TABU OF C
LBliU Of TBAISMITTIL
TAALK or coimiTs
siscnsszoi
nOJlCT COSTS AID ASSESSHEMTS
COKCLU810V8 Aim lEO ATlOilK
AfPBMDZX - COST ESTIMATES
FI60BE 1 - 0IAX1IA6B ASIA
FXODU 2 - lOCATZOlf KAll
Wo
1.
2.
S.
h.
S.
. 2 -
i
imS94S
1 IlllHlUill CkW^Ti^ 1 n-M V. -r. -J,. ^ --W. ., Mil,
PISCPSSIOII
> .
th« city of Orono haa raqjooatad thla roport to dotoraiaa tha faaaibillty
of eoastructint • atoni aooar ayatan In tbe Havarra Baighta Araa. Thara la
currently a drainage preblen for tha property oanera on lota 16 and 17. Block
a of tbe lUTarre Belghta aubdlrlalon. The property ounera daalrea to expand
hone **** caaxMt do ao unleaa the drainage problen la aolvad.
The atom water runoff between Hawarre Awenua and Blaine Awenue on
XiAwlngaton Awenue eolleeta between Lota 16 and 17. Tha atocn water then
draina to the north weat through back yarda to Ccyatal Place. There la a
culvert under Cryatal Place that draina the water onto the railroad right of
way.
The drainage area la ahown on figure 1 at the back of thia report. There
la a total of 8.8 acrea in the drainage area.
The propoaed project would provide 15 and 18 inch atom eewer acroaa the
property to aolve tbe drainage problen. The atom aewer location ia ahown aa
yioJKT COST
tt. ,„]•« co« «i «Mi for tho .ton ...or l^.o.«Kot or.
^>,,..0 ta thi. ..Ctloo olth . dot.ll.ci coot ..tint. proTldod in tb.
.ppndln. th. l»Ut.t.d otic., .r. .. projoet^i for A. l««» .<m.tn.otl<m
M*toa lEHl 4310).
Vcojact Cost
Ati«t*B«at Area
$ 30.230o00
7.1 Aetea
Aaaeaaaeat Kate $ 0.10/Sq.ft.
The project eoeta are propo.ed to be aaaeased to tb- benefitlm propertj
o«nact in the draiAage araa on a square foot basis. The estimated
typical 133’ by 50' lot in the area is $675.00.
Th. aatiaates do not Include costs for temiotary or p.manenc easements
necessary to construct the proposed storm sever system.
- 4
■ms04«
« 0
.•i
• y
eoatslMd 1a this sspert, it it rtcoaMndsd thsti
1. This rspert bs sdsptsd by ths City c£ Ocono st a gttids for
coAstroctioo of ths ttoca tewsr lapror««snts in ths Navarra Haight a
4ssa.
2. Ths City eoBduct a Isgal sad fiacal rsvisv of ths projsct prior to a
public hsarlng.
k public hctf lag bs hold to detsrBias furthsr action to bs taksn.
property owasra ia ths dcainags area that art propoasd to bs as a
should be Botlfisd for haariag purposes.
Ths following achsduls be foUowsd if ths projsct ia to proceed*
S.
4.
The
sed
Receive Frelialaary Report
Bold Public Hearing
Order Plans and Specifications
Approve Plans and Specifications
Receive Bids
Award Contract
Start Construction
Covplete Construction
April 24. 1989
May 22. 1989
May 22. 19S9
Jims 26, 1989
July 28. 1989
August 14. 1989
August 28, 1989
October IS. 1989
- 5 -
IPnS948
1.11 . -<Wl
• ••
• .•
••Cr
■ H!•••
300
170
7
1
LOI
2.000
80
imS946
APPgWDlX
Lia.ft.
EACh
Eaeb
SOM
54. jd*.
Sq.ydt.
COST E8T1M4TE
B47AEB1 HEXCBTS STOIH 8EOEE IMPROV^raiT
otoio. mueesota
IS* ICP I $20.00/Lia.ft.
18* ICP I $2S.00/Un.£t.
CAteh bAiia ( $800.00/EAch
It* ECP Apcoa t SSOO.no/EAch
Tr«# rBBOVAl I $500.00
Sod I $3.00/Sq.ydf.
Strott roplAcemtnt I $15.00/Sq.yda.
SX Contingeacles
TotAl Coastxuctlott
ISX L«gAl, SagcBS.. Adaia. A Boiid latorost
51 Bonding t CapitAlizo Intetott
TotAl Projtct Coft
• t
■-r.
$ 6,000.00
4.250.00
5.600.00
300.00
500.00
6.000.00
1.200.00
$23,850.00
1.200.00
$25,050.00
3.750.00
$28,800.00
1.450.00
$30,250.00
...»..-./.Kl—frtl- r
•••
V-;
•I
m
NAVARRE HEIGHTS
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
DRAINAGE 'REA
ORONO. MINNESOTA OoU: 4/20/69
Conun. 13946 I. No. 1
t •
Aft fty
CRYSTAL PL.
•?
O
n
o
D
>•>
20
V
SCALE 1* : 60'
LIVINGSTON AVE
NAVARRE HEIGHTS
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATION PLAN
ORONO, MINNESOTA Dgtr 4/20/89
Cocnffi* 13048 No. 2
V.
* • •. *
property 0%mer8 List for Navarre Height Storm Sewer Project
infi
17-117-23 43 0008
Stephanie A. Kroeger
3465 Crystal Pace
Wayzata« MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0009
Karen M. Olofson
3473 Crystal Place
Hayzata* HN 55391
17-117-23 43 0010
Dean Hilgers a Rod Earlywine
425 Elm Street South
Waconia« MN 55387
- - - - - - -
17-rll7-23 43 0011
Cheryl K. Goulet
3485 Crystal Place
Nayzata# MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0012
Robert Paige
3493 Crystal Place
Wayzata# MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0140
John C. Rosholt
1600 First Bank Place West
MinnepaoliSr MN 55402
.7-117-23 43 0026
Jeorge J & Npla A. Edwards
1533 Crystal Place
TayzatS/ MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0027
Paul Anderson
3533 Crystal Place
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0028
Dean Young
3555 Crystal Place
Nayzata# MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0033
Bersel Forester
3599 Crystal Place
Wayzata« MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0148
Robert Leslie Peters
3554 Livingston Avenu
WayzatS/ MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0145
C. L.‘ Thostenson t L.A. Conley
3585 crystal Place
Hayzatar MN 55391
17rll2-23 43 0017 . •
R.^^SKaad 6 B. .L. Schaad
2974 Oaklawn Lane
Mound, HN 55364
17-117-23 43 0040
Gary & Beth Escher
3556 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0016
Chester & Melody Versailles
3472 crystal Place
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 .43 0139
Lupe 6 Gail Gomez
3488 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0048
Dominic Lefebvre
3559 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0043
William P. Dolder Sr.
3513 Lyric Avenue
Wayzata, MM 55391
17-117-23 43 0049
Elizabeth Balter
3577 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
i
17-117-23 43 0042 '
Mark A. Spalding
3508 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0035
James 6 Judy Smith
3580 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0041
Genevieve E. Ebert
.3520 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0034
Harvey Reder.
3598 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0044.
Michael G & Paulette Bohlen
3525 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0045
Peter Nielsen
3533 Livingstpn Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391-
17-117-23 43 0050
Neil 6 Donna J. Meyers
3585.Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0046
' Robert & Jeannine Picha
5930 Seamans Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
17-117-23 43 0051
Zelma McKinney
3599 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
1-117-23 43 0032
miel J. Radford
!46 90th Street East
iver Grove Heights, MN 55075
17-117-23 43 0047
David W. Reinhold •..
3551 Livingston Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
17-117-23 43 0150
Mark £ Karen Cuff
3572 Livingston Avenue
Wayzath, MN 55391
• • •
mmllB B8ZGBTS/8T0RM
Avora^e Sinaia Lot: 50x130 • 6^500 s.f.
Lo^ 2 X 6«500 8*£ “ 13r000 8«£«
Total Aasessaant
Singla Lot
Double Lot
6,500 X $.10 « $650
13,000 X $.10 » $1,300
Inaterast Rate 5% Aasessad Saptembar 1989
Single Lot Double Lot
Principal Interest
•
Total Principal Interest Total
S year Assessmantt
let yr 130/yr
IQth vr 130/vr
5 yr Total $650
78
12
(16 mo.)208
142:
a
*260
260
156
24
(16 mo.) 416
284
$194 $844 $1300 $388 $1688
10 year Asaafsmantt
1st yr 65/yr
lOtb vr 65/vr
78
6
(16 mo.)143
71
130
130
%
156
12
(16 mo.) 286
142
10 yr Total $650 $340 $990 $1300 $680 $1980
15 year Assessment:
1st yr 43/yr
15th vr 43/yr
78
4
(16 mo.)121
47
86
86
156
8
(16 rao.) 286
94
15 yr Total $650 $484
•
$1134 $1300 $968 $2268
BSTZMATB OHLT — DOBS BOT ZBCLDDB ZASBIBBT8
■ In(? Line • ffHflIlIt
P. O. Bumsnd*. MnfMMti SS337-0611 (952)8904267 • Offic*(953) 7360333
August 21. 2001
CUy of OroBo
City Council
Planning Commission
2730 Kelley Pulcway
POBox66
Crystal buy, MN 55323
We received today a copy of a letter from a Karen Cuff, a neigbborofa tot we own at 3551 Livini
note that a number of errors are stated. We wish to correct these errors.
Road, in Ms. Cuff’s letter wc
There is a claim that a number of actions which have taken place over the last several years are the responsibility of “the Builder” i.e..
Fine Line DESIGN group. This is simply not the case. The condition the lot is in today is the condition that we acquired the kM about
a year ago. Fine Um CgSlGN group did not demolish the original residence, remove any trees, grind anv stumns. or move any heavy
equipment on or off of this lot.
Fine Line DESIGN group is charged with creating a drainage plan and creating a lesidetice that meets City Code and State law. We
haNO done this, and provide copies to the Cit>- for Staff review.
Ms. Cuff slates that “the builder has not displayed any thoughts of the alteration effects on the neighborhood at this point”. Wenote
that any construction we do will have the benefit of improving the existing oonditions. We also took into account dw scale and style
of homes existing in the iteighborhood as well as all applicable City Codes before preparing the residence submitted for permit.
Ms. Cuff states that “the proposed house has approximately three limes the hardco\er as the original house”. We preseiited hardcover
calculations showing our design complies with the allowed 3 5% maximum hardcover requirement. In addition, the residence
complies with the allowed 15% structural co\’etage requirement.
Wc wish to construct a residence that will have a positive impact upon the Navarre Heights neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Steven K. Behnke. President
^ec'd
minutes of the regular oromo council meeting
HELD MAY 28, 1991
ROLL CALL:
The Council met on the above date with the follo;/ing members
present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Councilmembers J. Diann
Goetten, Edward Callahan, Gabriel Jabbour and Mary Butler. The
follov/ing represented the City Staff: City Administrator Mark
Bernhardson, Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth,
Public VJorks Director John Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and
Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron. City Attorney Thomas
Barrett, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and City Recorder Laurie
Scheffler.
(#1*)CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Peterson requested that item #22 and #24 be removed
from the Consent Agenda for the purposes of discussion.
It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to approve the
Consent Agenda, with the exception of item #22 and #24, which
were removed and discussed in the sequence shown on the Agenda.
All voted aye. Motion erased.
(#2)CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT-OFFICER JAY DEMBOUSKI
Mayor Peterson presented Officer Dembouski with a Resolution
of Appreciation for his military contribution to the United
States .of America, and the City of Orono, while serving as a
Military Police Officer in the United States Marine Corps
Reserves in Operation Desert Storm.
(}3)PUBLIC HEARING-NAVARRE HEIGHTS STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT
The Affidavit of Publication was duly noted, and Mayor
Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m.
Bernhardson provided a historical overview of the proposed
project and explained the purpose of this Public Hearing. He
noted that the bids received by the City for the construction
portion of this project came in at $20,000, v/hich is less than
estimated.
Glenn Cook displayed a map that showed where the proposed
storm sewer would be located, and the properties that would be
included in the project. He stated that the properties involved
in the project would be assessed Sh cents a square foot.
Mayor Peterson indicated that she would now take public
input
Dean Young. 3555 Crystal Place, expressed concern regarding the
storm sewer diverting water av/ay from several Cottonwood trees in
his yard. He stated that Cottonwood trees require a significant
amount of water. Mr. Young indicated that he has dug a trench
along the back of his property to facilitate drainage once the
water passes through his front yard.
- 1 -
■'VW* ■* -•
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1991
(#3)NAVARRE HEIGHTS STORM SEWER CONTINUED
Cook indicated that the storm sewer project would have no
impact on the Cottonwood trees as they should received sufficient
watering from normal runoff in the area.
Pam Peters, 3640 Togo Road, expressed concern about the City
following through with its plans to establish a swale along the
property line of the Jehovah's Witness Church and to clean out
the existing drainage ditch. She said, "That has not yet been
done. I would just ask that the City take care of the downstream
people before more water is sent to us via the new storm sewer."
Gerhardson stated that he has delayed that project, pending
the outcome of this Public Hearing.
Beth Escher, 3556 Livingston Avenue, stated that she had sent a
letter to the City expressing her opposition to this project.
She stated that she had circulated a petition opposing the storm
sewer and it was signed by 66% of the residents, representing 72%
of the lots in the area. She said, "Since the temporary sv/ale
has been installed by the City, there has been no water ponding
in the low area, even with the heavy rains we have had recently.
It is the consensus of the neighborhood that something above
ground can be done to alleviate the problem."
Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, advised that their lot has
been dug up in conjunction with a construction project they are
now doing. She stated that their property is now serving as an
additional source for the water to go. Cuff indicated that the
ground is totally saturated and that it is impossible for them to
get any equipment in to restore the yard back to its original
condition.
Robert Mitchell, Attorney, representing many of the neighbors
opposing the storm sewer project, stated that his clients do
intend to appeal the assessment roll if adopted. He asked Cook
if the storm sewer pipe will follow the natural drainage pattern.
Cook stated that the pipe would basically follov/ the
existing drainage pattern, with the exception of some minor
changes which will result from "squaring-off" on the corner of
certain property lines.
Mitchell asked Cook if it would be correct to say that a
drainage solution could be achieved on the ground surface, as
opposed to underground.
Cook replied, "As long as it crosses Lot 17 diagonally. If
you were to try to direct the water along the same alignment as
the pipe, there would be a need to put an extremely deep ditch up
in that corner. The swale would have to be located pretty much
where it is now."
- 2 -
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1991
(13)NAVARRE HEIGHTS STORM SEWER CONTINUED
Mitchell asked. "Would it be safe to say that the water is
following its natural drainage pattern at this time?”
Cook replied, "Yes, that would be correct."
Mitchell said, "I am trying to point out that Minnesota Law
entitles water to flow dov/nstream, which is what it is now doing.
The City has the authority to put in a pipe wherever they feel it
is necessary, but the City cannot assess the cost back to
residents that will have no benefit from that project. The water
is simply going where it has always gone, and the residents in
the area are not obligated to pay for that."
There were no additional comments from the public, and Mayor
Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m.
It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Butler, to abandon this
project, based on the fact that the vast majority of residents in
the area are opposed to it. Further, there is no public safety
risk to warrant the City to mandate the project and assess the
residents. Mayor Peterson stated that there has been a
significant amount of time and money spent on this issue. She
commented that it would have been helpful if all those opposed to
the project would have come forward at the very beginning. She
thanked the residents for coming forward at this point. Butler
stated that given the fact that the majority of residents would
appeal the assessment of this project, it would be un\/ise to
proceed any further. Jabbour added that Council would not be
spending the citizen's tax dollars economically if it chooses to
engage legal counsel to assist with the appeal process. All
voted aye. Motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
(#4*)MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1991 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to approve the
minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held May 13, 1991. All
voted aye. Motion passed.
(#5*)MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1991 RE-CONVENED BOARD OF REVIEtl
It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to approve the
minutes of the May 13, 1991 Re-convened Board of Review. All
voted aye. Motion passed.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT-JOELLEN HURR
LMCD Representative, JoEllen Hurr reported that at the May
22, 1991 LMCD Board Meeting, the license request for Lakeside
Marina was reviewed and granted. This Marina had been given
approval last year to extend its dock out 600 feet. Hurr and
Councilmember Jabbour, who attended the meeting, informed the
Board that they felt 600 feet was excessive and should not be
- 3 -
H
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner
August 10,2001
SUBJECT:#01-2702 Fine Line Design Group
3 SSI Livingston Avenue
Variance Renewal- Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.S acre)
6,725 s.f. (.15 acres)
List of Exhibits
A Analysis Worksheet
Application
Survey
Elevations/Floor Plans
Resolution #3952(1997)
Council Minutes 9/8/97
Planning Commission Minutes 8/18/97
Staff Report 9/3/97
Location Map
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Application Summary: This is a request for renewal with no change of v ariances granted in
1997 to allow the replacement of the existing residence on this substandard lot. with a new
residence. The existing residence and shed were demolished June 1998. The variances granted
in 1997 and requested for renewal are:
Section 10.25. Subd. 6(B): Lot Width: The lot is 50 feet wide where 100 feet is the minimum lot
width for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction.
Section 10.25. Subd. 6(B): Lot Area: The lot is 6.725 s.f. (.15 acre) where 21,780 (0.5) acre is
the minimum lot area for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction.
Statement of Hardship;
This is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards. Both adjacent
properties contain existing homes, hence no additional land is available to make the lot larger.
#0/-2"02 Fine Line Design Group
3551 Livingston Road
Fanance Renewal
8/10/2001
Page I
---- . .....
Imuw for Consideration;
1 . The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements.
2. A residence once existed on the property.
3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation;
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances.
To obtain a building permit the new residence must meet all setbacks, hardcover and structural
lot coverage requirements.
U0I^2’^02 Fine Line Design Group
3551 Livingston Road
Variance Renewal
8/10/2001
Page 2
A
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Arm;
LR-IB Lot Area
Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)
Actual 6,725 s.f. (.15 acre)
Hardcover Calculations ;
Structural Coverage ;
Distance from
shoreline
Total area in
setback
Allowed
hardcover
Existing
hardcover
Proposed
hardcover
500-1000’6,725 s.f.2,353.75 s.f.
(35%)
0 s.f 1,680 s.f
(24.98%)
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage
6,725 s.f (. 15 acres)Allowed: 1,500 s.f
Existing: vacant
Proposed: 1,100 s.f
6
Application #
Date Recehed
Amount Paid / (30
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION . . n
Site Address 3«5g/
Property Identification Number (P.I.p/) I
Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur\*ey.
f Ur ______•
I (do) (do not) also own the a^acent parcels of land. U
Date Property Acquired,,(month/year)
Present use of property: ^><^residentid
Zoning District: I
other (specif>)
applicant
e pi njL/ L ikaj 6v 1T>mOearjtar Wn
Phone fhome l
OWNER (if different than appHcant)
Name ^gVvvLS
Address: 7^d.
>M-nLS^li[Lc Zip: ^5*5 &
Phone (home) /
zip3HS&.*f
Phone (work)
DESCRIPTION OF RE(}UEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /QOiOTI^ • CTD
Describe request in detail: Lo-h (Kajla . »- iOiAAi^ _________
(attach additional sheets if necessar>)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
^ Lot Area Vlot Width
Setback:Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditu^
comoliance with Zonins Code reouirements: f\JUm>J9tiirlnJrttl
_________________________________________________'
preventing
______
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
#2702 i
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
BRENSHELL HOMES
LOT 6. BLOCK 4. NAVARRE HEIGHTS
HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA
C.
LIVINGSTON AVENUE
«ri
S 89*59’00"E 50.00
(tn«i
/
o
in
fO
UJ i
oo
O
Si
{V%2V
3000
/
i4o
8
rngj
t4
f
BLACKTOP
ORTVCWAY
f t
ffTTT]
i)i
8
t
i4«‘
PROPOSED 3
; HOUSEA
8
f
(llAJ /
<o
(MOAI
(•ni)
m
fO
•)o
E
rv
ro ••
• 2
O)o
o
I
/
? 'r.
49.92«uk«> 50.0^
S 89®5V44" W
-I I-' • i
PltAMAS «4U
• •
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Qf PREMISES :
LOT 6. BLOCK 4. NAVARRE HEIGHTS
O . dfoolts iron morK^r
(906 3) : denotes eKistin9 spot etevotion. meon seo level dotum
• ; denotes distonce os iho#n on the plot of NAVARRE HEIGHTS
Beoriogs shown ore bosed upon on ossixned dotum.
This survey intends to show the boundories of the above described property. “ *5
ond the proposed locotion of o proposed house thereon. It does not pm port y ^ ^ ??7, g
to show any olher irr»pfovemenls or encroochments 4^ * f7c,f
GRONBEEG k ASSOGATB. INC
44ftH«iOilM UKUCIMW
I Ier4f ceiMr IM IM w«ty pipefS Sy w • ede ay M i
vML ed 6el I VI • 6dy rigded Cwi tiiVRMr ed led Seieier
the loM oMht Stott el Mfetieto
ties S Croiti^ ioiwtsolo Icenrf lAiider
SCALE
r-20*
OATE
7-4-01
jOTNa
01-008A
01-O50A i
p'
SCAUE . - V-
2
• V- J»*
5
<r ZI
> 0 J s.
xO
X
X
X
ENI
u> A
t
r-m
A
*rS
3-tn\
^*4LI t
A2.0
liL
_________________
4Kt
^ « I t
• « , Mt »«»•*■*• d •«• C^««« •# *• w
rs'ytr^
c*dr r*ck« d *»4. «<»4» t.«d —•
C4df m »-d*d
c»4^»:> <A»«r M Wd>y dd
l^«»C »«
C»^ «4.i. k^«dd* •*• ^d«dd
-'
V* r«( 4it M««<w ^d« •
fcd Ar(>#<n M • A*^«**J
«'# f .| U» •-• »4JM !*• ».d^ fti I
Vd 4«i rc«.Vi«^ ft »•'
5C44.»^ r^rmuc,f^r^
4/<»*
MI/»'I//’
M./**
4* I #».•>»•
4 4* 114*
•/• •/ c- *1 .»
/* , .ff
V* d'i4~*«
l.r. dnT '•••*/ .\ ' iiw I I i
I M i i I
fam rm
. fW j ~ ~ #^•41V ruts:*
/
/
T
.H r-
W I -*up
«ir • »» • •« bOT f K ^ ^ j ^
uneMC
4 '/ l»^ ■>
^ • V WM *—Wf
•d>« *■»»«•'»*• »«»l
i « •• « • <•
ld« «•<■«*
.% -*»>d d( 4 d» t •
d- >»«),• ^dd» dl • •»
t * *.-r •
r »f »•
d»«* <*•
* - . «
1 1 fdUdr 1 —
►
#
M
4.
> 4
4
«
c
r 1
* r —
I
.*•» ’
<-----------<
II 14*
f ---
- * €»^t
1/ C««> d-
• a»/ *••• ^«i*
-I,.
rd»d bdc^
► - d t*-%j d*
»*•*
unexcav ated
ft d ■ *' td«j «n
*■ • l» 4»«' d-#* • Kr «.d«
7' k *--- >
D
Iz:
« rT
> 0
J i-
0
t
• ^
£111•*-Ck
t
d
’{?
?- V E 1 —c:?WEf=2> F=L^CP^F^ f=U.Ari
I
^’MCt t
A3.^
6*
r>
6803378
CITYof ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 8 9 52 _
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B)
FILE NO. 2253
WTIEREAS, David Reinliold (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owTier of the
properly located at 3551 Livingston within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and
legally described as follows:
Lot 6, Block 4, Navarre Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the
property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new single
family residence to replace the existing residence on a lot of 0.15 acre area and 50' width
where a 0.5 acre area and 100' width are normally required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono.
Minnesota:
1.
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2253.
The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District.
3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 18. 1997
and on a vole of 7 to 0 recommended approval of the proposed variances based
upon the following findings:
A. The existing lot of 0.15 acre in area and 50' width contains an e.xisting
house connected to municipal sewer.
Page 1 of 5
I
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 3 9 5 2
4.
3.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The adjacent properties on either side of applicant ’s property are
developed with existing single family residences, hence no additional land
is available to make the lot larger.
Development of this lot would be in character with the neighborhood, as
evidenced by the fact that of 73 homes in the neighborhood bounded by
Shadywood Road on tlic cast and Blaine Avenue on the west, including
Livingston Avenue, Lyric Avenue and Crystal Place, 41 are on single 50’
lots, 23 are on double 100' lots, and 9 are on triple 150’ or larger lots.
Even though this lot is significantly smaller than the zoning district
standards, a residence can be built on the property which meets the lot
coverage, setback and hardcover standards of the LR-IC district.
Allowing the replacement of the existing deteriorated structure with a
modest residence will help the City meet its goal of maintaining
affordable housing in the City.
The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicant and the effect of the proposed vaiiance on the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this propertv- are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting tlie variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessar>' to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of tlie Zoning Code and Cc .iprehensive Plan of the City.
Page 2 of 5
o.. o\CITYof ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MO 8 9 52
I.
0
4.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow the construction of a new
residence to replace the existing residence on a lot of 0.15 acre area and 50’ width where a 0.5
acre area and 100* width are normally required, subject to the following conditions:
This approval grants only the requested lot area and lot width variances.
Development of the property shall not exceed the 35% hardcover limit of the
500-1,000' hardcover zone in which the lot is located. Total lot area is 6,725
s.f., and the maximum hardcover allowed on the property is 35% or 2,353 s.f.
Development of the property shall not exceed the 1,500 s.f. "lot coverage by
structures" allowance.
At the time the existing house is removed, the existing shed shall also be
removed.
Existing house and shed shall be removed within 90 days of variance approval,
and if this is not completed, the applicant is advised the City' may proceed with
hazardous building action.
Applicant is advised as part of this proposal that it is the City's intent to grant
no other variances for this property.
Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant,
but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building
permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
expire on that date (September 8, 1998).
Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be pumshable as a
misdemeanor.
6.
7.
8.
Page 3 of 5
jf .-/rm
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. R Q S 9_____
9. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the
property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 8th day of September, 1997.
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of
September, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbe \i and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City
of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of
the City.
NOl
CAROLE A. HASEMAN
NOIARYPUSUC-MINMESOTA
HemtPtN COUNTY
Notary Public
My Crr-T.nscn ijgires Jan 31. ^XX) jjj
Page 4 of 5
CITY of ORONO
'•A-Ml RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 8 fl S 9
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day \99n_ before me a Notary Public within and
for said county, personally appeared 0:> ici n/T
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that he (Aey) executed, the same as his (their) free act and deed.
My Coniniuion EQIits Jm.
MewcpmcouNiY
.. __ . , .. imiMionExpires Jm.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
C^n /T- ^
Notary Public
On this day of , 199_before me a Notary Public within and
for said county, personally appeared
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 5 of 5 1
tl* .-.l
• I
IT C ‘ 3
RESOLUTION #8952 ••I
:•
"i?
00
>1
>
•j
V*
1o
w*
tr<•*oi ca
STATE OF MINNESOTA )»•? ro
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
<5 »t»
i, <1 >•"y cj cj
)
I 1 I*,
• • m
CITY OF ORONO )
I Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk of the City of Otono. Co “V.
«»«c™«.
Fopy^of slidwsolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting.
day of
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this----
September _____IS^l____•
^ordihy M. HiEp, City Clerk
^ »a ,
• *
(SEAL)
II
1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8.1997
*ark Commission Comments - Continued)
Jabbbitr indicated that the Commission was asked to review the trail matter with Council
Membcr^nt. Jabbour said his visit with Hennepin Parks Superintendent, Doug Bry^,
indicated pbtential significant benefits to working with Hennepin Parks towards planning
of trails to beVpart of the regional trail system.
(Council Member Fun^wrived at this time.)
Welles concurred with J^bopr. He reported that future funding will require new revenue
sources.
Jabbour informed Welles that the Cobq^ is in the process of re-evaluating the park
dedication fee ordinance. He also advis^Welles that the direction being considered by
the Park Commission for widening roadwa^s^for shoulder-type trails is in direct conflict
with the desires of many of the residents. He wqs of the opinion that it would be a
problem to widen Watertown Road to add a shoulder trail.
Flint emphasized the need for the Park Commission to
open space and meet with Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
:us their work in the area of
Jaruce Berg had no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
(•W) #2253 DAVID REINHOLD, 3551 LIMNGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION NO. 3952
Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3952, granting lot area and
width variances for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence at
3551 Livingston Avenue. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(»^#22$7JOHN O’SULLIVAN, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL
SITE PLAN^RESQLUTIONNO.3953
Goetten moved, Peterson secondedptcradopt Resolution No. 3953, granting commercial
site plan approval and approval for creation cfSlracc£s^asement to serve the property
at 3340 Shoreline Drive. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18. 1997
Gr
ACTION H EM
(#3) #2253 DAVID REINHOLD, 3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - VARIANCES -
PUBUC HEARING 7:15-7:30 P.IVL
The AflBdavit of Publication and Certificate of MaDing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Gaifroo reported that the application is a request for lot area and lot width variances to
construct a new re^dence on a small lot located at 3551 Livingston Avenue. The lots in
this area were platted in the early 1900's before zoning codes were in effect. There is an
existing house on the property. The zoning district requires 21,780 s.f in lot area and
100* width. The property is 6,725 s.f and 50’wide. Required setbacks are 30'fi-ont and
rear and 10* side. The house is within the 500-1000' setback of the lake where 35%
hardcover is allowed. The lot is aDowed 1500 s.f structural coverage.
Gaffron indicated that the existing house is in poor condition. The applicant plans to
remove the house and either rebuild on the lot, as a building site, or sell it as vacant land
or sell the lot to add to a neighboring property. There are no house specifications as of
vet for the site. Because of that. Staff reviewed the lot area and zoning requirements and
calculated what a conforming residence might include. An example would be a 28*x36'
house with a 24'x20’ attached garage for total lot coverage of 1488 s.f Adding a 16'x30’
driveway (480 s.f), 3'x32' sidewalk (96 s f), 10 ’xl8' deck (180 s.f). and lO-xlO’ shed (100
s.f) would result in 2344 s.f of total hardcover or 34.9%. A garage as noted would be an
endload facing Livingston Avenue at the fi'ont setback lire.
Gaifiron reported that no adjacent land is available to increase the lot size. The homes in
the area are on mainly single lots. The example residence would be in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. GafiDron recommended approval subject to the structure
meeting all zoning codes witn approval of lot area and lot width x'ariances only. GafiGron
said the existing shed would be removed with the bouse and recommended removal within
90 days of variance approval
Karen Cuff^ 3572 Livingston Avenue, noted she has lived at that address for 17 years.
She indicated the bouse in question is vacam and is concerned with the potential size of an
new residence for the property. Cuff said she currently is unable to view the existing
house with the tree coverage. Lindquist explained to her that the property would be
allowed a 1500 s.f house but no other variances beyond that allowed.
Hawn was informed the current house is 720 s.f GafiOron noted this is one-half of the
footprint allowed.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 18,1997
(#3 > #2253 David Reinhold - Cootioued)
Schroeder asked for verification that the lot is buildable. Gaf&on said in his opinion it
was. notipg denial of hs buildability would limit the applicant's options. Gafifron noted
that there is an existing bouse on the property. He indicated that a set of conditions would
be required for approval reoardless of the structjre hself before anv permit is allowed.
Schroeder was told that the Commission typically reviews a specific building plan for this
tvpe of variance request.
Stoddard asked why the application was on the agenda. GaflBron said the applicant needed
verification that the lot is buildable. He noted as long as other standards are met. the
request is only for lot area and width variances.
Schroeder asked if the approval could not be obtained at time of the building plan
application. Gafl^on informed him that the applicant wanted the confidence ttet the lot is
buildable.
Coramisnon questioned wdiether they could approve with re^dewing a plan. GafiBron noted
that a similar situation was recently approved for lot area variance only without a building
plan in order to allow the current owner to sdl the property. Hawn noted that an approval
would clarify the situation fcr a potential buyer. Berg indicated that if the plan meets all
other requirements, the application would not have to be reviewed again.
Hawn indicated that a neighboring property owner wanted to speak with the applicant.
Schroeder noted that there is more value in the land if it is buildable.
Smith asked what the preference was of the applicant for the property. Reinhold said he
preferred to sell the lot. Smith indicated she agreed with Hawn that the best scenario
would be to sell the lot to the adjacent neighbor.
Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2253 for lot area and lot width
variances subject to Staff recommendations 1-6 as noted.
Smith mformed the applicant that it was important to note that if a residence was buih, no
other variances would be approved.
Vote; Ayes 7, Nays 0.
400
Si.-
jolf
9'
f
. . • UJIUli'i^
Stubbs V « J
Pny -------^
%I
y
Gmifsc ' ’I
‘•-;. < % Noerenbcirg
;’ t A‘.ajcwe// . ''
.MaxweA
/J . QwmoviEwvU
I Lake <%-
y AfVS •..,7^------- .^(151J
.♦ m
, 7v^-
A /^ ' • Maxwe. IX A(im ) • o ■-•
\ \ . ..- . . • X \ \. \ J
• <
w • <
Arm *t X
rg Point g * •
X ui "
U aa
xvr*
ORONO'^"^ '^'
A rnt
ood Point
'..V ’V
Crystal .. Bohns Point Cry Si
PEERING
i:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 3, 1997
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval:
Name Michael P. Gaffron
Title Assistant Planning &. Zoning Administrator
Administiator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description: #2253 David Reinhold, 3551 Livingston Avenue - Variances -
____________Resolution__________________________
Zoning District: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Vi Acre Minimum. Sewered
Application:
List of Exhibits
Request for lot area/lot width variances to construct a new residence to
replace the existing residence.
A • Resolution
B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/20/97
C - Memo and Exhibits of July 14, 1997
Summary of Application
Please review the memo and exhibits of July 14. Briefly, applicant requests lot area and lot
width variances for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on this
50' X 134.5* (0.15 acre) lot in Navarre. The LR-IC standards are 100’ width and 0.5 acre. The
property currently contains an existing 720 s.f. house and 40 s. f. shed, both of which would
be removed. Applicant has indicated he may sell the lot rather than build on it himself.
No plans for a proposed house for the site have been submitted. However, the July 14 staff
memo describes how a house could be developed on the site meeting the 35% hardcover limit,
the 1,500 s.f. lot coverage allowance and the required front, rear and side yard setbacks. As
noted, such a house could include a two car attached garage which would be at the 30 ’ setback.
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the following;
1. Granting only the requested lot area and lot width variances.
2. Development of the property shall not exceed the 35% hardcover limit.
3. Development of the property shall not exceed the 1,500 s.f. lot coverage by
structiu^es allowance.
Request for Council Action continued
Page 2
September 3, 1997
#2253 David Reinhold, 3551 Livingston Avenue - Variances
4. At the time the existing house is removed, the existing shed shall also be
removed.
5. Existing house and shed to be removed within 90 days of variance approval (to
avoid City proceeding with hazardous building action).
6. Applicant is advised as part of this approval that it is City's intent to grant no
other variances for this property.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the attached resolution of approval.
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by ,, seconded by ,, to adopt Resolution No.
_______granting lot area and width variances for construction of a new residence to replace
the existing residence at 3551 Livingston Avenue. Vote: ____ayes,_____nays.
0
/'
i
1
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B)
FILE NO. 2253
WHEREAS, David Reinhold (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the
property located at 3551 Livingston within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and
legally described as follows:
Lot 6, Block 4, Navarre Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the
property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new single
family residence to replace the existing residence on a lot of 0.15 acre area and 50’ width
where a 0.5 acre area and 100' width are normally required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2253.
The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District.
The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 18, 1997
and on a vote of 7 to 0 recommended approval of the proposed variances based
upon the following findings:
A. The existing lot of 0.15 acre in area and 50' width contains an existing
house connected to municipal sewer.
Page 1 of 5
-L
B
C.
D.
E.
The adjacent properties on either side of applicant’s property are
developed with existing single family residences, hence no additional land
is available to make the lot larger.
Development of this lot would be in character \\ith the neighborhood, as
evidenced by the fact that of 73 homes in the neighborhood bounded by
Shadywood Road on the east and Blaine Avenue on the west, including
Livingston Avenue, Lyric Avenue and Crystal Place, 41 are on single SO'
lots, 23 are on double 100' lots, and 9 are on triple ISO' or larger lots.
Even though this lot is significantly smaller than the zoning district
standards, a residence can be built on the property which meets the lot
coverage, setback and hardcover standards of the LR-IC district.
Allowing the replacement of the existing deteriorated structure with a
modest residence will help the City meet its goal of maintaining
affordable housing in the City.
4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Plaiming Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variiuice on the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
3. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Page 2 of 5
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow the construction of a new
residence to replace the existing residence on a lot of 0.15 acre area and 50' width where a 0.5
acre area and 100' width are normally required, subject to the following conditions:
I. This approval grants only the requested lot area and lot width variances.
2.
3.
Development of the projjerty shall not exceed the 35% hardcover limit of the
500-1,000' hardcover zone in which the lot is located. Total lot area is 6,725
s.f., and the maximum hardcover allowed on the property is 35% or 2.353 s.f.
Development of the property shall not exceed the 1,500 s.f. "lot coverage by
structures" allowance.
4.At the time the existing house is removed, the existing shed shall also be
removed.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Existing house and shed shall be removed within 90 days of variance approval,
and if this is not completed, the applicant is advised the City may proceed with
hazardous building action.
Applicant is advised as part of this proposal that it is the City’s intent to grant
no other variances for this property.
Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant,
but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building
permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
expire on that date (September 8. 1998).
Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
Page 3 of 5
9.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the
property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 8th day of September, 1997.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
Property Owner (s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of
September, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City
of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was e.xecuted on behalf of
the City.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 5
1
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
473-7357
ZONING FILE #2253
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE; August 20, 1997
TO:David Reinhold
5333 Forest Road
Minnetonka, MN 55345
COPIES:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances
DATE OF MEETING: 08/18/97 VOTE; 7 FOR 0 AGAINST
Planning Commusion recommends the following:
Approval subject to conditions noted below.
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
Granting only the requested lot area and lot width variances.
4
Development of the property shall not exceed the 35% hardcover limit.
Development of the property shall not exceed the 1,500 s.f. "lot coverage by structures"
allowance.
4. At the time the existing house is removed, the existing shed shall also be removed.
5.Existing house and shed to be removed within 90 days of variance approval (to avoid
City proceeding with hazardous building action).
6.Applicant is advised as part of this approval that it is City's intent to grant no other
variances for this property.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council, Monday, September 8, 1997; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available
from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission.
•' I
TO;
FROM:
Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Michael P. GafTron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE:July 14. 1997
SUBJECT: #2253 David Reinhold, 3551 Livingston Avenue - Variances - Public Hearing
Note: This item was tabled at your July meeting at applicant ’s request.
Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre sewered.
Application: Request for lot area/lot width variances to construct a new residence to replace the
existing residence.
List of Exhibits
A - Application
B - Plat Map
C - Property Owner ’s List
D - Survey
E - Hardcover Zone Review
Summary of Request
This propert>’ currently contains an existing 720 s.f house and 40 s.f. shed. The lot is 50’x 134.5’ or
0.15 acre. The LR-IC standards are 100’ width and 0.5 acre. Applicant requests area and width
variances to allow replacement of the existing house with a new residence, and he indicates he may
sell the lot rather than build on it himself.
Pertinent Code Sections
1.
2.
3.
Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B):
Lot area required = 21,780 s.f.; existing = 6,725 s.f.
Required lot width = 100; existing = 50’
Required setbacks: 30’ from and rear, 10’ side.
Sections 10.22/10.56: Hardcover in 500-1,000' zone is allowed at 35%.
Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Allowance for lot coverage by structures is 15% of total lot area
or 1,500 s.f., whichever is greater.
• •
Zoning File #2253
July 14,1997
Page 2
Discussion
The existing house on the property is small and in poor condition, and has not been lived in for a few
years. Applicant proposes to remove the existing house and either rebuild himself or sell the lot as
a building site. A third option he is considering is sale to neighboring property owners for additional
yard area.
Applicant has not provided plans for a proposed house for the site. It may be reasonable to grant the
variances requested to replace the existing house without knowing the parameters of a new house,
only if all setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements are intended to be adhered to.
Given the 35% hardcover limit, the 1,500 s.f lot coverage allowance, and the required front, rear,
side yard setback requirements, a modest residence with two car attached garage could be developed
on this propert>’ without variances other than the requested lot area/width variances. A conforming
residence might include the following:
A. 28'x36' house + 24'x20’ attached garage = 1,488 s.f
B. 16’x30’driveway = 480 s.f
C. 3'x32‘ sidewalk = 96 s.f
D. 10'x28’ deck = 180 s. f
E. lO'xlO’shed = 100 s.f
Total hardcover = 2,344 s.f or 34.9%
Total lot coverage = 1,488 s.f
This home could be two stories in height to gain square footage, but would have to be set at the 30'
street setback line in order to meet hardcover requirements. Further, the attached garage would have
to face the street. This combination of limitations leaves little flexibilit>' in design, but may also
yield an opportunity for creativity.
Hardship
Both adjacent properties contain existing homes, hence no additional land is available to make the
lot larger. Further, of 73 homes in the neighborhood bounded by Shadywood Road on the east and
Blaine Avenue on the west, including Livingston Avenue, Lyric Avenue and Crystal Place, 41 are
on single 50’ lots, 23 are on double 100' lots, and 9 are on triple 150' or larger lots. Construction of
a new residence on this property would not be out of character with the neighborhood, even though
it would be significantly smaller than the zoning district standards. Also, it can be argued that a
property containing a residence which meets the lot coverage, setback and hardcover standards
should not be considered as "over built". Additionally, allowing the replacement of the existing
deteriorated structure with a modest residence will help the City meet its goal of maintaining
affordable housing in the City.
Zoning File #2253
July 14,1997
Page 3
Staff Recommendation
If Planning Commission determines that this lot should be considered buildable, staff would
recommend the following conditions of approval:
1. Granting only the requested lot area and lot width variances.
2. Development of the property shall not exceed the 35% hardcover limit.
3. Development of the property shall not exceed the 1,500 s.f "lot coverage by structures" /
allowance.
4. At the time the existing house is removed, the existing shed shall also be removed.
'
5. Existing house to be removed within 90 days of variance approval (to avoid City proceeding y
with hazardous building action).
6. Applicant is advised as part of this approval that it is City's intent to grant no other variances
for this property.
Options for Action
1. Reconunend approval per staffs recommendation.
2. Recommend approval with other conditions.
3. Table for further information (specify).
4. Reconunend denial (state reasons).
5.Other.
••
/
-O
Application # ^SlS3
Date Received
Amount Paid ^^iO. «*___
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S220.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $120.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $220.
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
o
**
I •» ^
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site^^ddress 3c ^ i ^ ^ «** c»- i
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)^
?<•
c>
'"*“8
i
a
8
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Pfopettj^cquired n /1 -7_________________________________(month/ycar)
I (do) ^o no^also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: _presidential ___pother (specify)
Zoning District: Lg I -
applicant
Name
Address: z\-": rvLti 1^^
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name ____________________
Phone (home)_5^&_i5jjj_______
_____ Phone (work)_i;:ioc_:_ii<e_£.il4_i_Liio‘5
Citv._/ct All. ^ip. 1 - . ^
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
Address:City:Zip:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $
Describe request in'detail: V/a ,^/a /j '1 » / ■>
^ Tt.? Cy-'r'.r ' j=' >f .____________________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
A
VARIANCES REQUIRED
V Lot Area p(' Lot Width
Setback:Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
Other (specify)
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Exi -Ic Vl_____
wViutItt' Wi /itiWv.afti-ViVNO ■ I a« j
___cl iL ‘ti/J rffclAf* ^ if** ---
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
/
///
/
/ 1 '6.'9
/-y -
0
—, — —fW 70 /
/177 / 113.9 /5". 1 1/
O
•XIIoc»
^0 s!<ir.
rro
'50 50 i
CO
1
1 0
^ 1
!2
(. 33)
t~, 1
11-
(32)
10.?#
<0 <c-
♦ •
"*‘>4
CO fv
50 50'
1 *. - -
cr»
j'^^rr
I—I
d £ro :i
) /
Itb
!3
(3^.)4:
GO
5^..!
-iLO
i 5.}50
u->.
O J
u*:
Z)'^ tC J •r/. cT' r-
50 J 5t' ! SO u
*w^l
X-5
i?0 rvj I'VJ 1 ^ 1 i :^! ^0
•• I
1'I ‘ /
CG'
'4
’4-1 i5.-l6
«l{355ia«' -
ST i/oCi
(51) ■Oi.50)W9)j(,48) □ii||(46Tl(45
50 I 50 iso 0
IT)
o 50 TA!
0- !
wA- 1
•J*)
I .
\r
’ '^1i.r*G
1 ^'
i4G! :o \io ! :5o; 19 !'3:Co:i 2‘ i'?/i:“-'-;
‘■B53j\ l(55)i 5!t56)| :J{57)| ^
1^“’
^ ^ “7 ;
■ ,• 1 ^ / •
30 : 5*:
/ :-
-4‘J 50
'■♦“'l I
^•i
5C i 50.-' 50
.L - ' - -
‘ a ^
• 5v
^ -
'■ 7 '52 a:
cc
J-V /
J 106 ;,
-T'l :05)|,;A'.- - '-I •■''3 ~* ' •*!‘. • • ' * ‘—I
V « > 1 ' A. 1 \ i ^ 3 '| [f r.
r’ . ^
I
^■1 i ' ' '\
- i-, .ti \^\\>y‘
I 50 -'; 50 I 50 ! ^ \vl 50
A
LJ
V'
I 50 ! 50 i 5(0 ; *=" ' '^ W
f ^4 ’50
r w-tO i v\ '\
<‘j' u*
,\^ ‘SO
rv
i in!v' ". •*
J
Oj
-| 97.
'
1 n»
1 . '.Ni
15^ I \ I » •* I
13: 14 7i 15
j -| ni
1 J
c,) ! 50
• I
in
rr
L-il
L’^- I i . !
40 I t' 4-t. j - i i** .;
•I
*^! . :•*>50 A 60 -! .60 ‘2j 60 !2. 50-j 50 , 5C'
fO '^OCC NO 54 2-i-564 N69 ’16'52'E
“! ' Jo OOC NO
iC\U
v_y I t O I \ i
J
RUN DATE 12/20/H
BATCH 004
o\NErt«PIN C0UI4TY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OHNERS LIST
REPORT NO. P141540I
PAGE 14
PROP ADOR
ONNtR NAME
TAXI>AVER
N2ME/AMNI
AS 17-117-2S 43 0040
03554 LIVINGSTON AVE
COIN LONG
CHRISTIAN D A NATCY LONG
3554 LIVINGSTON AVE
NAYZATA NN 55341
30 17-117-23 43 0041
03520 LIVINGSTON AVE
ROBERT EUGENE EBERT
ROBERT EBERT
3520 LIVINGSTON AVE
NAYZATA NN 55341
SB 17-117-23 43 0044
03525 LIVINGSTON AVE
S PUGH A T SOBERG
SUSAN PUGH A TERRENCE SOBERG
3525 L1V1NGST0I4 AVE
NAYZATA NN 55341
PLOP AOOR
OtCR NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AOOR
38 17-117-23 43 0045
03533 LIVINGSTON AVE
S D SANDLER AKA SANOLFR
STEVEN B A KATHRYN A SANDLER
3533 LIVINGSTON AVE
NAYZATA N4 55391
36 17-117-23 43 0044
03541 LIVINGSTON AVE
JOANN H IIOLSBECK
J0AI14 N HOLSDECK
3541 LIVINGSTON AVE
NAYZATA 111 55391
SB 17-117-23 43 0047
03551 LIVINGSTON AVE
DAVID N RElfBIOLO
OAVIO N REI4RIOLO
3551 LIVINGSTON AVE
NAYZATA HN 55391
PROP ADDR
0»«€R HAIIC
TAXPAYER
NAME/AOOR
30 17-117-23 43 004B
03554 LIVINGSTON AVE
D LEFCBVRE A L S CARNES
OOMINIC LEFEBVRE
3559 LIVINGSTON AVE
NAYZATA HN 55391
30 17-117-23 43 0049
03577 LIVINGSTON AVE
ELIZABE1H J BALTER
ELIZABETH J BALTER
3577 LIVIfIGSTON
NAYZATA m 55391
38 17-117-23 43 0050
03505 LIVINGSTON AVE
MICHAEL G HOSINAN
MICHAEL 6 HOSINAN
3585 LIVINGSTONE AVE
NAYZATA m 55391
PROP AOOR
OMNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAMC/ADDR
38 17-117-23 43 0055
03554 LYRIC AVE
R 0 8ARTELL IKK BARTELL
ROLAND D/KIH8ERLY K BARTELL
3554 LYRIC AVE
NAYZATA HN 55391
36 17-117-23 43 0054
03534 LYRIC AVE
RICHARD R GILMORE
CHARLES LEHIS HENKE
3534 LYRIC AVE
NAYZATA HN 55391
38 17-117-23 43 0057
03520 LYRIC AVE
J A V NE6LEY
JANES I VICKY NE6LFY
3520 LYRIC AVE N
NAYZATA NN 55391
PROP AOOR
OHNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAHE/ADOR
38 17-117-23 43 0056
05506 LYRIC AVE
RONALD THOMAS HILL
RONALL THOMAS HILL
3506 LiRlC AVE
NAYZATA NN 55391
36 17-117-23 43 0146
03554 LIVINGSTON AVE
R E t J N THOMPSON
RICHARD E/JEANNE M THOMPSON
3554 LIVINGSTON AVE
NAYZATA NN 55391
36 17-117-23 43 0150
03572 LIVINGSTON AVE
HARK N A KAREN L CUFF
HANK N A KAREN L CUFF
3572 LIVINGSTON AVE
NAYZATA NN 55391
PROP ADOR
OMNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/AOOR
38 17-117-23 43 0153
03SH LYRIC AVE
raCHAEL E A LAURA J SHANSON
MICNAEL E A LAURA J SMANSON
35H LYRIC AVE
NAYZATA m 55391
TOTAL BATCH 004 00014
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
DAVID REINHOLD
LOT 6. BLOCK 4, NAVARRE HEIGHTS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
b
LIVINGSTON AVENUE
...S 89*59' E 50.00 •.
UJ
EXISTMC
HOUSE
I
--
0^
f\
exSTilG
SICO*V.
18 .%•;
ID
to
^0
Oi
O•O
*««
49.92 meas 50.0*
S 09*5 V 44" W
H-...
'mu
4 #
lm^0
legal DtSCRiPTiQN OF PREMISES :
lot 6. BLOCK 4 NAVARPE HEiCMTS m
O denotes iron morkm
* tf«not8t dittonct ot sho«n on the pkit of NAVARRE HEIGHTS
Bearings shown ore bOMd upon on ossumed datum.
This Survey »ntends to show the boundories of the above described property.
Ohd the locotion of on eiisting house or>d shed thereon. It does rn>t purport
to show ony other improvements or encroochmentf
#
.0^•' I r’M
t ' 'f I IN ii ^ 'Nbl hi . IV
I fvriH th.it thi<* w4>» pt% pjii-J h\ m» iv tituU-r mi ittnvt t
I l'•h•n 4»»il th.it I .im 4 ilulv ri‘^i«»li ri'il I n »l I I’liimi r .inJ I uru! Sir* ruv unih r
t*H l.ii»» •»! Ihi S.ili’ lit M»i»rH'M*t.i
^5/ f'**
M ill. t .iciiU li. MiiiiU'Mita I HI iiM Niimtsf IT* *'
put |.J.f7
^ IM ri 20'
96*458
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner
September 14, 2001
#01-2706 Richard R. Stark
815 Partenwood Road
Variance Renewal - Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I Acre)
44.225 s.f. (1.02 acre)
List of Exhibits
A Analysis
B Application
C Existing and Proposed Site Plan
D Resolution #4550
E Minutes from previous meetings (PC-10/16/2000. CC-10/23/2000)
F Staff Report (10/23/2000)
Pertinent Code Sections
Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Regulations
Section 10.22, Subd. 2: I.akcshore Hardcover Requirements
Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B). LR-IB Lot Requirements
Application Summary: 'fhe property has been sold and the new owner would like to renew
the variances received to expand and remodel the existing residence to include a lour stall garage
and additional living area. Variances were granted on November 24. 1997. October 26. 1998.
October 25. 1999 and October 23. 2000 for lakeshore setback to be located 34 ’ from the
lakeshore where 75' is required and for hardcover in the 0'-75' setback where 20% (5.815 s.f.)
was existing and 15.3% (4,413 s.f.) was proposed.
Staff Recommendation :
The zoning lot conforms to lot area, lot width, and side yard setback requirements. 1 he existing
residence is located within the required lakeshore setback. The proposed plan reduces the
amount of hardcover in the 0'-75' setback. The existing amount of hardcover on the site is
10.228 s.f. (23%). The proposed plan is for 6.595 s.f. (14.9%) total hardcover on the lot.
If Planning Commission concludes that the findings of fact supporting this variance request are
still valid, then an approval recommendation is appropriate.
<*0t-2~06 Richard and Jane Stark
HI5 Partenwood
I ’ariance Renew al
page-1
A
ANALYSIS
Lot Area and Yards
LR-IB District Standards
Lol Area Loi Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard
1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.75 ft.
Subject Property Lot Area and Yards
Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside
1.02 acres 225 ft. at 75’
setback
357 ft. at OHW
37 ft. (existing)
35 ft. (proposed)
46 ft. (existing)
20 ft.
(proposed)
34 ft.
The zoning lot does not meet the iakeshore setback requirement of 75'. A variance is required for
remodeling and expanding an existing structure within the 75 ’ Iakeshore setback. The
homeowner's association has setback requirements that are more restrictive than the zoning code.
Structural Coveraue
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coveraf;e Percentage
44,225 s.f 2.520 s.f. (existing)
3.410 s.f (proposed)
5.7%
7.7%
Structural coverage is not an issue with this application.
Hardcover
Distance
from
Shoreline
Total Area in
Setback
Existing
Hardcover
Allowed
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
1 'ariance
Reipiested
0’-75’28.810 s.f 5.815 s.f
(20%)
none 4.665 s.f
(16%)
4.665 s.f
(16%)
75'-250'15.419 s.f 2.995 s.f
(19%)
3.854.75 s.f
(25%)
3.600 s.f
(23%)
none
A hardcover variance is required in the O' to 75' iakeshore setback.
B
V
Application # 0! ^ 9S10(p
Date Received
Amount Paid iBiQO.OO
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERT
Site Address
Y INFOI^U™n ^
res s .1/ S top /?)/I ’S'^Syi.
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0< - i t 1 ________
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired ^Pr' I______________________________(month/year)
1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: residential ___^other (specify )______________________
Zoning District: JC . ^ ^ ^____________________________
APPLICANT, 7
Name i(LH /h/< ^ SrAt^/t
Address:. <T7 V~ /: pr, // ,i A
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name ____________________
Phone (home) ‘^^3 -d ^ 9
____ Phone (work)
City: AO//I ,________Zip:
Phone (home)
Phone (work)
Address:City:.Zip:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail: __
Estimated Consruction Cost S
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width
Setback:
Other (specify)
Front __Side
Haricover
Rear
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
hardship /description of unusual property conditions
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_____________________________________
________________________________ ■<; eT P/21 c^fc /ry j L, dJt
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
^V 06#2
0
O
••• • *m i
CCRTtFICATE OF SKVEY FOR
OriOT 1^10^2. PARTENVWOO
ICmCFIN COUNTY. MINNCSOTA
o
Lot t, iiocft i. Y-itoNiiMui
»•.
I
t M««Nv cert Iff th»t lAt« ••• |*rr|««ro4 ,
Lf mo 09 omSmr mf Aif«e»
torn o <•!? r«fiot#«#4 ImN oo4»»o tN«
!•«• «r tM fiot* •! N«I
COfftO ft OlHJMMaU. INC.
on tm,
IMiffiMrt*. iJUtd “UttyfootwOt |>I•••••*;
i4ia« ^ Y
norm I If-U-M
MftUt »• • *•*
• I !»«■
o
• • #•r>
\\%
33G1S*50
i\GITYofORONO
' VlV, .■'TJiM.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 45 5 0 CJ
Cv*
CJ
A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL OF VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS I AND 2 ^
FILE NO. ^624
\VHEi^^:AS, Roger Olsen and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are
owners of the property located at 815 Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter
"the City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for the renewal of variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and
expansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space
located 34' from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a
hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed
as shown on Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2624.
The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property' consists of 1.02 acre.
3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal application on October
16, 2000 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the
following findings:
1. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL.
Page 1 of 5
1
o
ii >•
A. //
S'
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 5 5 0__
The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad.
3. The amount of hardcover in the 0* to 75’ lakeshore setback would be
reduced from 20% to 15.3%.
4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessar>- to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions I and 2 to allow the
remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34’ from the OHWL where 75’ is
required and hardcover of 4,415 s.f (15.3%) in the 0’ to 75’ lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f.
(20%) is existing and none is allowed.
1.
J.
All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the O' to 75’ lakeshore setback
prior to any new construction.
No further variances will be granted to this property in the future.
Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants,
but arc permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building
permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
expire on that date (October 23, 2001).
Page 2 of 5
i
/y
o
^v.<
CITY of ORONO
m RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. '4 S 5 0
4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of
the property.
Any substantial changes or revisions to the plan in Exhibit A will require
reconsideration by the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular
Property Owyier (s)
Sr--'
1/
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HEN'NEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of
October, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the Ciw of
Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the
City.
^ y-.• ' f.y' '' ' i
Notary Public
Page 3 of S
/^Oj^
o
b. ^4*//
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ^ ^ 0
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this I day of I -• I iiiinf (i
for said county, personally appeared
, 200 j_ before me a Notary Public witWn and
/■■>/' ri f ! ( IS>'t > _________
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
/ ' ■- r C- I JCi' ^ fC
Notary Public
rr
STATE OF MnsTNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this IT'* day of _jL£li_i_LjI*£Li
for said county, personally appeared
___, 200 ' before me a Notary Public w ithin and
'l ■ . * ■•>!>'*' 1 i > i ' ' t ' <
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
RACHaO(XX3E
NOTAKYMUC-MNWIOrA
• /■ <'« A '■ i (. c ■ <'•:
Notary Public
Page 4 of 5
<
x>
r
33G4!)50
ifi^i
'- %f4i •acK
S
$
Xnn
OFFICE Of THE REQISTRAR
OF TITLES
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MtMNESOH
CEHTIFieo FU£0 ON
MAR 02 20W ^
^CIGpTAROPTnUS
wAJkiiim^oa>vrt
(/> —•
.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COM^USSION MEETING
_________Monday, October 16,2000_________
t.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Conunission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jay Nygard, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist,
Janice Berg, and Daniel Kluth. Commissioner Sandra Smith was absent. The following
represented City Staff: Senior Plaruiing Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator
Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. and Recorder Jackie Young.
City Council Representative Barbara Peterson was present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(IH) #2624 ROGER OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - RENXWAL VARIANCES,
6:31 p.m. - 6:37 p.m.
Roger Olsen, Applicant, t’.-as present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting to rcb iy[^i^tt|g||p|p hat were granted in
November, 1997, October, 1998, and October, 1999. would like to e.spand and
remodel the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space.
Variances were approved by the City Council for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the
0*75 ’ zone. Variances were required for remodeling to the e.xisting residence that is located
34* from the lakeshore where 73* is required. A hardcover variance in the 0*73* zone s required to
allow 13.3 percent where 20 percent exists and zero is allowed
Bottenberg stated the lot conforms to lot area, lot w idth, and side yard setback requirements,
with the existing residence being located within the required lakeshore setback. The proposed
plan reduces the amount of hardcover in the 0>73* setback.
City Staff recommends renewing the variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the
0-73* setback. ■.
Olsen stated he has renewed the variances in the past due to financial issues and may not be able
to complete the project this year either. Olsen stated be would like to undertake this project in
the future, and inquired whether it would be best to let the variances expire or to continue to
renew diem.
Hawn inquired what would happen if the variances were allowed to lapse.
Gaffron stated if the variances lapsed, the Applicant would need to submit a new plan and pay
a new fee. GafBon noted the Applicant is only required to pay one-half of the fee if he requests
renewal.
PAGEl
^^NUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
_________Monday, October 16,2000__________
(M2624 Roger Olsen, Continued)
Hawn conunented she does not have a problem with renewing the variances.
Lindquist stated he also does not have a problem with the renewal.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application tl2624,
Roger J. Olsen, 815 Partenwood Road, renewing of the variances for lakeshore setback
and hardcover in the 0-75’ setback. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(«2) 2571 DOUG AULT AND JIM GINTHER, 2739 SHADYVVOOD ROAD,
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, 6:38 p.m. - 6:48 p.m.
\
Jim G^l^r and Doug Ault, Applicants, were present.
The Certificateof Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated Applicants are requesting an after-the-fact variance to permit
e.xpansion of a parkingsqrea constituting additional ^rdcover within 73 ’ feet of the OH\VX
of Lake Minnetonka.
Weinberger stated this lot is loba^d near the Naaows Bridge, w ith appro.\imately a half dozen tots
being independently owned withob(^residences being located in this area. Weinberger stated the
lots were originally platted in the I95()s w|0|j^intenc]^erve the residential lots in the
tiood. Since the 1950s, severe ^ —neighborhood.xifmelots have been sold off into private ownership.
The Applicants share ownership of the lots\^ich contains ^vo mooring areas for boats. In 1999, the
hadpiqced no parking signs along County Road 19.
the no parking signs have been erected, the City tSspow fticed with the creation of parking for each of
these lots.
City of Orono had restricted parking and had Since
Weinberger stated this is an after-the-fact variance requeshljecause the e.\isting parking area
had been increased in size to accommodate two vehicles. Weinberger noted the entire lot is
located within 75’ of the lake.
Weinberger stated the Applicants have listed four hardships, with the^q^ry hardship being
that these docks have existed for a number of years, with the hardship behm that a minimum of
^vo parking spaces are needed since there are hvo property owners. WeinMtger stated the
gravel parking area would allow the area to be better maintained rather than to permit one car
to park on the grass
City Staff is recommending approval of the application based on the hardships listed in their
August 15,2000 letter.
Ginther stated Weinberger has represented the situation quite well, and due to the fact that there
PAGE 2
p
Application Dale: 9/20/00
Completion Date: 9/20/00
60 Day Deadline: 11/20/00
Department Approval:
Name Wendy Bottenberg
Title Zoning Adminstrator/Planner
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
A'
DATE: 10/23/00 ^
ITEM NO.: / t>
Agenda Section: Zoning
Item Description:112624 Roger Olsen
SIS Partenwood Road
Variance Renewal
Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I Acre)
Lot Area: 44.225 s f. (1.02 acre)
List of ExhibiU:
A Resolution
B Notice of Planning Commission Action
C Staff Report and Exhibits of 10/16 2000
Application Summary: The applicants are requesting approval to renew variances that were
granted on October 25, 1999, October 26, 1998 and November 24, 1997 to allow e.xp^ion and
remodeling of an existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living area.
Applicants have indicated they hope to begin this project within the next year.
1. Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations: No principal building shall be
located closer than 75 feet to the natural ordinary high water mark of a lake abutting the property.
To allow remodeling per the plan in Exhibit A of the resolution where the residence is currently
located 34' from the lakeshore where 34’ is proposed and 75’ is required.
2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(1): Hardcover in 0-75’: Permit 4,413 s.f.
(l5.3®/o) hardcover in the 0-75’ where 5,815 s.f. (20®/o) exists and 0 s.f. (0®/o) is allowed.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to:
Approve the application as presented.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To approve the enclosed resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL OF VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2
FILE NO. 2624
WHEREAS, Roger Olsen and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are
owners of the property located at 815 Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter
"the City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for the renewal of variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and
e.xpansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space
located 34' from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a
hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f (20%) is existing and none is allowed
as shown on Exhibit A.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1.
9
This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2624.
The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 1.02 acre.
J.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal application on October
16, 2000 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the
following findings:
1 . The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL.
Page I of 5
J
2. The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad.
3. The amount of hardcover in the O' to 75’ lakeshore setback would be
reduced from 20% to 15.3%.
4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this propert> are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety’
and welfare of the community .
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the
remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34’ from the OHWL where 75’ is
renuired and hardcover of 4,415 s.f. (15.3%) in the O' to 75’ lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f.
(20%) is existing and none is allowed.
1. All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the 0’ to 75’ lakeshore setback
prior to any new construction.
2. No further variances will be granted to this property in the future.
3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants,
but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building
permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
expire on that date (October 23. 2001).
Page 2 of 5
4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall a,.iomatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of
the property.
6.Any substantial changes or revisions to the plan in Exhibit A will require
reconsideration by the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 23rd day of October, 2000.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, Cit)’ Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
Property Owner (s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of
October, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the Cit>- of
Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the
City.
Notary Public
Page 3 of 5
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 200 before me a Notary Public within and
for said county, personally appeared
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and
acknow lodged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
•) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of 200_before me aNotary Public within and
for said county, personally appeared
known "o me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he (they) e.xecuted the same as his (their) free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 5
Si1
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
612-249-4600
TO: Roger Olsen
81S Partenwood Road
Long Lake, MN SS3S6
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance Renewal
ZONING FILE U 2624
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE: October 17,2000
COPIES:
DATE OF MEETING: October 16,2000 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST
Planning Commbsion recommends the following:
Approval as submitted.
Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council on October 23,2000 at 7:00 p.m.
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from
the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission.
/
TO;
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner
October 16,2000
#2624 Roger J. Olsen
815 Partenwood Road
Variance Renewal -• Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR* IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I Acre)
Lot Area; 44,225 s.f. (1.02 acre)
Lbt of Exhibits
A Application
B Report from previous renewal (10/25/99)
C Minutes from previous meetings (PC- 10/18/99, CC- 10/25/99)
D Res. 4367
The applicants are applying to renew variances that were granted on November 24,1997,
October 26, 1998 and October 25, 1999. The plans are to expand and remodel the existing
residence to include a four stall garage and additional living area.
Variances were approved for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75’ zone. Variances were
required for remodeling to the existing residence that is located 34' from the lakeshore where 75 ’
is required. Also hardcover in the 0-75’ zone where 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) proposed, 5,815 s.f. (20%)
exists and 0 s.f. (0%) is allowed.
Staff Recommendation:
The zoning lot conforms to lot area, lot width, and side yard setback requirements. The existing
residence is located within the required lakeshore setback. The proposed plan reduces the
amount of hardcover in the 0-75’ setback. The e.xisting amount of hardcover on the site is 10,228
s.f. (23%). The proposed plan is for 6,595 s.f. (14.9%) total hardcover on the lot.
Staff recommends renewing the variance for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75’ setback
U2624 Roger J. Olsen
815 Partenwood
Variance Renewal
page I
Application #
Date Received 9 /O c/cto
Amount Paid /S'C. c/>
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S230.00
(S50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFOI^IATION
Site Address Pct)r^-eif%xA^uct/ Qc.trr/. ^
Property Identification Number fP.I.D.I ‘93—
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property^Acquired^ S' - ____________________
; ■
.(month/year)
I (do)<[do ngt> also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: X residential ___other (specify)
Zoning District: LR'lB______
r
\ ■
V
APPLICANT
Name J- Oho
Aidress: fV'/s~ Pc>> ■</ A •»./
0^^'NER (if different than applicant)
Name____________;___________
Phone fhome l 9:>D' ^f7f- 77*:
_____ Phone fwork^ 9 C!? - / '
City: -__________Zip; |
Phone (homeX
Phone (work).
Address;City;.Zip:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail: __
Estimated Construction Cost S.
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area ___Lot Width
Setback; __Front ___
Odier (specify) /
Side
Hardcover
Rear
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
RARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe imdue hardship or practical difiBculty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements;___________ ____________________
________________________*________ cKj______
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
1.
2.
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
AII..Of.tht.ioUgwing information must he submitted bv the aPDlication deadline date in
order for vour applicaHnn to be cnnt»a>red ^nniplete: rr ■—.v..
__ Completed Application Form
---- Certified Prope^ Owners List of owners within 150 ’, labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map fi-om Hennepin County Department of
Fmance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).
---- Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11” for
reproduction.
---- Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8‘/i" x 11" for reproduction.
---- Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘/i" x 11").
---- List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an mterest in
the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s).
---- As an addendi^ to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
---- Additional items as may be requested by Citv' staff.
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
ygnanct applltotion is not tompletc if the above information has not hegn includgd.
APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Ac^nistrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
m^or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and cenifies that the
uiforiTiation supplied is true and correct to the best of his^lier knowledge.
5,
6.
7.
8.
Applicant’s Signature '/"I /Date
OWNER’S SIGNATURE
The owner 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 puiposes of investigation and verification of this request.
Owner's Signature Date 9' :>/.•' c/'j
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each
month.^ Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council, If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make mangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
AppUcation Date:
Completion Date:
60 Day Deadline:
9/22/99
9/22/99
11/21/99
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 10/20/99
ITEM NO.: P
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed:
Name Wendy Bottenberg
Title Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner
Agenda Section:
Item Description:#2531 Roger J. and Elizabeth Olsen
815 Partenwood Road
Variance Renewal
Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre)
Lot Area:44,225 s.f. (1.02 acres)
B
Application: The applicants arc requesting approval to renew variances that were granted
on November 24, 1997 and October 26, 1998 to allow expansion and remodeling of an existing
residence to include a four stall garage and additional living area. The requested variances are for:
1. To allow remodeling per the plan in Exhibit A of the resolution where the residence is currently
located 34' from the lakeshore where 34* is proposed and 75' is required.
2. To allow 15.3% (4,413 s.f) of hardcover to be located within the 0'-75' lakeshore setback where
(20%) 5,815 s.f. is existing and none is allowed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
To approve renew al of the requested variances on a vote of 7-0.
STAFF RECO.MMENDATION:
To approve the enclosed resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
To a(Jopt or amend the enclosed resolution.
.5
A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL OF VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS I AND 2
FILE NO. 2531
WHEREAS, Roger Olsen and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are
o^\'ners of the property located at 815 Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter
"the City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (Iiereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the appli'.'ants have applied to the City for the renewal of variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and
expansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space
located 34' from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a
hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed
as shown on Exhibit A.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2531.
The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 1.02 acre.
a.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal application on October
18, 1999 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the
following findings:
1. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWX.
Page 1 of 5
2. The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allo^vable building pad.
3. The amount of hardcover in the 0’ to 75’ lakeshore setback would be
reduced from 20% to 15.3%.
4. The City Council finds that the conditions e.xisting on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the
remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34' from the OHWT where 75' is
required and hardcover of 4,415 s.f. (15.3%) in the 0’ to 75’ lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f.
(20%) is existing and none is allowed.
1. All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback
prior to any new construction.
2. No further variances will be granted to this property in the future.
3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants,
but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building
permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
e.xpire on that date (October 25, 2000).
Page 2 of 5
4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of
the property.
6. Any substantial changes or revisions to the plan in Exhibit A will require
reconsideration by the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 25th day ol October, 1999.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
Property Owner (s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of
October. 1999, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of
Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was e.xecuted on behalf of the
Cit\'.
Notary Public
Page 3 of 5
the terms and conditions of this
zoning code, shall automatically
nd shall be punishable as a
od and hereby agree to the terms
ves, their heirs, successors and
esolution in the Chain of Title of
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 199_before me a Notary Public within and for
said county, personally appeared _________ _____________:—:-----------—
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregomg insirumeni.and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
plan in Exhibit A will require
f Orono, Minnesota at a regular NOTARY PUBUC
ibbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 199_before me a Notary Public within and for
said county, personally appeared __________ ^---------------
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,an
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
1 before me on this 25th day of
ror and City Clerk of the City of
ent was executed on behalf of the
NOTARY PUBUC
ublic
Page 4 of 5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Zoning Distri
Lot Area:
This applicati
Section 10.22
Section 10.22
Section 10.24
Application I
existing resid
granted on Ni
from the lake
(5,815 s.f.) w
1^2531 Roger J
815 Parienwoot
Variance Renev
PC-10/8'99
page-1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Conunission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner
Octobers, 1999
SUBJECT: #2531 Roger J. Olsen
SIS Partenwood Road
Variance Renewal - Public Hearing
Zoning District; LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre)
Lot Area:44,225 s.f. (1.02 acre)
This application requires the following variances;
Section 10.22, Subd. 1, Lakeshore Setback Regulations
Section 10.22, Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements
Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B), LR-IB Lot Requirements
Application Summary: The applicants received variances to expand and remodel the
existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living area. Variances were
granted on November 24,1997 and October 26,1998 for lakeshore setback to be located 34'
from the lakeshore where 75’ is required and for hardcover in the 0’-75’ setback where 20%
(5,815 s.f) was existing and 15.3% (4,413 s.f) was proposed.
^253! Roger J. Olsen
815 Parten\^vod
Variance Renewal
PC-IO/a/99
page-I
ANALYSIS
Lot Area and Yards
LR-IB District Standards
Lot Area Lot Width So'eet Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard
1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.75 ft.
Subject Property Lot Area and Yards
Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside
1.02 acres 225 ft. at 75'
setback; 357 ft.
at OHWL
37 ft. (existing)
35 ft. (proposed)
46 ft. (existing)
20 ft.
(proposed)
34 ft.
The existing residence does not conform to the cunent lakeshore setback regulations. The
homeowner's association has more restrictive side yard setbacks than the zoning district, therefore,
the garage was placed 20' instead of 10' from the side yard setback.
Hardcover
Distance from
Shoreline
Total Area
in Setback
Existing
Hardcover
Allowed
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
V'ariance
Requested
0'-75'28,810 sq. ft.5,815 sq. ft.
(20%)
None 4,413 sq. ft.
(15.3%)
15.3%
75'-250'15,415 sq. ft.2,995 sq. ft.
(19%)
25%3,600 sq. ft.
(23%)
None
The applicant was granted a hardcover variance in the 0'-75' setback to reduce the amount of
hardcover from 20% to 15.3%.
Wii/ Roger J. Olsen
SIS Partenviood
Variance Renenat
PC-lO/8/99
page^l
<statgment of Hardship :
See Exhibit B
Staff Recommendation:
The zoning lot conforms to lot area, lot width, and side yard setback requirements. The existing
residence is located within the required lakeshore setback. The proposed plan reduces the
amo unt of hardcover in the 0 ’-75' setback. The existing amount of hardcover on the site is
10,228 s.f. (23%). The proposed plan is for 6,595 s.f. (14.9%) total hardcover on the lot.
Staff recommends renewing the variance for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0'-75 ’
setback.
Attachments
A Application
B Applicant ’s letter
C Architect's letter
D Elevation
E Site Plan
F Hardcover worksheets
G Minutes from previous meetings (10/20/97,11/17/97, 11/24/97)
H Res. 4004
I Minutes from previous meetings (10//1 9/98,10/26/98)
J Res. 4185
^2531 Roger J, Olsen
815 Parienwood
Variance Renewal
PC-10/8/99
page-3
I
A
Application # ^ I
Date RecetvedT ^/2l/99/r'^JSAmount Paid /SO
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S250.00
(S50.00 per each additional variance) ^
Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO ^^30^2
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
Afrer*the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION ___
Site Address
Property Identification Number (PJ.D.) CS- HI 3000.3
_ AA A**Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired_____________Slioj’) 7______________________^(month/year)
I (do) (dojw also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: A residentiad ___other (specify).-------------------------------—
Zoning District:_______L^-/S_______________
applicant A F.
Name T-
Aidless: AV >^>
OWT'TR (if different than applicant)
Name__________________________
City:.
Phone fliome l -V?/ ~7 7J£_____
Phone fworki V/ 7 - ^30^____
CrZcWc.________Zip: iTS^SO
u
ij •)
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
••••.
Address:City:.Zip:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $.
Describe request in detail:
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
f:3
i?
VAIUANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width
Setback:Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
VI, Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ----------------------------------------------------
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
REQUIRED SUBi\nTTALS
d)
All.-Qf-thc_fQllPT»ing fnformatinn mmt be submitted bv the application deadline date in
for VOUr-aDPhcation to be considered complete
__ Completed Application Form
— Cert^ed Prope^ Ow-mers List of o\vners %vithin 150’, labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).
— Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x U" for
reproduction.
— Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes m existing
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction.
— Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views provide one (1) copy 854" x 11").
— List of the legal names (mclude marital status) of all persons with an interest in
the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s).
— As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
perso^ you wish notified of this application.
__ Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The^ Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
variance. aPDllcatlOn is not complete if the above information has not been included.
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)
Md/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
mformation supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant’s Signature ______ Date 9'0^1- 9 ^
OWNXR’S SIGNATURE
The owner 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
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make ^angements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
Sq>tember 22,1999
To: The City of Orono
From: Roger Olsen
Subject: Renewal of Variance for ray home at 815 Partenwood Road.
I am requesting a one-year extension of the existing variance on my property due to the following
circumstances:
Several general contractors have turned down my project after initiating the bid process due to a
lack of time and their inability to get reliable commitments from their sub contractors.
After receiving a firm bid four weeks ago from a general contractor willing to do the project, the
price is over one hundred thousand dollars higher than my initial expectations and financial
ability at this time. This represents a 25% increase in construction costs over the initial estimates,
Thank you for your considering this renewal variance.
Sincerely,
Roger Olsen
ri
CJTT'Z'. j
a
r
, >vki*'V - fc «
5 November, 1997
c.
Al.KXANDl.R
DLSK.N CiROLP
To the City Planners of Orono:
In response to your inquiry about the extent of remodeling
to take place at 615 Partenwood, I will describe to you the
scope of the work.
After being on the market for over a year, the Olsen ’s
purchased the property in June with the intent of immediately
remodeling the house. The house has a sagging roof that
is in need of re-construction. The structure is of 2x4 wall
construction & not up to current energy codes, is in need of
window replacement, the porch foundation is in need of
replacement,as well as needing much updating to pass
any building inspection for current code compliance.
Much of the current foundation will remain. Foundation will only be removed
at areas where the house is being expanded. The porch foundation will be
re-built. The lower level is walkout and has a sub-standard wall which can
either have 2x6 studs piggybacked to the existing studs or we would rebuild
the wall. Rebuilding the wall is a much preferred method of remodeling and
what we hope to do. The same options of construction can be applied to the
main floor walls that will remain. The main floor is currently cantilevered at
lakeside further than current codes allov/ for cant’s, so we will need to cut it
back and re-build it without cantilevers Given that the whole main level lakeside
wall needs to be re-built to eliminate the cantilever, it has been suggested
by contractors to rebuild the floor- for several reasons- to improve constr. &
eliminate rebuilding of sub-standard areas, to raise the height of the lower
level to current ceiling heights, and allow for clear spans. This concept has
now been incorporated into our plans. The ceiling plate heights will be raised
ai7d a totally new roof truss system installed
The exact size and shape of the existing and proposed house are shown g,
overlaid on the site plan submitted for variance. If you have any questions
please feel free to contact the Olsens or myself. ▼
i £ \5T L\nI ?TR££T
Sincerely,
Kathryn Awander
V. WZATA VN
(6i:)4*3-j"T
F.v\
RvsNJi'ieb
LWtCSlCXS
£1^\//VT10W
C^ c ‘'=\ A' I
^■-
C I'‘-■^ •i^£^
<3^5/
PlinMort+tkA^
UAKE^loe
ou^iew f*E4*c«y4Cir
!«■«•« «*m4* »«•
t?
o
o
to
aiSi
<*1
Cl
Cl
O
I'*
Cl
<o
U«
•H
O • •
ro
<7#
11*20 ••7 10:04
• •
F\X 612 473 $222 ALEXANDER DESIGN
HAILUCOVER calculation WORKGtlELT
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)
EXISTING HARPCQVEW IN
A. House
f
75-250*250-500*(lof Jl)
LcnitlfJ Width
S.F,
X
X
X
B. Giragt
C. Drivewiy
D. Sidewalk
E. Pat’Q/Dcck
F. Landscape
Underlain
3y Plastic
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S.F.
S.F.
S.F4
\rv /fry.S.F.
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
total PROPERI Y AREA IN ZONE
A _ -4- B X ICO -
PROPOSED HARDCOVER TN TIOVE
A. House _____ %
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Pailo/Deck
F. Landscape
Ucderlala
By Plastic
C. Ocher
f^O
tSoJiC^ -
total hardcover in zone
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
4- B ____X 100 -
n^n S.F.
___ S.F.
S.F.
_____ S.F.
file S.F.
S.F.
I, io4n S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
go^ ftjgo S.F.
*7 A At A S.F.
'LO
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S F.
"n^ S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
O S.F.
S ^
S.F.
' S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
*2fS jg-JO _ S.F.
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*
EXISTING HARDCOVER IN TOW
A. House -V X
2S0-S00'SOO-1000
i^3A_S.F.
Width
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
G. Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
lv\rkV^ Ay. S.F.
l4ie2Q__ S.F.
______ S.F.
cs
n
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERI Y AREA IN ZONE
A_ _ _ _ _B X 100
S.F.
Ig=?.4\g3 S.F.
1^ %
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NF.
A. House
Length
2^— S.F.
width
B. Garage
X
X
X
C. Driveway ^
D. Sidewalk
E. Paiio/Dcck
F.Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
G. Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
® iV\ C'j. S.F.
« ______________S.F.
" - S.F.
B S.F.
r> S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
__ _ _ + B X too
a .roCQ- S.F.
|C?, S.F.
A
B
A
E
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER20,1997
(ff 12 - #2304 Deborah ShoU - Continued)
Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2304. Vote: Ayes 6,
NaysO.
^ (#13) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTEN>VOOD ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:43-11:03 P.M.
*
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Dressier reported that the application is for remodeling and expansion of an existing
residence to include an attached 4-stall garage and loop driveway requiring a lakeshore
setback, and hardcover variances in the 0-73' and 75-250' lakeshore setbacks. A revved
survey was presented. Bressler indicated that due to the lot configuration, the building
pad on the lot is restricted. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to ^
conditions noted which include elimination of the loop portion of the driveway, plastic
under landscaping, and with the notation that no further hardcover would be allowed m
the furure. Bressler repor.ed that the applicant has agreed to remove the plastic imder the
landscaping.
Olsen said the plans have changed due to the homeowners' association covenants
req-iring a 20' side setback. The plan currently calls for a 10' side setback. He would
like to move the design down 10' to satisfy this requirement.
Hawn said in order for this to occur, a new plan would have to be submitted. Bressler
noted that hardcover calculations would change.
Berg questioned what e.xisting foundation and walls would be used. The existing ^
foundation and walls to be used were noted. The house is a w^-out style. I .indquist
said he would agree in principle to ’»his change but would require reviewing the plan.
Olsen said there wsis a time limit problem for beginning construction this year.
Hawn asked about the elimination of the loop and location of the well. Olsen said he has
reduced hardcover 1185 s.f. in the 0-75' setback with the elimination of driveway and
retaining walls.
Tlie applicant's designer asked if approval could be based on percentages and changes
meeting the percentages required.
VIISSION
minutes of the orono plannino commission
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997
2304. Vote: Ayes 6,
ENWOOD ROAD •
ed.
msloa of an existing
ly requiring a lakeshore
lote setbacks. A revised
figuration, the building
pplication subject to
of the driveway, plastic
ver would be allowed in
move the plastic under the
jciation covenants
lide setback. He would
be submitted. Bressler
used. The existing
alk-out style. Lindquist
lire reviewing the plan.
[ruction this year.
the well. Olsen said he ha^
lination of driveway and
percentages and changes
(#13 - #2305 Roger and EliTabcth Olsen - Continued)
^ indicated he would have to review the plan. Berg said she would like to see ■
what the in^acts are. Schroeder suggested guidance be given to the applicant. Lindquist
«ked that the hardcover calculations be improved. Berg noted that the Planning
Commission must review the application that will be seen by the Council.
Olsen said the shift would change the ftont setback from 35' to 32' and asked if that was a
big consideration. He was informed that Lindquist that it was a consideratiotL
Schrocdcr (jucslioncd the need for 4 gsiagc stalls.
Lmdquist informed the applicant that the City does not like to see any structure within the
75' lakeshore setback.
I^s. Olsen suggested the plan eliminate the 10' within the setback that is in question by
the covenants. Olsen said he could eliminate 10' from the plan but would lose storage
space. Lindquist suggested the architectii^ design be considered as well.
Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2305.
Dr. Bill Cottleman, a next-door neighbor, was present representing the homeowners'
association. He submitted a letter form the architectural committee regarding their
restrictive covenants. He noted their restrictions are more stringent than those of the City.
He smd the homeowners' association would approve the home being more centered on the
lot. A copy of the letter was submitted ‘. jtaff. He said the association prefers to se
much distance be^vee^ the homes as possible.
see as
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
« PETERSON, HAVING AN nOTREST IN 3355 CRYSTAL
B.AY ROAD>V4RI^CES - PUBLIC HEA^K<G 11:05-11:10 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publicatioh-ood Certificate^Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Photos were shown of the oroperty.
Bressler reported that^e applicant is proposing fconstructionbfa282s.f carport with a
j o-v* *0 the front of the existing residence. The^iNwde carport woidd
extend 22 out over the existing driveway with a walkway. This propos3lS^ require
variances for side setback, lakeshore setback, and 0-75’ and 75-250' setbackfedcover.
29
COMMISSION
,1997 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997
\
\
\
said she would like to see •
1 to the applicant. Lindquist
(d that the Planning
the Council.
to 32* and asked if that was a
s a consideration.
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#3) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD -
VARIANCES - 6:47-7:03 P.M.
3 see any structure within the
tback that is in question by
in but would lose storage
lered as well.
!.
sating the homeowners’
raittee regarding their
ingent than those of the City,
e being more centered on the
issocialion prefers to see as
The applicant and architect, Kathryn Alexander, w'ere present.
Dressier presented pictures of the property. The applicant is proposing remodehng and
c:q)ansion of the residence to include a 4-stall attached garage. The application requires
variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75* setback. There is no problem
with average lakeshore setback as noted in the topographical map. The residence
currently has a 3-stall side loading garage. The driveway configuration has been
changed. The existing residence encroaches the lakeshore setback. The allowable
building space is limited by the property. Only a portion of the existing foundation will
remain; further information is included in the packet.
ilST IN 3355 CRYSTAL
-11:10 P.M.
noted.
s.f. carport with a
The li^jode carport would
his prop^lh<^;ili require
^5-250' setback^ifdcover.
The total hardcover is proposed at 19%. The 1.02 acre property is located in the one acre
zoning district with 3/4 acre in the 0-75 ’ setback. The street setback is also restricted.
Dressier reported Staff recommended approval subject to maintaining a 34 ’ lakesht
m
setbac'ic ffom the designated OHW where 75 ’ is required. Encroachment on the lakeshore
setback will not be increased by the improvements. Staff recommends hardcover be
maintained at a ma.ximum of 14.5% in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback where 20% is existing,
16% is proposed, and none is allowed. Bressler indicated that the amount of existing
hardcover excluding landscaping underlain by plastic is 14.5%. This figure could largely
SSION
\
\
\
WOOD ROAD -
orono planning commission
MEETINO HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997
be met by eliminating several proposed decks and ewstmg patio area on the lake side of
tiie residence. By approving this percentage, there would be no net gain in the amount of
ha^cover on the property, not including plastic under landscaping. Staff recommends all
landscape underlain by plastic in the 0-75’ lalceshore setback be removed prior to
commencement of new construction. The applicant has agreed to this provision. Staff
also recommends that no further hardcover variances be granted to this property in the
future.
sing remodeling and
; application requires
There is no problem
The residence
ation has been
, The allowable
istlng foundation will
located in the one acre
:k is also restricted.
^ing a 34' lakeshv
:hment on the lakeshore
lends hardcover be
c where 20% is existing,
t amount of existing
rhis figure could largely
Mr. Olsen, in notmg the difficult lot, said he preferred not to reduce the hardcover further
than the proposed 16^ to 14.5%. Ms. Alexander said the total hardcover is less than the
25% allowed.
Hawn informed the applicant that trading hardcover for landscapbg underlam with
plasUc IS not the same and does not justify the additional hardcover.
Lmdquist said he agreed noting there is a large amount of structure on the property and is
of the opinion that the applicant should maintain the 14.5% hardcover ma.ximum.
Stoddard asked Dressier to explain the suggestions for hardcover removal. Alexander
noted that as suggested, the hardcover would still be over 14.5%. Dressier informed •
McMillan that he arrived at the 14.5% by subtracting the landscaping underlain with
plastic from the hardcover. The balance of hardcover to be removed would come from
eliminating a portion of the patio, dog run, decking, or decreasing the size of the addition.
Olsen said that he would have to eliminate the existing patio or addition even if all of the
decking was eliminated. Lindquist informed him that if the residence was new
SION MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 _
on the lake side of
ain in the amount of
itaff recommends all
ved prior to
sprovisioiL Staff
is property in the
le hardcover further
>ver is less than the
nderlain with
the property and is
maximum.
)val. Alexander
ssler informed
underlain with
vould come &om
size of the addition.
construction, he would not be allowed any structure in the 0-75' setback. Olsen
acknowledged that the home would not have been able to be built to ineet today's
standards.
Alexander noted that the patio consists of pavers and asked if pavers with drainage holes
is still deemed hardcover. Lindquist said they were. Alexander said eliminating 1.5% of
hardcover would consist of497 s.f.
When asked by Hawn what items are necessary, it was noted that the dog kennel could be
gravel and the patio could be reduced in size. This would amount to less than the
decrease being required. The patio is 810 s.f. and could be reduced.
>n even if all of the
There were no public comments.
Stoddard moved, Hawm seconded, to approve Application ^2305 for lakeshore setback,
hardcover variance in 0-75' setback, subject to revised Staff recommendation including a
41’ lakeshore setback variance for structure to remain at 34' &om the OHW, hardcover
variance for a maximum of 4415 s.f. in the 0-75' setback, and plasUc under landscaping
moved in the 6-75’ setback. The reduction in hardcover in the 0-75* setback will be
decided by applicant subject to staff approval. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PARK REALTY, 3560 SHO^ELtS^^ DRIVE - PLANNED
RESIDENTLALDirVELQPMENT ANT>€LASS HI PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION - 7:03-7:39
was new
Bill Oleason wps^esenl representing Brook Park Realty.
ck. Olsen
ncet today's
with drainage holes
eliminating 1.5% of
e dog kennel could be
) less than the
jr lakeshore setback,
mendation including a
be OH\V, hardcover
dc under landscaping
5* setback will be
JVE - PLANNED
nNARY
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
\iQ) #2279 G. MARC AND TRACY NVUITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVE
:ONSrDER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
• i*
Mrs. V/mt«head was present.
Ga&on reporte^Aat discussion was held at the last Council noting regarding the park
dedication fee. PuHuant to Staff discussions. Staff recommepds reopening the
preliminary plat resoUhion to enable Staff to draft for inco^^radon into the resolution
addidonal findings related^o the nexus and proportioi^ity issues related to the park fee.
NL'S. Whitehead had no commehts. She verifiedSt^ and Council reviewed her letter
faxed to the City Office. Gaf&on&^icated th^x was received on this date and
cistrlb-:ed for Council review.
Jabbour informed Whitehead that the G^imfeiU)lans on acting on the application in a
timely manner. Mrs. Whitehead spa she apprb^tes that. Jabbour said the Council
must also protect the interests ojpfhe City.
Jabbour moved, Pelerson^,s^nded, to reconsider Resoh;tion #3966 for purposes noted.
Vote; .Ayes 3, Nays 0..
Jabbour moved, ^Im^seconded, to direct Staff to draft findings^a^exus and
proportionally for inclusion in Resolution #3966.
Barrettye^ied that the findings will include the ne.xus and proportionality Oi the
subdmsion's impact on parks.
Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 0.
^ (#4) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZ.ABETH OLSEN, 814 PARTEN'WOOD ROAD
' VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4003
The applicants and architect were present.
V COUNCIL
, 1997
•v' •
LYMES’ AVE
nMung regarding the park
kds reopening the
ration into the resolution
sues related to the park fee.
luncil reviewed her letter
^ed on this date and
; on the application in a
ibbour said the Council
L #3966 for purposes noted.
i^W nexus and
proportionaH^ of the
vrtenwood road -
d in the LR-IB Residential
s were presented of the
ikcshore. The lot is unusual as
he application is a proposal for
1 pavers currently exists. The
al of the 41 ’ variance for
and 15.3®/o hardcover variance
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
meeting held on NOVEMBER 24,1997
(#4 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued)
The applicant had no additional comments.
Jabbour asked if any of the hardcover resulted from replacement of non-struclural
hardcover with stwctural hardcover. Van Zomeren explained what currently exists and *
IS proposed. She mdicated the plan is reduced from the origmal proposal by remov^ of
a dog run and balcony on the lake side. Van Zomeren said additional structure wiU
occur.
Jabbom explained the issue of concern. He noted that applications have been reviewed
where illegally non-conforming hardcover is approved as part of an application
becoming legally non-conforming hardcover and resulting in more permanent structure
on properties. Jabbour said when the non-conforming hardcover is reviewed, the
Planmng Commission assumes it has been placed their legally through the permit
process but has been added since the original application for construction on the property
was made. The City has not verified if the property has changed since the last
application and the hardcover is used for trading for additional structure.
Kathryn Alexander, the architect, said the property is the same as existed when the
original permits were issued.
Jabbour said his point referred to other situations.
Peterson expressed her surprise that the residence was able to be built originally.
Jabbour indicated that it w as approved just prior to the current zoning ordinances.
Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4003. Vote: Aye^, Nays 0.
^^#^2311 LOREN FRITZ, 3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE -
RESOMmON NO. 4004
Mr. Fritz was pr^
Peterson moved. Flint secotidedri^^t Resolution No. 4004. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
tom ANDTCARI STEINKE,mPAKOTA AVENUE - VARIANCE
RESOLUTIOTiNa 4005
Peterton moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4005T>btc:^Ayes 3, Nays 0.
T COUNCIL
1,1997
• •
> •• •*• •
:ut of non-structuraJ
what currently exists and ‘
lal proposal by removal of
ditional structure will
tions have been renewed
of an application
more permanent structure
ver is reviewed, the
r through the permit
lonstruction on the property
;ed since the last
1 structure.
e as existed when the
be built originally,
t zoning ordinances.
)03. Vote: Ayes^.NaysO.
fCE-
4. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0.
AVENUE - VARIANCE -
CIT Y of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4004
5. VWc;^Ayes3,NaysO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2
FILE NO. 2305
WHEREAS, Roger and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners
of the property located at 815 Partcnwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the
City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 2, Partcnwood (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appUed to the City for v^ances to Mumcip^
Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions I and 2 to aUow the remodelmg and of
the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional livmg space oca e
the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a har cover var^ce
of 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is e.xisting and none is allowed as shown o
Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono.
findings
This application was reviewed as Zoning File "2305.
Hie property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore
Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists o
The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application ori November 17,
1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the
following findings:
1 . The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL.
Minnesota:
Page 1 of 5
ORONO
THE CITY COUNCIL
004
SCES
ND2
ir "the applicants") are o\wiers
ty of Orono (hereinafter "the
and
ity for variances to Municipal
remodeling and expansion of
d living space located 34' torn
requiring a hardcover variance
none is allowed as shown on
y the City Council of Orono,
2305.
Family Lakeshore Residential
• property consists of 1.02 acre.
is application on November 17,
posed variance based upon the
ler encroach on the OHWL.
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO--4^-04 _____
4.
2. The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad.
3- The amount of hardcover in the 0' to 75’ lakeshore setback would be
reduced from 20% to 15.3%.
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to It and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
grantmg the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
emonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
y the lyplicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CO.NDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants v-anances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to aUow Lhe
remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34’ from the OHWL where 75’ is
req^ed and hardcover of 4.415 s.f. (15.3%) in the 0 ’ to 75’ lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f.
(20%) IS existing and none is allowed.
5.
1.All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the 0* to 75’ lakeshore setback
pnor to any new construction.
No further variances will be granted to tliis property in the future.
Authorities grmted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants,
but we per^sslve only and must be exercised by application for a buUdmg
permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
expire on that date (November 24, 1998).
Page 2 of 5
ORONO
rHECITY COUNCIL
04
the sJlowable building pad.
akeshore setback would be
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ^0 0^ ^
Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of s
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatic y
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
»n this propert>* are peculiar
in this zoning district; that
Ric conditions, light, air nor
property; would not merely
s necessary to alleviate a
to preserve a substantial
keeping with the spirit and
I of the City.
including the fmdings and
rts by City staff, comments
dance on the health, safety
IONS
Orono City Council hereby
isions 1 and 2 to allow the
>m the OHWL where 7J' is
ore setback where 5,815 s.f.
e 0’ to 75 ’ lakeshore setback
y in the future.
lerty not with the applicants,
f application for a building
frov^, or this variance will
GabrieMabbour, Mayor
5. The undersigned appUcanls have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successes an
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Cham of TiUe ot
the property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 24th day of November, 1997.
AT^ST;
Dorothy M. ^al^. City Clerk
Prop^- Owner (s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24^
November, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk o *
of Orono, a Minnesota muiucipal corporation and said instrument was executed on e o
the City.
MySL68MR wowfau c MieootttCeOWCOWTY I
Notary/ Public
>•Page 3 of 5
X
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 19,1998
ROLL:
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Sandra Smith, William Stoddard. Elizabeth Hawn, Dale Lindquist. Commissioner Charles
Schrooder arrived at 6:45 p.m., and Commissions Janice Berg and Lill McMillan were absent.
The following represented City Staff: City Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren,
Assistant Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron,
and Recorder Jackie Young.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
RENEWALS AND AMENDMENTS: PUBLIC HEARINGS
^ (#2) P2431 ROGER OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD - VARIANCE RENEWAL. 6:34 p.m. - 6:36 p.m,
There were no public comments.
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application 82431,815 Partenwood, renewal
of variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover In the 0-75' setback per the findings an
conditions of Resolution 84004. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(^r'2434.^ROL OLSON, KID'S ART SCHOOL. 2180 NORTH HORE ORIV^CUP
AMENDME^TVOrJSp.m. • 6:40 p.m.
Carol OiSon was present.
Van Zomeren stated the Applicant is rei^jesli^gc^^mendment to the conditional use permit to
a tipi to be located on the property for e^uc^iionaTUtifMses. which is considered to be an acces ry
use to the art school.
Lindquist inquired wheth^th^pplicant had any concerns with City
Olson stated sba’^« fine with the recommended conditions.
There'were no public comments.
recommendations.
Page 1
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 26, 1998
(Af2430 Paul Phillips, Continued)
Goetten inoveHn^etefSoa^cconded, to send^AppHcfltIon'^430,2140 Sixth Avenue
North, back to the Planninfr€o»iniiM«on^faiM review. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
•(#13) #2431 ROGER OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD-VARUNCE
RENEWAL - RESOLUTION NO. 4185
Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2431,815 Partenwood Road,
and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4185. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
14(14) #2432 GREENFIELD CORPORATION, 4755/4775 BAYSTDE ROAD
EAS^MENT/SUBDIVISION
Laurie Lur^en, Greenfield Corporation, and Jim DeBerg, were present.
Van Zomeren «a(ed the Applicants are requesting a revision or amendm^t to the final plat
resolution to accommodate a private driveway easement over Lot 3 tojirovide access to
Lot 1. The private dny^ay easement does not comply with the appf^al resolution for the
final plat, which shows ah>putlot for all three lots along Bayside Rpid. Van Zomeren stated
Staff is generally not in favdK^f private driveway easements due/o the possible problems that
may result
The Planning Commission recommend^ denial of a priva^easement and suggested that the
Applicant apply for a lot line rearrangement, which woqra require a lot width variance for
Lot 3.
Jim DeBerg. 1551 Hunter Lane, Medina, stated h^Hiad previously met with the property
owner and offered the private driveway easem^non^lizing that it was in conflict with
what was originally approved in the Resolution DeBeigi^ted he was later informed by the
building official that he could not have a pri^te driveway cement.
Laurie Lundeen stated they were unav^e they could not grant a pH^te driveway easement
Mayer Jabbour stated the City doeVnot officially recognize a private drivbway easement
DeBerg remarked that even wit^he granting of the private driveway easemerit^<lje lot still
exceeds the minimum lot size
Van Zomeren stated a lot v^dth variance would be needed in the case of a lot line
rearrangement for the middle lot.
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 1 » .S_____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENXWAL OF VARL^NCES
TO MU?OCIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2
FILE NO. 2431
WHEREAS, Roger Olsen and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicarxts") are
owners of the property located at 815 Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter
"the City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for the renewal of v^ances
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and
expansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space
located 34' from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a
hardcover variance of 4.413 s.f (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f (20%) is existing and none is allowed
as shown on Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council oi Orono,
Minnesota:
2.
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2431.
The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 1.02 acre.
The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal application on October
19, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the
following findings;
1. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWX.
Page 1 of 5
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 1
The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad.
3. The amount of hardcover in the 0’ to 75’ lakeshorc setback would be
reduced from 20% to 15.3%.
4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
ser\e as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or diflficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the
remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34' from the OHWL where 75' is
required and hardcover of 4,415 s.f (15.3%) in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f
(20%) is existing and none is allowed.
1.
2.
3.
All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the 0’ to 75' lakeshore setback
prior to any new construction.
No further variances vsill be granted to this property in the future.
Authorities granted by this variance rxm with the property not with the applicants,
but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building
permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
expire on that date (October 26, 1999).
Page 2 of 5
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 1 ft f> __
5.
Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution m the Cham of Title ot
the property.
6. Any substantial changes or revisions to the plan in Exhibit A will require
reconsideration by the City Council.
«
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 26th day of October, 199S.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNTPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before . me on this 26th day of
October, 199S. by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee. Mayor and City Cler^ ol" * ®
Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on be o
City.
j.i /. /lyyf
r
f
• • •• •
♦ \V.-'
\I
C«CLE A. HASEJ.WI
tiOT;flYFt£L:C-V.l‘.f;££:TA
, V» .’•y COUNTY
J MyCciT.a:i'ic!iE.':L'8iJi.i.3l.7CC0
»-,r .rgr~y
Notary Public
Page 3 of 5
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 10^
STATE (OTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this ^ day ofun tnw T*'' a«/ oi _____, 1999 before me a Notary Public within and for
said county, personally appeared ^ fl:li..hkr*J
known to me to be the person(s) descnted ^ ud who ex^uted the foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (±eir) fizc act and deed.
•. mm .
; •• j ».o;;.'Yfi,£uc-Mit.: £':ta
►;j>!;i£?!K COUNTY
C c .t.tJ Hiea b;!r« Jai. 31.2CC0 .
jf /
NOTARY PUBUC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 199_before me a Notary Public within and for
said county, personally appeared
\
knov^n to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) ^ee act and deed.
NOTARY PUBUC
Page 4 of 5
ns
OQ
o
LA!<£ MIMvETON'<A
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999
(11^2530 William Wear, Continued)
compliance.^0
y
Lindquist stated he would like to table this application to allow the Applicant time to^submit a
revised plan, and that he would not be opposed to total signage in the amount of.380 square feet.
City Council Member Kelley suggested that the Planning Commission tak^-fhto consideration what
they would like to see for signage along the old Highway 12 corridor as well as the new Highway 12
corridor, along with lighting and building materials. Kelley stated that most of these guidelines were
established with the understanding that Highway 12 would rem^ m its present locatic.-, and that
these issues now need to be reviewed. ^
Motion by Lindquist, second by Smith, to table Application #2530, 2160 Wayzata Boulevard,
to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised sfgnage plan for the entire property.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#5) #2537 CITY OF ORONO REVISION TO ADULT USE ORDINANCE, 8:31 p.m. - 8:33 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
There were no public^mm^ents regarding this application.
Hawn stated due)o the amount of information involved with this revision to the ordinance, in her
opinion d.scussio'n of this issue would be better suited to a work session. Hawn requested that
trie appropriafe notice be given to the general public regarding this ordinance revision.
y
Motioifi)y Hawn, second by Kluth, to table Application #2537, City of Orono Revision to
/^duit Use Ordinance to a Planning Commission work session to be scheduled this evening.
OTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#9) #2531 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - RENEWAL
VARIANCES, 8:34 p.m. • 8:43 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Roger Olsen, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant received variances to expand and remodel the existing residence
to include a four-stall garage and additional living area. Variances to lakeshore setback and
hardcover were granted on October 26.1998. The Applicant is requesting that these variances
be renewed.
Olsen stated that he is having a difficult time retaining a contractor to do the work at a reasonable
price, but that he would like to have the work completed within the next year.
S.mith commented that she does not see any problems with this application.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kluth inquired whether the hardcover that was requested to be removed has in fact been
a
Page 11
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999
c
(82531 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen. Continued)
eliminated.
Olsen stated that a portion or the patio has been removed along with elimination of one of the
porches and the concrete dog run.
Motion by Smith, second by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application 82531,
815 Partenwood Road, renewal of variances to lakeshore setback and hardcover as
previously approved in Resolution No. 4004. VOTE: Ayes 7. Nays 0.
(810) 82532 HERMAN AND MARILYN CRAWFORD, 4745 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES.
8:43 p.m. • 8:47 p.m.
The Certincate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Heht^n and Marilyn Crawford, Applicants, were present.
BottenbCTg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to the rear yard setback and
hardcover fo^rmit construction of an attached garage to the existing residence. The attached
garage would oe located three feet from the rear yard setback where 30 feet is required and for
hardcover in theT5*250 ’ setback where 26 percent exists, 29.08 percent is proposed, and where
25 percent is allowed^ The existing garage will be removed when the new one is constructed,
Bottenberg stated the existing driveway will continue to come off County Road 19, but the garage
door will face east. The existing gravel/driveway will remain and wiil be used as a turn-around.
The Applicant is proposing to obstruct the garage in this location in order to preserve a number
of very mature trees located on his^ot.
V
\
The Applicants had no comment regarding their application.
Hawn inquired whether the existing garage included in the hardcover numbers.
Bottenberg stated the existing garage is included in the hardcover numbers.
\Smith inquired whether the deck will be replaced or whether a new deck is being added along the
garage.
Herman Crawford stated that the size of the deck is being reduced..
%
Kluth questioned whether the gravel driveway was included In the hardcover numbers.
Bottenberg stated that the driveway was included in the hardcover calculation.
%
There were no public comments regarding this application. \
%
Smith noted that the hardcover for this property would increase slightly with this proposal.
\
Nygard inquired whether the plastic underlayment would be removed.
Bottenberg stated there is a small section where some plastic underlayment will be removed, which
Page 12
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25,1999
c
Jabbour amended his motion to include denial of the comprehensive plan amendim
to guide the land use designation from two acre density to one acre^den:
Peterson seconded the motion.
Mayor Jabbour inquired whether therg.
There were no public coi
UCMOTION; Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ly'^Uc comments regarding this application.
-(«6) M531 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD -
RENEWAL VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4367
Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4367,
a Resolution Granting Renewal of Variances to Allow Remodeling and Expansion of
the Existing Residence Located at 815 Partenwood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
m «535 ROB AND TORI J.AFFRAY, 540 B.ARRETT AVTNUE - VARIANCE -
RK^LUTION NO. 4368
Flint mov^d. Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4368
a RcsolutioiMSMnting Variances to Permit Construction of Dormers on the Second
Story of an Exiwqa Residence Located at 540 Barrett Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays .
•(»8) «2541 PAUL PHlfcuPS, 2140 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, FINAL PLAT OF
PHILLIPS WOODLAND Tfc^^CE THIRD ADDITION - RESOLUTION NO. 4369
Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to'^jmrove and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4369,
A Resolution Approving the Plat ofPhiHips Woodland Terrace Third Addition.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(«9) REQUEST FOR DOCK ACCESS - DAVID LOVELACE, 220 BIG ISLAND
David Lovelace, Applicant, was present.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting dock access to his pro^t^' located at 220 Big
Island. Back in April, 1999, the City Council granted a lot area varianeV^ this property to pccimt
the construction of a seasonal dwelling on the property. As of today's date, ih^ity has not
received a request for a building permit from the Applicant. The property' is 4?^cres in size
and is landlocked. This property is one of several lots on Big Island that potentiallysWill request
dock rights
Weinberger stated that according to Municipal Code, installing, maintaining, keeping or usin^vJ
private dock on any platted public right-of-way, when such a dock has been specifically \
authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council, is allow ed. Not more than one seasonal doc
Page 7
D
CITYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF^HJE CITY COUNCIL
A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL OF VAIUANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2
FILE NO. 2531
WHEREAS, Roger Olsen and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are
owners of the property located at 815 Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter
"the City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for the renewal of variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and
expansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space
located 34’ from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75’ is required and requiring a
hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed
as shown on Exhibit A.
Minnesota;
1.
1
3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVTD by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2531.
The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 1.02 acre.
The Orono Plarming Commission reviewed this renewal application on October
18, 1999 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the
following findings:
.1. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL.
Page 1 of 5
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 436?
2. The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad.
3. The amount of hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback would be
reduced from 20% to 15.3%.
4. The City Council finds that the conditions e.xisting on this propert>- are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would net adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propert> ; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City’ staff, comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the
remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34' from the where 75' is
required and hardco%er of 4,415 s.f (15.3%) in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f
(20%) is existing and none is allowed.
1. All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback
prior to any new construction.
2. No further variances will be granted to this property in the future.
Authorities granted by this variance run with the property’ not with the applicants,
but are permissive only and must be e.xercised by application for a building
permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
expire on that date (October 25, 2000).
Page 2 of 5
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 S A
Violation of or non-compliance \vith any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, *..nd shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of
the property.
6. Any substantial changes or revisions to the plan in Exhibit A will require
reconsideration by the City Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 23th day of October, 1999.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of
October, 1999, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vce, Mayor and City Clerk of the City ot
Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of e
/ . li
^. JtJLAJl/?ria/Kl
ICOIILSIURiaM 1 Notary Public
Page 3 of 5
i
■t
GITYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 ^
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss,
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this _it^<lay of > No“iy Public witto arf for
said county, personally appeare
known to me to be the person(s) descri
cknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
«»SS«?2S1
NOTARY PUBUC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of ^ 199_before me a Notary Public within and for
t^ownTolc .?gs°SiVsonTd«cnbcd in and who executed me foregoing insuu^
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBUC
Page 4 of 5
I
UJ
I'PS
,W\IN ENTRY
entry
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planncr
September 10, 2001
1^01-2709 Richard R Shull
2285 French Lake Road
Variance -- Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
RR-IB/PRD One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre)
( .261 s.r (1.5 acres)
List of Exhibits
A Analysis
B Application
C Description of Request
D Flardship Statement
E Site Plan/ Survey
F Floor Plans/Views/Elevations
(1 Hardcover Calculations
H Average Lakeshore Setback Topographic Map
I Septic System
J Phoios of Property
K Plat Map
L Location Map
M Property Owner ’s Ust
N Permit Record
Pertinent Code Section:
1. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (CKl): Structural setbacks for Natural Environmental Lakes(l50'): To
permit an addition to the east end of the residence and an entry way over existing steps.
2. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(l); Hardcover in 0-75’; To allow 3,622 s.f (22.25®b) of hardcover
where 4.381 s.f (26.9%) exists and 0 s.f or 0 % is allowed.
3. Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(CK6): Average Lakeshore Setback: To allow the additions to the residence
to encroach 50' and 75' into the average lakeshore setback.
Application Summary: The applicant is seeking approval to construct a two stall garage (576
s.f. ) to the east end of the residence and a new entry'way (80 s.f.) over existing steps. Both the
addition and entry way are within 150’ of a Natural Environment lake.
The proposed garage will be located over existing driveway. The applicant is proposing to remove
approximately 800 s.f of driveway that will no longer be needed. The existing garage w ill be turned
into a screen porch, office, laundry room and storeroom.
1 he lot was developed in 1979 prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance (1992). The
uOI•2'^09 Richard R Shull
22S5 French Lake Road
I dr lances
9 10.2001
Page I
Shoreland Ordinance created a 150 ’ structure setback from French Lake, whereas only a 26' wetland
setback was required before 1992. French Lake was considered as merely a wetland before it was
redesignated as a Natural Envirotunent Lake by the Shoreland Ordinance. The ordinance was
adopted by Council with the understanding it would create non-conforming lots in the French Creek
Subdivision. The subject proprerty owner ’s house now encroaches into the required 150 ’ setback.
The property is served with a septic s\ stem. The septic system is currently non-compliant and must
be replaced by 12/31/2007. It has a capacity for 4 bedrooms, and this addition will not add to the
total number of bedrooms. Therefore a larger septic system is not required at this time. On-Site
Systems Manager, Matt Bolterman. reviewed the proposed additions regarding location to the
existing septic system. (E.xhibit 1).
Statement of Hardship :
The property was developed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance. A large portion of
the lot, including the existing home encroach into the 150 ’ structure setback from Natural
Environment Lakes.
The applicant ha.s provided a written explanation - Exhibit D.
Issues;
1. The home was built in its present location in 1979 prior to the Shoreland Regulations adopted
by the City in 1992.
2. The entire residence is located within 150' of the lake where no structural hardcover is
allowed. The entire structure is non-conforming.
3. The improvements do result in new structural coverage, however well below the allowed
15%.
4. The applicant cannot expand upon his residence without obtaining a variance as a result of the
new Shoreland Regulations.
5. The property is fairly wooded. The adjacent properties cannot be seen from the applicants
property, hence the average setback encroachment impact is minimal.
6. The expansion outward rather than upward will result in less visual impact as viewed from
across the lake.
7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation ;
Staff recommends approval of the variances for the garage addition and new entry way.
no I-2709 Richard R. Shull
2285 French Lake Road
Variances
9/ia200l
Page 2
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Area;
RR-IB/PRD Lot Area
Required PRD
Actiial 65.261 s.f.
Stnictural Coverage ;
Hardcover Calculationa;
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage
65,261 s.f.Allowed: 9,789 s.f. (15%)
Existing: 2,571 s. f (4%)
Proposed: 3,227s.f (4.9%)
Distance from
shoreline
Total area in
setback
Allowed
hardcover
Existing
hardcover
Proposed
hardcover
0-75'16,276 s.f 0 s.f 4,381 s.f
(26.9%)
3,622 s.f
(22.25%)
Reduction
75-250'48,985 s.f 12,246.3 s.f
(25%)
3,622 s.f
(22.25%)
7,550 s.f
(15.41%)
Reduction
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
(SSO.OO per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORimTION , / )
Site Address.—/Oj
Application # O Oh
Date Rccefred"
Amount Paid 3(3 O—^ —
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) fO -/f7- ZS 2.Z cat/
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired •. 3^0^/_________________•
I (do) (do noj> also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property;., K residential ___pother (specify)________
Zoning District: £! ___________
.(month/year)
APPLICA^ , ^
Name 4 A/'A'*-' ^iU.
Address: />>/<;■ 4' ( y
OWNER (i^ifferent ^n applicant)
Name J
Address: 224^ /h^/-ii
Phone (home)w */^
____ Phone (work)^<’y 'PIV'
City; .j / Zip:Vy>^^
Phone (home).
Phone (work).
City: zip:.
• #
•*
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail: __
Estimated Construction Cost $
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width
✓Setback:y F ront Side
Hardcover
Rear
.Lot Coverage
Average Lakcshore
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_________________________ ‘
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
#2709
nuc 22 01 10:37«RRShul1 608-238-9658 P.2
C
liiERAGE
Richard R. Shull
Merchandising Agent
4005 Webster Court Middleton, Wl 53562
phone 608-236-9657 fax 60S-23&-9658
e-mail: rrshuli@mailbag.com
Description of Request:
The following pertains to variance application #01-2709. It Is a
request for a variance to the structure setback regulation of 150 feet.
The existing home sits within the 150 ’ setback zone and we would
like to add an entryway and garage to this home.
The plan calls for the addition of an enclosed entryway to Include a
vestibule with double door access to provide better energy efficiency,
closets and a basement staircase. This would appear in the 75 ’ -
250' setback zone. The plan also includes the addition of a 2-stall
garage adjacent to the existing garage. The latter would be
converted to a screen porch, office, laundry room and storeroom. We
have positioned the new garage as far back from the lake as possible
to straddle the 75 ’ setback line.
With regard to hardcover, the addition of a covered entryway will
slightly Increase the hardcover that currently exists as a stoop &
walkway. And the new garage will yield a slight reduction In
hardcover by positioning It where asphalt driveway currently lies. We
will also remove a large portion of the asphalt no longer needed. The
total reduction In hardcover will be about 800 square feet. The
hardcover calculation for the planned project is on the revised survey
drawing.
Revised: 8/22/01
Rue 22 01 10:38«RRf ’ll 608-238-9658
Hardship Explanation:
SSSE55S55--
** ^^^*^ **• the 150* setback
regui^w irnposed in 1992). As a result iwe are encumbered to do
theeidsting structure as a result of regulation
confbrm to the current
*1 rxH attematiw* system of2007, This
Wte hyw opted not to eiipfcife vertical coipaiMlon on the MdsBiio
footprint because we feel the aesthetics of a single story structure is
more appropriate and desirable for the community.
1*1*i i
i1 K <
•t
I
V.1
p.3
cueeeur
sersACic. iso'
Car«ruR0« 3M 'HO
MO«Jk IW trt*.
;.:o’
ftUMft MK*t»
• HUM U*) k Kt4 r
1 CjX'r#*104 • If 4 :«.*
• 22f4 fir^4 «AJ2 w
• Omfk ry9 4 !
i
04
r
70
. wy.:.04 /
immtmtmurn 4J*I t4 iMi ir"luii *t
. )ATvnw
• HouM 4 »m:^0
1 Corew 1100 - n4 *09 0
m»4 i>SS V
« C«c»709 0 0 4 M 0
22 0 0 4 ll 0
i.0U ti liMif ll.l'fl 4
..90t 4
•RENCH LAKE (SOUTH BASIN)
ON 8-6-01 930.0 FKeM&H (y\Ke
■h-^ < J9
Shull Residence
Remodeling &: Addition
Variance Request
French Lake Road
Orono, Minnesota
Stey^, O HtHkuttU Ankttttu
7T 6 O C?RICHARD SHULL
OF LOT 4. BLOCK 3, AND OUTLOT C* JOHNSTON' S FRENCH LAKE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
. V UkK (lOUTM MM}
OCATII) ON *100
6«orings |ho«N oft Ootfd upon on otltfwO ^oli/n
FRENCH
LAKE
This tur^my int«nO« lo «ne« th# bOvndorifl Ot
tho obovo tfoacribtd proptMy tho locotion of on
tiitling houto. ond tbo lOcot«on of oM vitiblo
“bordcovtr* Ihtroon l| dots not purport to
tHoo ony othor irrpro«vninl« or oncroocNnonlt
to »*>C ^ CRONBEBC ft ISSQCUTIS. me.t*«ar
r c vuviunehmi • Mijtfwiiino^ inv*not • m • oov lOMM omroti^m. ooMn i*o •»«
0-4-tt)1 M ««S N moo OP iM IMC lit S03M 40 iOorV•.M tm smtm ^jLLLL-----
ti>duoc^ts£_ti^n irtftMofna iMm
• •T..
i
\
I Shu/I Resulence
Remuddini; Addition
V'arunce Request
French Lake Road
Orono, Minnesota
Mr>r» *T
.Vli'ifirjpu/it
00/04/01 15:43 FAX 612 342 2216 MEYER SCHERER ROCKCASTLE
SduiH RMldMca
Construction date I960
Current setback 150 feet
Current hardcover within.
1 House
2 Concrete
3 Bituminous Drive
4 Deck
I Miscellaneous____
Cidtting hardcover
Total propertjr area In zone
Percent hardcover
RefftoMInf Impact on hardcover
1 House
2 Concrete
3 Bituminous Drive
4 Deck
5 Miscellaneous
Revised totals
Total property area In zona
Percent hardcover
Net hardcover reductions
0-7Sft
2.243 sf
120 sf
1.227 sf
769 sf
22 sf
7MS0 ft
328 sf
129 sf
7175 sf
Osf
0 sf
4461 sf , 7*32 sf
totals
2571 sf
249 sf
8.402 sf
769 sf
22 sf
16,276 sf ^
26.92%
4I.9IS sf
IS.56%
759 sf
15.41%
62 sf
12,013 sf
2,711 sf 116 sf 3.227 sf
120 sf 79 sf 199 sf
0 sf 6955 sf 6.955 sf
769 sf Osf 769 sf
22 sf Osf 22 sf
3,622 sf 7550 sf 11,172 sf
16,276 sf 40,905 sf
141 sf
12002/002
G
•7!'
< I
O O w
A ■ t^i% i't hK ff/f
■±
CITY of (HIONO
MiMidpal Offices
StNt Mints:
2750 Kelley Peilnny
Otono. MN 5535$
IMNi| Miratt:
P.O. Boi 66
CrysUI Bay, MN 55323-0066
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Wendy Bonenberg
Matt Bolterman, On-Site Systems Manager
September 5,2001
SUBJECT: Septic Review for 2283 French Lake Road
The existing septic system is an in-ground trench system. It is classit'icd as a non-compliant septic
system due to not meeting the three foot separation between the seasonal water table and the bottom
of the trenches. It must be replaced by 12-31 -2007 or when it surfaces onto the ground.
The current system is designed for four bedrooms. There has not been any design work done for a
new septic location.
The septic system was last inspected on August 2,2001 .
Tdcpboiic (iS2) 24MiM • Fax (952) 24MiM
SEPTIC SYSTEM INVESTOR Y
Address: 2285 French Lake Rd. PID: 10-117-23 22 0011
Building Typ residence #BRs/GPD: 4 ^Systems 1 Units Billed 1
Permit#: 5991 Date of Permit; 5/19/80 Installer; Lon Anderson
System Type shallow trench Experimental: no Appliances Indry
SYSTEM CONDITION
Conformity: 3 Tank Condition; 9 DF condition: 11 Failure Pot: med
SEPTIC TANKS
Material: precast concrete
Setback to Bldg: 80
Capacity: 1000, 1000
Cesspool:
DRAINFIELD
Length of Lines 300 # Lines: 3 Trench Width: 3
Treatment Are.'»: 900 Type of Filter rock Soil Boring: yes
Tile Size: 4 Under Tile 6 Perc Rate: 14
Setback DF-Bldg: 100 DFHt above Wt: 0
Soil Type: sandy loam, loam Limitations; water table
Well-DF;
Depth: 123
WELL DATA
Setbacks - Well-Tanks: 75
PumpT>pe: subm.
INSPECTION RECORD
DATE DESCRIPTION
5/21/80 installation
4/13/87 no surfacing
7/12/90 no surfacing
9/24/92 no surfacing
5/9/94 no surfacing
4/28/97 non-compliant-repair by 12/31/99
11/18/99 non-compliant, repair by 12/31/2007
75 Report in File yes
Diameter; 4 Method: d^l ed
PUMPOUT RECORD
COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS
6/5/90 2000
8/6/91 1500
2/7/94 2000
3
3
french Late, fe/-\i
8 s
T
‘W'
A B c
ul |^'6 -m
T?mmm
8SD
10/0
DB —n'(i lll'D
X
-A.___■*
.-r
^ '
'■
Jkc^r-'’ -'u':4 M¥h
:r^
f: r’W :*
t/L kit'-
0 .J 'I ii
- < .1 * ^ ^r:^; ^'Hv' ^ G
\*. N»*. “ ^
,«S*S%3,1Cf'
I*). ,-4l^
^**: '‘* -* r.-.«<*•.
* _»‘ ■. vi*'8-29>GP ■■0^-•‘‘yir
♦ • * V* A vl*' *# *^-***.
M
^ ^ j •
t •- • - ' ^1 ■••• %• '=■
V. ^
, ■• -
V> ‘ "
•. »' *'ass
' V
‘'^ * i'
a!"
♦ 1 ” ^ •
/ // 7-^K
Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Departm|>^
X2$9r
1366 1
J'Jf 569*42^
l¥>f
27121 226.32 mr 12656
JOHNSTONS PRENWLAK^^
'i
I
i
4
I
Iw
4
•V
. • I
I
*; .
• •
—t Parcel Information
Parcel ID 1011723220011
Houm Numbar2288
OtTMt Nama FMNCH LANl RO
Condomlnlam
This ^ not a hgally ncofdad m^. It tapnsants a cornfMlHon of information
and data from City, County, and Stata road authoribaa and othar aourcas.
MMflUIT g
t —
"•" •'??** B
1*3*®^' ^4 *
l««|
***
• •• • •
>•«( ■
^ •
Line
400
MMMON VAT
ORON
FI I
■V’
axwell
u
Noefeoberf »« 800
•>
• /.
.■ysri ■ •■'■.• ■
/ XV •■■ V ■
Girdea*^
FRCNCN UAE
4^y
^ -7 FrencA^ <44--
Lake ^4
* Course
•• • ■
L-
•Cllm
\
A
/N.N
'' }jr
RO
••i.
» %
? *v ORONOy
(«««
1600
7 5/niM B ly
Crystal Bay
Bracketts Point
:J
Lafiyeti;
Country C ub
RUN DATE RB/ZR/Rl
BATCH 5*7
HlimcriN COUNTV PROTEKI/ INrORNATION SVSTEN
PROfERTV ONNERS LIST
REPORT NO. PIA5MB1
PACE 2B
PROP ADDR
OMNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
PROP AODR
OMNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
PROP ADOR
OWNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
SB 1B-U7-2S 22 MBA
B22AS PRENCH LAKE RD
T J BUNEVIK ET AL
TNONAS J BUNEVIK B
CHRISTINE CRAMLINO BURNEVIK
22AS FRENCH LAKE RO
MAVZATA HN 5S3B1
SB 1B-117-2S 22 BtlS
B2SSS FRENCH LAKE RO
R B J DAYTON
ROBERT J B JOAN L DAYTON
1 FRENCH LAKE RD
NAYZATA HN SSSBl
SB 1B-117*23 22 IBll
B22BB FRENCH LAKE RD
R H LANDIS BTC LANDIS
RICHARD H LANDIS
22B5 FRENCH LAKE
MAVZATA HN SSSBl
SB lB-117-23 22 0B12
B22SB FRENCH LAKE RO
DODO COSCROVE/ANN A COSCROVC
DODD COSCROVE/ANN A COSCROVE
22SB FRENCH LAKE RD
MAVZATA HN SSSBI
SB 1B-1I7-2S 22 BBM
BBBSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNCD
R S J DAYTON
ROBERT J B JOAN L DAYTON
I FRENCH LAKE RO
MAYZATA HN SSSBl
SB IB-117'2S 22 BtlS
BBBSB ADDRESS UNASSICNCD
R H LANDIS BTC LANDIS
RICHARD H LANDIS
22BS FRENCH LAKE
MAYZATA HN SSSBI
C
SB IB-1I7-2S 22 BB17
BBBSB ADDRESS UNASSICNCD
R B J DAYTON
ROBERT J B JOAN L DAYTON
1 FRENCH LAKE RO
MAVZATA HN SSSBI
SB 1B-I17-2S 2S BBSS
BBBSB ADDRESS UNASSICNCD
R C B N LUX
ROBERT C B NANCY LUX
I2BB FRENCH CREEK OR
MAYZATA HN SSSBI
TOTAL BATCH SB7 BBBBB
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCWATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTNENT OF PROPERIV TAXATION, TO THE BEST
OF NY KNOMLCDCE AND BELIEF
0
DATE
PERMIT RECORD
fre/fcA
K
Permit No.
•^/s9
^?1'7
JL?ys:-
..S9^.A
__________________
_n3£L ______
H I____________
ttxi ’fo ______
Date
/J>-/‘?-79
J}- /^'TTL
5 j J3 s80.
"A ■
Type of Permit
..LJ&iL
r/i^.__
'A
■')
1
TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM: Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE: September 14, 2001
SUBJECT: #01 -2710 Donald and Joanne Davidson
568 Keene Avenue
Variances -- Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Aren:
RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre)
22,582 s.f. (0.52 acre) (0.51 acre dry buildable)
Lut of Exhibits
A Application
B Site Plan/Survey
C Floor Plans
D Topographic Map and Neighborhood Lot Layout
E Hardship Letter
F Location Map
G Plat Map
H Properly Owner ’s List
1 1980Sewer Unit Resolution
Request: Applicants request lot area, lot width and setback variances for construction of a new
residence on a vacant 0.52 acre lot in the 2-acre zone.
Note: This lot is technically a comer lot, and the short side (south side) along undeveloped Fox Street
would be the *front ’ by definition. However, functionally Fox Street will likely never be developed as a
roadway here, andfor purposes of this variance request andfor development on this lot, the west tot line
along Keene A venue will be considered as front, the east line as rear, and the line along Fox Street right-
of-way will be considered as a side street lot line.
Pertinent Code Sections:
1. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Width: The lot has a defined width of 176 feet at the 50'
front setback from Keene Avenue where 200 feet is the minimum lot width required for the RR-1B
zoning district for new construction.
2. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B): Lot Area: The lot is 22,582 s.f. (0.52 acre) where 2 acres is the
minimum lot area for the RR-IB zoning district for new construction. The southwest tip of the
property is in the wetland, and the diy buildable area e.xcluding wetland is about 0.51 acre.
3. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Front Yard Setback: To permit the residence to be 30 ’ from
the front lot line where 50' is required for the RR-IB zoning district.
UOI-2710 Donald A Joanne Davidson
568 Keene Avenue
Variances
9/14/2001
Page I
4. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Rear Yard Setback: To permit the residence to be located
29.5* from the rear lot line where 50* is required for the RR-IB zoning district.
5. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Side yard Adjacent Street Setback: To permit the residence
to be located 45.5’ from the side yard adjacent to street lot line where 50’ is required for the RR-IB
zoning district.
Application Summary: The applicants own the subject property and are requesting lot width,
lot area, front yard, side street yard and rear yard setback variances to construct a new residence on
the lot. A residence structure previously existing on this property was razed in 1970.
The proposed residence is a three bedroont. two story structure of approximately 3,347 s.f. footprint.
The three lots comprising this building site have been legally combined for many years and were
included in the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project in 1980.
The topography of the property is such that it limits w here the residence could be located on the lot.
(E.xhibit D). At the southwest comer of the property is a small portion of a wetland. The proposed
residence is located more than the required 26 ’ from the edge of the wetland. A grading plan was
not provided with the application, however the applicant will be required to submit one for City
engineer review and approval prior to City Council review. No grading or structures can be allowed
within the 26' wetland setback.
The proposed residence meets City ordinance standards of 15% for structural lot coverage. The
property is allowed 3,397 s.f for stmeture, the proposed residence is exactly 3.397 s.f
The property does lie in the 500-1000’ setback area from fake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover
for the project is 6,238 s.f (28%). The property is allowed 7,903.7 s.f (35%) hardcover, therefore
it is well below the allowed amount for hardcover.
Keene Avenue is gravel and currently extends to the northwest comer of the applicants property.
City of Orono Public Works Director. Greg Gappa. has reviewed this proposal. He made the
following comments regarding Keene Avenue and the applicants proposal:
Keene Avenue will never go thru to Fox Street.
The applicant may gravel or asphalt Keene Avenue to the sewer manhole (approximately half
way to Fox Street) or further at their own expense for driveway purposes
The city will maintain (plow) the street in the winter.
Approval would be granted for the two curb cuts which provide access to the two separate
garages.
HO 1-2710 Donald A Joanne Davidson
568 Keene Avenue
Variances
9/14/2001
Page 2
statement of Hardihio ;
The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit E. The applicants should also
be asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
Issues for Consideration :
I. The property is three lots legally combined and extremely undersized for the RR-IB zoning
district, but similar in size to nearby developed lots in the Minnetonka Bluffs neighborhood.
2. The adjacent properties are developed, therefore there is not any additional land available to meet
the zoning requirements.
3. The steep topography of the lot makes placement of the residence difficult, forcing it into the
north half of the lot.
4. The proposed residence does meet City ordinance standards for structural lot coverage.
5. The proposed residence does meet City ordinance requirements for hardcover in the 500-1000'
setback zone.
6. The property was assessed for a sewer unit as part of the Minnetonka Blufls Sewer Project in the
early 1980's. A residence structure existed on the property prior to 1970.
7. Driveway access will be approved by the Public Services Director.
8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation;
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances.
§01-2710 Donald & Joanne Davidson
568 Keene Avenue
Variances
9/14/2001
Page 5
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
RR-IB Lot Area
Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres)
Actual 22,582 s.f. (0.52 acre) (± 0.51 acre dry)
Hardcover CaIcniatioBs;
Dbtance from
shoreline
Total area in
setback
Allowed hardcover Proposed
Hardcover
500-1000 ’22.582 s.f.7,903.7 s.f. (35%)6,238 s.f. (27.6%)
Structural Lot Coverage:
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage
22,582 s.f.Allowed: 3,397 s.f. (15%)
Existing: 0 s.f.
Proposed: 3.397 s.f. (15%)
" True r I ii >
A
Application # OI-‘2'7/C
Date Received iJzoJot
Amount Paid sc
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change &om original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY I>HF2R>lATipN ^ ^ _
Site Address /^V c *
Property Identification Number (T.I.D.l _______
Atta-h legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired ____________________________^(month/year)
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: ___residential X o ther (specify) ________
Zoning District:^________________________________________________
applicant , Phone (home)
Name QPM/^ ^-iO^iaiLlg r>aVto4^^A Phone (work ) 1
Address: feLACyg. LU U . City; PLVAAPOTU 2ip:^5‘«544T
OV)'NER (if different than applicant)
Name ___________
Address:____________________
Phone (home)
Phone (work)_
City:.Zip:.
description OF REQUEST Estimated Co^staiction Cost S IXCO^COO
Describe request in detail: _____________________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
X Lot Area X Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage
>(, Setback: Front inside 3^ Rear Average Lakeshore
_ Other (specify)
hardship /description of unusual PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
com.pliance with Zoning Code requirements: /^T/^CVlCO ___________
^I|ch add^nal sheets if n^cess^)
d ^
\
• 9
\
CQ
ARCHTTBCTURAL SFIB PLAN
r*
rf.o?v
. ♦
kM.-w .•»
i •
(
I
ife
i
s
I
ra
o
M.
I-:..!'1 L\
IS •* • •
^ 4t
r
k.
L
RI
J
1a 111
i1{
j S
1 1
J i
11
teas|
' ••
h i
1
I
Ii
FIRST FLOOR FLAN MLrr.»^ii
□
- - '*i^ ri iiii'i
01“ ^
SECOND FLOOR PLAN >MrT.*«i
!••■ ■'
I
I
I
r" ~N
|aaaj
e
Q
1“
/• 'i • * *
••• J.
* * }j
\
f. ./ fi
:
j.
4
L«
-r.i
BASEFCNTPLAN 101 MfT.
I
i,
Bm
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
DDN DAVIDSDM
OF LOTS 6. 7, 81 8, i 1/8 OF VACATED ALLEY, BLOCK 16, MINNETONKA BLUFFS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESO
o iiJL
b-i
Ra^RC
I I
RG & ASSQCIATCSrjBKS^
44t A VUM WL
>n>4i4i
20 AUGUST 2001
JUSTIFICATION LETTER
VARIANCE FOR:
568 KEENE AVE.
P.I.D. 02-117-23-31-0042
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
FOR REDUCTION IN LOT AREA AND SETBACKS.
JUSTIFICATION:
• THE SITE IN QUESTION IS .52 ACRES AND IS CURRENTLY ZONED LR-
1A WHICH REQUIRES A 2 ACRE MINIMUM LOT AREA. IT IS
SURROUNDED BY TWO MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED PUBLIC STREETS
AND TWO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PARCELS. THERE IS NO
OPPORTUNITY TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TO MEET THE
EXISTING 2 ACRE STANDARDS.
• THE APPLICATION OF SETBACKS AS DEFINED FOR LR-1A LEAVES A
BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT WHICH IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR A
RESIDENCE IN KEEPING WITH THE STAND.ARDS OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
• THE DESIGN AS PRESENTED MEETS THE LOT AREA AND SET BACK
STANDARDS FOR ‘Z: ACRE DEVELOPMENT. THE FOOTPRINT IS 15% OF
THE LOT AREA AND THE HARD SURFACE COVERAGE IS 28% BOTH
WITHIN THE CITY STANDARDS.
• THE CITY EXTENDED SEWER SERVICE IN THE ADJACENT STREETS IN
1980 PRESUMABLY IN THE ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE.
HARDSHIP
WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED THE SITE IS
UNBUILDABLE THEREBY DENYING THE OWNER THE BENEFITS OF HIS
INVESTMENT.
#2710
/ .
IN!®'
Na8*54 QS*1i 281.44
84.28 TaoT
298J2
^0
(50)
- l^A
OL
nWMS'OT
188.8
g 134.04 /
IJ4.0Z LOT 15. BLOCK 12
MINNETONKA BLUFFS
^ @1
t:
861.34 282.45
DICKENSON ST
C> 8
22 ;•
»8 (6)
(ID
127.75
T2T:82 “o
.•i I
0(5) S
1^6 S
ttBTr-
■ : o
J9) :
S 22
23
20
(46) i
S (23)
S (20)
oP^(I9)
Q * i34i!s
* .29.25 “*
(50
T797JS
, ■ 2 c
•■• (14)
: S----^15) :
R rt ' I? 6 ‘‘ S
@£)r“
•* * (16)
\0}'> (IS)
S*. 12
^ »28^5
FOX
42-46*E
?rsjs j • i?S5»r
<5 18 •/ .
^ (39) !
■ 2 o
(27)
?(38Xl« ;••3 ,;. S 'Spirn
• • i ^»
^iils 5 ': o
fS (28);
Q “ *
^ (36)
^ ^ i o
3 •* ■■'*nA35) '•7 -i s
O (34)r (29) ®
5^ (33) "
' > . 128.32 rs.
^ (30)
* (32) ••
K) ••
8*^
V4C l2-4>69
UT78 ’
uS 12 S
ifrii2••■.129.4
• 2S (41)be ^ . <v
r> pr or
lot ic
fiS)
m
u
(iiLys
t
■■■ ■ ■■■■■IBMP ■ I ■■■ ■ ■■ II ■ ■■■■—■ ■ ■ I ■■ ^ ^ , I f / 2 «
Hennepin County T^payer Services Department:
»»5r
Nn-^JUTE
WOODHILL RIDGE
ounoTC
?K ;2
\ BLUFFS
QSr 34
DICKENSON ST
29245
oi(5f; » «
8 23 a-f) *
8 22 r '•• , a
8 »• ;••4 , 8
S » ■
- f‘»6^ . J
9 ' o
/I5> *
8 T9 • 7 4 9 ' SI
so^ tt7 8
8
<^22)(*6) *
a '» /2r;* a
S f20;»o s^
9 '* •' (t9): *
8 ‘ 'J !f29 2S 1 ^ of»25
8 » .
l»4* ^
. 1 8
/1
St i^ r39; 1 (In^L
* pa; II
^ _____/«
11?:/.-^ i ^ : 8
* 9 ^ .(* (37)\ fO
a ” 1* /36> - p
|5-
9 o
28) *
6 : 8
9 »4 ~U
r"'. 8
a 'rZ-.P-*) li ^ #/29; *1
la •ii
a "/32/ • •
id sii
: -
8
»» e^'
9m)^
8 la ia»4*
jtprp
C » . £TO,
■•• »a»« *
! * , • ^8 *
j P , CQ
Jpv .-j
2ND ADDN
PARTOfLOft
(6)
. \
i'VJ.\
\
\.
HU
AP4W0X0ATGMAL
SHO?f LW£4CC0«0
TO RECORD PLAT
y'
RLS
\/
V Parcel Informal
Parcel ID 0211723310042
"::y\
i. ' • ^ . -
- frp
'.•; 2< rs
.V
street Name KUNI AVI
CondomhUum
Th/s is not a legally ncorded map. It rapiasants a compSaUon of Moahalfon
anddata tmm City, County, and State road authorttias and other aourcoa.
■■ ■ ,
RUN DAIC 08/13/tl
BATCH 52B
NCNNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
REPORT NO. PZ^SMii
PAGE BA
PROP ADDR
owner name
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
SB B2-n7-23 31 0827
•12SS DICKENSON ST
MARION J DETTLOFF
MARION J DETTLOFF
12SS DICKENSON ST
WAYZATA MN 553R1
3B BE-llF-ES SI BB2B
08S3R KEENE AVE
B A PAINE B V E PAINE
BEVERLY PAINE
53B KEENE AVE
WAYZATA MN SSSBI
SB §2-117-23 Si ii2§
tIiSB ADDRESS UNASSICNED
HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND
HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND
1827-NC
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
3B §2-117-23 31 §§Si
§••38 ADDRESS UNASSICNED
JACK C BURCH
JACK C B MARION BURCH
4872 WHITE OAK OR
LINO LAKES HN SS838
38 §2-117-23 31 §§4§
•12S5 DICKENSON ST
AMY L KLAERS § JOHN KLAERS
AMY L KLAERS i JOHN KLAERS
12§5 DICKENSON ST
WAYZATA MN S5381
38 §2-117-23 31 §§41
§§SS§ RUSSELL AVE
J P MCALPIN INN MCALPIN
JOHN P I MICHELLE M MCALPIN
S54 RUSSELL AVE
WAYZATA HN 5S341
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
SB 82-117-23 31 §§42
§§848 KEENE AVE
WALKER MOTORS INC
SEARS IMPORTED AUTOS INC
1S8§§ WAYZATA BLVD
MINNETONKA MN S5S§8
38 §2-117-23 31 8§48
01225 DICKENSON ST
B M YOUNG TRUSTEE W/L EST
FAYE LUKE
1228 DICKENSON ST
WAYZATA MN 55341
38 §2-117-23 34 §§14
§§§38 ADDRESS UNASSICNED
MC LEOO CO REG RAILROAD AUTN
DAKOTA RAIL INC
2§§ NORTH MILL ST
FERGUS FALLS MN 54537
PRi^P ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
38 §2-117-23 41 §§§4
8§§38 ADDRESS UNASSICNED
MCLEOD CNTY REG RAIL AUTH
DAKOTA RAIL INC
25 ADAMS ST N
HUTCHINSON MN S835§
TOTAL BATCH 52§ §§§1§
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROBITY TAXATION, TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
DATE
FARTNENT OF PRO^TY TAXATION, TO THE BEt
F. . ^ f L ^ _
•I
& JL
J
r •
•m m ^ m*
\ f'
*
:n- •'
City of OROIVO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.117 1
i ORONOCIf.- ''•= -
DETERMINING THAT SANITAAT SEWBR SERVICE
WILL BE PROVIDED TO VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED
ON KEENE AVENUE XNOMM AS LOTS 6, 7, ANC 8,
BLOCK 16, MINNETONKA BLUFFS
WHEREAS, the City of Orono ik a municipal corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the Statti of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Sewer Project 80-1 was initiated by the City to solve
existing on-site sewage treatment problems in the Minnetci^a Bluffs-West
Ferndale area, within which Lots 6, 7, and 3, Block 16, Minnetonka Bluffs,
arc located; and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned lots 6, 7, and 0 are legally
coTbined for tax purposes into a single parcel, legally described as:
PINS# 02-117-23 31 :042 Lots 6, 7, and 8 including adjacent
1/2 of vacated alley. Block 16, Minnetonka Bluffs; and
• l^HEREAS, said parcel is under single sepaiate ownership not
owned in corrmon with any other abutting or nearby properties; and....
WHEREAS,-all adjacent lots are occupied; and
WHEREAS, the total dry l?.no area of the parcel is approximately
0.52 acres, as compared to the existing zoning regulation requiring 2.0
acres per buildablc site; and
WHEREAS, said parcel is not buildable without one or more
variances from the existing zoning code; and
WHEREAS, construction of a single family residence on the parcel,
tf done according to all Zoning performance standards, would not be contrarj
to the intent of the Community M2mageaent Plan;and
WHEREAS, failure to provide sewer service would make the parcel
unbuildable because of insufficient room to provide for house, well, and j
primary and future septic system drainfield; and j
WHEREAS, sewer will b« available in tha street or right-of-way
adjacent to the property upon completion of sewor proj’ect 80-1,
FACEl_OF_2
m
•V
f^h
p c,ty\ I
1 '; PF \J
I O'^^ONol
City of OROINO
RESOLUTION 0,F THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. H7.~^_ _ _ _
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by tb« City Council of tho City
of Orono that it is reasonable to provide sewer service tn the property
so as to preserve a substantial property ri^ht of the owner* Sewer
service will be provided to the propcr^^, however, prorvidin? this sewer
service does not in itself constitute Vx'Bnting of any soniag variances
which may be required now or in the future to penoit construction on the
lot which variances if applied for shall be reviewed on their own merits
and circumstances at that time.
of August
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Crono on the
, 1980.
. ..
• :
j_ _’’.yi —•-v'll
TT
:ouneiI of tho City
irvico to the property
the owner. Sewer
, providing this sewer
•Ay soning varisnces
ftit construction on the
fed on their own merits
of Orono on the
• t
. !
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner
September 14,2001
SUBJECT: «0l-2713 Diane & Doug Merz
380 Tumham Road
A I F Variance -- Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
RR-1A One Family Rural Residential District (5 acre)
49,980 s.f. (1.04 acre) (1.15 acre before excluding road)
List of Exhibits
A Application
B Suix'cy
C Roof Extension Design
D Building Pennit
E Photos of Property
F Septic Design
G Location Map
H Plat Map
I Property Owner's List
J Permit Record
Pertinent Code Section:
1. Section 10.27. Subd 5(B): Front Yard Setback; The minimum requirement for front yard
setback in the RR-1 A zoning district is 100 feet. To permit a variance to allow the root extension
to be located 35.5' from the street lot line where 100' is required.
2. Section 10.27. Subd. 5(B): Side yard Setback; The minimum requirement for side yard setback
in the RR-IA zoning district is 50 feet. To permit a variance to allow the roof extension to be
located 47’ from the side lot line where 50 ’ is required.
Application Summary: The applicants have applied for an after the fact variance to permit
a 3 foot overhang that was added when the roof was shingled in 1998. At that time a permit was
issued for the roof work but the roof extension was not part of the permit. The roof extension is over
the front entrance and extends approximately 3’ beyond the existing root line and is approximately
14’ wide.
The existing residence was built m 196> and met the 1-acre zoning standards in effect at that time;
the 1975 rezoning to 5-acre minimum made this site and house location very non-contorming. No
additions have been constructed to the residence since it was built.
The property is served with a septic system. It is located to the rear ot the residence and is not
affected by this project (Exhibit F).
ttOI-2713 Dine & Doug Merz
380 Turnham Road
.4 TF Variance
9 N‘200l
Page /
1
Statement of Hardship:
The applicants have provided their hardship statement in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be
asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
iMues for Coasideration;
I. The adjacent properties are not affected by the roof extension.
2. The structural coverage is increasing but still below the allowed 15% at 2,230.8 s.f. (4.9%).
3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation;
Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact front yard and side yard setback variances,
»0!-27l3 Diane A Doug Met
>0 Turnham Road
ATF yariance
9/14/2001
Page 2
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
Aiter-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
Application # 0^ *
Date ReccKc^ SJzz/o f
Amount Paid -^^60
PROPERTY INFORiNUTION
Site Address
ORiNUTION / j J- y '
Ti rn/}i]ip kf}nr\ Hnfp rV//n't
Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) ~:i3
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired ^cLlt/LC(
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property; X" residential ___pother (specify)
Zoning District:_____________________________________
(month/year)
APPLICANT /0/a
Name /O^f t Jn/-, ^ /• Jfi ~
Address: i77, r/^ h/nir'> P A
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name ____
Phone (home)
Phone (work) ' -f
City: A P/f)in Zip:
Address:
Phone (home)
_ Phone (work)_
‘ly:Zip:
rS-DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ _______
Describe request in detail: Roo\ f^yiejje^jrn ?yyjf/>
3'/ n^r/iPA hi*yrhii t'Oirf htifi _________________ ^
' (attach additional sheets if necessary )
VARIANCES REQUIRED
___Lot Area ___Lot Width
___Setback: Front _Side
Hardcover
Rear
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^ y tcV >//£ c icVi c hpf ^
in gytcl Jcr/i^y^n W-
y /jji/t_____________________________________________________________________________________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
13
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the following information must be submitted hv the applicalion deadline date in
order for your application to be considered complete;
, If"- •-J.
r MM
5.
6.
7.
8.
Completed Application Form
Certified Property OwTiers List of ouners within 150*. labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt Center. 548-3910).
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy S'/j" x 11" for
reproduction.
Topographic sur\cy (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/:" x 11" for reproduction. ^
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11").-*^
List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in
the property. This would include nanie(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s).
As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this applicalion.
Additional items as may be requested by City staff
The Applicant and Property OwTier must sign this application. Please remember that your
variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this applicalion. and certifies that the
infomiation supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature Date J?.
OWNER’S SIGNATURE
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
entry' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council
membeij for purpose^^^f investigation and verification of this request.
Owner’s Signature */.Date
Applicant must have all submittals into 'me City offices 25 days before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
S3 ...» r'}
U’--.
J
CERTIFICATE OF SURV
DOUG MEI
IN THE SE 1/4 OF SEC.
HENNEPIN COUNTY, M
INTER OF ^
X. 31-1-23
o
<
O ta:
oo•o
<q:o
Oil
33.00
33.00
'*........
S 89'33'00" E
BLACKTOP
DRIVEWAY
' ' r ^ r ^ / /
2Z4
..cJOSTilG
»CD
' o
f ^
f M
existing;
k — 3i:-
W€U HOUSE
26.4 A
^ j J j
»|7 4
357.0
N 89®33' 00” W
FRONT ELEVATION 1/4* « 1’-0
-i .
f -
GO
iraciMiMal ' [!
11
T-------
*~rri _
B
2 MMIMI
il-Cp
PLAN 1/4" -1*4)>
MERZ RESIDENCE
380 TURNHAM ROAD
ORONO, MN
Fee;
Entered By:
Date Received:
Permit tf:
CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
All information must be submitted in full before plan review will be started.
(please print all information)
THE APPLICANT IS (circle one) ( OWNE^OR CONTRACTOR
JOB SITE ADDRESS: l7/l fL'jZIPi ^^^7^
NAME OF OWNER: VltTl/q l/}£ /V>/
T)
MAILING ADDRESS:
____ PHONE: (home) 3-///P
(work) ^ 7^- yc
CITY: ZIP:. jry'-?
CONTRACTOR; ___
CONTACT PERSON:,
MAILING ADDRESS:
STATE LICENSE; n
_______PHONE;
MOBILE/PAGER;
CITY;ZIP:
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER;
MAILING ADDRESS:___
NAME: ____________
PHONE:
CITY;_________
REGISTRATION »
ZIP:
TYPE OF WORK; New____ Addition____ Accessory Structure
Move Remodel/Alteration t/ Land Alteration
PROPOSED WORK (describe in detail)- /^r* c/el r’^lqCio < V
lU t'hl^ nfitA/ ^ irt-f' Srt</ ^ ^
STORIES; ^ SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR: _
NO. OF BEDROOMS; ^ GARAGE STALLS: ATT. DET.X|E£^
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): $
xl
I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the information above is complete and
accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City and with
the State Building Code; that 1 understand this is not a permit and work \% not to start without a
permit; and that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan.
’ DATE: ___
NOTE! Parade of Homes events require separate permit e^proval by PoUce Department and
City Council 60 days prior to the event. Son-permitted events will not be attowed.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:
CIP^F ORONO
2750 Kelley Parkway • RO. Box 66
Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323
(612) 473-7357
PERMIT
PERMIT TYPE
Permit Number:
Date Issued:
V
NG
0f./27/9$
SITE ADDRESS:
380 TURNHAM RD
R. I.N.: 31-118-23-42-0008
DESCRIPTION
TEAR-OFF/RE-ROOF
Building Permit Type 8F-A00/REM00EL
* X
r"'
* •’5^\
m^mm
•y"
'‘m
' • 7
0t^k
SI * # '
‘ ^ } i 1
Vt!'rrfi'vl
'4 , • r*,w-‘.'•‘'«•':>•/, 'V •. ' ■ ' ^ VaV f V • t ’• • • ‘^ * 'V' • ;' V,* ' \ . . .
I / \ , ■•*»
m*9^
i r
t' ►
k
‘..* •
9
( I . j
-
I I \ I Y- • • \ t.
.T
-:
, ' .€._^
y-*s.-
«’vr.
c
4'
' .V-•
1
t'i ' ^1 '/i
7 .-- ' ■ >'*rJ • - X» r; •
t ^
4 • ^
SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTORY
Address: 380Tumham Rd. PID: 31-118-23 42 0008
Building Typ residence #BRs/GPD: 4 /^Systems 1 Units Billed 1
Permit#: 6143 Date of Permit: 6/6/94 Installer: E. J. Peterson Co.
System Type mound Experimental: no Appliances Indry
SYSTEM CONDITION
Conformity: 1 Tank Condition: S DF condition: 11 Failure Pot: low
SEPTIC TANKS
Material: precfst concrete
Setback to Bldg: 40
Capacity: 1000,1000,1000
Cesspool:
DRAINFIELD
Length of Lines 160 # Lines: 3 Trench Width: 10
Treatment Area: 103*58 Type of Filter rock,clean sand Soil Boring: yes
Tile Size: 1.5 Under Tile 9 Perc Rate: 50.7
Setback DF-Bldg: 60 DF Ht above Wt: 3
Soil Type: loam, clay loam Limitations: water table
tYELL DATA
Setbacks - Well-Tanks: 90
Pump Type: subm.
Well-DF:
Depth: 130
110 Repon in File yes
Diameter: 3 Method; drilled
INSPECTION RECORD
DATE DESCRIPTION
installation
no surfacing
no surfacing, pump tanks
PUMPOUT RECORD
COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS
Alims
10/7/96
4/28/00
1
1
1
5^3 lu^kiir\ fe/.
gt\\+
A S
l^tell 373 Z^'Z
nj-
T,m 43 ’(.
1^/nH ss*7
Tj/ifi4 «6'6 9 ‘4'0
INU HU
• ■ ' »
# £
< vv.? V
fv
4000 \
s V 5-'V i______
I •*
inOM
4400 TUKNM4H WO
lA
rmu
iWDfH AVI
0
\
• * .
* . . • * '* I
• * y I *• * *
•‘i*v *4v* # ,*• •
■•'•.'•Vir •.!•;•*•;
♦ 1 •
MW!U0*44(t ^tikKUM
f > WST lAKt »T
4000 /a«CHAWD MAK AO
*• * • »* X ^ ^'1
*• • f\ \
» c.' , ■
o* • ■ ' t
ianommk or ;
Vv.v •••
•*
3600
• •%/ Ai ^ j>
► * ,* » . . ••. • iiv;- ta;S-‘.‘^/A'• •..•.•
.;f. O 3' ...V i-
• •• '.Ctf • ^ * I ■*_V I • •*! ^
?R0 Ros:
tIMSI •*«
'J4
tonka AVI o ^
lilUKlS RAV HD N
f 4 * •
I? .! A • • ‘
:• *\C '• ' p.v*• •
• 4* •
>'••'*.:,Ur ^
• w
I • *« • •
^ : ♦
Jk
IT Riff NO lIsP,MiedM ••
i
••.I <» •
• ••• •
fcRlRTWKC*
AVf
. • • •
••' •*
eiL a t*Af /
IH • i
^MV4 ^ ^ aiARU l
*i^u N
m
(
Hoauti
j____________
Hennepin County Taxpayer Servi
Information
ttraet NaiM TURNHAM Ml..
CondoNiInliMn ; >
Tttis la not a lagalty tacordadi map. It npnsanta a eomptaUpn el AfcntiaiaV?.
anddatatromCity. County, andStataroadaudmrldaaandedmaniaraa
•■ -• (. <J-J*
•T vr wooi‘,0
frUN DATE ta/2t/El
BATCH SOB
HENNEflll COUNTY HROliKrV XNrODNATlUN SVSTEN
PROPERTY OHNERS LIST
REPORT NO. P1A5S4B1
PAGE 2f
PROP AODR
OWNER NANS
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADOR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADOR
SB Si-lia-23 IS MB2
••A2t TURNHAN RD
L E DER6 B K N BERG
LEONARD S KATHLEEN H BERG
B2f TURNHAN RD
HAPLE PLAIN NN 5S55B
SB SI-1IB-2S IS ftfS
O^SAS WATERTOWN RD
DONALD K PEARSON t WIFE
DONALD K PEARSON
BSAS WATERTOWN ROAD
HAPLE PLAIN HN 55SSB
SB si-lie 2S 2B tats
•BA25 TURNHAN RD
WXLLIAN W STEHPEL ETAL
TXHOTHY W t ANNA N OTTEN
A2S TURNHAN RD
HAPLE PLAIN NN SSSSB
SB SI-IlB-23 31 OBBB
BBSB5 TURNHAN RD
C E PHELPS i J C PHELPS
CHARLES E/JENNIFER C PHELPS
SB5 TURNHAN RD
ORONO NN 55S5B
SB S1-11B-2S A2 tM7
••SAB TURNHAN RD
C E TRUAX A J E HENCE JR
C E TRUAX i J E HENCE JR
SAB TURNHAN RD
HAPLE PLAIN HN 5SS5B
SB S1-11B-2S A2 BBBB
BB3BB TURNHAN RD
D E A D F NERZ
DOUGLAS E A DIANE F HERZ
SBB TURNNAh RD
HAPLE PLAIN HN 5SSSB
SB Sl-IIB-23 A2 BB15
BASBB CHIPPEWA LA
D B LEHOINE A T F LEHOINE
DANA B LEHOINE
ASBB CHIPPEWA LA
NAPLE PLAIN NN 55359
SB SI-llB-23 A2 BBIB
BB32B TURNHAN RD
J L A R P ZELINSKY JR
J L A R P ZELINSKY JR
S2B TURNHAN RD
NAPLE PLAIN HN 55S59
TOTAL BATCH Sit BBBBB
RECEH/ED
r»FP 6 2001
oi 11 wr 080N0
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION^ TO THE BEST
OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
DATE
#2713 VA
0
PERMIT RECORD
Pernit Mo
/7'iQ.
&£££.Type of Permit
,-i? - 46 r-V J!«^L > --> I
/ZL±Q_<4L,ia;:4.<:7
y.il'J?/________
LifJJi-___
JO^JiL....
/<-lq
/ C
o - c-
-S', a 7- f/•
il
«l
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorsc. City Administrator
Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planncr
September 14, 2001
#01-2716 Brenshell Development
2200 Shadywood Road
Variance — Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR-IC Actual Lot Area: 16.863 s.f. (.38 acres)
List of Exhibits
A Analysis
B Application
C Site Plan/ Survey
D Floor Plans
E Elevations
F Grading Plan
G Summary of Adjacent Properly Owner Concerns
H Photo of Property
I Location Map
J Plat Map
K Property Owner’s List
Pertinent Code Sections
1. Section 10.25. Subd. 6(B); Lot Area: The lot is 16.941 s.f. where 21.780 s.f is the minimum
lot area for the LR- IC zoning district. Lots of one acre or less serviced with public sanitary sewer
and platted prior to the adoption of the zoning chapter are only required to meet 80% of the lot area
requirement (17,424 s.f).
2. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Lot Width; The lot is 52' wide where 100’ is the minimum lot area
for the LR-IC zoning district. Lots of one acre or less serviced with public sanitary sewer and
platted prior to the adoption of the zoning chapter are only required to meet 80% of the lot w idth
requirement (80’).
? Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (L)(2); Hardcover in 75-250': Within 75
250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit 2.424 s.f (25.5%)
hardcover where 2.375 s.f (25%) is allowed.
4. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 250-500'; Within 250-
500' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than .’Oo hardcover. To permit 2,106 s.f (59.3 %)
hardcover where 1,066 s.f (30%) is allowed
5. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C): LotCoverage: In all zoning district, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre
in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not
exceed 15% of the lot area. To permit 2,789 s.f (16.5%) structural lot coverage where 2,529.46 s.f
(15%) is allowed.
U0I-27I6 Brenshell Homes
2200 ShaJyMooJ Road •
Variance
9/14.200!
Page I
Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to construct a two story, 3 bedroom
residence and detached garage on the lot The lot is ser\ed by sanitary sewer and currently has a
house and detached garage on it.
This property was granted lot area and lot width variances for new construction by City Council on
November 13, 2000. That owner has sold the property to the applicant and the applicant has a
slightly different site plan for the property.
Description of Request:
The applicant has requested variances to permit construction of a new residence and detached garage
on the property:
Structural lot coverage: Proposed to be 2,789 s.f. (16.5%). The proposal exceed the l5®/o
allowed by Orono ordinance for new construction by 260 s.f.
Residence - 1743 s.f. Garage'750 s.f. Covered porches-296 s.f.
Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback area: Proposed to be 2,424 s.f. (25.5%). The proposal
exceeds the 25% hardcover allowed by Orono ordinance for new construction by 49 s.f.
Residence, porches-2.039 s.f. Deck-200 s.f. Sidewalk-185 s.f
Hardcover in the 250-500 ’ setback area: Proposed to be 2,106 s.f. (59.3%). The proposal
exceeds the 30% hardcover allowed by Orono ordinance for new construction by 1,040
s.f.
Detached garage-750 s.f. Sidewalk-60 s.f. Driveway-1,296 s.f.
Total e.xcessivc hardcover proposed is 1,089 s.f.
Average lakeshore setback: Two scenarios for defining the average setback line: Both
encroach into the average lakeshore setback.
I. Using the front of the adjacent residence to the north and the deck on the adjacent
residence to the south. The proposed residence encroaches 12 ’ into the average lakeshore
setback in this scenario. (See Exhibit C)
2. Using the 8’ privacy fence on the deck of the adjacent residence to the north and the deck
on the adjacent residence to the south. The proposed residence encroaches 6’ into the average
lakeshore setback in this scenario. (See Exhibit C)
^01-2716 Brenshell Homes
2200 ShaJsMooJ Road
I ’ariance
9 N 2001
Pa^e 2
L
Detached Garage: The detached garage is proposed to be 750 s.f. It will be located 10.4' from the
side lot line on the east, 12.4' and 13' from the side lot line on the west and 30' from the rear (street)
lot line. The doors will face the street and meet the 30' setback requirement for street facing doors.
While this proposal provides substantial ofT-street parking and a backup apron, the 3-stall garage
seems excessive given the hardcover limitation of the site....
Drainage: The applicant did submit a drainage plan w ith the application. The applicant has stated
a more detailed plan is being prepared. Once completed and submitted the City engineer w ill review
it and submit comments. A drainage plan needs to be approved prior to City Council review of this
application.
Neighborhood Issues: An adjacent neighbor did speak with stalT regarding this proposal. The
concerns were discussed and a summary is provided in Exhibit F.
Statement of Hardship:
The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also
be asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
Discussion: The City in recent years has held steadfast to the hardcover and structural coverage
limits for new construction. Because the proposed sidewalk is only 2' w ide, moving the house back
to meet the average setback will not have a significant impact of reducing hardcover. If the house
was moved back, reduced in size, and the garage reduced to 2 stalls with a commensurate reduction
in driveway apron area, perhaps a modest 250-500' hardcover variance would be justifiable.
Issues for Consideration:
1. The detached garage meets all side yard and rear yard setbacks.
2. The lot has an existing residence on the property.
3. The properties surrounding the applicant's lot are also undersized and most do not meet the
required area in the zoning district. Most neighboring lots are 50' wide. Most neighboring
lots to the northwest are larger, however (see plat map).
4. The applicant ’s proposal does not meet City ordinances for new construction regarding
structural lot coverage, hardcover and average lakeshore setback.
5. The proposed development would conform to yard setback requirements.
UOl-2716 Brensheil Homes
2200 Shadyyvood Road .
yariance
9/14/2001
Page 3
6. The lot is provided with sanitary sewer.
7.The existing garage doors do not face the street. The proposed garage door face the street.
Should the garage be rotated to reduce the hardcover in the 250-500 ’ setback zone? Would
this result in inadequate back-up apron space, or too little useful off-street parking? Or,
should the garage be reduced in size?
8. Does Planning Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal?
Staff Recommendation:
Based on city regulations staff recommends denial of this application for the following reasons;
I. The residence does not meet 15% structural lot coverage requirement for new construction.
2. The residence does not meet 25% hardcover requirement for new construction in the 75-250'
setback zone.
3. For this proposed new construction, there is no hardship demonstrated that justifies the hardcover
and structural coverage variances. The lot can be developed meeting all city standards.
Options for Action:
1. Recommend approval of variances.
2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons.
3. Table, giving applicant direction.
4. Other action.
M0I‘27I6 Brenshell Homes
2200 Shadywood Road
Variance
9/14/2001
Page 4
III iWiii iiiiiOiliitiiiiiiili^
Application # Cl- ^7/^
Date Received - f/
Amount Paid
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address S*K
er (P.rb.)
E*(.
Property Identiflcation Number (P.rD.)
Attach legal description, to ^plication if not included on required survey.
Date Prop erty, Acquired Cf (f_____________________________rro^rty/
1 (do) ^do|n^also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property; V^residential ___other (specify)
Zoning District:_____________________________________
(month/year)
APPLICANT
Name
Addressss:f»0:6^ ^ ^
Phone (hoine)^^^^**^^^
Phone (\york) ^ ________
Citv:j^>l»lA^i[/ Zip:
OW'NER^ different than applicant) ^ Phone (home)^^2>-4‘^^/
Name rvvC<»vi kjtAA- Phone (work)- — ___________
Address;___________________________ City:__________________Zip:__________
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimat^ Construction Cost $_______
Describe request in detail:
VAI^NCES REQUIRE
X Lot Area
X Setback:
Other (specify)
(attach additional sheets if necessar> )
^ Hardcover
__Rear
YtLot Coverage
Average Lakeshcrc
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difticulty or unusual prof^y con^ions pi
compli mce Zonipg Code requirements: ^iCI S"hl
ions pre\^nting
Attach additional sheets if necessary)
olvtA, ^ C/y^HX
I w»-
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the following information mu«tt he submitted bv the application deadline date in
order for your application to be considered complete;
I.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Completed Application Form
Certified Property Owmers List of ouncrs within 150', labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govi Center, 348-5910).
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/i" x 11” for
reproduction.
Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are proposed. In addition, pro\ide one (I) copy 8'/:" x II" for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8'/2" 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 owner(s).
As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
APPLICANT ’S SIGNATURE
The applic.'»n; hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Adr.iinisirator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant expenses incurr/S"^ j^eview of this application, and certifies that the
tji^ best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant ’s Signature / Date
...................................................’ --------------------I---------—
and/or consultant expenses in
infomiation supplied iytrue):^age.
s/Wo/
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
The owner 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 q^inve^tif^ion ^d verification of this request.
Owner ’s Signature Date
Applicant must havt all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicants must be present at ail 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 anend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
r-4*J
•J
/r|4'
' V ?
KAROCOVCR DATA
SCIBAOC FROM OHW
HCX/SC
CARACC
WALKS
OCCKS
ROWCHS
ORIVC
TOTAL sr
AICA N ZOIC
ALLOWCO X
PROROSCO
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
GARAGE FL00R=943.0
TOP OF FOUNDATION -940,0
LOWEST FLOOR-932.0
EXISIINC SPOT ELEVATOtl
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
OKECIION SORT ACE DRAWACC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 13. BLOCK 1.
WILEY'S PARK MINNETONKA
HENNEPIN COUNTY. MN.
LOT AREA » 16863 Sf/ 0 379 AC
SURVEY WO PER EEN SURVEY DATED 9/20/7000
NO TITLE WO WAS PROVOCO FOR TMS SURVEY
*«U4CI «0
CAfl AUG 22. 2001
S£PT 10.01
taiT tWAt IHB
IT t€ o* mt etcI.
Mil I Ml « w<*i**““ ““ —w™,.*l3UVrJSS!?
;ul me w
CERTIFICATE
OF SURVEY
BRENSHELL HOMES
\— lend
Frank R CardareUe Surveyor
6440 FLYWG CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAfdE,
'•'aIhIci
1
.VI.
^_________________.>
1
1 1 "*«» * 11 1 2C-C m n-o J *
1J
1' o ■J 1 1
ii 1-----------.
M ir^
\^-a m
^ mw% WP ^
ir’“ Tk—rn Mn il»i8
pmtix
y
^ -(iTr/lCZSVrr
\C-C U \^~o
c
% \ • / /*rN /I II IM I I
li
¥
XL
¥■E
\w=^m Q mm
-
kiM
Street Trort (Wcat CItfvjticn)Soith eiffvatton
I
I \
in
I rtfWiBiiinr I tiiVii
fl I jiiytt A.
Application #01 >2716
Brenshell Homes
Site: 2200 Shadvwood Road
Barry Bennett. 2208 Shadywood Road, an adjacent neighbor stopped by city offices on
Thursday, September 12* and talked with city staB'regarding issues and concerns with the
proposed project. They are as follows:
1. He is pleased and happy a new residence will be built. The e.xisting structure has burned and
is deteriorating.
2. The new residence and garage should meet standards for neighborhood zoning regulations.
3. The siding on the existing residence has asbestos siding and removal should be done
according to state guidelines.
4. The placement of the new residence should be behind the average lakeshore setback, not
obstructing lake views of neighbors.
5. Drainage is a concern with the property. The lake side drains to the adjacent properties and
pools of water collect on other properties. Does understand that grading w ithin 7S' of ihe
lakeshore is not allowed and this problem is minor. How ever, the back portion of the lot drains
into his basement during rains. He suggested sw ales or cathc basins be part of the drainage plan
and maybe a gutter system be installed on the house because of the pitch and height of the new
roof.
mm *V' ^
>v^^V>-
-uif ¥'■<'fiV'
■-
V. »# V
* i •
r./r
'. V
X ■ , ■ *^
;V‘ ;r*i “ .'1 • ,«•.',. a t ., ‘.^v
,,,.
■^r^~ . ,•,. , ■ ,-wi* -
# •«
y "
t.. ^' * •*.
'4>»p;
Piv'-p/Maj,
% ^y4 >> • ^ ^p4
r«
#•
*♦ •*m > r^>
tv
••*•>
• /i .
"•> ■'
»-• ' - %^.. •»
’ ^ .• • -«P>'
V. • !*iK>
. -■ •’. •>«.■'.•• T'V<;
*t
■,‘ .*ti v;-^
mm
» '*.• . . »— . ............. «»k . ..t:. V.---T
' V. •,' ::rrl ^' ’ r-*
v,v-
1
Nortk ’ ^: Maxwel
cu V
' * • > ■ ‘ I fvi L
\ \ *
■ iiuiiovicwv\w *- • . .-.
k • . ; .*•< .
Arm
r U-. •• •* '
yv^v^ri.
\ ^ • a .. . . . •
v^r-Vv--i .
ogsberg Feint g * '.
1“
ORONO^=
Arm
' Arm :. >A \ w->>v.- ' v •> '-
•. • • •• t • 4 V V .............. 2
• *. •.«•••.* '* • •* "V- ’ • * « • • •
:C /
romr g
Crystal
ttttd]^ood Point
DEERINO
ISLAND
Fagerness Point
«ris \' L.i \^'
Bot ': Boh
Bay]
■uoo/
l-tMOKUlin.
*!125£iw^i
'!r/
a TOlo V; ' •■ ' ■ ,-i^-
■• \)
,5S/3
/
I I
Black Lake
mmsus&t/i
V lA ^ y i
•nuuou .
Spring
I
Park
Bay
f Pei
ioiOTfe
In Point
/,/
.GOOSE
^XSHOIUIIMI o
vW ^\ cn
ime Ti *wt \
i!=i"f 24cr^i
ITOIAR
/
P t Carman
4jr‘*9cc»
Bay
[clSw
%
?' 11
ISLAND
SPRAY
ISlAh
n-iii' ^3
LIVINGSTON AVE
50 "50'50o: 5^7 5^ 5Qn 50r* 50> 50>I
12 n I 1^
SSSSSSXS
r 9^ 7«- 6^ S*- 4t- 3-!•“ 14,13 lf2 ii5 loS;' • 1 7*^ •♦■5-
' t
!
1
i i !
(14I)(M)
j
_J __ -t
^•'1 '' •
■)
I
r-
» ^ >*
••
■ r
•*, V
•* <>
.•••J __y
\
1
Smooth Feed Sheets^*^Use template for S160®
381711723 42 0002 38 17 117 23 42 0003 38 17 117 23 42 0004
Richard Lee Kokesh S. Griffin & T. Ferguson S. A. Keefe & W. R. Keefe
2232 Shadywood Rd.2224 Shadywood Rd.2216 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391
38 17 117 23 42 0005 38 17 117 23 42 0006 38 17 117 23 42 0007
Barry L. & Mary Ellen Bennett Roger A. Anderson Ronald F. Potas
2208 Shadywood Rd.2200 Shadywood Rd.2190 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391
381711723 42 0008 38 17 117 23 42 0009 38 17 117 23 43 0132
Georgina L. Hackney Curtis Anderson Richard &. Meredith Schiitgen
2184 Shadywood Rd.2178 Shadywood Rd.2213 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391
38 17 117 23 43 0133 38 17 11723 43 0134 38 17 117 23 43 0135
Timothy D. & Denise D. Hulst Collin F. Reese John H. Anderson
2205 Shadywood Rd.2199 Shadywood Rd.2195 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391 Wayzata, MN 55391
38 17 117 23 43 0143 38 17 117 23 43 0144
Georgia J. Spaulding P.A. Doneland & S. R. Merz
P.O. Box 31 2229 Shadywood Rd.•
Spring Park, MN 55384 Wayzata, MN 55391
ry 1 0
AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5960^
to
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner
September 14,2001
SUBJECT: «01-2717 Ted and Jody Spooner
700 Tonkawa Road
Afer-the-fact Variancc/CUP -- Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
LR-IB
28,577 s.f.
One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre)
(.66 acre)
List of Exhibits
A Application
Letter of Request/Hardship Statement
Site Plan/ Survey
Topographic Map
City Engineer’s Letter
Landscape Plan
Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan
Photos of Propert>'
Location Map
Plat Map
Property Owner’s I.ist
Permit Record
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Application Summary: The applicants arc seeking an After the Fact conditional use permit
and variance to allow replacement of existing retaining walls within the 0-75' setback. Retaining
walls are considered hardcover, therefore a variance is also needed for hardcover in the 0-75’ setback
area.
The landscaping work involved the removal of deteriorated and rotten creosote railroad tie retaining
walls and replacing them with boulder walls. The retaining walls are approximately in the same
location as the walls removed. (See Exhibit C).
The project requires the following City approvals:
1.Variance for land alterations within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8,
10.56, Subd. 16[J]).
2. Hardcover w ithin 75 ’ of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8. Subd. 16[L]).
3. Conditional use permit for land alteration (10,03, Subd. 21,10.56, Subd. 16 (5)).
Wl-2717 Ted/Jody Spooner
700 Tonkawa Road
Varlance/CUP
9/15/2001
Page I
J
Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan;
The 1980 City of Orono Community Management Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”) contains a number
of general land use and environmental protection goals and policies with which the proposed land
alteration would be inconsistent. See attached excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies and views on altering shoreline areas. (Exhibit D). These same goals and policies appear
in the 2000-2020 CMP.
Engineering Review ;
The City Engineer has visited the site and has reviewed the retaining wall layout from an engineering
standpoint. He comments the top of the area where the walls exists is steep and the walls will
provide some slope stability. Grade changes have occurred but appear to be minor and the revised
grades flow nicely with the neighboring properties. (Exhibit E).
Landscape Plan:
The applicants have submitted a landscape plan. The plan does not indicate any plantings in front
of the bottom boulders closest to the lake, this should also have plantings, preferably shrubs, in front
of it. It would also be recommended that creeping type of plants such as grape vine, ivy, or sedum
be planted in between the boulders themselves to softer the boulder walls. (Exhibit F).
Statement of Hardship:
The applicants have included their statement of hardship in E.xhibit B. The applicants should also
be asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
Issues:
1 . The applicant is requesting an afler-the-fact variance to allow hardcover to exceed 0% in the 0
75* setback to allow the retaining wall construction without a permit to remain.
2. An after-the-fact conditional use permit is required for grading within 75' of the lakeshore.
3. The existing retaining walls were deteriorated and rotten.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of an after-the-fact variance for hardcover within the 0-75 ’
lakeshore setback and the applicants pay double application fees as required for after-the-
fact permits.
MI-2717 Ted/Jody Spooner
700 Tonkawa Road
Varlance/CUP
9/N/2001
Page 2
— in, . - ,
Staff reconunends approval of the afer-the-fact conditional use permit to allow boulder
retaining walls and grading to occur within 75* of the lakeshore subject to the following
conditions:
1 . No further land alteration is to occur without receiving necessary permits from the
City.
2. A landscaping plan with additional plantings (creeping plants in builders and shrubs
infront of bottom boulders) shall be submitted and reviewed by City staff prior to City
Council approval.
Ml-2717 Ted/Jody Spooner
700 Tonkawa Road
Variance/CUP
9/14/2001
Page 3
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Area;
Hardcover Calculations ;
I III i iffliiiitiiittftitiiili
LR-IA Lot Area
Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)
Actual 28,577 s.f. (.66 acre)
Distance from Total area in Allowed Existing Proposed
shoreline setback hardcover hardcover hardcover
0-75'7,462 s.f Os.f 350 s.f 490 s.f (6.6%)
(0%)(4.7%)
538 s.f (7.2%)-
w/add ’l steps
75-250’21,115 s.f 5,279 3,818 s.f 3,818 s.f
(25%)(18.1%)(18.1%)
NO CHANGE
A
Applkation#
I^te Received"]?' -oT*
Amount Paid')!^r/'' Cn
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address ”7 OO Ici^
Type of Application to be Filed
VjTu:a
VrtirfaHCC /C{'a\r\fv/xeJCa(^
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ll*7 -
APPLICANT
Name Wck ^ OP^V.^
Address \C y \^S S. t»Vl(?(L Cc.
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name ______ ____
Phone (home) ~^4^'7l5~J?
______ Phone (work) 33(o 0
City WautC Zip f5^3^ ~7
vvm(
Phone (home)_________________
______ Phone (work)_________________
Address City Zip.
Date Property Acquired '^UJUL !^3.
1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
(month/year)
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
_____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application
SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use
$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg
$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
$250.00 Land Alteration
____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
Grading and filling • 501 cu. yd. or more
K Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore
PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule
$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
After-the-Fact 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 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule)
_____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_____$100.00 Appeals
Other - see Fee Schedule
/«
I*
j V
V'
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
i* ^ Completed Application Form.
_Describe request in detail.2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
^ 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 s’'nrey
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 name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s).
^ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements).
I - - As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY
fOBJtfPRODUCTION, (II" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS
submitted ! (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be
submitted.)
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
Certification by Clerical Depanment that Land Use Application is complete.
Initials of Clerical Staff: __________ I3ate
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (statt time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information
supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's signature Date o I
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
The owner hereby acknowledges 4ld agrees to this application and fiirther 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.
Date fojOwner’s signature
V
ingr Commissic
__________
Applicant must have all submittals into offl^s 25^ays before the Planninj/ Contmission Meeting.
Planning Commission Meetings are held on tn<f^ird monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all
scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a
scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place arid advise the
Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
1
Hardship Explanation for property at 700 Tonkawa Rd. Orono, MN
Owners: Ted and Jody Spooner
This property has an approximate 20% to 30% continuously sloping
grade from the street until the steeper pitch 75 feet to the lake. Water runoff
during rainstorms goes down the property grade to the lake with erosion
supposedly slowed by retaining walls. The runoff problem is accentuated as
the adjacent house to the north, when remodeled, was built on a higher land
grade causing their roof and land water runoff to drain directly onto our
lower property.
The steeper land pitch to the lake originally had multilevel creosote
railroad tie retaining walls with concrete and railroad tie stairs. Over the
years, the retaining walls had caved, rotted, and fallen apart. Soil washed
over and through the walls. During significant rainstorms, water running
down the property grade caused washout of dirt, debris, and creosote (an
environmental poison) through the dilapidated railroad tie retaining walls to
the lakeshore. The steps had become pitched toward the lake and dangerous,
resulting in numerous fails of both children and adults. The initial steeper
pitch beginning at 75 feet from the lakeshore presently has no stairs and is
difficult to negotiate safely. This is a problem for older people who are
walking down to the lake. We have been concerned about personal injury.
For environmental and safety reasons, we took steps to correct the
problems with the original stairway and retaining wails. The creosote
railroad ties were completely removed and disposed of as hazardous waste.
The retaining walls were rebuilt with permanent boulder walls with silt
barriers and a stone stairway. Neither our landscape contractor nor we were
aware that a variance was required to remove and rebuild an existing
retaining wall. When we learned this, construction was stopped and the
upper stairway was not completed. For safety reasons, we would like to
finish the extended stairway on the initial steeper pitch. This is shown on
the survey as “proposed steps”.
The previously existing hardcover from 0*75 feet prior to rebuilding
the wall was 350 sf. After rebuilding the walls and stairway (without
additional “proposed steps”) the hardcover is 490 sf. If the “proposed steps”
are accepted, the final proposed hardcover from 0-75 feet would be 538 sf.
g *
• . '. /
./
•!
O
%
1/1 Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
^ ^ Associates
Engineers & Architects
■oneitroo. Rot^n#. Andertik and AliociJiles. fnc. it 4n Afrirm«itive Actioa/Cqu4l Opportunity employer
«nd Employee Opened e 1
PrincipAlt. Olio G Bonest'oo l*t • M.«rvm i Sorv.ii.t Pt • G'rnn R Cook PE • Robert G Stnunuhi PE
jerry A Bourdon Pf
Senior Consult^nit: Robert MU Rovene PE • Jo\e|>h C Anderlik PE • RfCti.ud E furner PE • Sui.in M tberiin C PA
PtAttocleie Princlp4lt ketin A Gordon PE • Robert R PfeMerie Pf • Piin.*rd W to\ter PE • D.»vid O los«ol.«
M.irk A M.»n\on Pt • Vith.iel T R.tutrr.tnn PE • fed K Field PE • Kenneth P Anderson PE • V*.e* ’f Roit\ ‘»F •
D.tvid A Bone;troo MBA • Sidf'ry P Wilfi.irtnon. PE IS* Aijnev Vt 'f nq MBK • Ail.ir^Ru* St*'rr(dt P£ •
Ihore.n X Peter ion Pt • i.«r»rs R V.iltind PE • Miles B jernen Pt • Pn.ti-p Gr tvef ill nt • 0.*nrel i Fdkjr'tce Pf •
hm.iri M.ift re/ Pf • Thom.u A Sytfco Pt • SlietJan J Jfir>n\on • O «ie A G^o^e Pt • Tncrn.is A Poutr.ir P£ •
Robert J Devery P£
September 7. 2001
Offices. St P.iul St Cloutl. Rochc'.ler ,iruJ Wilim.ir MN • Mil.v.uni/e Wt • Cha ujo i»
U^bsite: ^ A ^ tioi'esiroo r om
Wendy Bollenberg
Assistant Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323
■ ;
^ » w
Re: Spooner Retaining Wall
File No. 139-01-000
Plat No. 01-2717
Dear Wendy:
We visited the site at 700 Tonkawa Road yesterday to review the retaining wall improvements. The
improvements included removal and replacement of a series of existing timber retaining walls. The
replacement walls are constructed of boulders and range in height from I to 3 feet. The retaining wall
improvements are entirely within the 0 ’-75’ lakeshore setback.
The properly owner provided the City with a survey showing the location of the former and new walls. No
elevations were provided with the survey so we were unable to determine if the new walls were any taller than
the timber walls. The survey showed structures that didn’t exist (neighbors boathouse, shed) so it made it
difficult to field verify the location of the south property line. Based on the information provided it appears that
the timber walls did not extend south as far as the survey shows. This is apparent because of the lack of
disturbance to the existing vegetation along the south 30 to 40 feet of the property.
Based on our inspection it appears that the boulder walls were placed at the approximate elevations as the
timber walls they replaced. The one exception might be the landing area near the top of the improvements
south of the steps. It appears this area may have been re-graded and enlarged. These grade changes are
relatively minor and the revised grades appear to match in well to the neighboring properties. The area where
the walls exist is steep and the walls will provide some slope stability
The walls are visible from the lake and wc recommend that some sort of vegetative screening plan be
implemented. Some landscaping had begun on September 6. We recommend that the property owner provide
the City with a vegetation plan that includes plants capable of screening the wall from the lakeside. The plans
should provide screening for all wall tiers including the bottom tier closest to the lake.
Please contact me at (651) 604-48C3 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Yours very truly.
BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Tom Kellogg
Cc: Greg Gappa. of Orono
2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 65t-636-4600 • Fax: 6SI-636-I3II
a!
E
DMf
WATER ELEV= 928.75 FEETsM
(10-8-92)
§ fc«sVfc
!5
m
CL
<X
- JUf»».•<*»■
•f/o 1 Sursiey /tnf
F - -f.«y K
. ' C’
&zre4‘'^5’'^
s
(Min
yg»*pC>
roOO"* OrK»aw«k*|^
in I#
vi; - «^‘<foou
Q sUuj»
C -' C.|^4Unire\
“ b\rJI ’* ItKvLu.5
S«. ■" Su**«4 cfciA |k ^4^
C/ - /u \Mv t •
V wCr
«»
ftf'•iH>
tl
\
w
V A I
r5-»
\
S ' Sri*.n I
Spo>om,r
"?00 TpKl<4k*fc^ OroHo
“Tl
bftfM
Pmviron MEKTAL JUNE, 1980
15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL LAND
ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each contractor will be required to nininize
the probability of soil erosion on site and/or siltation danage
downstreas. The snallest aoount of bare ground shall be exposed
for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be
required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be
required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways
Fill ctust be compacted and stabilized for permanence.
jlPRAN ARgd POLICIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
3.
1. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACH.MENT ON
LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot widths will space out docks and
structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation.
Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and
the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat
storage.
RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION
AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less
than the typical tree height'. Minimum green belts will be provided
with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of
vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining
walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent
erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation.
DIRECT RUJ:OFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will be
established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover
in proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover will
be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline
pursuant to Mn. DMR recommended shoreline practices.
4. ALL EXISTING URBAN \iETLANDS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR
SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. The existing urban runoff
exceeds the capacity of the urban marshes to assimilate all nutrients,
therefore additional pollution hazards would be created if any wetlands
would be lost. Additional steps to improve nutrient assimilation
include on-site retention on all new developments and storm water
recycling through the existing marshes.
5. CITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER
QUALITY. Salt use for winter street treatment will be minimized.
Snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites where they
will not overload the natural drainage system or where foreign matter,
especially salt, will not directly enter a marsh or lake. Spring
cleanup will promptly remove road sands and salts before* environmental
damage occurs.
CMP 3-.22
JUNE, 1980
11.
13.
OEVELOPMEHT or alteration or FLOODP^INS WILLJE ^STRICTED.^^«.t_^^
of the city’s identified will be protected by other pro-
ot wichln idaltion. wh.r. floodpl.in.
at’i°ist*oS otherwl.e It"’o'»void"£lot'’re«rictlon:
:r.”td'«ctd\«.rii;“ii:.» cn cth.r prcp.rtl.s, .nd to .void cc.tl:
flood damage or pollution dangers.
natural resource INVESTIGATION hill BE inf^P.tion,
DEVELbPHENT PROPOSALS. Thl. will include
soil analysis, drainage plans, veg each project, whether public
r.«.ures and similar 'leS^ufSe d.h«plned by
rrorati:n;vifonm:rt:ri-ac t*- «. rtall^wLll b. -Uired_^c£^_,^^
t ’.»aro:^::ri.rjnrre-a:fs^“sbTiU tS'e Tarf:nd’'obnoern increase
in direct proportion.
ON-SITE WATER RETENTION FACILITIES
PiSIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR FNDUSTRI^_p__ STORM WATER RUNOFF
necessary to maintain or scope or hsrdcove
would tend to increase the quantity of J^Jopment will be
runoff, or decrease the quality sufficient to nainta
recuired to provide on-site retention fac runoff by reducing
the existing situation or to improve the ^ ^ development wi
^«ntity, riducin, speed •f/-/"Frcvln, quality.^ ?^.‘’clty,^y
be permitted to adversely impact affecting storm
changing drainage patterns or by otherwise adversely
water drainage.
. land use and development will not be permitted at t^ expe^
ENVIRONsMENTAL protection. no «:^\^\P:'^itrfor the proposed
because of flood hazard, inadequate soil for
with severe limitations for development, severe ^ disposal
unfavorable topography, inadequate vejer SJJPP ^ harmful^to the healt
capabilities, or any other feature ^ proposed subdivisi
safety, or welfare of the future residents of the pr P affec
or of the community. No land use will be * be permit
the neighborhood’s air or water resources nor "
to emit noise, dust, electrical or radiation pollution.
CMP 3-21
JUNE, 1980
6.
7.
0
• \
''-ty
THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED
AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICAi—
PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION.
The Harza Study, the 208 Hater Quality Management Study, and Orono's
surface water Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent
quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono
Ian goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that
squire protection as part of the City's storm water management prograr..
It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen
dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Management Plan.
PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHALL
INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAIN.AGE,
FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will
establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever
possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for
conservation of these lands*
PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND
enjoyment WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACH>2NT.
in conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for
recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense
development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. -Lake -use regulations
vill be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitiv*
bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable
control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroach—en
L.AKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation^
in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonab-e
in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize
excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas-of soil^^
• or wave action erosion,' natural stone rip rap shoreline protection wil-
be encouraged. .
LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SKORT-TER.H
AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases
large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely
affects water quality for long periods of tine. Dredging of new
chaxvnels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian access
where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited
circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing
natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the ^
control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner s
desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for
disrupting sensitive lake beds.
CMP 3-20
•c
K
1-^..‘ A ‘
r»:'
r*‘
- -3
■ V-.*
%: - r
( 4^ '
L.'T’?
.rt';
•Ja
'■rw^i
t\U'(^
*>•
»»P:f >
^•j '
P
1' h' '^..1 '* V
/ .'•
/ f-
*r V. ' ■'■* T ^ ^ - •> ■. - v^'.'c^ .
^■Hf ivV'e- .*!• jf' «^VC, -'^••-C ■•^r» -.’-5»’>,%-.
. - J
__' ^Bn .
<«E;;;........" Vv^.V
iv^-. ”^";; •.-. 5^-:^
r -va., .Jr»- ...» . • '
m
'm
” V*. u. .. ,
*fU. r-
Skl»«
* f •
Ir. 'fe'..
‘ ■' V
A.-;
t^i;:
____
* WT" ' ^
.'^. ‘a*'
C^|J>-.- -■ •' •
^4-' .:
>r:^
xrftf;
Ji,1
h .. ::r ■■ ■./•.'■' , ■•■■■■• -'.■•' •
• ••
m
o
THAIS o
INO CM lii I
I
K t
Wto OM
Red
Oak-
• coic-.
Course
I -
^•»<,
« • •
Course
WlSTMiUlCHWO
X.
8C0
OROM*
NIGH
e
3k IH.flN ST
SCNNSTiNf ON
1/
5..
• - k
usTUttsrJjJj
Stilbbs
fifty
• •
V
» ' Nort:
XifSw -oT AOWt WO
y
.V : •••• «
/^\ Forest
r$ %. ■ iw/uioviEw v\a«
Lake -}%i ; ^ ./-rB
•v.
Arm
• . *
/®
cadMr?Skogsberg Point Bm\
*1 V
ORONO^s
Arm
son;SAto/Moaf Point
;^^BDEERINO
Tay. . ■
Crystal
1
wmmtmiliM ; ■‘^ic
. A ^PTT-.irf»7.i
mjH DATE ••/lA/EI
iATCH S§7
PtOf AWI
OUNEi MAMi
TAXfAYiff
NAm/AODi
St tS-IIP-tS SS Mil
MAM TONKAVA RD
MMRT i KUUEt
RQtERT i iEUUfll
AM TONRAMA U
lOM LA«C m tSMA
HMIEriil COUNTY PtOPERTV INFORMATION MSTiN
PtOPiRfV OMNCRS LIST
SO M-II7-2S SS MIR
••AM TONKANA RD
N S iRAOLiV AON ORADISV
NICNAfL S • OLIVIA N ORADLIV
ISMI IVTHOOD ST N M
ANDOVIR NN MSM
REPORT NO. PIASMtl
PAOt Rl
St ti-117-RS SS 9M
••Aft TONKANA RO
lAtiARA PUON
lARlARA PUON
A92 TONKANA RD
iONO LAKC NN SSSSA
PROP ADDR
ONNIR mm
TAXPAVCR
NANC/AOOR
SO •i*ll7*ts SS MIA
••7«t TONKANA RO
T N SPOONKR • J H SPOONIR
TU N SPOONIR
ItMi SUMAC CIR
tOIN PRAIRIE NN SiSA7
SO tS-117-RS SS OtlS
••712 TONKANA RD
TNONAS P OOODVEAR
TNONAS P OOODVEAR
712 TONKANA RD
LONO LAKE NN iSSSA
SO tS-IIT-RS SS tOlf
••AAS TONKANA »
TEMPLE ISRAEL OF MINNEAPOLIS
TEMPLE ISRAEL OF MINNEAPOLIS
2S2A EMERSON AVE S
MPLS NN SMOI
PROP ADOR
OIMR NAME
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
SO tS-ll7-2S SA SMI
•0722 TONKANA RO
STANLEY S SANDIFORO
STANLEY S SANDIFORO
722 TONKANA RD
LONS LAKE NN SSSSA
SO •S-II7-2S SA ••••
••720 TONKANA RD
P J MIDDLETON ST AL
P J • K J MIDDLETON
720 TONKANA RD
LONO LAKE NN SSSSA
TOTAL SATCN §07 itOM
I *'*7
f- ''N
/• "V
* •
L. t
. I
« r*• •
1 CERTIFY THAT TNE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORNAnON AS IT APPEARS TNIS DATE ON TNE I
M TNE MENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATIQN» TO TMR REST
OF NY KNONLEDSE AND RELIEF. ^ ^ ^ j
MTf
0 .•••*»
■'J
05 117 23 34 0003
Robert H. Larson
724 Tonkawa Rd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
05 11723 34 0004
Alan J. Upin
740 Tonkawa Rd.
Ung Lake. MN 55356
05 117 23 33 0010
Melinda Lee
680 Tonkawa Rd.
Long Lake. MN 55356
U
PERMIT RECORD
Pernit No.Date
1-^Lu
Type off Permit
ULL
li-7-_7S 5t^C t S(^LU:l£ h.
£zJ&zSJL______
-ifiZ2_______A> =-^: - ^r ^
______•/-. r'y >>*
^2L-_________________________
'I
J«.'{ j .'A
i
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
P.O. Box 66
Oronoy MN 55323
Phone: (952) 294-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616
MEMORANDUM
DATE:September 14,2001
TO:Chair Hawn and Member of the Planning Commission
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Revisions to application #01-2711 - Western Steel Erection. Inc.
Conditional Use Permit - Outside Storage ___________
Based on staff comments as well as the need to store equipment indoors, Western Steel has begun
revising their site plan and reviewing future “outside storage" use on the property. They have
indicated they would like to park and store as many of the vehicles inside the e.xisting building as
possible. Stephanie Jochims, President of Western Steel, has indicated the revised site plan will be
available prior to Monday night's meeting. Western Steel would like to discuss the plan with the
Planning Commission. Ms. Jochims is concerned that parking of vehicles outdoors may cause
damage to some of the equipment. Parking the vehicles indoors is the preferred alternative.
I have attached a Staff Report, dated September 5, 2001 that was written assuming the outside
storage and parking would be for all the equipment used by Western Steel. Equipment includes 30
one-ton company pick-up trucks, 6 cranes, welding equipment and a private fueling point for
company vehicles. Please review, however their will be a plan revision for Planning Commission
review.
fhe cranes are stored off-site at construction sites for most of the year. Ms. Jochims has stated the
cranes may be on the property for a time period of up to 6 weeks per year. Ms. Jochims will not be
present at the meeting Monday night, however a representative of the company will be present with
the proposed plan revisions.
L
u
Application Date:
Deadline:
8/20/01
10/19/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:September S, 2001
SUBJECT: #01-2711 Western Steel Erection. Inc.
2687 West Wayzata Boulevard
Outdoor Storage Conditional Use Permit
Zoning District:I, Industrial
List of EshibiU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Application
Letter of Request
Plat Map
Survey
Site Plan
Section lO.SO • I, Industrial District Standards
Property Owners Notification List
Review of Request Western Steel Erection. Inc. has leased the 16.200 s.f. building located at 2687
Wayzata Boulevard. Western Steel has approached the City of Orono because there property in Long
Lake is being acquired by the City of Long Lake for a new public work facility. Western Steel
constructs steel framing beams used for construction projects. They are a permitted use in the
Industrial District. Please review Exhibit F a list of pemiitted and conditional uses in the district.
Western Steel is requesting a conditional use permit to permit permanent “outside storage" to permit
parking of 30 company trucks. 6 cranes, welding equipment and construction of a 1,000 gallon above
ground fuel tank. The company employees approximately 80 people. The parking areas would be
located along the east and northeast sides of the existing building._________________________
Zoning Requirements
Building Setbacks
Front
Side
Rear
75 feet
A distance equal to one and one-half limes the building height = approx. 35 feel
30 feet
tfOl-2711 Western Steel Ereetion, Inc.
2687 Wayzau Boulevard
9/17/01
Pate 1 of 4
.. .A .kAtA.' n •»>. i'.i
t
L
Parking
The required setbacks for the parking and outside storage must be a minimum of 75’ from the front
property lines and 10’ from the side and rear lot lines. Parking stalls are required to be 20’ in length
and 9’ wide. Parking areas shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing
material and be properly drained and landscaped.
All parking areas containing more than six spaces which face a public street shall have a solid waM
or fence of not less than four feet nor more than six feet in height along such facing. Such fences or
walls shall be so designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on
the lot. A screen planting approved bv the Council mav be substituted lor the required wall or tence.
This is the approach used by ABC Supply as they have proposed to construct a 6’ berm and plant a
number of trees that w ill screen the outside storage area. The parking areas at ABC w ill be located
south of the ABC building and not v isible to Highway 12.
Required parking for the property based on the size of the building includes 4 spaces plus one
additional space for each 800 s.f. of building space. (4 + 16,208/800 = 25 required parking spaces).
Outside storage requires one additional space fbr each 2.500 s.f devoted to the outside storage. The
proposed plan indicates approximately 25,000 s.f devoted to outside storage and parking requiring
an additional 10 parking spaces.
Total parkinu required = 35 spaces
Outside Storage Area
The Conditional Use Permit/Industrial district standards require the applicant provide screening to
buffer the storage area and activity associated w ith the outside storage area. I'he lots located around
the site are located in the 1, Industrial District.
The screening of the open storage area shall be screened by a fence or w all not less than fi\ e feet in
height and not less than 50% opaque. Lots are also required to be landscaped w ith trees, shrubs or
planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with a plan acceptable by the City.
The Code does permit motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use and of not more
than three-fourths ton capacity be stored w ithin required parking areas.
Zoning Issues Related to Outside Storage and Parking
The proposed outside storage and parking area is w ithin the required 75’ setback to the front
property line. The survey/site plan submitted by Western Steel indicates the parking and
outside storage area to be within the 75’ front setback and 10' side setbacks. A total ot
approximately 65' X 100’ of parking area for company vehicles and equipment would be
located w ithin 75’ of the front lot line. There is no room remaining for landscaping and
screening beyond the front property line.
A portion of the existing gravel parking/storage area east of the building is within the 1 O' side
setback. At the closest the fence encroaches to within 3 ’ of the side property line.
KOI-2711 WesicfnSteel frectioii,Inc
2687 Wayzata Boulevard
9/17/01
Past 2 of4
• The existing fence surrounding the property is chain link and does not provide any visual
screening.
• The areas used for storage of cranes and trucks is only surfaced with grass and gravel. All
parking areas are required to be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free material.
• No screening or landscaping plan is proposed.
Above Ground Fuel Tank
The Fire Marshal has stated if a private refueling tank is installed the plans shall be submitted to
ensure all fire standards are met. I he applicants would construct a 1.000 gallon above ground
refueling point for their company vehicles. The location of the refueling point is depicted on the site
plan attached to this report.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the outside storage areas meet the minimum setbacks and requirements of the
zoning chapter. At a minimum the following standards should be met.
A. Si..-- the outside storage area will be used for vehicles and equipment that is moved on an
ever>day basis the areas shall be loeated within required parking setbacks. Including a
minimum 75 ’ (or more) from the front property line.
B. The parking and outside storage areas shall be located a minimum of 1 O' from side property
lines.
C. A screening plan should be provided including fencing and landscaping on site in accordance
with zoning requirements.
D. Parking surfaces shall be paved and striped.
E. A final drainage plan, based on required paving and regrading, shall indicate drainage
patterns and stormwater detention areas or drainage areas to properly manage stormwater
flowing over and leaving the property.
F. The site plan shall indicate all proposed parking areas, paving limits, parking lot striping,
parking areas for crane equipment and company vehicles, and open drive space for access
and mobility on-site as well as emergency vehicle access.
#01*2711 Western Steel Erection. Inc.
2687 W'a>zau Boulevard
9/17/01
Page 3 of 4
Options for Planning Commission Action
A.
B.
C.
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 Western
Steel Erection, Inc. as their regular business hours.
2.All parking related to the operation of the business shall be limited to the areas
designated on the plan and approved by the City of Orono. Harking areas are
required to be a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surface material.
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.
6.
Screening and fencing site review.
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 as the Planning Commission feels necessarv' to protect the
public safety and health from noise, smoke, toxic or noxious matter, odors, vibration
and glare.
Recommend denial, stating reasons.
Table. If the application is tabled the applicant shall be requested to sign an extension or
waive the 60 day application deadline. The City of Orono has until October 19, 2001 to
decide on this application. The City does have the right to extend this deadline an additional
60 days if more information is required for the application review.
D. Other action.
lOt-2711 Western Steel Erection, Inc.
2687 WayziU Boulevard
9/17/01
h«e4or4
Applkation H 0\ ~ 11
Date Reccivcd ~W2o/o/ ~
Amount Paid SSZ :^
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address _____HuTV/
Type of Application to be Filed qL CunVa I W S
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3^ - »<ft - Z^ GoG 2- X v^y-OC-
APPLICANT S-Kiokowrv^ J • Jo C WVrpS phpne (home) • H~)(c -
Name / jJtf>2ttJK-<jW 3n<. Phone (work) ^SZ • «17 3-H3s\/
Address Oeur*^S City L^o-»v^ Zip S5S*3^
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name Rdg' uuc.
Phone (home)
Address ^ Rat^ IM f\l
Date Property Acquired
_____ Phone (work) "7fe>3-fegq^- &&00
City Zip H
________________(month/year)
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
_____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application
_____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use
_____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
_____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
_____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg
$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
$250.00 Land Alteration
____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more
____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore
PRD/PID • sw Fee Schedule
$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change &om original application)
After-the-Fact 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 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule)
_____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_____$100.00 Appeals
Olhfci - see Fee Schedule __11
L
August 20,2001
Western Steel Erection, Inc. is a specialty contractor who erects structural steel. We provide
labor and equipment to the areas major general contractors to build commercial projects, schools,
muhi- story buildings, and federal or state projects. Our business site provides administrative, and
maintenance for our fleet of 30 trucks, welders, and 6 cranes. Western Steel Erection employees
80
ironworkers and crane operators.
Stephanie Jochims, is the owner of the company, the business has been in her flunily for over SO
years and has always based h operation in the Orono/Long Lake area.
We request outside storage for our construction equipment and a motor fuel station.
#2711
t - 1 .At' ai& u <ir. tel -w
i!n I:)f!:
« i/Vf/?.** ^ i vV JS
:v :vvr'’ ■:^. . , r».- -r:":*-
*'Vy Tr /■ /^'.r ,'/T
Ibfiir^rfal/:‘r i .V J* A
u n i
• I awM VV^*****
si'RvW TOR
"«'-w '’■ "«<»"■'’«®sSSW#3^5i(»?i^
' v^inNWlN COUNTY. MlftNESOtA »
-----------7i
//v^y. A/o.
■- ;■'•■■'• V’v-‘75, '• • *
% t ,
' V" • * • •-.X'
•V’ ’.V V -V V
I .
i *»
I I
/#/ JfC % i tti nrti
• /out St €tu0f 0^tt%
.W£^,J<4.U ^
\r\--------^
. S^lli
j *‘4>4, U4, »9
I2S^2
\
ii.au riscRii'fiON of Pio.y.isi^ ^mtno:
flial j'jrl of Ihc Soolhwe^l QiMiter'*Of Ihe
jijrllicuil Qu4flcr of Seclloii 33, Towfi^lilp
no NorlO, Rioge ?3 West ol lt« SUi Priii-
ci|)4l Noridlan. described as follows:
Ci4f¥Vf»r.lfi9 at a point on live Souih line of
said Southwest Quaitcr of Iho Noillicasi
garter, distant 1009.37 feet Cast fri^ Uit
Southwest corner thereof; thence North to
a point on the North tine of said Southwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, distant
1006.60 feet Cast fnm uie Nortiiwest corner
thereof; thence West along said North line
200.02 feet to the actual point of beginning
of the land to be described; thence South
along a line parallel with the first above
described line 440.94 feet; thence West
parallel with the South line of said South
west Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to
Its Intersection with the West line of the
fast half of said Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter; thence North along said
West line to the Northwest corner of said
Cast half of the Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter; thence East along the
worth line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning.
I hereby certify to Doeno «. Jecob*. Herquette #*nk Golden Veliev end Chicego title Caepeoy end to their toctcitor* end
assigns, that I have surveyed, on t^ ground, the property legally described hereon; that the sue, dieenslons and
locations of all of the boundaries of llie property, buildings, and oU»er visible l•prove•trttl, easterns (as said east-
wents wre shown in Chicago Title Coapany's CoMiUbent No. C 2448925. dated 6-26-94), streets, roads, •fans of f^jlc
streets, roads, rights-of-way or visible iflprovtotAit which affkt tbt property, which are not shown
this plat of survey and the survey on which it is based wore oa# In accordance withe the MlnlM Standard wtan
Neoulriflients for ALTA/ACSN land Title Surveys jointly esiablishifd and adopted by AlTA i« ,
accuracy regulrc'naois of a CIsss A survey, as deflwMi ti»ereln, and Includes all lta*s of Table 3 eicept Itens 4, b. /,
*1
3 tf^y. No. IZ
0 TITLE COMPANV Hf-r-.—*------------L
M..Jx
r
SCRII'flON Of Pkty.lSfS 5ilJKrl.YI0:
I of Ihe !>ooUik«fM QiMiter'Ot Ih**
t (}u4rlcr of StfCiloo 33, foMi^iiip
h, R*ngc ?3 «c%l of U*C SUi Prln-
riOian, Uesci iIk*0 a% folloMS:
fi9 at a (Vilni on ine So*ah llrw of
Ihi^eU Quailar of Iho Noi liica^l
disiaiil 1009.37 fact Ca^l U^M Iht
i cornar tharcof; thence North to
on the North line of said Southwest
of the Northeast Quarter, distant
fait Cast fro« uie Nortiiwesi corner
thence Nest along said North line
eet to the actual point of heglnning
and to be described; thence South
line parallel with the first above
d line 440.94 feet; thence West
with the South line of said South-
irter of the Northeast Quarter to
Tsectlon with the Nest line of the
f of said Southwest Quarter of the
\ Quarter; thence North along said
le to the Northwest corner of said
if of the Southwest Quarter of the
\\ Quarter; thence Cast along the
ine of said Southwest Quarter of the
It Quarter to the point of beginning.
successors afid
IS ions and
(as said ease
ls of public
re no visible
dated 8-21-94).
KM. and that
rd OeUII
■etts the
Iteais 4. 8. 7,
vs
* ^ t Mt ff
W.
4tts
\
^ •
■»* ^5//•/r* I
T i»3i—
f >
I *
r
. v'JV- • •
# ^ ‘ • fc*
^T,»» • ’ n * I'' * ■*
T I ’ vCr . ---- • .
Vito'- ‘.‘V • /».
< ’ ■ *1* M
f - -
5 buifjt'ry^
110^9 t
N %
—-* —--- - • • > I»» t. ^
S*iu4e •/fk**4 *
: 5c. S3
^
•/aiw>iv
• * ».%r
i2SOZ
\
. S-rfA U<</ t*v/V
_ j 1*4. »3
HGiU M soil I* now OF PkU'.lSiS Slji^rt.nO:
Mwl i*4rt of the Soulfihest Quaiter'uf the
.•lorlhcast Quarter of Sc HIcmi 33. fownship
na North, Range ?3 West of lias bin Prlu.
cipal Kcridlari. desuibi^d as follows:
Cu<vuMicir»g at a (Vilm on the South line of
said Southwest Qu«iicr of the N»ji tlieasl
QuarUr. dlslani 1009.37 fact Cast fru« the
.oulhwest corner thereof; ihcnco North to
a point on the North line of said Southwest
Quarter, distant
1085.tj fcvt 4.4SI frtaa tnw Norinwest corner
^rih line
actual point of beginning
of the land to be described; thence South
along a line parallel with the first above
described line 440.94 feet; thence West
parallel with the South line of said South
west Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to
Its Intersection with the West line of the
tdst half of said Southwest Quarter of the
Norituj.it Qu.rter, th«nc. North .tong i.id
Welt line to the Northueit corner of l.id
last half of the Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter; thence Cast along the
North line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter to the point of b^lnnl.ng.
^nti .re iteun in Chicago Title Coop,nyi Co^iiM.it No C (at i.io ..i..
Mcroaci«enti. e.iMcnts (as ia|<| eaieaienu are^ho*n In Chirinl'iif^i ^ hereon; that th«r« are no viiiMe
itreeti. roadi. rlghti-of-way or visible laiurovciiMti which^ifS? fif ‘ Co“lt.ent No. C ?448W5. dated 8.J6-94)
this plat of survey and the survey on which It is based were oadi^ii^* P^o^riy. which are not shown hereon, and that
tegulre«,nti for AltA/ACSH tand Title Surveyi joJnlU eiuJhi^S OeUH
* ““>■ •• r,s;•“ ,
Dated this 7r^ ii./ uf ^r/v.ra ^ 1994 j
I
COFfIM ( CK0H9CHG. Iv.
0 : Iron marf.irr
Ocailfafjs ifie^eefi ^i u|fon an assuu;d *'4?Uri,
«hd land SurveyorHlnnesota Lictose Mueili-r I27S5 ^
OisacNroiv MVISIOV dah oiaciuniOK
*1 • -'•r
I h»f«4n lhal this mu %v> wa> p«.-)Mml In me «w wmSrf my diiwt sumt -
t Hiidi, aAj llui I Am A dul) rrghU'fvd Ci\ i! Tdiiussi 4nJ land Surveyor uiSw
,* iV lf»e HU . J '
£»Wt4
OUAl'ie R. JA
---------------------
♦Jlfc.ie* II **S II ,
I .
l0* 4tff « / r*f4i
• ✓ f# f MF
* • * . • • ^
t .»••«J.' Vcf:.c*»r• V.*‘^'5*J *'bri S (Iruolvri; MmiK >.4A I n Vunitd l?r\5 I fOK M »
W£V Ire 13
ev
uv
^CfclPMUN or Pi<lMSiS SUKH.YIU:
L of ihc !lc«iUhie^l QiiaiCtfr'ur i»uf
l 0u4rlcr of See lion 33. roonjitp
». R*ngc ?3 Wcvl of llic Sill Pi iu-
•icJIdn. eJesenbfU follows;
*9 •! 4 p«ilni on lh« Souih Him* of
f«*n?U Qu«iitr of ll»c H>jnhc^%i
disuiii 1009.3; f#ct trum iht
corner Ihereof; ificnce florin lo
n Ifie Worm line of S4ld Soolhifest
f me Nurineest Quirier. disunt
ui.1 C«si from iiNT lioriiMtit corner
thence West elong sold Worili line
el lo the ectuel point of beglnnino
nd 10 be described; thence Souin
me parellel oiih ihe first ebove
line 440.94 feel; ihence West
rfith the South line of seld South-
ler of the Norihessi Quirter lo
lecllon with the West line of the
of said Southwest Quarter of the
Quarter, thence North along said
lo the Northwest corner of said
of Uie Southwest Quarter of the
Quarter; Ihence Cast along the
(Of said Southwest Quarter of the
Quarter lo the point of beginning.
r-• I •r * >.
. A
} CEhttnCATF, OF SlT^VtV rOR . ^ J
iiUAHE R. JACOBS^MAnQUftjE G0LDIri4 Valley, ^ TITLE COMPAM/ *
SECTION 33-118-23
' fJ^NWEPlN COUNTY. MINNESOTA '
• V
5 89W/7-£* •.
U 5 No, IZ
re: •/: VA ^ *rv* V*i
JQ
3
I
. - xsL:- . . .—-.1
, :• /% L .
ssors and
I and
aid easc-
public
visible
ed 6-26-9I).
nd that
all
the
4. 6. 7.
• I At €tU0f0^9t%
Surveyor
y wa, meunmJrf my dwaci super-
tnk’iisl Ci\ 4 r*t|{i«v%'t 4fi«l l^nj Su/%a)‘<w umicv
!.<«*•(»«* NuaiIm IKSS
SCaU
KJf NO
IMAL l lSCfcll'.'lON Uf SUf rf.UO:
f!wl j’arl of me Southwest QtMiier'Uf the
.’ijrmcasl Quarter of Section 33. Township
lUJ North. fta«Mje ^3 West uf tlic Sth Prin
cipal Hcndian. des«.iibc*d as follows:
C<«w^>ncir*9 at a iw^int on me Souih line of
'.aid Southwest Quai ter uf the N«irt*ii*ast
Quarter, distant 1009.37 fret Cast True the
Southwest corner thereof; thence North to
point on the Nurih line of said Southwest
Quarter uf the NuriheeU Quarter, distant
lOOS.bO fe.,1 Cast from Uie Normwest corner
thereof: thence West along said Morih line
W.02 feet to the actual point of beginning
of the land to be described; thence South
along a line parallel with the first above
described line 440.94 feet; thence West
parallel with the South line of said South
west Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to
Its Intersection with ihe West line of tho
£«st half of said Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter; thence North along said
West line to the Northwest corner of said
Cast half of me Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter; thence Cast along the
i4orth line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter lo the point of beginning.
I hereby certify to Duane R. Jacobs. Harquette Bank Golden Valley and Chicago Title Cooipany and lo their successors and
assigns, that 1 have surveyed, on the ground, the property legally described hereon; that the sue. dimensions and
locations of all of the boundaries of il»e property, buildings, and other visible laiprovrMcnis. east^nts (as said ease-
•«nis arc shown in Chicago Title Coapany's CoMntierat No. C 244897S. dated 6-26-94). streets, roads, means of public
access, rlghts-of-way which affect said property are correctly end accurately shown hereon; that there are no visible
eiKroacimmnts. casements (as said easements are shown In Chlcagt*Title Company's Commitmant No. C 244892S. dated 8-26-94).
streets, roads, rlghts-of-way or visible Improvcmentt which afrett the property, which art not shown hereon; and that
this plat of survey and the survey on which it Is based were madt in Kcordance withe the Ninlmum Standard Detail
Requirtmtnts for AITA/ACSH Land Title Surveys jointly established and adopted by ALTA and ACSN In 1986. mttti the
accuracy requliH*;ai-is of a Class A survey, as defineil llieraln. and Includes ell Items of Table 3 except Items 4, 6. 7,
•■'.■••.V'
1
t
1
/
1
§ 10.50
SEC. 10.50.I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Subd. I. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "1" 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 structure 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 service as listed hereafter:
1 . Apparel.
2. Artificial limbs.
3. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender
work, upholstering, lire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed building. The
storage of automobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be within a fenced area. Open sales lots
shall be subject to a conditional use permit.
4. Bakery, commercial.
5. Bicycles and toys.
6. Boats and marine products.
7. Bus, truck and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards.
8. Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and millworks,
electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop.
9. Camera and photography.
10. Canvas and cloth products.
11 . Ceramic and cloth products.
12. Ceramic products.
13. Cork products.
14. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceutical and toiletries.
1 5. Electric motors, generators, electric products.
16. Engraving and printing.
17. Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works.
18. Laundries, commercial.
19. Machine shops.
20. Metal polishing and plating.
21. Musical instruments.
22. Novelties.
23. Paper products.
24. Pharmaceutical products.
25. Products made of glass, cellophane,leather, 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 small metal products.
30. Warehousing.
Subd. 3. Conditional Uses.
A. Within any "I" District, no structure or land shall be used for one or more
of the following uses except by conditional use permit:
1 . Accessory structures.
2. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage.
3. Heliports as an accessory use for that property.
4. Motor fuel stations.
5. Open sales lots.
6. Outside storage.
7. Public service 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.
1 1 . Restaurants (Class 1) which are located in and mainly servicing
the persotmel employed in that structure.
1 2. Planned Industrial District as regulated by Section 10.51 .
Source: Ordinance No. 172
Effective Date: 1-1-75
D. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna stfueture, with antenna or
eombinatien of antenna attaehed thereto, subetdiaate to and setv ieing the principal use or stnieture
on the some let and eustemarily ineidental thereto that is not attaehed t6 anethcf strueture prov ided
the height of the antenna stmeture dees net ex ceed 6 5 feet and the antenna strueture is set baek from
any let line a distanee at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure.
(Souwci Ordinance No. 177;
Effective Date: 6 ‘5 "7S)
Deleted via Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series
Adopted: 5-27-97
ORONO CC 353 (4-1-84)
^ }
iirrriiiM nr
§ 10.50
Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "I" Industrial District, the following uses shall
be permitted accessory uses:
A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-l'" District.
Subd. 5. Area, Height, Setback and Design Requirements.
A. Lot Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres.
B. Building Area. Each 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% of the total area of any lot, traet or
parcel of land three acres or less in size may be covered by 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%
will be permitted.
D. Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories or 40 feet in
height except as provided in Section 10.75.
E. Building Setback and Yards.
I. Street Setbacks. Ail buildings and structures must be set back at
least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or street which 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 within 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 one-half times the average building height. Where the district abuts or
adjoins an "R" District, the side or rear yard abutting such residential district shall be not less than
100 feet.
ORONO CC 354 (4-1-84)
§ 10.50
F. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of
this Chapter, the ase, construction, alteration or enlargements 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 (c) above, glass,
prefinished metal (other than unpainted galvanized iron) or plastic; provided that if any wall of the
building or structure faces a street or abuts an "R" District, then that wall shall have at least one-third
of its surface of materials other than prefinished metal and the remaining walls shall have at least
one-fifth of their surfaces of materials other than prefinished metal; or,
(e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council.
Combinations of such materials shall be permitted.
2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the
t -lion of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those
used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original
architectural design and general appearance.
3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement,
tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and
during the construction of permanent buildings.
G. Off-Street Parking. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter,
oft-street parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppliers, visitors
.md employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. Parking areas shall be surfaced with
a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material and shall be properly drained and
landscaped, and shall be maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition. No parking area shall
occupy any required setback except on lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages.
On lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages, 50% of the required setback from one
of the streets, designated as a thoroughfare, collector, minor, or secondary street and not adjoining
a residential district, 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 have a minimum width of nine feet and a minimum depth of twenty feet
exclusive of aisles and maneuvering space. All parking areas containing more than six spaces which
ORONO CC 355 (4-1-84)
§ 10.50
face either a public street or residentially zoned property shall have a solid wall or fence of not less
than four feet nor more than six feet in height along such facing. Such fences or walls shall be so
designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the lot. A screen
planting approved by the Council may be substituted for the required wall or fence.
H. Loading Facilities. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, ail
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:
1. Amount Required. Loading facilities of sufficient number to provide
for the requirements of each use shall be provided on the premises of each principal and accessory
use. The exact 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 fraction thereof.
2. Design. A loading facility includes the dock 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 wails shall be so designed that they
are architecturally harmonious with the principal structure on the lot. At least one and not less than
50% 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, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material properly drained and
maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition.
3. Location. Loading berths shall not be located on a street frontage
unless located within 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 within the
required side or rear yards. All berths shall be physically separated from areas used for off-street
parking except for connecting driveways or aisles. No maneuvering area shall be located within ten
feet of a side or rear property line.
I. Storage. 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 writhin the permitted parking areas.
f —
ORONO CC 356 (4-1-84)
§ 10.50
J. Landscaping. All open areas of any site, lot, tract or parcel shall be graded
to provide proper drainage, and except for areas used for parking, drives or storage, shall be
landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with the
planting plan approved by the Council at the time the building permit was issued. It shall be the
owners' responsibility to sec that this landscaping is maintained in an attractive and well-kept
condition. All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall also be properly maintained.
K. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that
results in vrater 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 those plans
shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council
for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course,
ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff
whether onto adjacent property or otlierwise 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. PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish provisions for the
granting of a conditional use permit to erect a multi-building industrial facility in relation to an
over-all design, an integrated physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures
as provided hereafter.
Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. The owner or owners of any tract of land within an T'
District may submit to the Council for approval a plan for the development and use of such a tract
of land for a Planned Industrial District for commercial or other uses permitted in the district within
which the land is located by making an application for a conditional use permit authorizing
completion of the development in accordance with the plan. The plan for the development shall
conform to the requirements of the district within which it is located except as herein amended.
Subd. 3. Size Required. The tract of land for which a development is proposed and
a permit requested shall not be less than five (5) acres.
Subd. 4. Sewer and Water. The tract shall be served by the Cit> water and sewer
system when available and fire hydrant^ shall be installed according to a plan approved by the Fire
Chief as to type and location.
ORONO CC 357 (4-1-84)
iUH DATE 16/M/n
BATCH SBI
pm ADM
OHNCt NANC
TAXPAYER
KAME/ADM
PROP ADM
MNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
HAHE/ADM
PROP ADDR
OHNER JANE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/AOOR
/
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORNATXON SYSTEN
PROPERTY OHHERS LXST
SB SS-XlB-23 XX 0M3
•BtSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
MONO PLAZA
ORONO PLAZA
C/0 REXERSBORD UH OPFXCE
4SBB 44TN ST H
NPLS m 5S4Z4
SB SS-11B-2S IS •••2
B2BB7 NAYZATA BLVD N
ACE PROPERTIES LLC
ACE PROPERTIES LLC
SSBB ANDERSON ESTATES RD
NAPLE PLAIN NN 5SSSY
SB SS-11B-2S IS 0015
02A0S HAYZATA BLVD H
DRB BB LLC
DRD BB LLC
C/0 BUSCN/FREDRICKSON/BYRON
BOB 2ND AVE S 1100 XNTRNL CT
NPLS NN 55A0Z
#2'^ 1
SB SS-11B-2S 12 0002
02745 KELLEY PKNY
CITY OF ORONO
CITY OF ORONO
P 0 BOX i
CRYSTAL BAY NN 55S2S
SB SS-11B-2S IS 0011
02745 HAYZATA BLVD H
VEDA INC ETAL
VEDA INC
PO BOX S75
LONG LAKE NN 55S54
TOTAL BATCH 501 00007
REPORT NO. PX4S540X
PAGE 1
SB SS-11B-2S 12 BOOB
02745 KELLEY PKHY
HILLOH PROPERTIES
HXLLOH PROPERTIES
C/0 ALBERT B YNOV^
45S5 BIG RICE LAKE M N I
RENER NN 54472
SB SS-11B-2S IS 0014
02725 HAYZATA BLVD H
VEDA INC
VEDA INC
PO BOX S75
LONG LAKE NN 55S54
t CERTirv THAT THE FACTS HEPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATXON AS IT APPEARS TNXS DATE ON THE RECOROt'
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTNENT OF PROPfRTV TAXATION, TO THE REST
OP NY KNONLEOGE AND BELIEF.
/
DATE
>!
fl. I
Application Date:
Deadline:
8/17/01
10/16/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planncr
DATE;September 11. 2001
SUBJECT: #01-2715 John M. Bailey
2807 Casco Point Road
Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning District:LR-IC,'/: acre. One Family Lakeshorc Residential
Lbt of Exhibits
A
B
C
D
F
F
G
Application
Letter of Application
Site Sur\ey
Hardcover Calculation W'orksheets
Garage and Site Plans
Property Owners Notification List
Permit Record
Review of Request The property owners have requested a variance to permit structural repairs andj
addition of a foundation to an existing detached garage located l.I* from the property line. The
purpose of the new foundation is to raise the elevation of the garage to allow for the garage floor to
be at an elevation above the driveway. The property owners have stated the garage and driveway are
located in a low point and are a drainage backup area. Raising of the garage w ould not allow the
water to pool inside the garage.
Secondly the property owTiers arc requesting a hardcover variance to permit 40 s.f. of additional
sidewalk to connect the patio and deck located to the west side of the house. Two years ago the
property owners replaced the deck and patio and added the walkway. The concrete walk is
additional hardcover in the 75-250' setback over 25%. The total hardcover on the property, before
the sidewalk, is 5,704 s.f. (35%). Overall in the 75-250' setback total hardcover will be reduced to
4,304 s.f (27.4%). Most of the hardcover removals are attributed to the removal of approximately
1.500 s.f of landscaping plastic.
«0l-27i: John M Bailey
2S07CaKb Point Road
9/17/01
Page I of3
II
I
Pertinent Ordinances
Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) l2): Hardcover regulations,
(25% hardcover allowed in the 75-250’ setback zone)
Section 10.03, Subdivision 9: Accessory Structures - Setback regulations. (10' setback required)
Property owners do not plan to change the use or location of the garage. Options of changing the
setback to meet a greater setback would require the entire floor and foundation be replaced and to
change the garage access. Access to Casco Point Road is at a curve in the street. The e.xisting
property access would not change sight lines for vehicles entering and e.xiting the property.
The l.r setback to the property line requires the wall closest to the property line to be constructed
to meet fire code standards. A fire wall would require any openings (ie. windows) to be sealed to
fire protection standards and a fire proof wall be constructed. The fire code requires any buildings
within 3 ’ of a property line to be protected.
Property Hardcover in the 75-2S0* setback
Pree.xistine
House 2.100 s.f.
Garage 496 s.f.
Driveway 800 s.f.
Sidewalk 208 s.f.
Patio and Deck 600 s.f.
Landscape Plastic ±1,500 s.f. (To be removed)
Total Hardcover = 5,704 s.f. (35%)
Proposed
House 2,100 s.f.
Garage 496 s.f.
Driveway 800 s.f.
Sidewalk 208 s.f - Garage to House
Patio and Deck 640 s.f. (Includes the additional 40 s.f. for the walkway between tne deck
and patio)
1 otal Hardcover = 4.304 s.f (27.4%)
Total Land Area in the 75-250' setback is 15,699 s.f
«OI-2715 John M Bailey
2807 Casco Point RoaJ
9/17/01
Page 2 of3
1
staff Rtcommendatiop
The preferred option would be to relocate the garage further from the property line. However, the
property owners would prefer the garage to remain in the existing location since the work being done
to the building to correct a drainage problem. A visual inspection of the site and viewing photos it
is clear the garage is in very good condition and should not require further structural improvements.
If variances are approved the following will be required of the property owners.
1. The garage shall meet all requirements of the fire code including installation of a fire wall.
2. A building permit be applied for and an inspection for the recently replaced deck.
Options for Planning Commission Action
A. Recommend approval.
B. Recommend denial, stating reasons.
C. Table.
D. Other action.
II0U2715 John M. Bailey
2S07 Casco Point Road
9/I7/0I
Paie3of3
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
Application #
Date Recehcd"
Amount Paid "B> Sc C. Ci'
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address -807 Casoo p Rd.
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)____________________________
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Proper^ Acquired 7 < 9 s _____________________________•
I (do) ®lso own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: x residential ___pother (specify)_________
Zoning District:_____________________________________________
.(month/year)
APPLICANT
Name Jonn M. Bailev
Address: ^807 Casco Pc. Rd.
Phone (home) 9 32-471-8776
_____ Phone (work)_7 6 3 - 441-212 1
City: Wayzaia _________Zip: 3 3391.
O^VNER (if different than applicant)
Name A oV lh
Address:___
[lerem man apmicamj Phone (home).
^ raA’ricia S. Phone (work)
S a-City:'____________Zip:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ qqq
Describe request in detail: Raise ele\/atvon of garage building co allow for
vercLcai door ^(iQacfaaaddkidIBlL^IEets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area
Setback:
___Lot Width
§ i; ree t Front X Side
Hardcoyer
Rear
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requiremems:_..,^,^,j ,„»»t-gcon.ag. (7f) -
fihi- .erfAiTiiA r p gnrr*an.»p anH ^ ’‘lagg nar-ano t-T-ooc aHnar»Qr«^
o garage Limit relocacion alternative for garage._ _ _
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
A/sCf V(i_vxr»..cocc "fee He,
/V\_fro . ^4/rCA^i^ ctcivs.^
V, '
' .0 \
%
Jokn M. Bailey
R£CciV2D
^ 5 200!
QO”'
Wendy
City of Orono
PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: Variance Application Number: 01-2715
1.6% (40ft^) excess hardcover
75’-250’ Zone
Dear Wendy,
Two years ago we replaced the dilapidated brick patio with new materials and added a
walkway be^een the deck and the patio to prov ide a neater, smoother, safer walkway
The new walkway is 40ft*. This additional area takes the 75’-250’ zone hardcover area
from 25% to 26.6%.
Because our lot is trapezoidal shaped, narrow and small (approx. 16,000 ft in 75’-250
zone) we are requesting a variance to allow for the excess hardcover. (Please refer to
survey drawing that you have on file).
Yours very truly.
P.S. Just in case this fact may be a consideration; the 200 ft' deck is a slatted construction
that drams directly onto the ground below.
#271o
2807 C«M» Point Road, WnjrxaU, MN 55391
Pkon.: (612) 47M776 Oftl..: (612) 441-2121
..-.M I
HARDCOVER CAi-i-
■ SETBACK ZONE: (CIR'' ONE) 0-75'
f.rT«rrTNG hardcov er in ZONE
A. House _ *
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Pa:io/Deck X
X
F. Lor.dscace
Underlain
By Ploscic
Of Fabric
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A ______________ 3 ■
ppnPOSED H-ARDCO VER in zone
A. House _
Lsnj'r.
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Drlvc'.vay X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
25^00’ SOO-1000'
-
3S
SX
X ICO =
Wid-J;
E. Patio/Dcck X
X
F. Landscape
L'cderloia
By P!as::c
Of Fabric
X
X
X
G. Ocher
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B .X 100
#2 r*
!r»I- ••. I id
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
s.?.
S.F.
S.F.
s -
s ^
&S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
0 _S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.2^S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F
S.F
'-^1
'Ofr
S.F.
^ • S.F
9S-^ S.F.
%
2-iHn.
.A
3
STUDS
• tt* oc.
2*»i* aonow
Mi
a* coMcmtt
rOlMMfCN
',kZ,S, »
Cl 101 4f
ri coNcarn nooa
n 1000
coNcm SLia
ff = ^rOUMCMfXM 1
RfUOMO .
k-1• yiu /f-----------
! ^cowcmn nsmOAtm to k-/
' “
j sua ACMMO 10 A rONTtiiom ceux —
MS
H A-A
J/l*«l-0*
PROPOf^gP
8£CllQM,Ar.A
j/i*.r-o‘
ALTERNATE II
IMJzfl
ALTERNATE |2
V»*-»-0*
MOIL
In order (o raise the elevoiion of the garage floor
above the driveway and obtain additional vertical
garage door ctooronce, (ha building, in its* entiraly
must be raised 16*.
Altarnote ft is tha preferred option. This involves
tilting the axisting go/oga. odding two coufsas of
btocA. setting goroge bock down ond odding o firewall
to the east side.
Alternate §2 involves lifting the garage, digging down
ond providing o new footing ond foundation 2* west of
axisting tocotion olong tha aost ond west faces, odding
(wo courses of block olong (ha cNNlh ond south, ond
setting the goroga down on the new foundation.
IMCJ
GLOtAim
i/r.r-o*
WEST
ema sum to aonou or ruxM J08T
'.‘i'll.
AS Mor^o
EnSIWG MO PIOPOaiD
GARAGE PLANS fOR
MM Oil AMfO B a XOW DAM WV
—fan
|200l-20
N|V
S/II/OI
•f«JOHN ARD PATTT BAORT ■1
PROP ADDR
OMNCR NAHC
TAXPAYER
NAME/AODR
HKNNKPIN COUNTY PROPFKTY INFORMATION SYSTFM
PROPFRTY OWNF.RS LIST
36 20 117 23 23 0016
2797 CASCO POINT RO
R J GRUNOECN 4 J A GRUNDKKN
RONALD J GRUNDEEN
j797 CASCO PT RD
WAYZATA MN 5S391
CONDMN •
38 20 117 23 32 0010
2817 CASCO POINT RD
WESLEY C BYRNE
WESLEY C BYRNE
2817 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN bS391
CONDHN •
38 20 117 23 32 0011
2811 CASCO POINT RD
G 4 C SCANLON
GENE 4 CATHERINE SCANLON
281b CASCO POINT ROAD
WAV^ATA MN bb391
CONDMN I
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
38 20 117 23 32 0012
2813 CASCO POINT RD
J L STERN
J L STERN
2813 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN bS391
CONDMN •
38 20 117 23 32 0013
2811 CASCO POINT RD
THERESA A NORSTED
THERESA A NORSTED
2811 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN lb39l
CONDMN •
36 20 117 23 32 0014
2807 CASCO POINT RD
J M 4 P S BAILEY
JOHN M 4 PATRICIA S BAILEY
2807 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN bb39l
CONDMN •
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
38 20 117 23 32 OOlb
280b CASCO POINT RD CONDMN •
ROGER H FROMHELT 4 WIFE
ROGER II FROMHELT
280b CASCO PT RD
WAYZATA MN bbl9I
38 20 117 23 32 0019
2801 CASCO POINT RD CONDMN I
G D 4 B S CZERWINSKI
GREGORY D/BETH S CZERWINSKI
2801 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN bb39l
3P 20 117 23 32 0016
2800 CASCO POINT RD
THOMAS B KING
THOMAS B KING
2800 CASCO POINT ROAD
WAYZATA MN bb391
38 20 117 23 32 0020
2799 CASCO POINT RD
TODD J THEILMANN
TODD J THEILMANN
2799 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN bb391
CONDMN •
CONDMN I
3C 20 117 23 32 0017
2818 CASCO POINT RD
TAMMY L WOODIS
TAMM3 L WOODIS
2818 CASCO POINT ROAD
WAYZATA MN bb391
CONDMN •
ADDRESS . -O^D ') '^/U4Ct
\
PERMIT RECORD
Permit Not Date Type of Permit
H'6' f
S -=
'7^^ J=<1 ^ . / s ^ V ' '
^ JLl^^'~/VLi tiJ--\
IL^5'3/-g;2-L<.) -cJUL
/3/L./0'/3-CfCr
3i<qg / ~ C ~/ to
^^->1 I ' '1 i,Qal
76
7-/ ' .90
L0q^\, /TuJti'.'L.
i£)> 0^1 ^ - iS-^0
%
. I4«|'Lt^^B
^-<#6
. V A
Ky V • \i»' * • ,
• • •• ’mm— , * - -
pv«*u
< •. -1
■^* Iytv.
TVr-
»- -L^ *
- ^ •^*. *». ^ • ,'i
f'f-:^^-*et*T'
;»3S.*(S
v*» fv’V* ' ’
,*w ’-. /
•^’v;'^-.l;:.\'-.*^ • * . -. •
r. . V r . ^“f ,;:.
‘ ' ■ •’■' V- •<
. 1 '’T-v -
I ’**,.**
^ JL • »•/
/. *V
A - • ^ ^Av'.’*’"-'; .-v:—^ • f -« * »-r / J ^•
.«v'V
1^!
•' "
'J
f. ^ •- -
"•-i -^.• ?v,-.»-I
. .xf . -.T t- \ i ’/•
. y ^ ' ' ^ - 4 • ^ ^
/??ft
^•r>
K .4
■,«w V < /
‘ r • i
-r u
■'*~ Sr 'K< ’
-.^•'
9 ®
. IV-* '»
'^1 V
► ^ . 'H'*'.‘M ' - . ' . . '*
^ ’'fc«c •*
\S‘.»
^ W J v)
ft
l'^ *wv ^
«kvV.’57>‘
■* W;,~
, • ’ ,- . -I
:\
. 4< .
• V;f •' <Vi 7 V ;> ^*4
V V. / r r,^i./.• *rf^
» ’ • A* • J,. ;
*v••
• i •
• • * •* * • >
> .«'• ••* »•! , * *••
I ' ’• * ; * ' • * *
• **«o**
i'.'*■ =• ; ;■'*,. ■
*.'■
'. ^4-;: \ • '! / . - I
''^-■V.^'-':\ :K. .i ■
.*•
I
• t
‘ \t ,
^ , ,
f
A
•- V..* * ‘ ^ .., :•.•*• ^1 i
' •. .4 • . • v-v^‘:‘'. *i.‘- «'* •. • 1':: -LI
•1. -•!vr- 7 <•
, - -# #! f r.
Tf z:::^i'.
j
. *c.r
V /
: - js :-!w
rw.^t ----- i
■t|V:.^
‘ Vn'^r. ,:a
‘•r V^^JVSSSi
■' , ,> ——I
r, A‘. .
' -ft
'r‘ u
mi .* t
-I . . - __
-ft’ •
1
4
% ^ ^
v&
I • ^
lt\ ^
'3 ^'7'I, •
f - .
V r . ,
• '• •:
* \ ! ' •
i, '
» '
. • ‘ I ♦ r^’* I
. .%. * • • . .. • ‘.^ • <
.V •; 'yrT*iij^V>'.a*
*» i ,r^ / 0 -----V.
i ^ Jf\4 1 'S^
,'/M 11
i^i"*?''al
■ fmMfe
”^-!'- ,|:'s ■;..
f . w -^ >
• ^Klli■iiw^mriiiiifiges^si^^ .y.'i ac^v
>» >v?>.v r*^ v^t-r-^/t* '• ■,*'
- • V i ^ W '• -. *5; <• - • A. •
-.'Sg ri*;T*^
.tr-
•f:.‘
V- V
* .• • %.
L«r
Ik %ikj
^|. f <
»'. . .
.''V-
V* *
i * •
.xT
^'1
•■^1
** • '* • ^^ •. «;" ' .*•■ 1 ^" •*• ' ** • irvc lrw ** . - •
. ,,. ,.r. .:/v>’:*''^ ,V'-'' :i:ikgfiEmaffi
■-/.JV/'
//J.
CMP Part 3B« Land Use Plan
Urban Industrial Land Use
Orono's Industrial Park along Highway 12 west of Long Lake is planned to
continue as the only appropriate area for industrial-type activity in the City.
Adequate transportation is available as is municipal water and sanitary sewer.
The 44-acre Industrial Park currently has some potential for additional
development as well as redevelopment. Expansion of the Park is limited by
Highway 12 to the north, the proposed Highway 12 Reroute and Burlington
Northern Railroad on the south, the Orono-Long Lake municipal boundary
on the east, and Old Crystal Bay Road on the west (see Map 3B-7).
At the time the Industrial Park was developed along Highway 12, it was
adjacent to agricultural uses on all 4 sides, plus St. George’s cemetery to the
southeast. The Long Lake commercial/industrial district west of Willow
Drive had yet to develop. Now the area south of the Industrial Park has been
developed with single family residential uses, the area to the west across Old
Crystal Bav Road is being guided for single-family and medium-density
residential, the area to the north is being guided for office development, and
the area to the east in Long Lake has been developed with business/light
industrial uses. It is important that the uses in the Industrial Park are
compatible with these existing and planned uses.
Access for a majority of the existing parcels is directly to Highway 12 via
individual curb cuts. Although “old Highway 12" traffic may decrease for a
time once the 12 Reroute is opened, high traffic levels on Highway 12 may
still be prevalent. An option for future dicussion is development of an interior
service road providing access to Old Crystal Bay Road, to allow
ingressing/egressing traffic safer access via the controlled intersection at
Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road. However, to avoid potential
conflicts between the industrial traffic and that from the future residential
development to the west, an alternative may be to develop an internal road
system linking all the Industrial Park properties to a single intersection on
existing Highway 12 halfway between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay
Road.
Past use of the Industrial Park has previously included manufacturing and
processing. The City will encourage conversion to light industrial, high-tech
uses as well as office-showroom. The City has no intent to convert the
Industrial Park to commercial retail or service uses. Accessory functions such
as office buildings will be permitted in the industrial area.
City of Orono Conmunily Management Plan
ScpIeBiber _, 2QM
Page 3B-42
CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan
3.
4.
\J 5.
y 6.
y 7.
Lakeshore commercial areas will be provided for public access
and limited lake-user sen ices. Orono's residents and other lake
users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat
repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational
development lake. Orono's Land Use Plan will provide locations for
such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land
use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location
will be permitted to adversely aHect the lake quality or the public's
general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited
to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary
sewer, and adequate transportation are available.
The City will encourage private unification and coordination of
the existing commercial areas. Unplanned strip commercial
dev elopments w ill be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to
aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be
encouraged.
Future industrial development will be limited to the area of the
existing Orono industrial park. No other location in Orono
combines the availabilitv- of transportation and public utilities with
remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this
land use is entirely consistent with Long Lake's neighboring industrial
development.
Commercial and industrial development will not be permitted to
adversely affect neighboring residential property. The location,
scale and types of commercial and industrial development will be
controlled so as not to encroach upon or adversely impact the primary
residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms
or buffers will be required between different land uses.
Public urban services must be available for all future
commercial, industrial and urban-residential development.
Commercial, industrial and urban-density residential uses will be
permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, adequate
transportation, police and fire protection services are available. In
addition, commercial, industrial and multi-family residential
development will be permitted only where a municipal water system
is available for adequate water supply and fire protection.
City of Orono Community Mnnngemcnt Plan
Septenber_^,2000
Page 3B-19
L
it
a
(« ,
y. •*“ »e >0 • *' f: •>
2cTzr
•.T
• . ? f» j-» ■ •
tJ“
/
I
Vi:S3;-ilJii‘i Vvl:NfiOO N’.dBMriH.,'-: .
13
1
n.
ibou.<^c( ry
L.-rAc :
V€r\CC
A >
VV'^^ o’WvV'v '^WvX
pai< V_« c|^
Wol-^vv^ V V
^// o
2Zrdl'y-Z2 I'iolioas dO>/l3N>AMS arJl.N^q;jv 'A3'n ‘/A \'"=i:noo .‘ssoovr 'b* EiMvnv
•dcj A3 ■>:-:: i-s 30 5.;.vob'iii:20
•*- r ' ' i ...........— •'*.^‘*V 1
!<7 '■;•'?■>/JJ 3^
f ^________________________________________
n 1! ;
1 1
----------1
1piI
11 F-
L,z.
n\
^5 Br
+e>0 !
1\
{,
er
- — 4
I .
(jO — u)t.lder - Zo 4C40.1
CKdAt =
bJauL Al-S’I^duiPM£KrrMA^ujOA
/V
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:September 10, 2001
SUBJECT: «0I-27I8
Zoning Code Amendment to Section 10.03, Subdivision 15
Relating to Fence Regulations
List of Exhibits:
A.Draft Ordinance - Proposed Revisions to Non-Encroachments Section: Revisions to fence
Provisions
B. Current City Handout and Illustrations - Describing existing ordinance
C. Ordinances From 5 metro area cities
Summary of Request: Fences have been regulated under the section of ordinance titled **non-
Encroachmenls ” (Section 10.03, Subdivision 15). Non-Encroachments are items, such as fences,
that are allowed to be located within required front, side and rear yard setbacks. Council has
indicated that the current ordinance may need revision to fence regulations pertaining to fence
construction and to review whether a permit should be required for fence construction.
The existing ordinance does not require a permit, or regulate fencing materials or visual appearance
offences. One primary issue noted by Council is whether the City should require property owners
constructing fences to locate the “finished ” side of a fence towards neighboring properties The
finished side of a fence assumes the structural supports face the fence owners property.________
F.Kiatintt Ordinance: Underlined are the notations within the existing ordinance that the City uses
for regulation of fences.
Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be
encroachments on yard requirements:
A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental
features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more
than 1-1/2 feet, olT-street parking except as hereinafter regulated.
B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illuminating parking
areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is
not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to w ithin five
feet of the front lot line.
j
C. Fences which do not exceed 3-1 /2 feet in height, fences not over 6 feet in
height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is
required, the totsl combined height of both fence 3ncl fill shsll not exceed 6 feet shove the heiRht oi
the crovvn of the road, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not
extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance
of not less than 2 feet from any lot line.
D. In side or rear yards only , bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to
contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, fences an4
walls not to exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade and open off* street parking except for
lakeshore lots, no fence or wall over 42 inches but not in excess of 72 inches in height above original
ppHp may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing
residence buildings on adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the
shoreline.
E. Rear yard onlv: balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters
and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shall be closer
than 5 feet from a rear lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed withiti a rear yard exceed a height
of 6 feet above original grade.
F. Side yards only; no accessory structure shall be closer than 1 0 feet from any
side lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a side yard exceed a height of 6 feet above
orir^inal grade.
What the Existing Orono Ordinance Poes Not Regulate; (This is a list of items that some Cities
do regulate or require when constructing a fence.)
1 . Fences do not require permits.
2.
3.
The City does not regulate fencing materials or visual appearance of fences.
The City does not require the finished side of the fence to be towards the exterior of the
property, or towards a neighboring property.
4. Fences are not required around swimming pools.
5.The height of a fence or wall meeting required building setbacks is not regulated. The
language in the existing and proposed ordinance only pertains to fences within required
setbacks. Should there be a maximum height for fences and walls meeting required building
setbacks?
6.Some Cities prohibit certain types of fences (i.e. electric and barbed wire fences -
Shorewood, for example allows these types of fences but only when issued with a horse
permit.) Orono does not prohibit electric and barbed wire fences.
1
i
i
i
Proposed Ordinaiicc Language;
Exhibit A is the proposed new ordinance for review and conunent by the Planning Commission. The
primary intent of the ordinance revision is to require “ftnished ” sides of fences to face the neighbors
house. Many Cities do require the finished side of the fence to be faced either towards the neighbor
and/or towards the public right of way.
The new ordinance allows a maximum fence height of 42 ” within the aver age lakeshore setback.
This is the current standard. Only the definition of “average lakeshore setba ck) for fences would be
noted in the revised ordinance.
The proposed ordinance does not change the existing requirements for height and location of a fence.
The only proposed revision would change the “average lakeshore setback" for fences to be defined
as the average setback between the fence owners residence and the closest adjacent neighbors
residence rather than the average setback between the two adjacent residences.
(Proposed Ordinance Follows • Section 10.03, Subdivision 15)
Issues for Discussion - Proposed Ordinance Changes
1.The proposed ordinance for review and discussion would allow split rail fences to exceed the
existing standards of 3 '/i feet in required front or street yards. The proposed ordinance
would allow fences of no more than three rails to have a maximum height of 48" and rail
fences may be 60" above grade when used for the keeping of horses. In all cases a split rail
fence could not be more than 50% opaque.
2. The new ordinance would include language that would require fence owners to keep a fence
in a reasonable and safe condition.
3.Fences would also be required to be installed with the “finished ” side facing a neighboring
property or a public/private roadway. The finished side of a fence is the side of the fence
having no structural supports.
Staff Recommendation
Provide direction to staff regarding amending fence regulations.
Options for Action
1.Make a recommendation on the ordinance amendment and forward review of the amendment
to the Council for review at the meeting scheduled October 8,2001.
2. Table and review at either the meeting of October 15, 2001 or forward to a Planning
Commission Work Session.
I
NON-ENCROACHMENTS SECTION: Rcvuions to Fence Provbions
Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be
encroachments on yard requirements:
A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental
features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more
than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated.
B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illuminating parking
areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is
not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five
feet of the front lot line.
C. Fences which do not exceed 3»l/2 feet in heigh t, fences not ove r 6 feet in
lieight along Uie street lot line of lake frontage lots wliich front on a major thoroug hfare, if fill is
required, tlie total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet abov e the hei^t of
Ute crown of the read, tj£erraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do
not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a
distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line.
D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to
contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, fences and
walls not to exceed a hei^t of 6 feet above original grade and open off-street parking except for
lafceshore lots, no fence or wall ov er 42 inches but not in excess of 72 incfaesin height above original
g rade may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing
residence building s on adjacent lots, such fences shall net be eonstrueted within 75 feet of the
shoreline.
Source. t3rdnmnec”^, Mnd^Senes
Adopted; 1»28*85
E. Rear yard only; balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters
and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shall be closer
than 5 feet from a rear lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a rear yard exceed a heigh t
of 0 feet above uiigiiial grade.
F. Side yards only; no accessory structure shall be closer than 10 feet from any
side lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a side yard exceed a heigh t of 6 feet abov e
original g rade.
Source: Ordinance 9,2nd Series
Adopted: 1»28»85
G. Fences. Fences erected in all zoning districts are considered as a non-
encroachment when they conform to the following standards:
1 ■ Non-Lakeshore Lots:
a. Fences and walls within a required front yard or side street yard shall not
exceed a height of 42 inches above original grade-
fa. Fences and walls within a required rear or side yard shall not exceed a
height of 6 feet above ori2inai erade.
2. Lakeshore Lots:
a. Fences within the required street (rear) yard or side street yard of a
lakeshore lot shall not exceed 42 inches above original arade. Exception: A fence not exceeding 6
feet in height mav be located alone the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major
thoroughfare. A major thoroughfare for purposes of this ordinance means any Hennepin County road
or State highway. If such fence involves fill or berming. the total combined height of both fence and
fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crown of the major thoroughfare.
b. Fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed 6
feet in height, and anv portion located lakeward of the ''average lakeshore fence setback line” shall
not exceed 42 inches in height. The “average lakeshore fence setback line” is a line drawn between
the most lakeward projection of the fence owner ’s principal residence structure and the most
lakeward projection of the adjacent affected principal residence structure.
c. Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore yard of a
lakeshore lot, i.e. shall not be located within 75 feet of the shoreline for General Development Lakes.
100 feet for Recreational Lakes, or 150 feet for Natural Environment Lakes.
3. Special Provisions: Split rail fences of no more than 3 rails within a required
front, street or side street yard mav have a maximum top rail height of 48 inches above original
yrade. Board rail fences within a front, street or side street yard for the specific purpose of enclosing
ies may have a top rail height of 60” and shall be no more than 50% opaque.ILUK
4. Intersection Sightline Obstruction Prohibited. No fence shall be installed so as to
obstruct a required clear view at street intersections as required bv Section 10.03. Subd. 16 of the
Municipal Code.
5. Fence Construction and Maintenance.
a. The owner of a fence shall maintain it in a condition of reasonable repair
and appearance and shall not allow it to become o ; remain in disrepair of in a dangerous condition.
b. Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring
properties or the street (finished side is that side having no visible structural supports).
I-—I r II f m rti I
CITY OF ORONO
Fence Regulations
General;
1.
2.
3.
Fences meeting height and location regulations do not require a permit.
Fences must be within property boundaries, but no setback is required.
The City of Orono does not require fences around swimming pools; however, property
owners are advised to check with their insurance company.
4. The City of Orono does not regulate fencing materials or visual appearance of fences.
Fence Height/Location Standards
Location Maximum Fence Height
Standard:
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
3 W
6 ’
6 ’
Lakeshore Lot:
Lake Yard 3 W Ahead of "average lakeshore setback
line", except qo fence is allowed
within 75’ of the shoreline
Side Yard 6’Behind "average lakeshore setback
line"
Street Yard 3 W (6 ’ along County & MSA Funded
Roads)
Comer Lot:
30’ Sight Triangle
Front Yard
Side Street Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
3’
3 'A'
3
6 ’
6 ’
If you have further questions regarding fences, please contact the Building and Zoning
Department at 249-4600.
X:\APPS\WPWIN60\ WPDOCSU=OR.MS\FENCB
------------JiJ
STANDARD LOT
^ 72” majfSmMi height ^
4rm«dmiimh0j9N
A
ROAD
THROUGH LOT
ROAD
I" VffwfiumhitgN** ^
^ 72*fnaiifmimtieigM ^
L4=^----I 42* inai4rmim heHihl
:♦ ______
ROAD
LAKESHORE LOT
* Note no fence over 42" in height may be
located into the average lakeshore setback.
CORNER LOT
City of Edina, Minnesota
Subd. 5 Fences in the R-1 and R-2 Districts. Fenc'^s erected in the R-I District and R-2 District
shall conform to the following:
Fences exceeding four feet in height shall not be erected within a required front street
setback or side street setback, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2. of Subd.
7 of Subsection 850.11.
No fence shall exceed eight feet in height.
Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring properties.
No fence shall be installed so as to obstruct a required clear view at street
intersections as required by Section 1405 of this Code.
Subd. 6 Exceptions to Setback Requirements. The following shall not be considered as
encroachments into required setbacks:
Overhanging eaves not supported by posts or pillars, and bay windows not extending
to the floor, which do not project more than three feet into the required setback
and which are not within three feet of a lot line.
Sidewalks and driveways, but not patios.
Fences which do not exceed the height limitations imposed by this Subsection 850.07.
Awnings and canopies attached to the principal building and not supported by posts or
pillars, which do not project more than three feet into the required setback and
w hich are not within three feet of a lot line.
Flagpoles, light poles and fixtures.
Clotheslines and outdoor fireplaces in the rear yard only.
Bus shelters which have been approved by the Engineer.
Unenclosed steps or stoops not exceeding 50 square feet in area.
Fireplaces projecting not more than two feet into the required setback and not
exceeding ten square feet in horizontal area.
Underground storage tanks, conduits and utilities.
Portions of principal and accessory buildings or structures which are located
completely underground, which are not visible from the surface of the ground and
which do not encroach more than one>half of the distance into that part of the
required setback nearest the principal or accessory building.
Trees, shrubs and other vegetation.
Retaining walls.
Freestanding basketball posts, backboards and goals adjacent to a driveway.
>
i
It
;
Zoning Code - Section 520 Page 1 of 3
520.13. Fences. Subdivision I. No person may construct, or cause to be constructed or erected
within the City, any fence without first making application for and securing a permit therefor from the
zoning administrator. (Amended Ord. 95-777 [1-3-96])
Subd. 2. Location. Boundary line fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the
person constructing or causing the construction of such fence unless the owner of the property
adjoining agrees, in writing, that such fence may be erected on the division line of the respective
properties. The zoning administrator may require the owner of the property upon which a fence now
exists, or may require any applicant for a fence permit to cause to establish the boundary lines of his
property by a survey thereof to be made by any registered land surveyor. (Ord. 97-797 [4-15-97])
Subd. 3. Construction and maintenance. A fence shall be constructed in a substantial,
workmanlike manner and of substantial material reasonably suitable for the purpose for which the
fence is proposed to be used, fhe fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and
shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a
nuisance, public or private. Link fences, wherever permitted, shall be constructed in such manner the
barbed end is at the bottom of the fence and the knuckle end is at the top thereof.
Subd. 4. Nuisances. Any fence which is, or has become dangerous to the public safety, health or
welfare, is a public nuisance. The Zoning Administrator may commence proper proceedings for the
abatement thereof. (Amended Ord. No. 87-601)
Subd. 5. Barbed wire. Barbed wire fences are permitted only in industrial districts as provided in
this code.
Subd. 6. Residential district fences. In an R district no boundary line fence shall be erected or
maintained more than four feet in height except that: (Amended Ord. 613)
a) fences on any comer lot erected w ithin 30 feet of the intersecting curb line are subject to
subsection 520.11;
b) fences on side property lines shall not be more than six feet in height for the distance
commencing from a point on such side property line located at the rear lot line and proceeding
thence along such side property line to a point therein which would be intersected by the rear
wall line of the then existing principal building on that lot on either side of such fence, which
building line intersecting such fence line is closest to the rear lot line from which such fence
commences provided that if such principal building is located more than 50 feet away from
such fence line and is owned by someone other than the fence owTier or erector, then such six
foot side yard fence may be constructed to a point of such side yard which would be
intersected by the rear wall of the principal building on the lot thus fenced;
c) fences along any rear property line, which is also the rear property line of an abutting lot
shall not exceed six feet in height;
d) fences along a rear property line which line constitutes the side lot line of an abutting lot
may not exceed six feet in height for a distance calculated as in clause b) and may not exceed
four feet in height thereafter. All fences in any residential district shall be constructed in such
manner that at least 25% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open, and
in calculating such percentage, distances of 50 feet may be averaged beginning at the
permitted point opposite the principal building;
e) fences on side street lot lines shall not be more than six feet in height for the distance
http://www.hopkinsmn.com/Emp_homepage/Sections/Section%20520ZC.htm 9/6/2001
Zoning Code - Section 520 Page 2 of 3
commencing from a point on such side street lot line located at the rear lot line and
proceeding thence along such side lot line to a point thereon which is 40 feet distant from the
front lot line, but in no case shall the fence extend forward of the front line of the house;
0 property line fences abutting R districts shall conform to those conditions applying to the
R districts.
g) fences enclosing swimming pools must have a minimum height of 4 feet and shall not
exceed 6 feet subject to the provisions of 520.13 Subd. 6. (Added Ord. 88-613)
h) the side/s of residcntially zoned properties abutting a State or County road may have an
opaque fence. (Added Ord. 95-777 [ I -3-96])
i) The side of the fence facing the public right-of-way shall not contain the structure and/or
support of the fence. (Added Ord. 95-777 [1-3-96])
Subd. 7. Business district fences. Property line fences in a B district shall not exceed six feet in
height. The council may grant a conditional use permit for a fence up to eight feet in height provided:
a) that applicant has an approved open sales lot;
b) open sales lot classified as a non-conforming use;
c) has a commercial or industrial operation which requires the storage of equipment outside
the building;
d) the premise or use may be dangerous to the public;
e) the use is an attractive nuisance and the applicant can show that for security reasons a
fence of six feet will not be adequate.
Subd. 8. Industrial district fences. Property line fences in an I district shall not exceed eight feet
in height except that:
a) fences in industrial districts which are primarily erected as a security measure may have
arms projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened
commencing at a point at least seven feet above the ground, and
b) a fence located in the front yard of premises in an industrial district abutting a right-of-
way containing 50 feet or more in width shall conform to setback requirements for buildings
in said district. Said area consisting of the setback shall be landscaped in accordance with a
plan approved by the City. Ornamental fences utilized for landscaping purpo.ses are excluded
from the provisions of this ordinance.
Subd. 9. Special purpose fences. Fences for special purposes and fences differing in
construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the city by the issuance of a
conditional use permit and by the council upon proof and reasons submitted by the applicant and
upon the signing by said bodies that such special purpose is necessary to protect, buffer or improve
the premises for which such fence is intended. The special fence permit, if issued, may stipulate and
provide for the height, location, construction and type of special fence thereby permitted.
Subd. 10. Institutional district fences. In an Institutional district no boundary'line fence shall
be erected or maintained more than four feet in height except that
a) Fences along any property line that abuts a parking lot may exceed four feet but
not exceed six feet in height. (Added Ord. No. 2000-833)
http://www.hopkinsmn.eom/Emp_homepage/Section:k/oection%20520ZC.htm 9/6/2001
f. Fences - General Requirements:
(1) Permit Required: No person* firm or corporation shall con- struct or erect any fence without first securing a
building permit!.
(2) Locations: All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fe^ owner unless the owner of the
adjoining property agrees, in writing, that such fence may be erected on the property line of the respective properties. No
boundary line fence shall be erected closer than three feet (3*) to an existing parallel boundary line fence.
(3) Surveys: The Building Official may require an applicant for a fence permit to esublish his true boundary line by
a survey thereof :o be made by a registered land surveyor.
(4) Construction and Maintenance: Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike maimer and of
material reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall be mainuined in
such condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore or public or private nuisance. All fences shall be so constructed that the
finished side faces away from the fence owner’s lot Any fence which endangers the public safety, health or welfare shall
be considered a public nuisance and abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper City official if within fifteen
(15) days after notification the owner of such fence has not undertaken the necessary repairs himself to abate the nuisance.
Link fences, where permitted, shall be constructed in such a marmer that no barbed ends shall be at the top. (Ord. 168,
6-24-85)
(5) Nonconforming Fences: All fences existing on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance, but not conforming
herewith, except as to height restrictions, shall conform and be subject to the terms of this Ordinance If at any time a
nonconforming fence shall be damaged to the extent of more than twenty five percent (25%) in any plane, then without
further action by the Council, the fence shall, from and after the date of said damage, be subject to all the regulations
specif cd by these zoning regulations. Any fence which is damaged to an extent of less than twenty five percent (25%) may
be restored to its former extent It is the intent of this Section that all nonconforming fences shall be eventually brought into
conformity. (Ord, 227,6-11-90)
(6) Prohibited Fences: Electric fences shall not be permitted except in conjunction with the issuance of a horse
permit pursuant to Chapter 702 of this Code, and shall be removed upon expiration or revocation of a horse permit. Barbed
wire fences shall not be permitted except as hereinafter provided. Fences of the picket, rail or slat types shall be so con
structed t!.at the spaces between the pickets, rails or slats shall be greater than twelve inches (12*') or less than six inches
(6-). (amd. Ord. 289,3-28-94)
Wire fences which are not readily visible shall be prohibited except where attached to a wooden or other fence of opaque
material which is itself plainly visible, (amd. Ord. 289,3-28-94)
(7) Required Fences: Swimming Pools: Outdoor swimming pools with a capacity of one thousand five hundred
(1.500) gallons or with a depth of three feel (3*) or more of water shall be adequately fenced to prevent uncontrolled access
from the street or adjoining property. Such pools shall be completely enclosed by a nonclimbabic fence at least four feet (4*)
in height. (Ord. 168,6-24-85)
(8) Shoreline Fences: No fence shall be allowed within the shoreline setback area as specified in Section 1201.26
Subd. 5a(3) of this Ordinance. In addition, fences on or adjacent to the shoreline of any navigable lake, channel or stream,
or on or along that portion of a lot line extending from a navigable lake, channel or stream to the near side of the average
building construction line, shall not exceed four feel (4') in height. (Ord. 227,6-11-90)
(9) Residential District Fences:
(a) Boundary Line Fences: In all parts of Shorewood which are zoned residential, no h^undary line fences shall
exceed four feet (4^) in height except that:
i. Fences on all comer lots erected within thirty feet (30*) of the intersecting property line shall be
subject to subdivision 2h of this Section.
ii. Fences along any rear property line which is also the rear property line of an abutting lot shall not
exceed six feet (6*) in height; and
iii. Fences along a rear property line, which line constitutes the side lot line of an abutting lot shall
not exceed six feet (6*) in bei^ for a distance as calculated in iv below and shall not exceed four feet (4*) in height
when abutting a front yard line. (Ord. 168,6-24-85)
iv. Subject to other restrictions within this Section, fences may be constnicled to a hei^t of six feet
(6*) on or along the side yard property line from the rear lot line to the required front yud setback line. (Ord. 227,
6-11-90)
V. In Ih^ instances where a fence exisu as an enclosure which restricts access ftom the front to the
rear yard, a gale, identifiable collapsible section, or other such means of recognizable ingreu «h«ii be provided for
emetgency vehicles. Such ingress shall be unobstructed and a minimum of ten feet (10) in width. The location of
such ingress poinu shall be positioned at any point paralleling the front lot line, between the side lot proDertv line
and the principal structure. ^ ^
Vi. All boundary line fences in residential districu shall be constructed in such a m«nqyr that at least
twenty five percent (25%) of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence constructed is open. (Ord. 168
6«24*85) *
VII. Fences in yards abutting an intermediate arterial or minor arterial street, as designated in the
Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, may be constructed to a height of six feet (6') in a front or side yard abuttine said
wenal street, by conditional use permit as provided for in Section 1201.04 of this Ordinance. In addiUon the
following conditions shall apply:
(u) The fence shall be located no closer than eight feet (S') to the property line.
(bb) A landscape plan for the abovereferenced eight foot (S') setback area must be submitted
compliance with Section 1201.03 subd. 2.g. of this Ordinance.
(cc) The fence shall not obstruct traffic visibility. (Ord. 227,6-11-90)
(b) Interior Yard Fences:
(6 ^ in h^ioM f* * *1®“* “y fence up m six feet( ) in height may be erected as a total enclosuic. Said enclosure shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the
required rear yard area, and shall have adequate means of emergency access. '
in natuml ‘"cening material opaque
In helSil ^ ^ ®f tennis courts or other such recreational numoses sh.ll n«.recreational purposes shall not exceed ten feet (10 )
except districts shall not exceed eight feet (8') in height
(a) Boundary line fences abutting R Districts shall conform to those regulations applicable to the R District
(b) Security Fences:
• I. * r**'*^** erected primarily to secure a particular area may have
,ub™w » ““ ”” I* “.fc
nghMf.w,y. "" l^"y li"« « «*« »y l»blic
I
I ili-.’-'ri . -
Page 1 of 3
21130.01. FENCE/WALL REGULATIONS:
Subd. 1. Permit Required. Except as othcnvise provided herein, no person shall erect, alter or
relocate any fence or wall within the City without first having been issued a permit therefor.
Subd. 2. Permit Fee. A fee as set forth in the City Code shall be charged for a permit issued under
this section for new fences or walls, as well as the replacement of fences or walls in the same
location.
Subd. 3. Application Procedures.
(a) Agricultural Developments and Residential, Single and Two Family. Each application
for a permit under this section shall be submitted to the Building Official on forms
provided by the City. Each application shall include a site plan drawn to scale showing
the location of the house(s), garage(s), and other improvements on the lot and the
location of the fencing or wall to be erected, altered or relocated.
(b) Residential, Other Than Single and Two Family, Commercial, and Industrial Uses.
Request for fencing or walls shall be processed as part of and according to the
procedures of the site plan review, as stipulated in Section 21045 of this Chapter.
Subd. 4. General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided herein, all fences and walls within the
City shall be subject to the following general provisions;
(a) No fences or walls shall be placed on or extend into public rights-of-way.
(b) All fences (hedges and plantings excluded) and walls constructed shall require a
permit under this section. Permits may be issued by the Building ORicial or designee, if
all requirements of this Chapter have been met.
(c) Tliat side of any fence or wall considered to be its "face" (i.e., the finished side having
no structural supports) shall face abutting property or street right-of-way.
(d) Both sides of any fence or wall shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair
and appearance by its ow^ier and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a
condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private.
(c) No physical damage of any kind shall occur to abutting property during installation
unless it is allowed under agreement with the adjacent property owner.
(f) A certificate of surv'ey may be required by the Building Official for all fences (except
hedges and plantings) or walls to be constructed on or within six (6) feet from the
property line, unless comer property stakes are in place and marked and a survey is filed
with the City.
a. A fence shall be required on the top of a retaining wall that exceeds four (4) feet in
height and that is located adjacent to a public right-of-way or pedestrian walkway. The
Zoning Administrator may grant exceptions to this requirement if the retaining wall does
http://www.ci.plymouth.mn.us/cgi-b..y21 1 30-FENCING_SCREENING_LANDSCAPING.ht 9/6/2001
f
*>-
Page 2 of 3
not pose a public safety concern.
(Amended by Ord No. 2000-06, 02/29/00)
Subd. 5. Specific Fence Standards. Except as otherwise provided herein, fences may be allowed
subject to the following specific standards:
(a) Man-made fences not exceeding six (6) feet in height may be permitted at or behind
the front building line as established by the principal structure. Said fence may be
allowed within a front yard which qualifies as an equivalent rear or side yard as defined
by this Chapter. (Amended by Ord No. 2000-06, 02/29/00) (Amended by Ord. No. 2001-
06, 02/13/01)
(b) Fences not exceeding thirty-six (36) inches in may be permitted in the required front
yard.
(c) Fences not exceeding six (6) feet in height, for uses other than one and two family
dwellings, may be permitted in front of the front building line as established by the
primary structure on the lot, when required for screening of adjacent property, in such
cases, the required front setback for the fence shall be the same as for the use which it is
intended to buffer.
(d) On comer lots or lots adjacent to railroad rights-of-way, no fence shall be located in a
sight visibility triangle unless it is in compliance with the sight clearance requirements
for such lots as set forth in Section 21105.05 of this Chapter.
(e) There are no height restrictions on natural hedges or plantings utilized as fences in
any residential zoning district, except that no such hedges or plantings shall be located
within a sight visibility triangle as set forth in Section 21105.05 of this Chapter.
(0 Should the rear lot tine of a lot in a residential district be common with the side lot
line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard
setback of the abutting lot shall be fenced in accordance with the provisions of Section
21130.01, Subd. 5.b.
(g) Fences up to ten (10) feet in height may be permitted to enclose tennis courts
provided all other requirements of this subdivision are met, and shall not require a
conditional use permit or interim use permit where a tennis court is a permitted or
accessory use.
(h) Fences which include a security gate at a point where access is provided to the
property and principal building may be approved if necessary and appropriate as part of
the site plan review.
Subd. 6. Fences Allowed by Conditional Use Permit and Interim Use Permit. In accordance with
requirements set forth in Section 21015 or 21020 of this Chapter as applicable, the following special
fencing arrangements may be approved as a conditional use permit or interim use permit by the City:
http://www.ci.plymouth.mn.us/cgi-b..721130-FENClNG_SCREENING_LANDSCAPING.ht 9/6/2001
Page 3 of 3
(a) Fences alIo\^ed by conditional use permit are as follows:
(1) Fences exceeding six (6) feet in height provided that:
a. llie fence is in a location where fences up to six (6) feet are
permitted.
b. The fence not exceed eight (8) feet in height.
c. The fence is not within a side or rear yard of a required
lakeshore setback area.
(b) Fences allowed by interim use permit are as follows:
(1) Barbed wire and electrically charged fences. Agricultural uses located in
the FRD District and essential service structures in all Districts shall,
however, be exempt from the interim use permit requirements.
(2) Razor wire fences.
(c) Standards for evaluating fences allowed by conditional use permits or interim use
permits shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) The fence placement, height or design does not create a safety hazard
with regard to, from or on a public street or roadway.
(2) The fence placement, height or design does not create a safety problem
or negatively affect adjoining properties or use.
Sttbd. 7. Non-Conforming Fences. It is the intent of this Chapter to allow the continuation of such
non-conforming fences until they are discontinued as provided herein. However, it is not the intent of
this Chapter to encourage the survival of non-conforming fences and such fences that are declared to
be incompatible with permitted fences within the City. Such fences shall be regulated by the
following provisions:
(a) An existing fence not allowed by this Chapter in the district within which it is
located, except when required by law or ordinance, shall not be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, or structurally altered unless such fence is changed to comply with the
requirements of this Chapter. Maintenance of a non-conforming fence will be allowed
when this includes necessary repair and incidental alterations which do not expand or
intensify the non-conforming fence.
(Amended by Ord. No. 99-5. 01/19/99)
http://www.ci.plymouth.mn.us/cgi-b.../21I30-FENCING_SCREENING_LANDSCAPING.ht 9/6/2001
Reference r C^o'^ir ‘ ^Page 1 of 1
(C) Residential fencing and walls.
(1) Fences or walls which detain or inhibit the flow of surface water drainage to and from
abutting properties is prohibited.
(2) Setbacks.
(a) Front. Fences and walls more than 30 inches in height must be setback IS feet firom
the property line. Multiple family dwelling developments or townhouse developments may have
wrought iron (or similarly designed) fences construct^ up to the front property line with the approval
of the City Manager.
(b) Interior side or rear. No setback.
(c) Side or rear abutting public right-of-way. Fences and walls must be setback 15 feet
from the property line and restricted for traffic visibility unless they qualify for one of the following
exemptions. Fences may be allowed up to the property line if:
stop lights).
1. Properties are located on comers with controlled intersections, (i.e. stop signs or
2. Fence or wall does not encroach into the clear view triangle as defined and
regulated in §§ 152.220 through 152.226.
(3) Access required
(a) Detached single- and attached two-family dwellings. Where any fence connects to a
building at least one gate with a minimum width of two feet, six inches is required to allow access
around the building.
(b) All other uses. Plans for fences and gates controlling access to the property must be
approved by the Police and Fire Departments before construction begins.
(4) Fence height. No fence may exceed eight feet, six inches as measured from the top of
the fence or supports to grade. Exceptions to this height may be made for fences enclosing tennis
courts and other similar recreational uses or as may be required elsewhere in the City Code.
http://209.48.87.250/brooklyn_park_mn/lp.../4bec?fr=templates&fri“document-fhme.htm&2. 9/6^001
13
Date of Complete Application:
60 Day Deadline:
8/22/01
10/21/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:August 13. 2001
SUBJECT:#01-2714 Frederick Puzak
1340 Baldur Park Road
Variances - Public Hearing
Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District
List of Exhibits
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Application
Application Letter (8/22/01)
Sewer Map
Floor Plans
Elevation Views
Proposed Site Plan including Septic Sites
Existing Survey
0-75' Hardcover - Proposed
75-250' Hardcover - Proposed
0-75' Hardcover - Existing
75-250' Hardcover - Existing
Plat Map
Property Owners Notification List
Application Review
The applicant is requesting variances to permit new construction on the property. Proposed is to tear
down the existing residence and construct a new residence. The property is located at the end ol the
Baldur Park peninsula. Because the lot is located at the end of the peninsula most of the lot area
(79% of the lot) is located within 75'of the lakeshore. The proposed building plan requires variances
for the follow ing:
1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) (1) - No hankover or
impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary
High Water Level of any lake
0-75 ’ Lot Area= 17,021 s.f.
Existing Hardcover = 2.113 s.f. (12.4%) -Including Non-conforming rock and plastic
1,638 s.f. (9.6%) excluding rock and plastic
Proposed Hardcover = 1,675 s.f. (9.8%)
iOI-2714 Frederick Puziik
1340 Baldur Park Road
9/I7/0I
Page I of 5
Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) - Hardcover shall
not exceed 25% in the 75-250' setback.
3.
75-250' Lot Area = 4,538 s.f.
Existing Hardcover = 3,219 s.f. (70.9%) - Including rock and plastic
3.206 s.f (70.6%) Excluding rock and plastic
Proposed Hardcover = 2,885 s.f. (63.6%)
Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - So hardcover or structures are permitted within 75'of the
lakeshore.
The proposed house would be located 48* from the lakeshore, w ithin the 75* required
setback.
Sewer/Septic Issues
The property is located in the MUSA area. The applicant's house is the only house on Baldur Park
not connected to sanitary sewer. The property is not served with sewer because the sewer service
stops at the end of the public maintained Baldur Park Road. The Council approved a preliminary
plat subdivision approval in 1982 for two lots between Mr. Puzak ’s property and the end of the
maintained Baldur Park Road. Using the preliminary subdivision approval from 1982 the City can
assume there is a possibility that there arc two buildings sites south of the Puzak property. Based
on this assumption, a total of 3 lots will ultimately require sewer connection. Mr. Puzak ’s residence
is not connected to sewer because he does not have an easement for utility or sewer purposes, out
to Baldur Park Road. He has an easement for driveway purposes only.
Mr. Puzak's property also has an easement over Lot 31 for private septic purposes. There is one
system located on Lot 31 that is listed as compli.ant because it is more than 3’ above the seasonal
water table. The system is not compliant with all regulations because the entire drainfield site is
located within 75' of the lakeshore. In order for the City of Orono to permit construction of a new
home on this site, it must comply with one of the follow ing:
I.The new house must be connected to sanitary sew er service: The City Council reviewed
a request by Mr. Puzak for sewer connection in 1999. The City determined they would study
the extension of sewer service to the applicant's property. The City would have had to
proceed with a condemnation process to acquire a public easement that would allow the
extension of municipal sewer to the applicant 's property. The 1999 estimate for the cost of
the sewer extension was around S60.000 to be assessed to the benefiting property owners.
Mr. Puzak had inquired about using the easement to construct a private sewer connection
for his house. The City took the position that they would not proceed with the condemnation
unless it n«5 for an extension to the public sewer to serve his residence as well as the
adjacent properties. A City can not condemn easements without a public purpose. The City
had concluded an easement for private service was not the best alternative in this case and
did not proceed with the condemnation.
OK
#01*2714 Frederick Puzak
1340 Baldur Park Road
0 17/01
Page 2 of 5
The new house must be connected to a conforming septic system meeting all the Local
and State standards. The existing system is located within 75'of the lakeshore. A new
house could not be connected to the existing system and is therefore not conforming. The
property owner must provide designs for two conforming septic systems on the individual
lot on which the house is being constructed (This lot would include the area where the
easement exists for septic construction). The survey submitted shows one drainfield site but
no design work has been completed. It is not known if the property would have two
conforming sites a\'ailable. hut it appears unlikely. The only u «V ’ to determine if the property
has two sites is for the applicant to have testing and design for two sites completed by a
licensed evaluator.
Mr. Puzak has tried unsuccessfully to acquire an easement for municipal sewer connection purposes
from the adjacent property owner.
Zoning Review and Hardcover
Setbacks Required Proposed
Front 30'30’
Side 10 ’10 ’ •
Lakeshore 75'48' * Requires variance
The existing house is located 2.4 feet from the side property line. The new house would be located
to meet the minimum side setback requirement of 10 ’. The primary issue is how much hardcover
is proposed and where new structure is located. The proposed house is 3,230 s.f. which is exactly
1 5“b lot coverage by structure. In his hardship statement Mr. Puzak has stated his desire to design
a home that meets the 15% allowed lot coverage. The size of the house combined with the veiy
limited land area within the 75-250* lakeshore setback results in the request for hardcover variances.
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Area;
LR-IC Lot Area
Required 1/2 acre
Actual 21,559 s.f (0.49 acre)
•01-2714 Frederick Puzak
1340 Baldur Park Road
9/17/01
Page 3 )f 5
Structural Coverage ;
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage
21.559 s.f Allowed: 3,234 s.f (15%)
E.xisting: 2.221 s.f (10.3%)
Proposed: 3.230 s.f (15%)
Hardcover Calculation;
Distance from
shoreline
Total area
in setback
Allow'cd
hardcover
Existing
hardcover
Proposed
hardcover
0-75'17,021 s.f 0 s.f (0®/i)1,638 s.f
(9.6%)
1,675 s.f
(9.8%)
75-250’4,538 s.f 1,134 s.f (25%)3,206 s.f
(70.6%)
2,885 s.f
(63.5%)
21,559 s.f 4,844 s.f 4,560 s.f
The total hardcover is in fact being reduced on the property. Much of the reduction is driveway,
landscape plastic and ground level patios. The total hardcover that is devoted to structure would
increase from 620 s.f. of existing house/garage in the 0 -75* setback to 1,125 s.f. an increase of 505
s.f. The total hardcover devoted to structure in the 75-250' setback would increase from 1,601 s.f.
to 2,105 s.f an increase of 504 s.f The total structural increase on the property is 1,009 s.f
Options for Planning Commission Action
1. Recommend approval of the variances. A recommendation of approval of the zoning
variances, subject to:
A. Septic Testing determining two conforming sites arc located on the property, or
w ithin the easement prior to issuance of a building permit.
B. or. sewer extension acceptable to the City is provided to the property and a utility
easement is granted to the public to allow the sewer extension to be complete.
C. No building permit will be issued for the new house until the sewer/septic is
approved and installed per the requirements of the City.
D. A final grading plan must be provided with the final plan set and must be approved
by the City Engineer prior to Council review.
•01 -27 14 Frederick Puiok
1340 Baldur Park Road
9/17/01
Page 4 of 5
2. Recommend denial.
A. Based on no conforming septic system is located on the property and no testing
information has been received by the City.
B No new house can be constructed unless the house is connected to sanitary sewer or
two conforming drainfield sites and complete system designs have been provided for
installation. Septic design requirements include full design for a 5 bedroom house.
The Planning Commission and Council can not grant variances to septic standards.
C. Other findings related to the zoning variances on the site plan.
3.Table.
A. Require additional information regarding the status of the property in relation to
sewage disposal, whether sewer or septic.
B. Applicant should agree to waive the 60 day application deadline and sign a letter
confirming the application deadline has been officially waived.
4.Other action.
Staff Recommendation
*
Staff would recommend Alternative 3 to table the application and require the property owner and
City work towards completing the sanitary sewer extension to the property and complete review of
the application following resolution of the sewer extension.
ifOl-2714 Frederick Puxak
1340 Baldur Park Road
9/17/01
Page 5 of S
i
Applicatioii U 0 ('
I^tc Received S/^y/r /
Amount Paid t^Sc'r c <
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S2S0.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OR~jl*7-‘Z.^ — *^1
Attach legal description to applicaUon if not included on required sur\ey.
Date Pro
I (do)
Acquired,
ay
(month/year)
^ ^ ^) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: residential ___pother (specify).
Zoning District: C._______;____________________
APPLICANT
Name
Address:an.___ City:
Phone (home)
Phone (work)r
Zip:_S^3fx
OWNER (if different than ^licant)
Name
Address:
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
Citv:Zip:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S
Describe request in detail: a/4.A^Ucvk>%.\ *
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width
Setback:Front Side
Hardcover ___Lot Coverage
_ Rear Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditiop preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: -fJlivr»-L
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
Tt ^ ii
f -
/■'1
X
A
1
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the following information mmt he submitted bv the application deadline date In
order for your application to b< coinidergd complete:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Completed Application Form
Certified Property OwTiers 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, Govt Center, 348-5910).
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2" 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'/:" x 11" for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 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 owner(s).
As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
The Applicant and Property Owner must.sign this application. Please remember that your
variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature Date
OWNER'S SIGNATURE Ff^eP9RVC.VC
The owner 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 A— —_________ Date ________
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
V-f
... f
* i
0 ,'L “'ll- .
L
4»2rf
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
1340 Baldur Park Rd., Orono. MN 55391
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail:
Applicant respectfully requests lakeshore setback and hardcover variances required to
replace a nonconforming two-fiunily residence with a conforming single-for<ily residence
on a V% acre lot (21,559 sq. ft.) zoned LR-IC. The new construction will reduce
Igp ver ii^he 0 - 75’ zone by4)8 ft. and will reduce hardcover in the 75 - 250’
sq. ft. The new Iwme will be no closer to the lake than the existing
structure, which is 48 ’ back from elevation 929.4. The proposed structure meets side-
yard setback, fi‘ont-yard setback and 15% maximum structural coverage requirements,
while curing an existing lot line/side-yard encroachment.
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions
preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:
A hardship exists in the fact that 79% of the lot area (17,02 1 sq. ft.) foils within the 0 -
75’ lakeshore setback zone, leaving only a long and very narrow building envelope of 26 ’
tapering to 12’ in width. The applicant’s architect has woriced with diligence and
sensitivity to the site to provide a responsible solution to satisfy very challenging zoning
requirements. The plan preserves e.xisting trees and topography, while substantially
reducing hardcover.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPLICANT THINKS APPROPRUTE
On several occasions, applicant has met with city staff for guidarKe in approaching this
hardship; stafiTs courteous and professional advice has been greatly appreciated. At
staff's direction, the proposed structure has been located to eliminate the side-yard
encroachment, and the originally proposed garage was rotated 90 degrees to eliminate
need for a front-yard setback variance and to help reduce access hardcover in the 0 - 75’
zone. StaflTs suggestion that hardcover be reduced has been accomplished.
A O i
i;
liJL
l/i. H — I » .
K^-^S
fm >• /^ I if >1
I ll^llll■^l'^- -
-*r-
M JTle/
1:
I i
l:
\
%■*
f}^ A
« J* •» j(S« •• «■ •**«•
f-i i;^ . ]*
T ]■ *^ I o '!••««• • • *
> Ttf^it4^-rg> jAaAASt.------------
«>uvt7o ______----------------------------------------
r
^ •
-J L..„
I
ii’^
<'./ .'OJ .n«
i- :• -i ^TT*
lAf./'rui'*'«v.rr
.1. !.'«•.(«.!......
._!? jUr^ #.(Sk —■ »4
ivr.g --------yirtff»^---------
f.....r-*^' - W * VW» r w»n^
' •^ •. i• /• •'• ^ I
^ «
# .
JJLs^_®
h4^«^r)--------------------------
____________________________________, j .—..............................- . -
pu| «* TU^^tf»T*r, JrWAvS-
__0t.
IA6S£L », • •«**> •
• • • •
^oo? D^cy ov>Jur
< (a
f=^ P-<»Krr- ^USv//^^M
■v.'.
«#<
-14 m^
_..................C
.. _.p-ep^Ajju
......l'‘-=.i^'
^y^A^SKHdf ____
__________:________
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
FRED PUZAK
OF LOT 30, BLOCK 1. BALDUR PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LAKE
PRINTED
Mo: 2 7 ^001
Minnetonka
SHARRATT & MACDONALD
DESIGN COMPANY
m •»^ ......... 'OKN,
> .4saaar-- .
«K*TB .aAKoes* ,w&«\er
At <HMtllKrr CO,
S3W.TTK.
.■tCAL OC5CH«»T)ON Cr P9€USCS •
I
Lol 30. Block 1, Bddur Pork. tOQ«U>«r «ith on oostn>«nt for
privotf MOOT lyitom pu-pcMt over Lol 31. Bk>ck i. *‘BoWi^ Pork**,
ot conloinod in Ooc No 14405B1. ro«s of Pf^Jilror of Titits.
Homoptfi County. Mmnosoto
o t dtnottt iron rnorktr
(trai) donott* nittm^ spot otorotion. moon too lovoi dotcm
t04— — . donolot o«iftin^ contour kno. moon too >ovf( doti/n. N0T£ ■ Th«t contour informotion it
--------------------- - tokan from our turvov dotod 8tBoorm^t l^own oro Ootod upon on oatunod doli^ -----------------uoitn irwn..m rr tt -------j-----
Thit ti/’voy intonds to shoo tho bouiddrioo of tho oBovo dotcriood proporty.
tho locolion ot on ORiOting houoo. ond tho leeotion of ei **hordeovor* thoroort
It doot not p(#porl to shoo any othor improvomontt or oncroochmontt.
comitoioiiaKiK
4i2 tmmat Mwu, vm urn. m atisi
•12*07>^f4t
It I iu a Mir iCMI
wiM IMP «« uoi m m msm m
M<* M uMOi
scale
DATE
JOB Na
HAkJCOVER calculation WORK;,.iEET
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) | 75-250* 250-500*
t-EKICTINQi
fec(r>£fr L-
H
500-1000*
A. House
Length
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
printed
A *. 2 5>-rrrt7t
E. Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
3HARRAirr A MACDONALD.
DESIGN COMPANY
____ X _______________
____ X _______________
____ X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ + B X 100
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House -j"
Length Width
X
X
X
B. Oarage
C. Driveway 4‘4\DgK»i>U<.T ffrlo x
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
X
X
X
G. Other
TOIAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ _ _ _ _ + B X 100
Ms:
gso
iXfi k
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
%
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
A
B
A >
B
1
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'250-500'500-1000'
A. House
Length Width
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
PRINTED
AIIT7TFH0T
E. Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
SHARRATT L MACDONALD
DESIGN COMPANY
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
+ B X 100
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House 4*
Length Width
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway *X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Batie/Deck4-6Cftgftki fefecH X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
B X 100 £3^
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
11^ Q S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
I
S.F. A
S.F. B
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
% ^
S.F. A ^
S.F. B -
i
I
••
j
H/ 'DCOVER CALCULATION WOR' "HEET '
^-7$'
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) /o^ 75-250* 250-500* 500-1000* ^
EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House (^2.0 s.F. * HOUSff
Lffifih Widlh
X
X
X
3S
s
wa i±
S F.
S.F.
S.F.-So»/U)B»5
/»0
B. Garage
C. Driveway
S.F.
Vc*;
X
X
9dZ S p.-6ffAv/fct, \HC.
s.f!
0. Sidewalk X
X
I6Z S.p.-CONC.WAt
4>.F. PofO t
• ‘ > E. PiiloADcck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
X
X
X
3 p —Rood 1^ WIN
S.F.-Roac Rin^
. c.Other X CZ5 0
j S.F.-^^rsoO WiNOCwr
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ••V.- V«1s.F.A
1 TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •'7.(92/ t S.F.BA^ B X 100 =/? -i. (To
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN /OVE
A.House X s S.F.
•Un|ih w.otli
X S.F.•X S.F.
X =S.F.
• B.Garage X S.F.
C.Driveway X S S.F.
X B S.F.• • •
D.Sidewalk X S.F.•X S S.F.•
E.Pacio/Deck X s S.F.
•
’** * %
• %X •S.F.
«•
F.Landscape X
•
m S.F.••
♦
Uodertain X a S.F.• •-*
By Plastic X ta S.F.
•
0.Other X ca S.F.
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •S.F.
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •S.F.4.:
• • k A + B X 100 «1 %
2-5 V
•5
*
25 yOv
r r
^ •# •
••••
L
.. • 5
i.Ll. ..Ulir
• -V «
mm DATi ii/is/it
MTCH SiS
TAXPAVIi
NAM/ABM
oMNiR mm
TAXRAVIR
mm/mm
mmn mm
TAXfAVtt
NCNNEPIN COUNTY PROfCRTY INFORHATIQN SVSTCN
fiOPCRTY ONNIRS LIST
REPORT NO. PXRSMOI
PAOi 14
SO 00-1I7-2S Si 0012
iOOSO AOORESS UNASSX6NED
NIUXON J N PRANRLIN
NIUIM FRANKLIN
ITS# NEN itlONTON OLVD
NPiS HN SS41S
SO 00-117-2S SI OOIS
OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIONEO
NIUXAN J N FRANKLIN
NILLIAN FRANKLIN
17S0 NEN ORIONTQN OLVD
HPLS HN SS41S
SO 00-U7-2S Si 0014
OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIONEO
NXLLIAN J N FRANKLIN
NILLIAN FRANKLIN
17S0 NEN ORIONTON OLVD
HPLS HN SS41S
SO 00-1I7-2S 81 Oils
01S40 OALOUR PARK RO
FREOERICR N PU2AR
FREOERXCK N PUZAK
PO OOK ISO
SPRXNO PARK HN SSS04
SO 00-117-2S Si 0010
OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIONEO
NILLIAN FRANKLIN
NILLIAN FRANKLIN
17S0 NEN ORIONTON OLVD
HPLS HN SS4IS
30 00-II7-2S SI 0017
OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIONEO
NILLIAN FRANKLIN
NILLIAN FRANKLIN
17S0 NEN ORIONTON OLVD
NPLS HN SS41S
t •
SO 00-117-2S SI 0010
OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIONEO
NILLIAN J N FRANKLIN
NILLIAN FRANKLIN
17S0 NEN ORIONTON OLVD
NPLS HN SS41S
TOTAL OATCN SOS 00007 ••
X
/ -
I ccmrv THAT tmc facts itrtncifm aas an accmuti ano tiuc
MmSCNTATlON OF MFOONATION AS H AmAm TtOS DATE ON TNI lECONOS
OF TM HENNBFIN COUNTY OCFARTIKNT OF FNOFEIITV TAXATION* TO TNE DEST
I#
OF NY KNONLEDOE AND RELIEF
DAU
n
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Daniel Kluth. Janice Berg, Jeanne Mabusth, Sandra Smith,
Dale Lindquist, and Alternate Gary Welsh. Commissioner William Stoddard was absent. The
following represented City Staff: Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Wendy
Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council
Representative Jim White was present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
(111) #01-2702 FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, 3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, RENEWAL OF
VARIANCES
Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to remove Application #01-2702, Fine Line Design Group, from
the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Item #1 follows Item #4.
OLD BUSINESS
(#2) #01-2691 J. ERIC AND CHRISTINE MENGE, 340 TURNHAM ROAD, VARIANCES,
6:31 p.m. - 6:48 p.m.
Craig Johnson, TC Best Homes, was present on behalf of the Applicant.
Bottenberg stated this application was tabled at the July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting to
allow the Applicants time to revise their proposed plan regarding a garage and family room addition.
The Applicants have redesigned their plan and have relocated the garage 24 feet from the side lot line
and 53.7 feet from the front lot line. The Planning Commission had directed the Applicants that the side
setback should be not less than 30 feet. The family room addition to the rear of the residence remains
the same.
Bottenberg indicated a variance to the side yard setback is required to allow the garage to be located
24 feet from the side lot line where 50 feet is required, and a family room addition to be located 49.8
feet from the side lot line where 50 feet is required. A variance to the front yard setback is also required
to allow' the garage to be located 53.7 feet from the street lot line where 100 feet is required.
Johnson stated they have rotated the garage square with the house, which has resulted in the garage to
be located 24 feet off the property line rather than 12 feet. Johnson stated it was his understanding from
the previous Planning Commission meeting that the garage could be loc.-^ted between 25 and 30 feet off
the side property line. Johnson stated they are planning to construct a two car garage consisting of 30
feet deep and 20 feet wide. Johnson indicated they are unable to make the garage any narrower and still
accommodate two cars.
PAGE 1
IL.
!
f
L
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(MI-2691 Eric and Christine Menge, Continued)
Hawn stated it was her understanding the Planning Commission had directed the Applicant to locate the
garage 30 feet off the side property line.
Johnson stated this plan allows the big oak tree to be preserved. Johnson noted the residence to the
north is located 25 feet off the property line rather than IS feet as indicated at the previously Planning
Commission meeting. Johnson stated due to the steep slope located to the rear of the house, it would be
necessary to locate the garage in its proposed location, with the front yard setback remaining essentially
the same. A location for the mound system has been identified, with the Applicants awaiting the results
from a perk test to determine whether this site will be a viable location for the septic system. Johnson
stated the changes made to the driveway approach should eliminate the neighbor's concerns rega:ding
headlights shining into their residence.
Smith pointed out in order for a tree to be preserved, the canopy of the tree needs to be taken into
consideration.
Johnson stated they did take the canopy into consideration. Johnson indicated the driveway would be a
Class 5 driveway.
Smith commented this is a better plan than what was previously submitted but still falls short of the
30 feet setback as directed by the Planning Commission.
Hawn inquired whether the neighbors have been shown the revised plan.
Johnson stated they have not.
Weinberger indicated the neighbor did stop by City Hall and reviewed the revised plan. The neighbor
indicated the plan was a better plan than what was previously submitted.
Lindquist stated he would prefer to see a 30 foot side yard setback but can live with 25 feet.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Welsh inquired whether the neighbor indicated this plan was okay.
Weinberger stated the neighbor indicated he felt it was a better alternative, but did not indicate one way
or the other whether he was in support of the revised plan.
Mabusth requested the septic issues be resolved prior to this application proceeding to the Council.
Smith suggested that a condition of approval could be that Staff review and approve the septic
information prior to this proceeding to the City Council.
Liodqubt moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application Ml-2691, J. Eric and
Christine Menge, 340 Tumham Road, granting of a side yard setback to allow the garage addition
to be located 24 feet from the side lot line where 50 feet is required, and a family room addition to
be located 49.8 feet from the side lot line where 50 feet is required, and to grant a variance to
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AagNst 20,2001
(Ml>2091 Eric aad Christiac Meage, Coatinucd>
allow the garage addition to be located 53.7 feet from the street lot line where 100 feet is required,
subject to Staff review and approval of the septic information prior to this application proceeding
to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#3) WU-2693 DAVID AND MARYANN MAISER, 2700 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES,
6:48 p.m. - 6:56 p.ro.
David Maiser, Applicant, was present.
Weinberger stated this application was tabled at the July 16 Planning Commission meeting to allow the
Applicant time to revise his plans. The Applicant is requesting hardcover variances and a variance to
the side yard adjacent to street setback to permit a garage addition, deck replacement, and the addition
of a deck and patio. The Applicant is proposing replacement of an attached 9' x 28’ deck within 7S feet
of the lakeshore, a 23 ’ x 28.8’ garage addition encroaching within 75 feet of the lakeshore, and a 12’ x
20’ porch with an attached 12' x II’ deck within 75 feet of the lakeshore. The proposed garage addition
will not increase hardcover since it is being built over existing hard surface where the previous parking
area was located.
The Planning Commission indicated the garage addition and replacement of the deck in equal dimension
was acceptable. The issues were in relation to the proposed porch addition. The .\pplicant has r<*vised
the plan slightly in order to address some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
Weinberger staled the existing detached garage would be utilized as a workshop and storage area, with
the driveway leading to the detached garage being removed. The green house presently attached to the
garage will be removed as well as the sidewalk and porch area by the garage.
Weinberger indicated a variance is required for the three-season porch located off the end of the house
since it will be w ithin 75 feet of the lakeshore.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the deck to be replaced within 75 feet of the
lakeshore. The Planning Commission had indicated at its previous meeting that the porch and deck
addition would be acceptable if the deck is removed from within the 75 foot setback and removal of
hardcover within the 75-250 ’ setback would reduce hardcover to less than 25 percent.
Maiser stated the residence is basically located on the 35 foot setback, with a 12 to 18 inch
encroachment by the southwest comer of the house.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn commented this is a better proposal than what was previously submitted.
Mabusth noted this plan does address every issue raised by the Planning Commission.
Smith suggested hardcover be limited in the future on this propert>’.
PAGE 3
1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2693 David and Maryann Maiser, Continued)
Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2693, David and
Maryann Maiser, 2700 Sbadywood Road, granting of a hardcover variance to allow 901 square
feet of hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore; granting of a hardcover variance to allow
23.9 percent hardcover within the 75-250' setback; granting of a hardcover variance to permit the
replacement of a deck and garage addition within 75 feet of the lakeshore; and granting of a
variance to side yard adjacent to street setback to allow the patio to encroach eight feet into the
side yard adjacent to street setback, with the understanding no additional new hardcover will be
allowed in the future. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#4) #01-2692 ABC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., 2765 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:56, p.m. - 7:05 p.m.
Myron Dahl. ABC Supply Company, was present on behalf of ABC Supply.
Weinberger stated this application was tabled at the July lb"* Planning Commission meeting to allow the
Applicant time to address issues relating to landscaping and parking. ABC Supply Company, Inc., has
been leasing the VCl Capital Building since March, 2000. ABC Supply is a wholesaler/warehouser of
building and construction supplies, including roofing materials, siding and windows. Weinberger
indicated the supplies are mainly for the construction of residential houses. Wholesale and warehouse
businesses are listed as “permitted uses" in the Industrial District.
ABC Supply 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 outside storage area is located on the south side of the building, consisting of approximately
24,000 square feet in size. The Applicant is required to provide screening to buffer the storage area and
activity associated with the outside storage area. City Code requires the open storage area to be
screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less than SO percent opaque. Lots
are also required to be landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. The new plans submitted
by the Applicant indicate a berm and planting area to be located between the proposed outdoor
storage parking area and Old Crystal Bay Road. The height of the berm is required to be six feet, with
plantings above and around the berm. The Applicant is proposing 16 six-foot trees over the length of
the berm, which will provide an initial 1 2 foot screen.
The Applicant has relocated the employee parking to the east side of the outside storage area meeting
the required 75 foot setback, and utilizing the remaining area as outdoor storage.
Weinberger indicated the Applicant has agreed to replace a chain link fence with a six-foot cedar fence
which will completely screen the yard from Old Crystal Bay Road. The Applicant will be installing two
signs north of the delivery entrance that state “No Overnight Truck Parking”. ABC Supply has also
notified their vendors that overnight delivery parking would be located around to the east side of the
building.
Weinberger stated the business hours during the summer are Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
PAGE 4
L J
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Mll>2692 ABC Supply Company, Continued)
City Staff is recommending approval of the application subject to the relocation of the employee
parking.
Myron Dahl. Operator/Manager, had no additional comments to Staff s report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn inquired when the berm would be constructed.
Dahl indicated the berm would be con.«lructcd as soon as he is able to find a contractor to do the work.
Mabusth moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2692, ABC
Supply Company, Inc., 2765 Wayzata Boulevard, granting of a Conditional Use Permit to allow
permanent **outside storage", subject to the conditions outlined in the August 13,2001 Planner’s
Report, and further subject to the employee parking area being relocated east of the designated
outdoor storage area. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#1) 01-2702 FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, 3551 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, RENEWAL OF
VARIANCES, 7:06 p.m. - 7:18 p.m.
The Applicants were not present.
Hawn slated this application would be open for public comment only, with the application being tabled
to ne.xt month’s meeting to allow the Applicant to be present. Hawn indicated the Planning
Commission would not be commenting on this application without the Applicant being present.
Harold Windberg and JoAnn llolsbeck. 3541 Livingston Avenue, stated they have questions and
concerns regarding this application. Windberg inquired what would happen with the existing retaining
wall located along the south property line. W'indberg noted a portion of this wall is located on
Holsbc-.k's property and is in pooi condition. Windberg stated at the time the house was removed from
this property, some damaged occurred to Holsbeck’s yard, which was not repaired by the property
owner. Windberg stated they would like some assurance that this would not occur again.
Windberg inquired whether Holsbeck would need to do anything concerning the drainage, noting
Holsbeck’s property is located four feet higher that the adjoining property.
Hawn slated Holsbeck would not be required to do any grading in connection with this project. Hawn
stated the neighbors' comments will be taken into consideration at the next Planning Commission
meeting.
Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, stated this area has experienced drainage problems for a number
of years, with a large amount of water runoff being directed through a catch basin located at the end of
her driveway. Cuff stated this catch basin is not large enough to handle the present water runoff, and
expressed concern that the additional hardcover would result in an increase in the water runoff.
Mabusth recommended Staff require a grading and drainage plan on this application.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Mll-2702 Fine Line Design Group, Continued)
Bottenberg noted a letter was received by the City from one of the neighbors expressing some concerns
about the drainage in this area.
Lindquist moved, Welsh seconded, to table Application MOl-2702, Fine Line Design Group,
3551 Livingston Avenue to the September 17,2001 Planning Commission meeting, due to the
absence of the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#5) «01-2689 MANDEEP SODHI, 4080 DAHL ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:18 p.m. - 7:53 p.m.
Mandeep Sodhi, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the City of Orono became aware in late spring of some vegetation removal and
replacement of a stairway on the lakeshore side of the property located at 1080 Dahl Road. The
property owner had purchased the property the previous year and hired a contractor to replace the
stairway and retaining walls on the hillside and to remove the vegetation. The vegetation removal
occurred along the stairway leading to the lakeshore. Weinberger noted this work was done prior to the
City issuing a permit approving the work. Stall issued a stop work order and required the property
owner to apply for the proper permits.
Orono ’s Shoreland Ordinance does not permit “Intensive Vegetation Removal” within 75 feet of the
shoreline, on steep slopes, or within the bluff impact zone. Weinberger indicated the area where the
vegetation removal occurred is a protected bluff area, w ith the slope exceeding an average grade of 12
percent over the length of it. Weinberger stated the area above the stairw ay consists mostly of an
overgrown grassy area, which suffered some damage due to the equipment driving over the area. A
walkway also existed from the residence down to the previous stairway.
Staff, upon discovering removal of the vegetation, review ed the site and found that a portion of the
stairway and retaining walls had been replaced. Staff did issue a permit to allow the property owner to
complete the stairway and retaining wall replacement, with the condition the property owner apply for
an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit to permit the retaining wall replacement within 75
feet of the lakeshore. Weinberger noted the City of Orono does allow one stairway down to the lake
even though it is considered hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Permits w ere also issued to
allow the property owner to complete the two retaining walls in this area. Technically the retaining
walls are considered hardcover and would require a variance. Staff issued the building permit to allow'
the work to continue in order to address some erosion concerns. Staff requested any landscaping in this
area be delayed until the Applicant appeared before the Planning Commission and
City Council.
PAGE 6
iL.
1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2689 Mandeep Sodhi, Continued)
The Applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for this area, which includes two maple trees left of the
stairway, a spruce tree and crab apple tree. Staff was able to verify that one tree greater than six inches
in diameter was removed, along with some undergrowth and natural vegetation that was growing on the
hillside. Weinberger stated this lot is 45 feet wide, and once the two maple trees mature, they will
provide a full canopy over the majority of the lot. The landscaping plan includes some bushes and
hostas, giving it more of a garden appearance than a natural species shoreline. Staff is recommending
the addition of some day lilies and Junipers, with the natural regrowlh being left undisturbed to restore
the natural appearance of the lakeshore. The natural restoration would allow the property owner to
remove any buckthorn and poison ivy. Staff is recommending the undergrowth be planted as soon as
possible in order to prevent erosion and to become established prior to winter as well as possibly
planting one or two more trees that are native to the area.
Staff recommends conceptual approval of the plan.
Sodhi indicated he purchased the property approximately one year ago and was not avs are of the proper
procedure that should be following prior to commencing the work in this area. Sodhi stated the previous
stairs were built approximately 30 years ago and were in a deteriorating condition. Sodhi expressed
concerns regarding safety if the stairs w ere used, noting they had discontinued using the stairs due to
their condition. In addition, the Applicant's family has experienced problems with poison ivy and were
attempting to remove it. Sodhi indicated he is witling to work w ith City Staff to resolve those issues.
1 here were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn inquired whether the grade of the slope has been altered with any fill.
Weinberger stated to his knowledge it was the natural grade at the time he reviewed the site.
Sodhi stated the slope has remained basically the same e.xcept for the area where a putting green is
being constructed above the stairway.
Weinberger stated he is unaware of a putting green being constructed in that area. W’einberger stated it
appears that work is being done outside the bluff area.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicant obtained a permit for the putting green.
Sodhi indicated he has obtained permits from the City allow ing the putting green. Sodhi stated this is an
older survey and does not show the second set of stairs.
The Applicant indicated where the second set of stairs was constructed.
Kluth questioned how a putting green could be constructed in this area due to the slope of the land.
Weinberger stated the area for the putting green is outside the bluff area. Weinberger stated a steep
slope does not necessarily preclude any work from occurring, but would require additional review on
the part of Staff to insure proper steps are taken for erosion control.
PAGE?
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(dHH-2689 Mandecp Sodhi, Continued)
Mabusth noted the Planning Commission docs not have a survey that reflects what exists at the present
time.
Hawn commented the survey before the Planning Commission is different than what she saw when she
visited the site this afternoon. Hawn inquired whether the width of the stairway has been increased from
what previously existed.
Sodhi stated the width of the stairway has remained the same.
Kluth commented it is difficult for the Planning Commission to make any recommendation on this
application since they do not have all the information before them. Kluth questioned whether the
putting green would have any impact on the vegetation plan.
Gaffron stated the City of Orono does allow for a stairway leading down to the shoreline, w ith no other
structures being allowed. Gaffron stated the City would need to review the retaining walls to determine
whether they are necessary for erosion control.
Weinberger noted the putting green is not located within the bluff impact area.
Hawn concurred that the Planning Commission does not have sufficient infomtation concerning this
application.
Kluth stated in his view the proposed landscaping plan docs not follow the typical natural vegetation
restoration plan for this area. Kluth questioned whether the proposed plantings, such as hostas, were
a good choice for this area.
Weinberger stated Staff felt hostas. along with day lilies, would help to establish some ground cover
prior to the natural vegetation growing.
Kluth commented in his view the proposed landscaping might not be sufficient vegetation and that
perhaps some grasses should also be allowed to grow in thiS area.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant plant a couple more trees in this
area.
Sodhi indicated his plan includes two maple trees.
Hawn expressed concern that the sur\ey before the Planning Commission does not reflect what has been
recently constructed.
Sodhi stated basically the second retaining walls is missing from the sur\'ey. Sodhi stated there would
be planters on both sides of the stainvay.
Smith inquired whether the replacement stairway is the same size as the stairway that was removed.
Weinberger stated Staff was not able to determine that.
PAGES
J
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#01-2689 Mandecp Sodhi, Continued)
Sodhi stated the old stairway was actually six feet wide, with the replacement stairway being five feet
wide.
Mabusth staled she was told the old stainvay was four feet wide.
Smith commented she would like to see a more robust landscaping plan, with this area being more
heavily vegetated.
Hawn suggested the Applicant include maple trees, day lilies and hostas.
Weinberger indicated Staff could incorporate the Planning Commission ’s comments into one proposal
for the Applicant, along with an explanation of what the City would like to see this area restored to.
Hawn stated she would like to see a new survey submitted, which would give the Planning Commission
a better idea of what exists on both sides of the bluff line.
Klulh recommended the Applicant update his landscaping plan showing exactly what he intends to plant
in this area along with the current contour lines.
Hawn stated lilacs and spirea could also be possible options for this area.
Weinberger stated Staff will provide some infonnation to the Applicant regarding natural plantings.
Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #01-2689, Mandeep Sodhi, 4080 Dahl Road,
to the September I?"* Planning Commission meeting to allow the Applicant time to submit a
revised landscape plan and updated survey. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(Hawn excuses herself from Application #01-2698)
(#6) #01-2698 KIM AND JOHN PUCKETT, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, 7:54 p.m. - 8:20 p.m.
Kim Puckett, Applicant, and Suzy Kokesh, Horse Trainer, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Dottenberg stated the Applicants are applying for a conditional use permit to permit public use of the
bam and riding arena on the property located at 4100 Watertown Road. The property consists of
13.1 acres and lies within the RK-1 A. One Family Rural Residential District. Variances are needed to
permit the bam to be located with I SO feet of thv property line and to permit a nonowner to provide
instruction to the owner of horses boarded at the site. Both boarding and training will be managed by
Suzy Kokesh. She will also be offering lessons to people who own and board their horses on the
property.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(MH>2698 Kim and John Puckett, Continued)
Bottenberg stated the Planning Commission would need to determine how many horses would be
allowed on this property. Lots 4 and 5 and the pasture easement are owned by the Applicants but are
not legally combined. Option one is with Lots 4 and S being legally combined, which would amount to
11 .1 acres potential pasture area. At two acres pasture for the first horse and one acre for each
additional horse, the total number of horses allowed would be ten horses, assuming all 1 1 acres are
available for pasture. The sketch submitted by the Applicant shows a total pasture area of
approximately six acres, which would allow five horses to be pastured by City Code.
Bottenberg stated if Lots 4 and S are not legally combined, then each lot would be considered a separate
record lot and separate tax parcel, which could be sold off at any time for construction of a residence.
Lot S is developed and has one septic site available to replace its non-conforming system in the future.
Lot 4 has two tested septic sites that should be maintained in order for Lot 4 to be a visible future
buildable lot. Under this scenario, if Lots 4 and 5 are not combined, then City Code would limit the
number of total horses to four.
The Applicant is requesting the Planning Commission consider option three, which would allow them to
have a total of 1 5 horses on the property. Council has the option of establishing that 1 5 horses could be
housed on the site subject to reasonable conditions to protect the public, such as acceptable manure
management, rotation of pasture areas to avoid bare ground, et cetera.
Puckett stated they arc requesting more horses that what is allowed under City Code because the horses
being kept on this property will not be pasture fed. Puckett stated in her view they should have ample
pasture to allow the horses to run.
Kokesh stated the horses would be in the pasture approximately two to three hours a day.
Puckett stated due to economic reasons, the minimum number of horses she would need to house on the
property would be 1 5. Puckett stated 19 stalls arc available, and they would be requesting the Planning
Commission consider allowing somewhere between ' and 19 horses on this property.
Greg Kellenbergcr, 4045 Watertown Road, stated he has lived in this area since 1996, with the previous
property owner of this site conducting a similar type of operation. Kellenberger stated he would be in
favor of this proposal in order to help maintain horses in Orono.
Smith stated the Planning Commission will need to determine how many horses should be allowed on
this property based on what is before them tonight, which are two lets not legally combined and some
pasture land.
Kluth stated the criteria for determining how many horses would be allowed on this property based on
acreage does not apply in this situation since the horses will not be pasture fed. Kluth indicated he
would be in favor of option three, and suggested the Planning Commission select a reasonable number
for this property.
Smith noted the City does have codes which address how many h'>rses should be allowed on a property
based on the number of acres. Smith stated according to the formula, the maximum number of horses
allowed on this property would be 10 or 11 .
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING C0MMI*-S10N MEETING
Aatast 20,2001
(dN)l>2698 Kim and John Puckett, Continued)
Bottenberg stated the 13 acres includes the easement area as well as some wetlands.
Kluth recommended the number of horses in this case not be tied to the amount of pasture land
available. Kluth inquired if a portion of the land is sold whether the Applicant would be required to
come back before the Planning Commission if the number of horses allowed on this property is
determined based on the acreage.
Smith stated they would have to.
Puckett stated they do not have any intentions to sell the additional lot.
Smith noted the horses should not be allowed in the areas designated for septic sites.
Gaffron stated the number of horses being proposed for this amount of land is acceptable to Staff and
should not pose a problem with the septic sites. Gaffron indicated Staff would not have a problem with
the density of horses being proposed unless the Applicant elects to pasture all ten horses on a very small
pasture area.
Mabiisth slated it would be helpful if the Applicant submitted a plan to the City show ing e.xactly where
the pasture area will be along with the septic sites prior to the City Council meeting.
Puckett stated they would be agreeable to submitting a plan showing the septic sites, training areas, and
pasture areas. Puckett stated they would also be relocating the fence.
Mabusih inquired whether the 15 horses also includes the two or three horses the Applicant owns
personally.
Puckett stated it does. Puckett stated due to economic reasons, she would like to board 15 to 19 horses,
with the minimum number being IS.
Kokesh indicated there is a horse farm located in Medina who has 32 horses on 13 acres and another
horse farm who has 40 horses on 15 acres.
Smith stated the Planning Commission would need to determine how many horses should be allowed to
be boarded on this property.
Lindquist stated he would be okay with 19.
Berg and Kluth stated they also were in agreement with 19.
Smith inquired under what conditions the Planning Commission should review the number of horses
boarded on the property.
Lindquist stated the Planning Commission should revisit this issue if one of the lots is sold off.
Smith inquired what arrangements the Applicant has concerning manure removal.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Wll-2698 Kim and John Puckett, Continued)
Puckett stated she has contracted with an individual who will be coming to the site every two weeks to
remove the manure. Puckett indicated this arrangement could be adjusted If necessary.
Mabusth recommended the diagram to be submitted basically show the functioning layout of the
operation for City Council review and approval.
Smith inquired whether all the stalls would be utilized for horses rather than some other use.
Puckett stated she will be utilizing all 19 stalls for horses, with the stalls being 12’ by 14’.
Kluth moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application tt01>2698, Kim and
John Puckett, 4100 Watertown Road, granting of a conditional use permit to permit public use of
a bam and riding arena on this property, and granting of variances to permit the barn to be
located within 150 feet of the property line and to permit a nonowner to provide instruction to the
owner of horses boarded at the site, subject to the Applicant submitting a plan for review and
approval by City Council detailing the functional layout of the horse operation and the
arrangements concerning manure removal, with the understanding the conditional use permit will
need to be reviewed if one of the lots is sold in the future.
Smith inquired whether there were any issues relating to parking, noise, or signage with this application.
Bottenberg stated not that she was aware of.
Puckett stated they are not planning to have any signage, with the operation being closed on Sundays
and Mondays. Puckett indicated she does not anticipate parking to be a problem since many of her
boarders own more than one horse.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(Hawn returned at 8:21 p m.).
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS
(#11) PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.50, SUBD. 13,
STORAGE OF BOATS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, 8:21 p.m. - 10:37 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated a public hearing was held at the July 9"’ C-'y Council meeting to obtain some public input
on whether the e.xisting ordinances governing boat storage on residential properties should change.
Gaffron stated the City elected to review the boat storage ordinance in response to some concerns raised
by some residents.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Continued)
Gaffron stated the Council then referred the matter to the Planning Commission with some general
direction. First, to consider increasing the length of boats allowed to be stored without screening.
Secondly, to consider expanding and clarifying the area where boats can be stored on the various t>pes
of lots. Third, to consider what types of screening are necessary and under what circumstances or
conditions as well as w hat type of boat coverings might be appropriate.
The Planning Commission then held a work session on July 31''. which led to the draft ordinance before
the Planning Commission tonight.
Gaffron stated the existing ordinance is as follows: “Exterior Storage in “R” Districts. In all “R”
Districts, all mobile materials and equipment shall be stored w ithin a building or fully screened so as not
to be visible from adjoining properties, e.xcept boat and unoccupied trailers less than 20 feet in length,
which are not stored for commercial purposes, if stored to the rear of the house and a distance of ten feet
or more from any property line." Gaffron stated under the current ordinance, a property owner may
store a boat in e.xccss of 20 feet on their property if it is w ithin a building or fully screened. If the boat
is less than 20 feet in length, the boat may be stored to the rear of the house and ten feet from the
adjoining property line. GatTron noted the current ordinance has been in effect since 1967.
GatTron stated the City of Orono has enforced the boat storage ordinarte only upon a complaint being
received. The City of Orono has typically had a number of boats being stored on residential properties
that are technically in violation of the current ordinance.
GalTron indicated the draft ordinance before the Planning Commission is much longer in length and
has some of the following points:
A. All boats stored outside on a residential property shall be licensed to the ow ner or occupant of the
property, and shall be in operable condition. The maximum period a boat may be stored outside on
a property is nine months per calendar year, the Intent being to discourage the long-term storage of
inoperable boats on residential property.
B. No boat shall be stored on a properly that does not contain a principal residence structure.
C. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers exceeding 27 feet in length, and boats on trailers which as a
combination exceed 30 feet in length, shall not be stored on any residential property except within a
fully cnclo.sed building meeting all applicable zoning and building code standards; except that such
boats, boat trailers or combinations may be stored outside on a property of 2.0 acres in area or
larger when located a minimum of 30 feet from all property lines, when located to the side or rear
of tlie principal residence structure, and when fully screened.
D. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers 20 - 27 feet in length, and boats on trailers which as a
combination have a length of 23 -30 feet, may be stored outside on a residential property to the side
or rear of the principal residence structure, shall be located no less than 10 feet from any lot line,
and shall be fully screened.
E. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers less than 20 feet in length, and boats on trailers which as a
combination are less than 23 feet ir. length, may be stored outside on a residential property to the
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Coatiaued)
F. side or rear of the principal residence structure, shall be located no less than 10 feet from any lot
line, and need not be screened. Such boats may also be stored within the driveway in the street yard
of the principal residence structure during the months of June through August as long as a setback
often feet from all lot lines is maintained. However, if the boat, trailer or combination extends
higher than six feet above grade, the entire boat, trailer or combination shall be fully screened.
G. Boats of any length or height shall not be stored within a required lakeshore yard, and shall not be
stored so as to block lake views enjoyed by adjacent neighbors.
H. “Fully screened ” as used with regards to boat, trailer and boat/trailer combination shall mean
screened by dense vegetation or privacy fencing of legal height and location, sufTicient that no
portion of the boat, trailer or combination shall be visible from adjacent properties during all
seasons. Canvas, tarps, shrink wrap or other boat coverings shall not be considered as adequate
screening.
Gaffron stated the draft ordir.'incc makes screening a higher priority, which may be difficult to
accomplish on most affected properties. The draft amendment still requires boats over 20 feet long to
be screened. Fences over six feet high are not allowed in most places that people will want to store
boats and vegetative evergreen screening may take some time to grow to a sufficient height, with many
lots not being easily screened. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission consider relaxing the
screening requirements in order to enable more property owners to comply with the ordinance.
Gaffron indicated enforcement of the 10 foot setback requirement will also be difficult because there are
many situations currently where boats have been stored nearer the lot line than 10 feet and meeting the
ten foot setback at these locations will be impossible.
Gaffron stated with a new ordinance comes the expectation that the City will enforce It, which may be
unrealistic as it relates to this ordinance, due to the number of existing boat storage situations that will
be out of compliance with this new ordinance.
Gaffron stated some other issues that should probably be addressed by the Planning Commission at
some point include the storage of boats along the lakeshore on a track system, the status of jet skis on
trailers, the status of snowmobiles on trailers, and whether there should be a limit on the number of
boats stored on one residential property. Staff is recommending a restriction on the use of temporary
membrane structures. Gaffron suggested using the average setback to define the view impact on the
adjoining properties.
Gaffron noted the draft ordinance also does not address utility trailers, with the current ordinance
addressing that situation.
Gaffron stated while the new ordinance ir a significant change from the existing one, the City ’s practice
has been to only enforce the ordinance upon a complaint being received. Gaffron stated if Staff is
expected to enforce this ordinance strictly, there will be a significant number of people who will be
unable to comply .
Hawn stated the public at this time is welcome to comment upon the proposed ordinance.
PAGE 14
s;
\
i
Mil ^.1,silk.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Au|,ust 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Continued)
French Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, stated in this community boats are an integral part of the lake, with the
homeowner knowing best where to store their boat on his or her property. Dampier stated in his view
the City is on shaky legal ground with the boat storage ordinance and ignore the fact that a large number
of homes have been grandfathered in and will not be able to comply with this proposed ordinance.
Chuck Boehm, 997 Wildhurst Trail, stated in his view the new ordinance is imposing a tax by making
people store their boats at an indoor storage place. Boehm quoted some prices he received from a boat
storage place, with the lowest amount being $9 16.00 for a 20 foot boat and $ 1651 for a 30 foot boat.
Boehm stated in his opinion if one of the neighbors has a problem with a boat being stored on an
adjoining property, the two should get together and work it out. Boehm stated in his view the City may
be creating a problem by making the ordinance stricter when there have not been a lot of complaints
received in the past. Boehm suggested a conflict resolution board be established to deal with the
complaints.
John Ericson, 1620 Shadywood Road, slated his property consists of 125 feet of lakeshore. and he is
unable to meet the setback requirements to store his 32 ibot boat. Ericson staled he has elected to store
his boat at a boat storage facility this winter for a cost of $1,945. Ericson stated in his view the
neighbors should attempt to work out whatever problems exist between the two of them with the City
not becoming involved.
Ken Dotzcnrolh, 3085 Casco Point Road, questioned how the City would be able to enforce this
ordinance. Dotzenrolh stated given the limited number of complaints received in the past by the City,
the ordinance should not be changed.
Patrick Fitzgerald, 2598 Casco Point Road, stated he has lived in the City of Orono for 28 years and
owns a 26-foot boat. Fitzgerald stated in his opinion the City is attempting to regulate the size of boat to
how big the lot is and that if there is a concern, the neighbors should attempt to work it out between
themselves.
Smith staled there needs to be some guidelines in place in the event the two neighbors cannot work it
out amongst themselves and tuin to the City for some assistance in resolving the situation.
Fitzgerald stated since this is a lake community, people should expect to see boats stored on people’s
property. Fitzgerald stated in his view the boat should be in good repair. Fitzgerald stated in his
opinion boats should not be singled out.
Skip Jewett, 3546 Ivy Place, inquired whether all of Orono's ordinances are only enforced whenever a
complaint is received.
Gaffron stated due to the large number of ordinances that exist, it is difficult to enforce every single one.
The City has chosen over the years to enforce the boat storage ordinance whenever a complaint is
received rather than attempting to make all property owners comply with the ordinance.
Jew ett stated in his opinion Staff should not be picking and choosing which ordinances should be
enforced.
PAGE IS
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage. Continued)
Hawn stated it appears the City has elected to enforce this ordinance only when the neighbors have not
been able to work things out among themselves. Hawn stated in those situations where there is a
problem due to the boat being stored too close to the property line, the boat being stored year-round, or
not being in good repair, the citizen can turn to the City for assistance in resolving the situation. Hawn
stated the complaints received by the City are the reason for the ordinance being in place and protects
the rights of those people whose rights are being abused.
Jewett indicated he is able to store his boat indoors at a boat storage facility and winterize it at a cost of
approximately $400. Jewett stated he takes pride in his property and in his neighborhood, and in his
opinion boats stored or. residential properties are not attractive and are an eyesore. Jewett stated he pays
a large amount of money in taxes and is entitled to live in a nice looking neighborhood.
Tim Line, 44 15 Forest Lake Landing, indicated he is one of the residents who have complained about
the storage of boats on residential properties and raised the issue of the selective enforcement of the
City ’s ordinances. Line stated he is in agreement with Hawn ’s statement for the reason why the City
has adopted ordinances. Line commented he is proud to live in Orono and have seen property values in
this area increase 30 to 40 percent over the past four to five years. Line stated the issue comes down to
the beauty of the neighborhood, with boating being an e.xpensive venture to get into. Line stated in his
view the Planning Commission does not need to get hung up on the size of the boat but needs to be
included prohibiting boat storage in the 0-75 foot setback.
Smith stated the City works very hard to protect the 0-75 foot setback, and now all of a sudden it is okay
to haul a big vehicle in and out of that 0-75 foot area. Smith stated in her view that would affect the
lakeshore.
Lindquist establish a procedure for residents to follow in the event there is a conflict among the
neighbors.
Dotzenroth pointed out the property values for Orono residents have not been depreciated because of the
storage of boats. Dotzenroth stated if the City is going to take steps to regulate how a neighborhood
should look as far as boats, there are other issues such as the color of houses and gravel driveways that
are not attractive.
Hawn indicated the storage of boats also relates to hardcover and the impact that has on the lake as well
as the appearance.
Ken Dotzenroth stated in his view it merely is an issue of aesthetics. Dotzenroth concurred that a
conflict resolution board might be appropriate to help deal with these issues.
Hawn noted the ordinance regulating the storage of boats, although not strictly enforced, is not a new
ordinance, and tnat the Planning Commission is considering revising the ordinance in an effort to
establish some guidelines for when there are conflicts between neighbors.
John Ericson commented hardcover really is not an Issue since the boats are stored over the winter and
the ground is frozen. Ericson inquired w hat penalty or fine would be imposed if the property owner is
unable to comply with the ordinance.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Continued)
Gaflron stated that the courts don’t place a high priority on this type of issue, and there could be a small
fine of perhaps $100 to $200 imposed, which could be stayed if there are no future violations of the
ordinance.
Ed Pekarik, 2990 Casco Point Road, slated at the time the e.xisting ordinance was adopted, the lots may
have been larger, with the boats being smaller in size. Pekarik staled since this is a lake community, the
residents may have to learn to put up with boats just as people who live in other areas have to put up
with farms, horses, or snowmobiles. Pekarik stated in his view it is absurd to say you cannot store a
Kuai on your property when you live in a lake community.
Lyle Rahn, 1146 Wildhursi Trail, stated in his view since the ordinance has only been enforced on
complaint, the City probably does not have an ordinance regulating boat storage. Rahn questioned
whether the costs to enforce this ordinance are w orth it. Rahn suggested a 60 foot boat be the ma.\imum
size boat you could store on residential properties. Rahn stated in his view boats are attractive, noting
there are a number of ugly color houses in this area which could be commented upon.
David Boies, 1360 Rest Point Circle, stated he has unknowingly violated the law over the last IS years.
Boies stated he and his neighbor have stored their boats alongside the property line for years. Boies
indicated he would be unable to conform with either ordinance given his small lot. Boies stated in his
opinion the storing of boats on residcr.tial properties does not negatively impact property values since
the boat is only there part of the time. Boies commented people who live on the lake should learn to
expect boats to be stored on people's properties.
Kevin McDahIa, 2118 Shadywood Road, stated in his opinion the screening requirement contained in
the ordinance is impossible to comply w ith since he is unable to build a shed that big on his property'.
McDahIa commented in his view a 40 foot boat is probably more in reality with today’s boats.
McDahIa stated he has discussed the storing of his boat with his neighbors, noting he is not in favor of
boats merely sitting in someone’s yard rotting away.
Hawn commented the Planning Commission has heard lots of reasons w hy the City should not do
anything regarding the storage of boats on residential properties, but noted there have been very few
suggestions offered on how the City should deal w ith the situation if a complaint is received.
McDahIa agreed the City should have some level ot authority if there is a complaint.
Hawn stated the City needs an ordinance to deal w ith complaints. Hawn indicated the ordinance
specifically identities what property owners should and can do with their boats. Hawn stated the
Planning Commission would like to hear the public s comments regarding what limits should be in
place.
McDahIa stated in his opinion the length of the boats are too small and the screening requirements are
too strict.
Frenchie Dampier suggested dealing with boat storage on an individual basis. Dampier suggested the
City continue to enforce the current ordinance only on complaint, with a conflict resolution board being
established to deal with any complaints.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Continued)
Hawn noted there still needs to be some standards in place to deal with complaints regardless if a
conflict resolution board is established or not.
Dampier stated the length of the boat should not matter.
Kluth stated he is in favor of a conflict resolution board, with the ordinance being enforced upon receipt
of a complaint, but that there still need to be standards in place in order for the board to judge whether
the complaint is a reasonable one.
Marti Boehmer, 3750 Casco Avenue, inquired when and why the 2.0 acres was put into the ordinance.
Hawn stated the 2.0 acres is part of the new ordinance.
Boehmer stated she is unable to buy additional land in Orono to comply with the 2.0 acres. Boehmer
stated she owns a half an acre and is unable to meet the new criteria.
Hawn stated the 2.0 acres come into play because it was felt that would allow the boat to be more
successfully screened if more acreage is available.
Boehmer stated in her view the 2.0 acre requirement is somewhat discriminatory towards the people
who own smaller lots. Boehmer commented her lot may have just as much green space as a larger lot
that has been built up.
Lori Line, 4415 Forest Lake Landing, stated the issue in her view is not about boats per se but where
and how the boat is being stored. Line stated she is not necessarily otTended by the boats that are stored
alongside the house or in back of the house, but does have issue with lakeshore lots where they store
their boats ne.\t to the street. Line stated she would like to see the ordinance changed requiring that the
boats be stored on the lakeshore side of the house so people driving by do not have to look at them.
Ken Dotzenroth stated the Planning Commission is dealing with some quality control issues, and the
way they are handled in industry is to take pictures of w hat should or should not occur. Dotzenroth
commented some of the property ow ners in Orono do not have the luxury of being able to store their
boat in their back vard.
Marsha Hickey, 4640 Tonkaview Lane, inquired what condition the boat needs to be in to be stored on
private property. Hickey noted her husband has lived here for 40 years and expects to see boats in
people’s yards.
Hawn stated the boat needs to be operable and float in the water.
Hickey stated in her view each case should be looked at individually since the lots vary in size and
topography.
Hawn stated the rule of law insists that there be a standard set of rules that can be applied to all residents
rather than separate rules for each person.
PAGE 18
II
.1-
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Continued)
Paul Raster, 2600 Casco Point Road, indicated he has lived in this cominunit> for over 60 years. Raster
noted most of the property owners who live off the lake are not in attendance at tonight’s meeting.
Raster stated this ordinance will also affect them and will change the lifestyle of the community if
people are required to store their boats off their properties. Raster stated most boats nowadays arc over
20 feet, and in his opinion since boats are getting larger and larger, some restrictions arc needed.
David Rahn, 1385 Rest Point Road, inquired whether a 14-foot fishing boat could be stored up along the
shoreline during the winter months.
Hawn stated the boat could not be stored along the shoreline.
Gaffron slated the way the ordinance is currer.tly written, a boat cannot be stored w ithin the 0-75 foot
setback at any time.
Rahn inquired whether the City w ould now be granting variances to allow fences in excess of six feet.
Hawn staled in her view the screening would consist more of natural vegetative hedges and trees.
Rahn stated in his opinion a problem boat would be one that has sat there for a long time and is not
operable. Rahn indi«'atcd he would prefer a lax ordinance to deal w ith the major violations, noting the
other cities in the area do not have a maximum length in their ordinances.
Chuck Boehm inquired whether there is anything wrong with the current ordinance. Boehm stated
people should be allowed to store any length boat aimvhere in their yard, and if there is a complaint, the
person complaining should live within the radius of that house rather than just driving by the house on
their way to work. Boehm commented in his view six fool fences are objectionable, and that if a boat is
not under active restoration for two years and has not been moved, the boat should be removed. Boehm
stated there arc too many rules and the orditiance should only be enforced w henever there is a
complaint.
Jim Theisen, 1295 l-lmwood Avenue, inquired hov. many complaints the City receives each year
regarding boat storage.
Gaffron indicated the City probably receives three to five complaints every fall, especially when the
boat is being stored in a new location or is blocking their view of the lake. Gaffron stated in the past the
building inspector has spoken to the person and requests that the boat be stored in a different location
that is satisfactory to their neighbor.
Tlicisen stated due to the limited number of complaints, the City should leave the ordinance as is.
Theisen stated under the proposed ordinance he would not be able to comply with the screening
requirement.
Richard Edwards, 2480 Carman Street, indicated he has lived on the lake for 46 years and enjoy s the
lake as well as boating. Edwards stated since he is retired, he is not able to store his boat off his
property . Edwards noted he does like the way the ordinance is written. Edwards stated he enjoys his
view of the lake and he would prefer not to have to look at boats along the lakeshore.
PAGE 19
1
I
il
jJki: V ” . ..V
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Cootinued)
Kluth stated based on tonight's comments, the maximum length of the boats that can be stored on
residential properties appear to be the main source of discontent with the proposed ordinance, and
suggested that perhaps the restriction on the length of boat be reconsidered.
Hawn pointed out that most of the people in attendance at tonight's meeting are owmers of lakeshore
property, which tend to be smaller lots, and most of the property owners will have difficulty' meeting the
criteria in the ordinance regardless of the size of the boat.
Kluth commented he would like Orono's ordinance to be in step with other nearby communities.
Hawn concurred that the majority of the people in attendance at tonight's meeting are unhappy with the
maximum length of boat proposed.
Kluth noted the trailer would add another three to four feet.
Lindquist inquired what type of enforcement Staff is intending to do should the new ordinance be
adopted.
Gaffron stated the City in the past has enforced the boat storage ordinance whenever there is a
complaint. It is Staffs belief that at least one-half of the boats currently stored on residential properties
are in violation of the existing ordinance, and without someone raising a complaint with the City, Staff
has not dealt with it except by complaint.
Lindquist inquired whether some type of enforcement policy should be put in place.
Gaffron stated he has attempted to convey that once a new ordinance is adopted, people will expect the
City to enforce it. and uniess there is language included in the ordinance that says the ordinance will be
enforced only on a complaint basis, there will be some people who arc'unhappy that the new ordinance
w ill not be enforced.
Lindquist inquired whether that type of language could be included in the ordinance.
Gaffron stated he would need to consult with the City Attorney.
Hawn inquired whether there is a possibility of creating a conflict resolution board to deal with the
complaints.
Gaffron stated Staff could look at that option, and stated that the people who make up the board w ould
need to be considered and what authority the board would have.
Smith stated a conflict resolution board would need to be provided some direction by the City or it
would become total anarchy.
Lindquist suggested perhaps another option would be to leave the existing ordinance in place and make
only minor changes to it. such as limiting the boat length.
PAGE 20
minutes of the
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Continued)
Smith stated if there arc complaints regarding boat storage, there needs to be some mechanism in place
to deal with those complaints. Smith commented it would be absurd to expect City Staff to police the
community in an effort to detemtinc who is i,. compliance and who isn’t.
Lindquist stated if the new ordinance is adopted, it should be understood it would be enforced only on a
complaint basis.
Smith stated in her view the ordinance adopted back in 1967 needs to be reviewed and updated.
Hawn noted there have been complaints raised regarding boats that have been lef) indefinitely on a
person’s property without being moved.
Welsh commented the Planning Commission routinely looks at aDer-thc-fact variances, hardcover
variances, and wetland issues. Welsh stated in his opinion those arc the t>pes of applications that
should be the primary focus of the City since they will determine the quality of life in this area for years
to come. Welsh stated in his opinion the issues relating to boat storage is a very low priority and is in
effect asking the people to comply with even more regulations.
Hawn recommended the Planni.’*.g Commission give some direction to City Staff on how to proceed
with this ordinance.
Mabusth suggested the Planning Commission review the proposed ordinance and make suggestions on
items they would like to see redrafted.
Gaffron slated Item A requires that all boats stored outside on a residential property be licensed to the
property owner or occupant of the property and be in operable condition, with operable having been
defined as being able to float.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that all boats stored outside on a residential property
should be licensed to the property owner or occupant of the property and be in operable condition.
Welsh staled in his view ihe amount of lime the boat may be stored on the propeily should be
eliminated. Welsh noted the boat could be inoperable if Ihe boat is under restoration, which could take a
couple of years. Welsh gave the example that a person could suffer a heart atta<‘ and be physically
unable to take his boat out on the lake.
Kluth suggested the last sentence in Item A be removed or have the language be amended to say, ’*
Ihe maximum period a boat may be stored outside on a property is nine months per calendar year, unless
under active restoration.
Smith stated in her view there needs to be some type of time limit on it or there will be faced with the
situation where boats are stored on a person’s property for years w ithout being moved.
Welsh stated unfortunately the people who have drafted the ordinance do not have a lot of experience
with boats, and that it is very realistic to expect that restoration of a boat could take up to two years.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Continued)
Lindquist inquired whether Welsh was in favor of discarding the entire ordinance.
Welsh slated he was and that the City should start all over again.
Hawn stated at the moment the Planning Commission is looking just at Item A. Hawn noted the
Planning Commission is in favor of requiring that all boats stored on the property be licensed to the
property owner or occupant. Hawn indicated there appears to be some issues regarding the amount of
time a boat can be stored on a property. Hawn stated she would like to poll the Planning Commission to
determine how they feel about the length of time a boat can be stored on a property per calendar year.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the ma.\imum period a boat may be stored outside
on a property should be reconsidered.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would like a requirement that the boat be in the water
for some point during the calendar year.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not require that the boat be in the water for some
period of time during the calendar year.
Hawn inquired how long the boat could be stored on land without being in the water.
Kluth stated without that language, the boat could be stored indefinitely on land.
Hawn inquired how Staff would determine w hether it is inoperable or not.
Kluth suggested the language if it is not under active restoration.
Smith inquired what would happen if the restoration has been inactive for the past two years. Smith
stated she has the impression the Planning Commission would prefer a one year period of time but that
longer than one year is not acceptable unless it is under active restoration.
Hawn inquired w hether the boat could be inoperable for a period of one year or 18 months.
Smith commented a person could work on a boat for a period of years.
Hawn noted that language was included in the ordinance due to complaints regarding boats that arc
stored on residential property for years without being moved. Hawn stated unless the Planning
Commission specifies the length of time a boa. can sit inactive, there w ill be no language addressing
this issue.
Welsh inquired how many of these situations exist where the boat has been sitting inactive for a number
of years.
Hawn stated she is unaware of the number, but that there have been complaints regarding boats being
stored on a person's property for years without being put in the water. Haw n suggested that perhaps if a
boat is inoperable for a peri^ longer than 18 months, it should be removed from the property.
PAGE 22
1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Continued)
Welsh commented the boat is on the property owner’s land and he should be able to store his boat there
if he so chooses.
Kluth stated in his view it is a matter of aesthetics.
Berg stated there might be some cases where a person docs have health problems and is unable to use
their boat for a period of time.
Smith stated the Planning Commission cannot go to the c.xtremc situation in trying to control boat
storage. Smith stated in her view the City docs have a problem with boats that sit inactive on a person’s
property for a long period of time.
Lindquist suggested a ma.\imum of two years that a boat may sit inactive on a person's property.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to incorporate the following language into the
proposed ordinance: “All boats stored on a property shall be in operable condition, except that
inoperable boats under active restoration may be stored on a property for not more than two years.
Hawn stated she would like the language indicating the reason why the boat cannot be stored
indefinitely on a person’s property.
it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the follow ing language in the ordinance:
“the intent being to discourage the long-term storage of inoperable boats on residential property^”.
Hawn inquired what the Planning Commission feels about Item B. “no boat shall be stored on a property
that does not contain a principal residence structure.
Welsh stated there could be a situation where a person ow ns two lots and stores his boat on the
additional lot where there is not a house.
Berg stated the language unless the lot is adjoining a principal residence could be added.
Smith stated the City docs not want to have vacant lots w ith only a boat being stored there.
Welsh Slated in his view property ta.xcs will preclude that from happening.
it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to keep Item B in the ordinance with the follow ing
language being added, “unless the property is contiguous to the property containing a principal
residence".
Hawn inquired about item C regarding length of the boat. Hawn stated whether the language fully
screened means all the way around the boat or Just along the property line dividing the two properties.
Welsh stated the Planning Commission needs to go to item G where it says the boat cannot be visible
from adjacent properties.
PAGE 23
MINITTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Coatiaued)
Smith stated to meet that qualification the screening could be one sided or two sided depending on the
situation.
Hawn inquired whether it would be possible to amend the language regarding screening to have it apply
only to the adjoining property on one side or the other.
Kluth stated he would eliminate screening and that the maximum length of the boat is too low.
Mabusth stated that number was suggested from someone on this panel who does have boating
experience.
Pat Fitzgerald stated the Minnesota Department of Transportation requires a permit if a boat is over
eight and a half feet wide and over 44 feet long.
David Rahn commented a 25 foot boat could have a 10 foot beam.
Welsh stated in his view Item C should be deleted since it is a major bone of contention with the
residents.
Chuck Boehm stated most boats tend to get wider as they get longer.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission is trying to develop a standard that should be in place for
regulating the size of the boat stored on someone's property.
Welsh stated in his view Item C should be deleted.
Kluth reiterated the Planning Commission is attempting to come up with a reasonable size for a boat
that can be stored on residential property.
Hawn stated in her view MN/DOT’s standard might be reasonable for a non-commercial hauler.
Kluth inquired whether Welsh would be in favor of allowing someone to park an 80 foot boat on their
property and allowing it to be brought in by semi-truck.
Welsh stated that might be a stretch.
Kluth questioned how the size of the boat should be regulated.
Welsh stated due to the emotion and the heat regarding this ordinance, it might be wise to revisit this
issue in about a year. Welsh stated in his view the City really does not have an ordinance regarding boat
storage since it has not been enforced. Welsh slated he does not see any health, safety, or welfare issues
here.
(Smith leaves at 10:19 p.m.)
PAGE 24
■KTifnmltaiJilBl
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A«giut 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Contiaucd)
Hawn recommended Item C be changed to allow boats to be a maximum of 44 feet or no more than
I3.S feet high to be stored on residential property under certain circumstances. Hawn stated 13.5 feet
would cover most Winnebagos and things of that sort.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to amend the language to allow boats to be a
maximum of 44 feet in length or I3.S feet in height.
Hawn inquired what the Planning Commission feels about the screening requirement.
Welsh stated the screening requirement should be removed.
Hawn suggested that the language should state that vegetative screening should be used whenever
possible, but not make it a requirement.
Mabusth stated screening issues could be raised with the conflict resolution board and used as a possible
solution to a problem.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to remove the requirement regarding screening of
boats.
Hawn inquired whether the 2.0 acres should be eliminated.
It was the consensus of the Planning Conimission to eliminate the language concerning the 2.0 acres.
(Smith returns at 10:23 p.m.)
Hawn inquired what thoughts the Planning Commission had regarding the setbacks.
Lindquist stated the City requires the property owners to comply with setback requirements on other
structures and RVs, and in his opinion this requirement should remain for exterior storage of boats.
Hawn, Berg, and Kluth indicated they are in agreement w ith leaving the setback requirement in the
ordinance.
Welsh inquired about the situation where a property owner has a garage located 10 feet from the lot line,
there is a five or six fence along the property line and they store a fishing boat along the property line.
Welsh stated the boat is not a permanent structure.
Lindquist stated the City would look at it when there is a complaint received.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the requirement concerning the ten-toot
setback in the ordinance.
it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the screening language contained in Item E be
stricken.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Angnst 20t 2001
(Boat Storage, Coatiaued)
Hawn inquired about item F.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to require that boats not block lake views enjoyed by
adjacent neighbors.
Lindquist inquired about lakeshore lots.
Mabusth stated there are some developments on Casco Point that have tracks where the boats are
brought up out of the lake and stored on the lakeshore side of the yard. Mabusth inquired whether that
should be allowed.
Kluth stated if the first part of the language Is stricken, it would make more sense, with the second half
remaining the same. Kluth stated boats stored on the lakeshore side of the residence cannot block the
adjoining properly owner’s view of the lake.
Smith inquired what effect driving a boat in and out during the summer has on the degradation of the
lake and lakeshore, if any.
Lindquist stated that does not need to be addressed in this ordinance.
Kluth stated if you routinely drive your boat in and out in the same place, it could raise issues of
hardcover.
Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission was considering boats in the 0-75 foot setback.
Lindquist stated boats ih the 0-7S foot setback are not allowed. Lindquist stated if the track already
exists, that is tine, but a new track cannot be installed.
Smith inquired whether boats could be stored in the 0-75 foot setback regardless if there is a track there
or not.
Lindquist stated in some cases they could.
Hawn stated language could stated in his view it does affect the lakeshore.
Hawn stated every time you remove a boat from the lake your vehicle would need to be down there.
Lindquist stated he is in agreement with Kluth that boats should not be stored where they will block
adjoining property ow ner’s view of the lake.
Smith suggested the language, and boats shall not be stored in the 0-75 foot area.
Lindquist stated then the Planning Commission is better off leaving Item G as is.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Continued)
Hawn slated under the ordinance boats will not be allowed to be stored in the lakeshore yard. Hawn
stated she does not have a problem if boats are stored on the lakeshore side of the property, but would
not want boats to be stored in the 0>7S foot area.
Smith stated that is a reasonable requirement in her view.
Lyle Rahn commented there are probably 1,000 fishing boats pulled up on people's yards year-round.
Hawn inquired whether boats could be stored in the 0-75 foot area.
Smith commented it is traffic in and out of the 0-75 foot area, which results in wear and tear of the
lakeshore.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not incorporate into the ordinance any language
prohibiting boat storage within the 0-75 foot area.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission is in favor of allowing boats to be stored on the
lakeshore side of lakeshore lots.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that it is acceptable to store boats on the lakeshore
side of lakeshore lots.
Mabusth recommended Staff develop criteria for a confiict resolution board to deal w ith complaints
regarding boat storage.
Hawn noted the names of people who file complaints with the City are currently anonymous. Haw n
stated should it go to a conflict resolution boaid, the name would become public.
Lyle Rahn stated the City should not listen to complaints of people who are simply driving by and see
something they do not like. Rahn stated other cities require that the person filing the complaint has to
pass by that lot or it is not a legitimate complaint.
Lindquist recommended Staff review that and put together some suggested guidelines.
Hawn inquired whether the redrafted ordinance would come back before the Planning Commission.
Gaffron stated he would like the Planning Commission to review and approve it prior to City Council
approving it. Gaffron stated he could c-mail it or fa.\ the redrafted ordinance to the commissioners for
their review and comment.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have Staff e-mail or fa.\ the redrafled ordinance to
them.
Hawn noted the redrafted ordinance would be available to the public for their review.
Gaffron inquired when this item should appear before the Council.
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Angust 20,2001
(Boat Storage, Contioucd)
Hawn recommended the flrst City Council meeting in September.
GafTron stated he would set this item on the September 10''' Council agenda.
(#7) MOl-2699 JAY AND KENDAL NYGARD. 1386 REST POINT ROAD, VARIANCES
Berg moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Applicant #01-2699, Jay and Kendal Nygard,
1386 Rest Point Road, to give the Applicant time to submit a certified snrvey, hardcover
calculations, and a proposed floor plan sketch with dimensions. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#8) #01-2700 VINCENT AND VIRGINIA ANDERSON, 1855 CONCORDIA STREET,
VARIANCES, 10:39 p.ni. - 10:48 p.m.
Vincent Anderson, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting variances to replace old and deteriorating wood decks and
walkways within the 0-7S’ setback area and the 75-2S0' setback area. Hardcover variances are required
for both the 0-75’ setback area and the 75-250’ setback area.
Bottenberg stated the first part of the project is to replace a small section of walkway and steps which
lie within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka. The walkway and steps lead from the house towards the lake.
The hardcover is not changing in this setback area and will remain at 49 square feet. Part two of the
project is to replace the wood deck by the front door and other walkways surrounding the residence
which lie in the 75-250’ setback area. The Applicants are also proposing to enlarge the deck/patio on
the north side of the residence. The hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area will decrease from 6,084
square feet to 6,060 square feet, with the Applicant removing a wood v.'alkway and patio blocks.
Anderson stated they are adding a patio area and removing one of the walkways.
Hawn noted the walkway has already been removed.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Anderson stated he does have a letter from his neighbors. Jeff and Nancy Twidwell, 1865 Concordia
Street, who are in support of the project.
Welsh indicated he would like to make a motion in support of the application.
Smith indicated she would like to see the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback come closer to the 25 percent
limit.
Mabusth stated she has toured the site and it does not have the appearance of a lot of hardcover.
PAGE 28
. !
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(OOt'2700 Vincent and Virginia Anderson, Continued)
Hawn stated the walkway is constructed out of slated wood, which does allow the water to enter the
ground.
Lindquist stated it still is considered hardcover.
Smith stated typically the Planning Commission does require hardcover to be reduced as much as
possible when the hardcover is in excess of the 25 percent limit. Smith stated she does not have a
problem with the replacement.
Hawn noted there has been a small reduction in hardcover already.
Kluth inquired whether this is all replacement.
Berg stated it is not.
Mabusth inquired whether the deck that is being added onto the northwest comer goes out to the
retaining wall.
Anderson stated it would.
Mabusth stated a side setback variance is also required.
Haw n stated she does not see the hardship for a side setback variance.
Welsh stated in his opinion when a request comes in on a new project foi :t variance, they need to stick
to the ordinances as much as possible, but in this instance since this residence has been around for a
long time and they are not increasing the hardcover, some leeway could be given.
Smith stated the Planning Commission for the past number of years has attempted to get the hardcover
reduced w'henever possible.
Hawn inquired whether the deck could be built without the need for a side yard setback variance.
Anderson stated the deck is part of the stairway.
Mabusth stated the applicant is allowed to replace his stairway, but the new deck does encroach into the
setback.
Anderson stated the deck already exists with ever>lhing basically being replaced.
Mabusth stated the current garden area would be filled in with patio.
Hawn stated that was her understanding as well, with the patio in the garden area being the only new
section being added. Hawn inquired whether everything else is replacement.
Anderson stated the rest is replacement.
PAGE 29
\ni dlli
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Aagost 20,2001
(#01-2700 Viaccat and Virginia Anderson, Continued)
Hawn stated a side yard setback would also need to be granted.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn moved, Lindquist, to recommend approval on Application #01-2700, Vincent and Virginia
Anderson, 1855 Concordia Street, granting of a hardcover variance for the 0-75* setback area,
granting of a hardcover variance for the 75-250 ’ setback area, granting a side yard setback
variance to allow the replacement of a wood deck and a small increase in a side patio covering an
existing garden area, subject to the removal of wood decking on the north side of the residence,
which would reduce the hardcover from 34.9 percent to 34.35 percent. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#9) #01-2701 MARK AND CECILIA SCHULTE, 3477 LIVINGSTON AVENUE,
VARIANCES, 10:48 p.m. - 10:53 p.m.
Mark Schulte, Applicant, was present.
Weinberger slated the Applicants are requesting a side setback variance to allow the construction of a
detached garage, which would replace an existing car port that is attached to the house. The proposed
garage would be located to the rear of the house since this is the only location detached structures can be
built. The Applicants are proposing to construct a 16’ by 26’ detached garage five feet from the side
property line where a ten fbot setback is required.
Weinberger stated the Applicants have looked at other options for locating the garage on the property.
The garage cannot be built in front of the house since accessory buildings are not permitted in front of a
principal structure. Locating the garage next to the residence would require an attached garage, which
structurally is difTicult. Placing the garage in the center of the back yard would create a difficult
driveway access and create additional hardcover.
Weinberger stated the five foot side yard setback variance would allow the Applicants to have a
straight in/straight out access to the garage and to not have to change any of the access to the property.
The five foot setback allows the adjacent property owner the ability to build within five feet of the
property line and maintain the ten feet required distance between structures. The proposed garage will
be approximately 12 feet from the nearest point of the neighboring residence structure.
SUiff recommends approval of the variance with the understanding the existing car port w ill be removed.
Schulte had nothing to add to Staffs report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mabiisth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2701,
Mark and Cecilia Schulte, 3477 Livingston Avenue, granting of a side yard setback variance to
permit the construction of a 16’ by 26’ detached garage five feet from the side property line where
a ten foot setback is required. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
PAGE 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 20,2001
(#10) #01-2703 ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION, 1030 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 10:53 p.m.- 11:08 p.m.
Kurt Boemer, President of the Orono Baseball Association, and Clarkson Lindley, Orono Baseball
Association, were present.
Weinberger stated the Orono Baseball Association is requesting a conditional use permit for
construction of a third baseball field at the Lee Carlson Fields Complex. The property is located south
of County Road 5 and cast of Old Cry stal Bay Road. The property is ow ned by the Orono School
District and is leased to the Baseball Association. There arc currently two little league fields located on
the property, with the new field being located east adjacent to the Willow View development south of
County Road 6.
The Orono Baseball Association constructed the two existing baseball fields in 1994. At that time there
was no conditional use permit required for the w est one-half of the property. The City of Orono has
leased the west one-half of the property from the Orono School District. The City has then leased the
property to the Orono Baseball Association. It w as the opinion of the City Attorney that as long as the
City was leasing the property from the school for a period greater than ten years, that the baseball fields
would be considered a permitted City park use.
Weinberger stated the new field would also be utilized for soccer. Since the City does not have a lease
for this portion of the property and it is owned entirely by the School District, a conditional use permit is
required for the construction.
Weinberger stated the access road would be an extension of the existing access off of Old Crystal Bay
Road. There will be a 48 stall parking area west of the ball field. In addition, the parking area will
include a turnaround area. Pedestrian access will include a sidewalk that would be located adjacent to
the new parking area and provide access to a future trail extension along County Road 6. The trail
connection would not be constructed by the Orono Baseball Association at this time due to lack of
funds.
The Park Commission reviewed this request at their August b"* meeting and stated they are supportive of
a set aside of land that could be used for a trail connection in the future. The land could be designated
for trail use by granting of an easement by the School District.
Weinberger stated the Orono Baseball Association is also planning to include some batting cages, a
24 ’ by 36' storage building, a play lot. and announcer’s booth. The Baseball Association is proposing to
replace an existing storage shed with a larger shed and expand the parking area along the entrance drive.
Weinberger stated the Baseball Association only plans to utilize the fields during the da>linie, which
would not require any lighting.
Clark stated they are here to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have regarding the
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Angust 20,2001
(MOl-2703 Orono Baseball Associatioa, Conllnued)
Weinberger stated the 48 parking stalls depicted on the plan should accommodate the parking needs.
Kluth commented he does not want to see parking along the roadway in this area.
Lindquist inquired whether the other parking area would be eliminated.
Weinberger staled that parking lot would remain.
Boemer stated the storage shed would not be built at this time but they would >ike to get approval for it
to be built something in the future.
Lindquist inquired whether the storage shed is included in the proposal.
Weinberger stated it is.
Berg inquired whether the Baseball Association is in favor of a trail in this area.
Boemer staled they are.
Weinberger stated the City received one call regarding this project, with the person indicating he is not
opposed to this project since no outdoor lighting is being proposed.
Lindquist inquired whether the Orono Baseball Association is in agreement with the conditions as
outlined in Staffs report.
Boemer stated they were.
Hawn inquired whether the Orono Baseball Association would be installing lights in the future.
Boemer staled they would not be.
Smith noted the Fire Marshall and City Engineer would need to approve the turnaround area.
Boemer stated there is room to make the turnaround larger if necessary.
Weinberger stated one of the recommendations is that the road be staked no parking.
Clark stated there will be placing some boulders along the road and turnaround area to prevent parking
on the grassy area or along the roadside.
Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2703, Orono
Baseball Association, 1030 Old Crystal Bay Road, granting of a conditional use permit to allow
the construction of a third baseball field at the Lee Carlson Fields Compics located south of
County Road 6 and east of Old Crystal Bay Road, subject to the conditions outlined in the
August 13,2001 Planner’s Report. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
PAGE 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Aagost 20t 2001
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
(#12) #10-2705 WINTON AND SHERYL WOLD, 1760 CONCORDIA STREET,
CLASS III SUBDIVISION
This application was withdrawn at the request of the Applicants.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#13) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS - JULY 23,2001 AND AUGUST 13,2001
Hawn stated she attended the July 23"* Council meeting where a lengthy discussion was had concerning
the boat access points. Hawn stated there appears to be some community contention regarding the lake
access point located at Forest Lake Landing.
Jim White, Council Representative, commented the lake access points are also considered to be wildlife
areas and need to be maintained.
There was no representative at the August 13"* Council meeting.
(#14) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
(#15) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 16,2001
Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve the minutes of the July 16,2001 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes, 6, Nays 0; Kluth Abstained.
(#16) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
AUGUST 27,2001 AND SEPTEMBER 10,2001
August 27,2001 - Lindquist September 10,2001 - Kluth
ADJOURNMENT
Smith moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11:17 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m.
Elizabeth Hawn, Chair
PAGE 33