HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2001 Planning Packett-t
Public A ttendance
Meeting D ate \ \ ^ m |
□ Council
GS^anning Commission
□ Park Commission
□ Other
Please fill our the information requested
BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS
ROAA^ -7i, < V7 *;' ^ / 7 /
NAME OR NUMBER
1.
3.
4.
nSfk l4sa',ry,^s.^rL
La ^c >______ZA. /‘M^tKtcTT f*^y MfilS rrSftfy '
y'Ho'?L' i0-^>____________//?/ - cx^;jjL A'lV AAiie/
5.i .
8. V-FP ^i^Ma 2,m^^
^ ’ ./ ' 5^-
M rx ^ _________f92. -«7 6 ■ Sf-
^ SMAeL^AVr 4 M Ac:'jy: ij Al
9..
10..
11..
12..
13..
14.
'it.z -^70-
15.__________________________
X:\DM\A4iMMHt SapfaffUTcfB • OM)\fORMS\rVBUCJiTr
T
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday November 19,2001 6:30PM
2750 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers
AGENDA
Council Representative: Robert Sansevere ii
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:
Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the
Planning Commission. Applicants will he asked to move to the front table to answer
questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is
an advisory body to the City Council. If action is tak< n on any items on this agenda,
they will be scheduled for the December 10, 2001 City Council meeting unless
otherwise noted by the Chair.
CONSENT 1
1. #01-2729 W. Gregory Coward Jr. 1950 Heritage Drive, Variances
(Staff: Paul Weinberger)
2. #01-2733 William B. and Lynne M. L. Peterson, 420 Orchard Park Road,
Renewal Variances (StafT: Paul Weinberger)
OLD BUSINESS
3. #01-2722 Michael and Monica Brown, 1241 Brown Road South, Variances
(StafT: Paul Weinberger)
NEW BUSINESS
4. #01-2730 Ace Properties, 3375 Ciystal Bay Road, Variances
(StafT: Paul Weinberger)
5. #01-2732 Revis L. Stephenson 111. 1850 Fox Ridge Road, Conditional Use
Permit (StafT: Paul Weinberger)
6. #01-2734 Thomas Bren, 505 Orchard Park Road, Variance
(StafT: Paul Weinberger)
7. #01-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.03 Subd. 14,
Structural Lot Coverage Ordinance Standards (StafT: Wendy Bottenberg)
8. #2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment. Section 10.20 Subd. 4C,
Home Occupation Standards (StafT: MikeGaffron)
J ■
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
9. Report of Planning Conunission representatives attending Council meetings
October 22,2001 and November 13,2001..
10. Other issues for discussion.
11. Planning Commission approval of minutes for October 15,2001.
12. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on November 26,2001 and
December 10,2001.
ADJOURNMENT
0 4C»0 Q 3^ 5 3a!M g 2800 p
Orono, Minnesota
bering Index Map
lOKsttx, taag. iscu t uim.i
*1
'feagaar:
north
RCVIffO*
MRf.B.f«i jum jo.Mi
•A ir.WM
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday November 19,2001 6:30PM
2730 Kelley Parkway-Connell Chamber!
AGENDA
Council Representative: Robert Sansevere
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 ibe front table to answer
questions when the Chair announces the application. The PlanLing Commusion is
an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda,
they will be scheduled for the December 10, 2001 City Council meeting unless'
otherwise noted by the Chair.
CONSENT
1. 601*2729 W. Gregory Coward Jr. 1950 Heritage Drive, Variances
(Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map H-7
2. 601-2733 William B. and L>tuic M. L. Peterson. 420 Orchard Park Road,
Renewal Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map C-2
OLD BUSINESS
3. 601*2722 Michael and Monica Brown, 1241 Brown Road South, Variances
(Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map C*7
NEW BUSINESS
4. 601*2730 Ace Properties. 3375 Crystal Bay Road, Variances
(Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map D-9
5. 601-2732 RevisL. Stephenson HI. 1850 Fos Ridge Road, Conditional Use
Permit (Staff: Paul Wetnberger) Map H-4
6. 601-2734 Thomas Bren, 505 Orchard Park Road, Variance
(Staff: Paul Weinberger) Map B-2
7. 601*2735 Propo.sed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.03 Subd. 14,
Structural Lot Coverage Ordinance Standards (Suff: Wendy Bottenberg)
8. 62333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section lOJO Subd. 4C,
Home Occupation Standards (Staff: MikeGaffron)
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
9. Report of Planning Commission represenUtives attending Council meetinos
October 22,2001 and N* vember 13,2001. * ^
10. Other issues for discussion.
11. Planning Commission approval of minutes for October 15,2001 .
12. S^tim of representatives for City Council meetings on November 26,2001 and
L/cccmbCT 10,2001.
ADJOURNMENT
tCM. T, l«tO
/
Application Date;
60 Day Deadline:
10/24/01
12/23/Oi
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:November 13,2001
SUBJECT:#01-2729 W. Gregory’ and Katherine Coward
1950 Heritage Drive
Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre)
2.2 acres
LislorEshibits:
A
B
C
D1-D4
EI-E4
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Application
Plat Map
Letter of Request
Property Photos
Hardcover Calculation Worksheets
Site Plan
Floor Plans
Garage Front Elevation View
Garage/Garden Building Elevation Side View
Garage Rear Elevation View
Garage/Garden Building Elevation Side View
Site Photo
Property Owners Notification List
Application Summary:
Property owners havt requested a conditional use permit to permit construction of two accessory
buildings on a “through lot". A through lot is defined as a lot that abuts two substantially parallel
streets. The conditional use peimit is the process that is used to determine the best location for an
accessory building on a property that does not have a rear property line. The CUP also allows the
City to hold a public hearing to allow adjacent property owners the opportunity to comment on the
proposed building location.
Accessory buildings are not permitted to be located closer to the front property line than the principal
building on a standard lot. A standard lot would have both front and rear property lines, and not be
a comer lot.
The proposed buildings are a 496 s.f. garden building and a 1,000 s.f. garage to leplace an e.xisting
garage. Drawings are attached.
Pertinent Ordinance:
Section 1 0.03, Subdivision 10. AH accessory buildings on through lots located in “R" districts shall
require a conditional use permit.
Principal Building Setbacks for the LR-IA district
Front/Street 50'
Side 30'
Lakeshore 75'
Accessory Building Setbacks for the LR-IA district
10* for buildings less than 500 s.f.
15' for buildings 501 s.f to 1,000 s.f
30* for buildings over 1,000 s.f
The proposed buildings do meet the minimum side setbacks for buildings of their respective size.
The new garage is being located in approximately the same location as the existing garage.
Replacement became necessary due to the deteriorating condition ofthe exist ing building. Originally
the property owners had proposed a larger garage. A larger building would have required a 30'
setback because the building was designed to be greater than 1,000 s.f Project Architect, Robert
Lund, has reduced the size of the new garage and designed a smaller garden building of 496 s.f to
be located behind the new garage.
Access to the garage would be via the existing driveway to Heritage Drive. There is no access from
North Shore Drive to the property.
Hardcover Review
The property is located within the Shoreland Overlay district and is subject to hardcover regulations.
Existing:0-75'
75-250*
250-500'
500-1,000*
0%
0%
0%
8,591 s.f (18.7%)
Proposed;0-75*
75-250*
250-500*
500-1,000*
0%
0%
701.5 s.f (1.7%)
9,188 s.f (20%)
*01-2729 W. Gfctory and Kathcnne Coward
1950 Hcriu«c Drive
P^2
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to permit two accessory buildings to be
located on the property as depicted on the site plan dated 11/9/01, based on the following findings:
1.
2.
4.
The proposed location of the buildings are in the same location as a garage that is proposed
to be removed and meet the minimum required side setbacks.
A large vegetative buffer is located between North Shore Drive and the buildings do not
encroach into the average setback required for structures.
3. Access to the property will remain from Heritage Drive.
The proposed location of the buildings functions as the rear yard for properties located along
Heritage Drive.
fOI-2729 W. GRaoiy Md KslMTiiw Cownd
1950 Herit^ Drive
t
Application #
I^te Received !h IL>~Oi
Amount Paid %\n^, 00
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address /f5<g>
Type of Application to be Filed C*.O.f9
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)
APPLICANT
Name L.
Phone fhome )6/gy)f^^7^- 039^
Phone (work)/^/2-^
Address City A//A//we->N^^-^ Zip S~S^^9
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name XA/.CWegO^V
Address C?/K. City M/A VgX-r>»
Date Property Acquired r^ ____________________(month/year)
Zip
I (do) (do not) also owm 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 Cummercial/Industrial Use
$250.00 Land Alteration
____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more
Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore
PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule
$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee
OTHER APPLICATIONS
_____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees)
_____ 5300.00 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 #2729
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Completed Application Form.
Describe request in detail.
SbrmaUon ^ ^ surveyor) . refer to handout for survey
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
opographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve
changes m elevation (grades). uivoivc
List of the legal names (include rharital status) of all persons with an interest in the
propc^. This would include names) of applicant(s) if not current owner(sX
Construcuon plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements).
As an addend^ 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
all documents
Certification by Clerical Department that Land L se Application is complete.
Imtials of Clencal Staff:_______________________
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
supplied IS true and correct to the best of his/her know ledge.
Applicant's signature Date ' /C • ^ /
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
Owner’s signature (/,
stpninals into the City office?
Date/y/^^^
.ch,dai.d „.i™ s d.. PI.™.:,
Hdhnepin County Taxpayer Services Depailtiirii^f^^^^^
lO-//7-Z3—
Parcel Information
.*
• • ' ‘*.-v - f" *-
. .j • • ..»•••* ,'V-»
•" . • • -UT# *»^«L
1*Parcel ID 10117234
Housa Numbar 1080
Straat Nama HERITAGE DR
TNa ia not a laffaUy rwcorded map. hropm $onUo conifi9o^arinhrfim^
and data from Oty, County, and Slata road aulhorUaa and olharaoutoaai^ *
.f •
.1 • %
ROBRRT LI ASSOCIATRS ARCHITECTS. LTD,
4129 EAST LAKE HARRIET PARKWAY, MINNEAPOLIS. MN SS409
P.O.BOXII34. WAINSCOTT. NY 11975
(6I2)927-06M FAX (612) 927-0312
(631)537-5500 FAX (631) 725-447>
November 9, 2001
New Garage and Carden Room for the
Coward Residence
1950 Heritage Drive
Wayzata, MN
Application is hereby submitted for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a proposed new
garage located 15.17 feet southwest of the northeast property line and a new garden room located
10.12 feet southwest of the northeast property line with accompanying walkways and terraces. The
maximum size of the new garage structure is and will not exceed 999.50 square feet. The new
garden room will not exceed 496 square feet.
The existing garage will be torn down and the new garage will be placed approximately 3 feet north
of the back (or lakeside) wall of the existing garage.
. t a
^ V r V
Photo 001
4-. ..•'i
' ‘ :
Photo 004
*.•
u.tr
la
Photo 007
U>:
Photo 010
Coward Residence
1950 Heritage Drive, \Va>/ata, MN
Scplcmbor 1 3. 2001
Photo 002
'^-c7> " v'ms
:fs
»I > i-i
‘ fail
Photo 005
r
Photo 008
/M
‘-..■s
Photo oil
%v.
Photo 003
Photo 006
e-i.-.
*. *
li
Photo 009
Photo 012
ROBERT LIND ASSOCIATKS ARCHITECTS. LTD.
48:*) FAS I LAKE HARRIET PARKWAY. MINNEAPOLIS. MS 5540*) (61:1 9:7-0680 K\.\ (612) 927-0382
P O BOX 1134. W AINSCOTT. NY 11975 (6?') 537-5500 FAX (631) 537-8416
oi-x7aci
Coward Residence
1950 llerifaj ’e Drive, Wayzata, MN
September 13. 2001
i -4
Photo 013 Photo 014 Photo 015
ik
mi :ri itii
Photo 017 Photo 018
Photo 019
•#* r
%
1 gmi
Photo 021
Photo 022 Photo 023 Photo 024
ROBERT tl'ND ASSOCIATFS ARCHITECTS. LTD.
48N FAST LAKE H arriet parkway , Minneapolis , mn 55^ (6i:)927-0680
P.O. BO.X 1134. WAINSCOrr. NY 11975 (631) 537-5500
FAX (612) 927-0382
FAX (631) 537-8416
lir'
Photo 025
ft
IL^
, . *_ , .fe.
■iS
Photo 0?8
^ .• ^ ' ®
Photo 031
wm
Photo 034
Coward Residence
1950 lUritaj’e Dri\e, Wayzata, MN
September 13. 2001
» • r»**-2
Photo 026
fPP**
•- Ik,'
m
^ >i'-t'
ij|j E j
Photo 029
Photo 032
Photo 035
Ef.-i?.•n n
Wm
r>*-v '.' •* •Jt*
V-- ■.vir Hl'.-'i- .
•-» >- ^ ,•* • '
Np%- % «
* I
Photo 027
> 0
r
r*i..
Photo 030
Photo 033
^/Z^, __Vji*
Photo 036
ROBERT Ll'ND ASSOCIATFS ARCHITECTS. LTD.
as:.*} FAST LAKE HARKIFTP.^RKWAY. MINNEAPOLIS. MN 5540*} (6121 *}:7-0680 FA.X i6i:i 927.0382
P O. nO\ 1134. \\AINSC0TT. NY 11975 (631) 5 •7.5500 FAX .6.M l 537-8416
/M^O Q
r
Photo 037
1
i
Coward Residence
1950 HcrUate Drive, Waynta, MN
Sqnember 13,2001
M
Photo 038
. ^ w
Photo 039
JCI»ROBERT H
4829 EAST LAKE HARRIET RJIKWAY, MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55409
RO. BOX 1134, WAINSCOll NY 11975
ASSOCUTES ARCHITErrS. ITD.
(612)9274)610 FAX (612) 927-0382
(631)537-5500 FAX (631) 537-8416
Ql-2.7 2<»
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 250-500*
EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House X •
Length Width
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Paiio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
G. Other
vw d:?
X
X
:cr
X
X
X P4
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZO
A ______________ + B
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House X
X 100
Length
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
G. Ocher
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
500-1000*
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ B
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.Fr
S.F.
A
B
/-- -S.F.-^'
/ S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
SF.
S.F.
'*• •• •• •
X 100
:_S.F. A
^s.f:‘ b
#
■J
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*75-250'250-500’500-1000'
EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House_____________
Length Width
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
A.
C
X
X
G. Other 44
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
+ B
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House
Length Width
X
X
X V
B. Garage
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Paiio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
X
X
X
G Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
B X 100 -
f
SF,
SF.
SF.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F. A
S.F. B
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
___SI. A
•-.S.F. B
. V.
I
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250’
FXISTINC. HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House _____~_____
Length Width
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
— + B .X 100
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
House
Length Width
X
X
X
B. Garage ■SZ.5 •<
*2 •
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck X
X ‘2-
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
X
X
X
G Other
•: 5T, r TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZON
roi.B + B 'I X 100
500-1000*
S.F.
S.F.
____S.F.
^S.F.
£P S.F.
cP S.F.
S.F.
^ S.F.
j^2_ S.F.
1*
^ S.F.
/r> S.F.
^ S.F.
/O S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F. A
S.F. B
•CJ •/.
eO S F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
5'n..^ S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
^*2 S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
4'!
• 5 S.F. A
^S± S.F. B
iil2-2L_y*
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*5-250*250-500*
FVISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A House
^0-1000*^^
Length
S.F.
W.Jih
S.F.
S.F.
'Z07>2- S.F.
B Garage
C. Driveway
2 *2 6'zp S.F.
/ f S.F.
S.F.
D Sidewalk X
X
SS'a
a
2^7>'b"~S.F
S.F.
E. Patio/Deck
X
i3SZ- S.F.
S.F.
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
X
X
X
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
0. Other IZc t\^3'
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
■*• B X 100
S.F.
S.F.A
B
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House X
-----r---- '•
S.F.
Length
X
Width
8 S.F.
X 8 S.F.
X 8 *2^ 2-2- S.F.- v;s;
B.Garage //'X 8
/Jo
SF.o
C.Driveway X 3o 8 540 S.F./ 'A .V
.erx/-s T X 8 S.F.
D.Sidewalk 4.5’X 5*^8 2 4 7.9 S.F.
X 8 S.F.
E.Paiio/Deck . fA*/t5 r/A/C^X 159'2- S.F.
X 8 S.F.
. C. . ✓
.J#F.Landscape e^ sr. pe-^X 8 S.F.
Underlain X 8 S.F.• .a
By Plastic X 8 S.F.
G Other X S.F.
•
A
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
* B i-9.3oz.^x\^
•^1^3.5 S.F. A
S.F. B
2£i.O %4^-
tANoXfilURvi^^^
VNO. 9i
r-»
('(
/
/
fc- -^J- •' '■ If V'.. -
S l,ffili0ii9il4^SSi'fiiii
^ii':#'rt 111 jpsw'flsif <1 inn naiMiOH
jiii't'f iT HTi ’ r-'” i'li) iiiiiilllliil!'il;i<iiJi I'll iiii
in-Mifl!’'jPrffSSs ■??';u..^ljiii;:,;!!!.if!|l5i=t III ilV
mm
f • ^
' N
h f-
Wv j "'V l7 i u '
r^f^HE^^r :Slev ^^ --
/^TirST ........7. ■';:,v:-‘ ”
New Garaye Conatruction for
Mr. A Mrs. Grey Coward
I9S0 Heritage Drive Wayzata,MN
NOHTHEAST BI^EVATION
ur-r-(T
ROKRT LUND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, LTD.
Minneapolis New York
(612)927-0680 (631)537-5500
fn T-.-•
rfS^fSl
r ^
/V'-y
i 1.
j
^ - //■. /
/^'.', fV-y -;,
, "1
. (
/y m
>wr?Twt,
Svv^i
mI v^»«
-^.-^:'SS'.
u * ^ I
F-v:^5^WKjiStVS'
RUN DATE lE/lt/fl
SATCH 5A7
NENNCflN COUNTY PROfERTV INFORNATION SVSTEN
fROrCRTY OWNERS LIST
REPORT NO. PtASSAtl
PACE lA
PROP ADOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AODR
SR 1R-117-2S IS filS
•19RS HERITAGE OR
OAVIO F SCOTT
OAVID F SCOTT
IRRB NERXTAGE DR
WAYZATA NN SSS91
SR IR-II7-2S IS RRIA
R1955 HERITAGE DR
E i S CLARK JR
EUGENE R SHARON CLARK JR
1R55 HERITAGE DRIVE
WAYZATA NN 55Sn
SR 1R-117-2S IS RRIA
RllRS HERITAGE LA
FOXHILL ASSN
FOXHILL ASSN
NANCY iJERKE
1RS5 HERITAGE LA
WAYZATA NN SSSfl
PROP ADOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADDR
SR if-117*2S A2 R0R2
RIRSR SHORELINE DR
CAROLE A RLOCH
HARK S SAVAGE/TONYA N SAVAGE
A7R2 HIGHCROFT CR
EAGAN HN S5I22
SR 1R-U7-2S A2 RORS
RIRIR HERITAGE DR
L W R C A RLOCH
LOUIS W R CAROLE A RLOCH
IRIR HERITAGE OR
WAYZATA NN 55Sn
SR 1R-117-2S R2 RRR4
RIRRR SHORELINE DR
PAULINE H ROUCHARD
PAULINE H ROUCHARD
IRRR SHORELINE DR
WAYZATA NN 55S9I
PROP AODR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/ADOR
SR 1R-1I7-2S R2 RRRS
RIRSR SHORELINE DR
R C STIERNA R P A STIERNA
lORERT C R PATRICIA STIERNA
.^R SHORELINE DR
.AYZATA NN SSSRl
SR 1R-117-2S R2 RRR4
RIRRR HERITAGE DR
L V DAYTON JR R R J DAYTON
L V DAYTON JR R R J DAYTON
IRRR HERITAGE OR
WAYZATA NN SSSRl
SO 1R-117-2S 42 RRIR
R1R2R SHORELINE DR
E C SWENSON RAN SWENSON
ERIK 0 R ANN N SWENSON
1R2R SHORELINE DR
WAYZATA NN SSSRl
PROP ADOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADDR
SR 1R-1I7-2S 42 RR17
RRRSR ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
N A NELSON R J A NELSON
NORRIS A/JACOUELINE A NELSON
IRRR SHORELINE DR
WAYZATA NN SSSRl
SR 1R-117-2S 42 RRIR
RIRRR SHORELINE DR
N A NELSON R J A NELSON
NORRIS A/JACQUELINE A NELSON
IRRR SHORELINO DR
WAYZATA NN SSSRl
SR 1R-117-2S 42 RRIR
RIRSR HERITAGE DR
W GREGORY COWARD JR
W GREGORY COWARD JR
IRSR HERITAGE DR
WAYZATA NN SSSRl
PROP ADOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
TOTAL RATCH Sf7 •RR12
i <
> ■,
Application Date:
60 Day Deadline:
10/24/01
12/23/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:November 13,2001
SUBJECT: #01-2733 W'illiam B. and Lynae Peterson
420 Orchard Park Road
Variance Renewal - Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
RR-1A One Family Rural Residential District (5 acre)
4.34 acres
List of Exhibits:
A
B
C
D
Application
Plat Map
Resolution No. 4562
Staff Report (November 8,2000)
Application Summary:
Applicants are requesting renewal of variance to the S acre minimum lot area requirement to permit
construction on the property located at 420 Orchard Park Road. The initial variance approval was
for one year, however the property owners do not intend to request a building permit until the one
year approval has expired. They do plan to build the new house sometime next year. The proposed
site plan has not changed from the 2000 approved plan.
Resolution No. 4562 had 4 additional conditions the property owners must comply with as part of
the variance approval. They have completed the requirements of the resolution including resolving
the wetland mitigation for the driveway with the MC WD, final grading plans for the driveway have
been approved by tue City of Orono and MCWD, and property owners have entered into a Hold
Harmless agreement for the driveway located within the public platted right of way. The property
owners did complete construction of the driveway to the building site this year.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application to extend the variance application deadline and
forward the application for review to the City Council on Monday, November 26,2001.
z
fO i OO
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)
ApplicationU Qj"’ Z73 S
Date Received 7*-4-Ot
Amount Paid ^ / ^6
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address
ORMATION . / I /) /H20 OtrIrAM IhrL
ication Number (P.l.D.) 2^ -1 3 sProperty Identification Number (P.l.D.) 2^ - j 3
tion if not inc
Acquired fsor
Attach legal description to api^cation if not included on required survey.
-
I (do) 1^0 hot>)Blso own the adjacent parcels of land
DatePn (month/vcar)
Present use of prope
Zoning District:_
rty:____res
ijaceni parcels ot iwq.
residential \yoHtiex (specifV) fV/rlj
APPLICANT L/f yCimtaj Phone (home )
Name /Ti C, Phone (work )
Address: (mu DcvHi>^ City: Zip:__£
^/Tkitncd^-M^0-3iC>rh
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name
Phone (home).
Phone (work)
Address:City:Zip:
>N OF REQUEST E^imated Construction Cost $ A/
luest in detaU: to apf\riwnl /
fTID Q.V>d A.rv
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detai
(attach additional sheets if necessaiy)
VA|U^NCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage
Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difHculty or unusqal property conditityis preventingb^caviiuc uiiuui; luuuaiup ur pnicncai oiincuiiy or unusimi property conditums prevei
compliance with Zoning C^e requirementsrTTlgx OitWiW O'fRkiJ HL
OUfjL faWenh BfUitiflaiLihiiifcifameogaaiy)-
loi- U/icHtii yx) ft a1-'4i5
ClSl- \ A dvSRV>fc^...................................................................... .
-k: ' V . -T.fCounty Taxpayer Services Depart
rrr.-^ tr
■
Parcel Information
Parcel ID 3211823230006
Housa Numbar 420
Straat Nama ORCHARD PARK RD
This 1$ not» hgally ncofdtd msp. ItnpnsonUoeomfiMiona/Momation
snddsts from CHy. County, snd Ststo road suthoritmt snd othor soufcos.
• r*
-vr/
-• ••
CITYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 ?i 6
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.27, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) AND DENYING
VACATION OF PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY
FILE NO. 2626
WHEREAS, William B. Peterson and Lynae M. L. Peterson, (hereinafter "the
applicants") have an interest in and Stephen D. Towle and Janet Gilbert are owners (hereinafter “the
owners”) of the property located at “420" Orono Orchard Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter
"the City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 8, Orchard Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the property to be a buildable lot where 4.3
acres exist and 5 acres are required for residential use and the applicants have requested vacation of
platted right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on October 16,2000, at which time all persons desiring to be
heard concerning this application were given the opportunit)’ to speak thereon.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1 . . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2626.
2. The property is located in the RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning
District.
3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16,2000 and
recommended approval of the lot area variance by a vote of 6 to 0.
4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact:
Page 1 of S
GITYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 5 R
5.
A. The lot is similar in design and dimension to all lots within the plat of
Orchard Park.
B.The property meets the minimum lot width standard for lots in the RR-IA
district.
C.The property does not have direct access to a developed public road. Access
to Orchard Park Road would be via a 33' wide platted right-of-way that was
dedicated within the plat of Orchard Park.
D.A lot combination has been completed on the lots located to the north of and
surrounding the subject property. The total land area of those lots is
approximately 23 acres (Lots 5,6,7,9,10 Orchard Park). The eastern lot,
located north of the subject propert>', does not have access to a public road.
The only potential access that exists is through the 33' right-of-way that is
proposed for vacation.
E.The plat of Jacobs Mill, completed in 1999, is east of the plat of Orchard
Park. No access to Jacobs Mill Road would be available due to a large
wetland located on Lot 6.
F.Two suitable septic site designs have been submitted by the applicants and
have been approved by the On-Site Systems Manager.
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 variance to lot area will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose
a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely scr\e 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
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. _______________
6.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 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 a
variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the property to be
a buildable lot where 4.3 acres exist and 5 acres arc required for residential use and the denial of the
requested vacation of platted right-of-way. Variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall receive approval from the MCWD for the land alteration within a
wetland.
2. Final Grading Plan for the driveway shall be approved by the City of Orono.
3. Septic Sites shall be enclosed with u four foot orange snow fence prior to land
alteration and grading on the lots as required by the On-Site Systems Manager.
4. Applicant shall enter into a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Orono for the
private driveway within the public right-of-way and agree that others requesting use
of the public land within the 33' platted public right of way are permitted for access
purposes to adjacent properties, subject to review by the City Public Services
Director.
5. Authorities granted by the variances run with the property not w ith 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 these variances will expire on that date
(November 13,2001).
6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances
shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any
authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
7. The undersigned applicants and owners have read, understand 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.
Page 3 of S
ClTYof ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 fi
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on
the 13 th day of November, 2000.
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour. Mayo
Property Owner
Applicant
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 1 3th day of November, 2000
by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
MARY ANN JOHNSON
^ wrAarmauc.MHNEsoTA
% OomnMM Ej^ jHi SI, 300$If
STA
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
"-/Vav/. CUfJ -------
Notary Public
On this day of T)fcer*hP€ . 20_££. before me a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared A- -Pei~g 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 P
Page 4 ofS
lotary Ptmic ^
V
^ -fim u
CITYof ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 5 6 "
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this <^/ day of . 20 . before me a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared S~f epb<°^x/ X>. ~ro^ole^. 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.
MARY ANN JOHNSON
NOTARY PUtUC-MNNESOTA
UrCoiNManCxpIrH ML 31.20QS
mmmmtaaetsr
0-\l L
Notary Pul^lic
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this / day of Dt^c e r<nht'^ . 20_££_, before me a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared <C,- } ,>n ______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.
MARY ANN JOHNSON
NOTARY PU8UC • laWESOTA
Mr CoRinWen Expns Ml )1.20W
Notar>' Puolic /
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of d . 20 . before me a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared A)- L ■y<^'fpe<.of\. 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.
K
IV
MARY ANN JOHNSON
notary RUBUC •UNNSSOTA
M CamnMion Eisirti Ml 31.2XB
Notary Public
Page S of S
Application Date: 9/18/00
60 Day Deadline: 11/17/00
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 8,2000
ITEM NO.
Department Approval:
Name Paul Weinberger
Title Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description:U2626 William B. and Lynne Peterson
420 Orchard Park Road
Variance and Vacation of Platted Road - Public Hearing
Zoning District: RR-IA One Family Rural Residential District (S acre)
Lot Area: 4.34 acres
List of Exhibits:
A Resolution
B Site Plan
C Planning Report
.Application Summary:
A) The applicants have requested approval of a variance to the S acre lot area requirement to permit
construction of a new residence on the property . The property is a vacant parcel without direct access to a
road. Access to the property would be via a 33* platted right-of-way that would be used for driveway access
to the property. Exhibit B is a plat map illustrating the proposed location of the driv eway and the building
lot.
B) Applicants also request vacation of a portion of the platted right-of-way that would not be used for
driveway purposes.
A.Variance:
1 he variance requested is to permit the lot located at 420 Orchard Park Road to be considered a buildable
lot that does not meet the S acre minimum lot si/c for the RR-1A zoning district. The lot is 4.34 acres in size
but does have 300' of width at the defined front lot line. By definition the front lot line is the east property
line. Front property lines are defined as "That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public
street, and in the case of a comer lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street.” Because the
property is adjacent to a dedicated public street, although undeveloped, the shortest of the two property lines
adjacent to the dedicated right-of-way i$ considered the front lot line for zoning purposes.
B.Vacatioo:
Exhibit B shows the area of the public right-of-way that is requested to be vacated by the applicant. The
vacation would benefit the applicant in two ways. The vacation w aid increase the size of the applicant’s
property by over 31,000 s.f. creating a lot of 5 acres. The lots within the plat of Orchard Park average 4.8
acres in size. The 33' dedicated for public right-of-way adjacent to each lot is the additional land required
for the lots to meet the S acre lot requirement.
Secondly, vacation of the right-of-way would eliminate the possibility of a drivew ay or road being routed
around the property. Staff has review^ the vacation request and would recommend the right-of-way not be
vacated until the property to the north develops and access has been secured to the other land locked
properties.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommended approval cf the variance to permit the lot to be considered a
buildable lot, and recommends denial of the request to vacate the public right-of-way.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application for a variance approving a lot area variance for the property
based on the hardship noted above subject to the following condtions:
I. Applicant shall receive approval from the MC'A’D for the land alteration within a wetland.
2. Final Grading Plan for the driveway shall be approved by the City of Orono.
3.Septic Sites shall be enclosed with a four foot orange snow fence prior to land alteration and grading
on the lots as required by the On-Site Systems Manager.
4.Applicant shall enter into a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Orono for the private
driveway within the public right-of-way and agree that others requesting use of the public land can
share a drivew ay if required.
Staff is recommending denial of the request for vacation until such time the property to the north develops
and legal access would be secured to all properties.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to adopt the resolution approving a variance to the RR-IA lot area requirements and denying the
request to vacate the public right-of-way.
luArn iiiiai iii mil iitfmmittmiMita
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.27, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) AND DENYING
VACATION OF PLATTED RIGHT OF WAY,
FILE NO. 2626
WHEREAS, Wiiliam B. Peterson and Lynne M. L. Peterson, (hereinafter "the
applicants") have an interest in and Stephen D. Towle and Janet Gilbert are owners (hereinafter “the
owners”) of the property located at “420" Orono Orchard Road within the City ofOrono (hereinafter
"the City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 8, Orchard Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the property to be a buildable lot where 4.3
acres exist and 5 acres are required for residential use and the applicants have requested vacation of
platted right of way; and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on October 16, 2000, at which time all persons desiring to be
heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2626.
The property is located in the RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning
District.
3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16,2000 and
recommended approval of the lot area variance by a vote of 6 to 0.
4. The Planning Commission made the following fmdings of fact:
Page 1 of S
J
A. The lot is similar in design and dimension to all lots within the plat of
Orchard Park.
B The property meets the minimum lot width standard for lots in the RR-1A
district.
C. The property does not have direct access to a developed public road. Access
to Orchard Park Road would be via a 33' wide platted right-of-way that was
dedicated within the plat of Orchard Park.
D. A lot combination has been completed on the lots located to the north of and
surrounding the subject property. Ihc total land area of those lots is
approximately 23 acres (Lots 5,6,7,9, 10 Orchard Park). The eastern lot.
located north the subject property, does not have access to a public road. The
only potential access that exists is through the 33' right of way that is
proposed for vacation.
E. The plat of Jacobs Mill, completed in 1999, is east of the plat of Orchard
Park. No access to Jacobs Mill Road would be available due to a large
wetland located on Lot 6.
1-. Two suitable septic site designs have been submitted by the applicants and
have been approved by the On-Site Systems Manager.
5. 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 variance to lot area will 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 S
6.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 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 a
variance to Municipal Zoning Code Secvion 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the property to be
a buildable lot where 4.3 acres exist and 5 acres are required for residential use and the denial of the
requested vacation of platted right of way. Variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
I. Applicant shall receive approval from the MCWD for the land alteration within a
wetland.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Final Grading Plan for the driveway shall be approved by the City of Orono.
Septic Sites shall be enclosed with a four foot orange snow fence prior to land
alteration and grading on the lots as required by the On-Site Systems Manager.
Applicant shall enter into a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Orono for the
private driveway within the public right-of-way and agree that others requesting use
of the public land can share a driveway if required.
W fv\ ^uV\« t .
Authorities granted by the variances run with the property not with the applicant, 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 these variances will expire on that dale
(November 13,2001).
V iolation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances
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 and owners have read, understand 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.
Page 3 of 5
— -----------
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on
the 13th day of November, 2000.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Cleric Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
Property Owner Property Owner
Applicant Applicant
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13 th day of November. 2000
by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
)
) ss.
)
Notary Public
On this day of
for said County, personally appeared
,, 20 ____, before me a Notary Public within and
_______________________________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 4 of S i
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of..,20., before me a Notary Public within and
knownfor said County, personally appeared_____________________________________
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
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
) ss,
)
On this day of.,20 before me a Notary Public within and
knownfor said County, personally appeared_____________________________________
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.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Notary Public
On this day of..,20 ., before me a Notary Public within and
________knownfor said County, personally appeared_____________________________________
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
\
M'tll
V«5fr
Eil
(10)
--rsfe-fr
\
‘t trwmr c s,
•a'^^eo
U t ^ ^V\
X
II V *
V
N&VS
:t
1/ 'xVJ..
-»• I
L —^JOTt
f ll
ir~
V
I )
( /-.
^Qoe$TED
R-O-w
■f
^OO
{ 0
mJ9i
^3LX JILL
hV V 631.57
t
^ J *6^
63<.95
(9)
63?. 3?
t
# • 432J_
)|2.0
P*W r^'.^
<:, V.3
4«r«S
»%
?0MlM.t
McriANb
SAS/ai
CMoM-OKOMO
^0TE«TtO .,
vJercAMtn
rz=c?
' \ 7. V
......*rr\()
-N y:-------A'-''’
14... V
3;
•X* •
\
__—u v<*' \
r • - - 1 -f • J I '
ll/rasklr
_____l.AVUA.--r
» t ariTM*^:x/ys,
5?2 AN*.
K'. v\\
X *v>.'Sx '<*
•«>« *S
•if \ ••
VS
\0!
_k* I ■■•'''
L_
mw^T 5T
sy/97</5) I
/ll
I «If 1
f/
I I /
f.^
/7
/ />.
; /^
Dr WE WAV
n *49 *06 /v ‘t
REQoepEO
R-O'W ,
VACATIoM
?66'.y »cs
;'T A legally recorded MAP. IT
’:> A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION
rRfV flTY, COiiMTY, AND S^ATE
.7;*;r<- .\',n i\:xXp, fC-i‘’C"S.• •••U'
VO
.- « fXi Jfwtf « L'.>nt. Lr-f*- «* ^ xrt ^.’.
Application
60 Day Deal
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Zoning Disti
Lot Area:
Lbtof Eah
Application
The applicai
constructior
access to a r<
for drivewa)
driveway an
way that wo
Other appro
Septi
Land
ofOi
Grad
*2626WUIiMiB
4200rchmli>Mfc
Vanaitce and Vaci
Pagel
Applkatton Date: 9/18/00
60 Day Dcadliae: 11/17/00
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
October 11,2000
SUBJECT: //2626 William B. and Lynne Peterson
420 Orchard Park Road
Variance and Vacation of Platted Road - Public Hearing
Zoaiag District:
Lot Area:
List of Eshibits:
RR-IA One Family Rural Residential District (S acre)
4.34 acres
A Application
B Plat Map
C Wetland Overlay Map
D Property Survey/Site Topography
E Grading Plan
F Septic Locations
G Memo from Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager - Approving Site Design
H Property Owners Notification List
Application Summary:
The applicants have requested approval of a variance to the 5 acre lot area requirement to permit
construction of a new residence on the property. The property is a vacant parcel without direct
access to a road. Access to the property would be via a 33' platted right-of-way that would be used
for driveway access to the property. Exhibit B is a plat map illustrating the proposed location of the
driveway and the building lot. Applicants also request vacation of a portion of the platted right-of-
way that would not be used for driveway purposes.
Other approvals required before building permit:
1 . Septic Design for primary and secondary sites - Approved - City of Orono
2. Land alteration within a wetland - MC WD (Small wetland basin does not appear on the City
of Orono’s 1974 Wetland Inventory). May require permit from the MCWD.
3. Grading Plan for the driveway - City of Orono
#2626 William B. and Lynne Peterson
420 Orchard Park Road
Variance and Vacation of Platted Road
Pagel
Variance:
The variance requested is to permit the lot located at 420 Orchard Park Road to be considered a
buildable lot that does not meet the S acre minimum lot size for the RR-IA zoning district. The lot
is 4.34 acres in size but does have 300' of width at the defined front lot line. The front lot line would
be the east property line. Front property lines are defined as “That boundary of a lot which abuts an
existing or dedicated public street, and in the case of a comer lot it shall be the shortest dimension
on a public street.” Because the property is adjacent to a dedicated public street, although
undeveloped, the shortest of the two property lines adjacent to the dedicated right-of-way is
considered the front lot line for zoning purposes.
Vacation:
Exhibit B shows the area of the public right-of-way that is requested to be vacated by the applicant.
The vacation would benefit the applicant in two ways. The vacation would increase the size of the
applicant’s property by over 3 1,000 s.f. creating a lot of S acres. The lots within the plat of Orchard
Park average 4.8 acres in size. The 33' dedicated for public right-of-way adjacent to each lot is the
additional land required for the lots to meet the S acre lot requirement.
Secondly, vacation of the right-of-way would eliminate the possibility of a driveway or road being
routed around the property. Staffhas reviewed the vacation request and would recommend the right-
of-way not be vacated until the property to the north develops and access has been secured to the
other land locked properties.
Surrounding Properties:
A lot combination has been completed on the lots located to the north of and surrounding the subject
property. The total land area of those lots is approximately 23 acres (Lots 5,6, 7, 9, 10 Orchard
Park). Although unlikely, a lot could be split leaving a property north of the subject lot without any
access to a right-of-way except the 33' dedicated on the plat of Orchard Park. The plat of Jacobs
Mill, completed in 1999, is east of the plat of Orchard Park. No access to Jacobs Mill Road would
be available due to a large wetland located on Lot 6. The connection to the north would not be
possible.
The applicant has stated he would be willing to dedicate an easement in favor of property to the north
creating a shared driveway across the 420 lot for access to Lot 7 as a condition of the right-of-way
vacation.
Proposed Grading Plan:
The grading plan shall be approved by the City and MC WD prior to issuing a land alteration permit
for the driveway. No building permit could be approved for the house until such time the driveway
is constructed and approved by the City and MC>^. The NWI shows a small wetland basin in the
12626 William B Mid Lynne Pelcfwn
420 Orchard Park Road
Variance and Vacation of Platted Road
Page 2
area where the driveway is proposed. A site inspection has confirmed the wetland location by the
types of vegetation present (several willow trees). If the area in fact is a wetland WCA rules and
regulations apply for a permitting process and mitigation through the watershed district.
Hardship:
The property has existed as a separate parcel for many years. The property is 4.34 acres in size and
is sized similar to other lots in the locality. The lot width measures 300* at the front property line
and structure setback (east property line) for lots in the RR-1A district.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the application for a variance approving a lot area variance for the
property based on the hardship noted above subject to the following condtions:
1. Applicant shall receive approval from the MC WD for the land alteration within a wetland.
2. Final Grading Plan for the driveway shall be approved by the City of Orono.
3.Septic Sites shall be enclosed with a four foot orange snow fence prior to land alteration and
gr^ing on the lots as required by the On-Site Systems Manager.
4.Applicant shall enter into a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Orono for the private
driveway within the public right-of-way and agree that others requesting use of the public
land can share a driveway if required.
Staff is recommending denial of the request for vacation until such time the property to the north
develops and legal access would be secured to all properties.
Options for Action:
1. Recommend approval.
2. Recommend denial, stating reasons.
3. Table.
4. Other action.
#2626 William B. and Lynne Peterson
420 OrchtfdPwk Road
Variance and Vacmion of Platted Road
P^3
A
Application #GZC,
Date Received *7 ' ?- - c>0
Amount Paid ^ 3 S7T? ^
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S2S0.00
(S50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures S2SO.OO
Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address P 9a.y\C.
Property Identification Number (PJD.'i 25
A.ttach legal description to application if not included on required stirvey.
Date Rroperty Acquired 'looo (month/year)
I (^)^to_n^ also own the'^adjacent parcels ot land. _
PrMenttBem property: residential ^ o ther (specify) ^ ^
Zoning District: JC£.-IA
APPLICANT
Name yy^ninn nimnia »i»ii
Address; fC'LS^ 0,ci>i^ik Ui
L\iiVKf/>reX)
Name LL.t^^# a4 L Phone (work) 6ix-
Phone (home ) f
City: Zip: 5Y\\ ^ *
OWT'TER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) hil ^
Name fr.Tnuylfc Phone (work).
Address:*^ ^eAA.e.A.A^if^ Citv: ^Zip:_552fLi V
I
Estimated Construction Cost $ A/ADESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail: reg.-U>.»
1-)
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
3:^ : 7
* (
»
VARIANCES REQUIRED
jf Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage
Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore
ji Other (specify) f\lai# ^44a/U^
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe xmdue hardship or practical difficul^ or unusual property conditions preventmg
compliance with Zoning Code reoulrements: pbinu fee. V*<i ^tVu***^ ciA^^AAiy------
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
kHUiaiiiiui
»4'‘
•If.”
^4¥«A''l
^OO
r _J_TI7_____j
§;
N&«:AT-»n3>
61D.O
6311.
«LL
^ 0 10
65U5
(9)
;|2.o wr^
..iiu:j«c:^.«ii> u
»> •<•
?«WlUtMcriAXtt
tAS
Jaci.bc- H;ll (U4:i^r,v^
\
(10)
Z I
>'V
i
___I—\ v.;-‘—
♦-S.*^'\ I 4
M'.
-\'.-
*,<p ■■■^;r— V
....... *“ K
£TXrlC
^. ( (r* r>
?-----
\;<f"
!'>&\ W
Vijih \ ^
4*1
f*/ > «^v
m m
If
'i7i
««|*oi IV‘t
i^QoeSTEO
-0-W
t^ibO
(I \
AIQM
-631 i
JSJLL2
R i
^—‘»ji.
R
t 1
#
/ ■
/
'iLft _n‘A
#= . C-
!
V>
5
6
631.!
#' V) X ,
n AsA
631.93
177
m
(9)
637.3?§32^32.
432-7
,>i
■%.
mV
^OMlUt
S asiai
CMoN'OKOMO
^HtfTECTtO -,
\»leTCANQ)
Driveway
(10)
.6 X)iV
2 I
4. _ jrfn
. ...........-'f.. »f
— ----------V-*‘^‘
A i
X'^
\yy-
'vt\““'’ '
L... = -.1 -■Ig*v=.^T...-.•.^.. j.. r -t-t.........*--*iti---
{
* \ V' I * \
, \<\,', \ ;j.--------._..nv^4_.v..-.
!k..- 'V /*v ^-t//
:i
-• v\"
- X ^ ' /
• - Nfi^ -N. *v V. V.o
^ / mH N-^-7 ff' •
v/f ir^i I
r^i
«
I
fV • ?/
•» II
irH:
I Lp,i
■MM I
6V.n »49‘06 7U •
R^QueSTED
R-O'W ,
VACATioM
?65'.y PES
.'T A legally recorded !.;ap, it
•;, A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION
t'rr*.' •'■•TY, rONMTY, AND SUTE
-rr n ,'»T,.rf? rr orr^
^________________**
•If
(70
■:■. ■ ■■ . '-iH A-
' rhj' •...mg
'Ll‘’‘fr2r
.lC
, ,,
a
Mi;®
i 1?|§J '
f »-V<.VA
min.'.>
Mi
Kij!<
(10)
o'
I • \ K '
*Cr \ '•
^ <1
i
L.« i I*-, i s I!!*: i.T,-.T,t » T ^____^1, ...yr----—1 -r - * — f r y
< >7 / ,-'" .
i. \<\''7 \L. .....-^-V^-^y
•'(V»«rl '>.•/
•\,
m
k
<£3S\
♦ > ‘ V> ♦,
i-r'\v% ,y'*‘
'N. . •
J?H ’’V
hi. .A’.-J!'*'fS» >
ifi
\ L..L' ,9
n M*oe A^'t
rooesreD
-O'Vil
'acatio M
2661. y l»tS
mct'^-
• * w *
r •*# vt V
!»• ** *•**
A";
mm:
r I
W-->7 -L' "’ ' - -'f* s ^ • 7^ -'W^v .
•- . T^i
-V
1 y
>y-«!;'4
./I^ori-,:5i?<V
L X •j.*.vlY/.
t*
Vy
f - V pm
V V
'^l4 i L%m
I 'i'
f •K
•T.
• - y»
t>‘
\ »
/..V f ••\ '
®sJS^w
V.yCt:
f-1
^ «
; .'w ( (
. 4 k
Lvv
•y
V
■ >
M!
hi
IjJh'vsA'-
'•?Cv - •».'
fev?T.S
- «:
I V'V
^ - V
i>-.) _• ,, -•*•-
•, ^ tv"., ■ ------------------ -
^V^'-’^ -V» • 3 <:X.-.:-r,^':'.-
S'
m.Kii,m'Mw.
WZ
Vi:
':&l
V\
•■^- ‘\>‘i'3>> i^*'^-ii' *^•
p ^ . -^:*JLT!rr^?^«-_ h y\ - * *.' •*.><
iiiEi Km'
^m.
■WlLL4'l..,i*j
pi
MU
k>*rs4i'^v'wJvy * >j--v i
*• ^
-
w Ik
k -
^•5'
♦ . >♦',
:-V'H4'a.
*-:-N
^1*'X r' i
s r- c\ MA4rlf
*>
i\’
<y
»• %•
x^-.
L^.
2^4.1 X'
%S|iP
t'
II .1
Ty ‘^
-—#^r-.‘I
V.
\ - - ,x- *• •
^ -V^ .• - - •
.'•• J
il
P
“• ’ 2 .V' •
• • • a* - • * . • .- .
P'm
r>.^4 ;-c>i(u\*jvav-:
r''*Tr
;i
V I
•>
k<' . • J
- »i:7I ‘ ' 1?;]
llS
1*4:
m
NP
a
Ui
.4114^
mw^l
■m
■m
•Si
m
♦ .»*•
-r-4%'
-. r^-*
,•«*
Sp
->; rASsl.3
C--L .Ww.
'«¥•.
.®'A
T^'tvM .#»
t wm^m^imm
sm
\ / \
^ '>.1
*^^V:?«..v-,.T- -4
vmmm
W#wm
* r%'.^
^#2
»!
»]
IP
'■/r
L\
■V'
•■ I W?\i •** vT>r*>
iWami)4is ANP a ^. «r. -JLt jj 4:
•t ;<*«.--r<^ ^- (
C%4
l->
. lilifpi
i I?
ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey
II
A--*-------------yy
/
_______________________
I -----------------------------
I
!ML I ' 1 ^ / / ////
■g'____j
ttvMi-v I
/ / ^ -----------------------------------------
-___________________N
8 ^ —
1
! /1 • I * * / / /////// '. ^
Wi
I »^55ea.5»^r-i--~? ,n i§!!!!!!?f//X^D
r f /fcnir-^TPn
^ ' I
--------------- \ ^ \ I^___"s \ V '
1 --------- \ \ ’ 'gfSggg^B^ \ ^ V ^*"—^****w»** ^.gOOB \ \
A_\'d
%mrni0mmm ^^mmrnm
ffl-*
rnmi m0mm$mm
iaUiA amM» AMm •a
eoimr%SeM mF99t
AREA - 4. J5 ACKS
5>r-
1
I
I ^^ I
I
a
2
fc’
• o • •
*irr-1flr 'T -T 11 Blft 41 t
tc]o
CO onll
&
t”r
Q>
Q.f ci1
PQ
1 |S
Site Plan
F
PROPOSED OEVATIONS:
Lom€9t Floor » W12.0± (yorify)
Top of tot Soptfe Took « 1009.00
Top of 2nd Sopttc Tank • 1000.50
Top of Pump Tank m 1008.00
\ ^ % \ I i ;PROPERTY LOCATION:
Lot a. ORCHARD PARK. HENNEPIN COUNTY,
according to the record plat thereof.
ricrtby certify that this site plon,
denotes soil boring
denotes percolation test hoic
.Requested By:
Bill Peterson
Dote:Drown By:Scole:Checked By:
/%
9/11/00 D.N.M.r=5o'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager
October 10,2000
SUBJECT: Septic Review for Bill Peterson, Lot 8, Orchard Park
A septic design was submitted for the above stated property. The design is dated September 29,
2000 and was done by Otto and Associates. The design meets all minimum requirements of the
Orono Septic Code and Minnesota Chapter 7080.
It should be noted that the design is oversized for what is required in Orono. If the installer wishes
to downsize the mound to meet the minimum standards of Chapter 7080, another design will need
to be submitted and approved by the City.
Based on the above information, staff reconunends approval of the variance. The City requires the
drainfield sites to be enclosed with four foot orange snow fence prior to any grading or land
alteration on these lots
- V-A,* T Mi^V- ••-» 2
HIM OATi if/12/M
tATCN ftS
NEfMCPlN COUNTY fROPCIITY XNFOIfUTlCil SYSTEM
fftOPCNTY ONNCiS LIST
iCfOfIT NO. rXASMti
PAOC 7
ONNCN NAME
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
51 S2-1I1-2S 25 IMS
•MSI ADDRESS UNASSIONED
STEPNEN D TORtE
STEPHEN D TOHtE
5115 PINNACLE DR
OLDSNAR PL 5M77
51 52-111-25 25 ••••
••AM ORCNARO PARK RD
RODERT J • LORRAINE E ROPEN
RQDERT J 1 LORRAINE E RODEN
••• ORCNARO PARK RD
LONO LAKENN 55551
51 52-111-25 2A Mil
•57A5 JACODS HILL RD
D A ADANS t L N AOANS
DRADLEY ALLEN ADANS
LYNN NARIE AOANS
•51 SILVER NEAOOH DR
LONO LAKE NN 5SSS1
PROP AOOR
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
51 52-111-25 2A ••12
•SI/S' JACODS NILL RO
JEFfREY R 1 KARX A ANENT
.lEPPREY R 1 KARl A ANENT
••I 1ST ST S D1S15
NPLS NN 551S1
51 52-111-25 52 •••!
•5MS HATERTONN RD
JEPPREY V NELXN
JEPPREY V NELIN
5VM HATERTONN RD
NAPLE PLAIN NN 55559
51 52-111-25 52 lOM
•5150 HATERTONN RD
S N 1 C A HARRIS
STEVEN N HARRIS
515 TURHAN RO
NAPLE PLAIN NN 55559
PROP AOOR
OHNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADDR
TOTAL HATCH 515 ••••!
#2 n>
1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECO»S
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE REST
OF NY RNONLEDOE AND DELIEP
DATEM-Q0^1cp} MJ)
i 1
Application Date: 9/18/01
Deadline: 1/16/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Haul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:November 16,2001
SUBJECT: #01-2722 Michael and Monica Brown
1241 Browm Road South
Variances
Zoning District: RR-1B, 2 acre. One Family Rural Residential
Background: Planning Commission tabled this application in October to allow the property owner to
consider options to the site plan in relation to garage size and setbacks. Applicants had made an application
requiring variances to permit construction of a 28' X 24’ detached garage to replace an e.\isting garage. The
proposed garage is proposed to be located 6’ off the south (Minnetonka Avenue) property line. The south
property line is defined as a side yard adjacent to street yard requiring a 50’ setback. The garage doors arc
facing the street, which also requires a 30’ setback regardless of zoning district. The garage is also proposed
to be located 5’ from the rear property line where a 10’ setback is required.
The second part of the application was to replace an e.xisting fence that is 6’ in height within the side yard
adjacent to street (Minnetonka Avenue) setback where a maximum height fence is allowed to be 3 Vz. The
fence is a privacy fence to the back yard. The fence is located 27’ from the property line. The Planning
Commission did siu*,c general support for the fence height variance.
Property owners have not submitted a ntw plan to revise the garage location or access to the property.
However they have stated they are agreeable to move the garage back an additional 5' from the property line.
The total setback to the property line would become 1J’, rather than 6’. The other issue is the 5’ setback to
ihe alley. Staff can support a 5’ setback to the alley .'""The City does not intend to develop the alley as a
traveled road. All that the alley is used for is for electric service. The hardship is the location of a mature
pine tree that is located behind the garage.
The proposed garage would be consistent with the development along Mintetonka Avenue as the other
detached garages face directly towards the street. The propeily owners have also agreed to reduce the size
of the outside parking area to only accommodate a w idth of one to one and a half cars.
Please read the attached October Staff Report for additional background.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of variances to permit replacement of a 6’ fence w ithin 50’ of the street property
line. Staff also recommends approval of variances to permit an 11' side yard adjacent to the street setback
and a S' setback to the alley based on the proposed garage meets the development pattern of surrounding
properties along Minnetonka Avenue and the alley is not intended to be used for roadway purposes. The
width of the alley and the 5’ side setback exceed the 10’ that would normally be required for a structure
setback to an adjacent property .
i
CITY OF ORONO
P.O.Box 66
Crystal Bay» MN 55323
PHONE:(952)249-4600 FAX:(952)249-4616
ZONING FILE #01-2722
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE: October 16,2001
TO: Michael and Monica Brown
1241 Brown Road South
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION;X Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision
Other
DATEOFMEETING: October 15,2001 VOTE; 6 FOR 0 AGAINST
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Approval as submitted
Approval subject to conditions noted below
Denial for reasons noted below f
X Tabled for reasons noted below
__No action required
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
The application was tabled to allov^ an opportunity to redesign the site plan to reflect a change to
the property setbacks. Ple.tse contact the Zoning Department to set up an appointment to discuss
the application. Our number is (952) 249-4600.
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available
from the City Recorder after review wd approval by the Planning Commission.
Application Date:
Deadline:
9/18/01
11/17/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:
DATE:
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
October 8, 2001
SUBJECT: iHO 1-2722 Michael and Monica Brown
1241 Brown Road South
Variances
Zoning District:RR-IB, 2 acre, One Family Rural Residential
List of Exhibits
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Application
Hardship Statement
Plat Map
Property Owners Notification List
Existing Conditions Property Survey
Proposed Site Plan
Garage Elevation Views and Dimensions
Review of Request: Applicants have requested variances to permit constn;ction of a 28' X 24'
detached garage to replace an existing garage. The proposed garage is proposed to be located 6' off
the south (Minnetonka Avenue) property line. The south property line is defined as a side yard
adjacent to street yard requiring a SO' setback. The garage doors are facing the street, which also
requires a 30' setback regardless of zoning district. The garage is also proposed to be located S' from
the rear property line where a 10' setback is required.
Secondly, the applicants are requesting a variance to permit replacement of an existing fence that is
6' in height within the side yard adjacent to street (Minnetonka Avenue) setback where a maximum
height fence is allowed to be 3 '/j*. The fence is a privacy fence to the back yard. The fence is
located 27' from the propertv line.
Code Review:
Garage Variance:
1. Section 10.03. Subdivision 13 - To permit the doors of a detached garage to be located 6* from
a lot line where 30' is required
2. Section 10.28, Subdivision S (B) and Section 10.61 Subdivision S (A> to permit the side yard
adfacent to street setback to be 6' where SO' is required in the RR-IB district.
•0I>2722 MldiMl UMl Monica
1241 Brobbn Road S'^uih
KVI5/0I
Page 1 of5
1
3. Section 10.61. Subdivision 5 (A) to permit a garage to be located 5' from the rear property line
where 10’ is required for construction of a detached garage.
The applicants have stated their IS' X 22' garage is not large enough and would like to construct a
larger garage. The proposed garage would be 28' X 24' and would have the door access facing the
street to allow backing out onto Minnetonka Avenue rather than having to back out to the e.xisting
parking area. Across Minnetonka Avenue are two detached garages that are built on the lots with
direct access to the street. The closest garage, across the street is 12.5' from the paved surface of
Minnetonka Avenue. A second garage is located 25' from the paved surface of the street. The
proposed garage would be located 18.5' from the paved surface. 30’ is the standard.
In the applicants hardship statement they have stated the garage could not be moved further to the
north due to a large pine tree being located behind the garage that they would like to keep on the
property. Staff has measured the tree and confirmed it has a trunk diameter of appro.\imately 16"
and has a 30' diameter drip line. The tree is located 12' from the back wall of the e.\isting parage.
The new garage would not be located closer to the tree than the existing garage.
The two ways to obvious maximize the setback to the street and save the tree would be to reduce the
size of the garage or move the garage farther to the north and east between the tree and the house.
Nearly all garages built in the Crystal Bay neighborhood on comer lots have the garage with direct
access, including the two lots across the street. One problem with the direct access is the fact the
garages have very short driveways posing a problem with off street parking. Adequate off street
parking is not always available and Minnetonka Avenue is a narrow road only paved 15' wiue.
City standards only allow one curb cut per property with a 20 ’ width. The property has an existing
40' wide parking area located east of the existing garage that would remain, however the width
would be narrowed because the larger garage would encroach into the existing parking surface.
Fence Variance:
1 ■ Section 10.03. Subdivision 15 fO: This section permits 3 Vi foot fences as a non-encroachment
to required yard setbacks. Applicants have requested variances to replace the existing 6' fence
located 27' from the propeitv line.
Non Lakeshore Lots
Exceptions to the 3 Vi 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 \ ird setback on the north side of the house and rear yard setback.)
The proposed fence would remain in the same location as the existing fence. The fence is to provide
privacy to the back yard, as the property is a comer lot with a public street on two sides of the lot
The fence is located 27 from the property line and 38.5' from the paved surface of the street.
•01-2722 Michicl and Monica Brown
1241 Brown Road South
KV15/01
P^2of5
L
Hardcover:
The property is located in the Shoreland area. It is located within the 500' -1,000 ’ setback to the high
water level of French Lake. The total proposed hardcover is 3,536 s.f. (21.5%) where 5,759 s.f.
(35%) is allowed. Total lot area is 16,455 s.f.
New Hardcover
672 s.f. for the new detached garage
144 s.f. for the new driveway access
STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP
Applicant's hardship is included with Exhibits A and B. The applicant should also be asked for
their testimony regarding this issue.
Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship
1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls.
The property is being put to a reasonable use because it contains a single family resilience.
2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The garage would be constructed with the doors facing towards Minnetonka Avenue which
is consistent with other garages in the neighborhood. IVhat circumstances prohibit
placement ofthe garage between the tree and the house to allowfor a greater street setback?
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance would not change the character ofthe locality. The development pattern ofthe
lot is in character with the general development pattern of the Crystal Bay neighborhood.
4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable
use for the property e.\ists under the terms of this chapter.
Economic factors are not a consideration.
5.Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems.
Solar access is not a consideration.
6.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance
for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where
iOI-2722 Michael and Monica Bfown
1241 Brown Road South
10/15/01
Page 3 of5
8.
10.
11.
the affected person's land is located.
The use of the property would remain residential which is a permitted use in the zoning
district.
7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
The applicant will not be changing the dwelling status of the property.
The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar
to such property or immediately adjoining property.
The lot is a corner lot with setback requirements for 2 acre lots. The applicant's property
was platted and developed prior to the adoption ofthe zoning ordinance. The actual lot size
of this lot is about 1/3 of an acre. If even Vj acre standards were applied to the property a
1to side yard adjacent to street setback would be required, rather than 50'. This standard
applies to the fence and garage. And, any garage with doors facing the street must be 30'
from the lot line regardless of the district.
The S' garage setback to the rear property line is adjacent to a platted alley that is not
developed The actual distance to the neighboring property line and the garage would be
IT.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district
in which said land is located.
The condition of small lot size is unique in the RR-IB District but similar to other properties
in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The largest area ofthe rural part ofthe City is zoned RR~
/ B. However, much of the RR-IB district was developed at the two acre standard.
The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant.
The garage would provide indoor parkingfor two vehicles. The existing garage only could
provide parking for one vehicle.
.4 6' fence could be constructed in the proposed location if the V: acre standards were
applied.
The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety,
comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.
The fence would not impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be
contrary to the intent ofthe Zoning Code. The lack of setback from the garage doors to the
stret is a potential safety issue, especially if it results in cars perpetually parked in the right-
101-2722 Michael and Monica Brown
1241 Brown Road South
10/15/01
Pafc 4 of 5 A
of-way...
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTiculty.
Applicant's hardship statement is attached. Planning Commission should determine if the
tree is a valid hardship, or if the garage could be relocated so as to maximize the street
setback to more closely meet the 30'requirement.
Options for Planning Commission Action
A. Recommend approval of the variances to allow the detached garage and fence in the location
attached.
B. Recommend approval with discussion of the size of the garage, could the garage be moved
further from the property line if the size is reduced?’I
C. Table and provide direction to the applicant to what possible revisions that can be made.
Recommend denial, stating reasons.
i
«0I*2722 MichaBi and Monica Bfo%irfi
1241 Brown Road Soydi
l(yi5A)l
Paif 5of5
A
Appliaition H O i ' 2.7 2 *2.
Date Receive^ V/tf/g/ ”
Amount Paid •f2go
.ICATION
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 INFORi\UTION
Site Address_____H-HI
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)/O-3!
Attach legal description to application if not ir^luded on required survey
Date ~ • - 7-^-
I&
Preset'bBe-ofproperty: ^ residential
noKZ
cquired.
tiKlh
so own the^acent parcels of land,
s/resi
.(month/year)
Zoning District:,fkR-ie other (specify)
APPLICANT _ Phone (home)
Name Phone (work) ’79
Address: \ I (K. 4 i o z\zt: I ^
o\WNER fif different than applicant)
l\AoJiC»r BAoiJa/
Phone (home) f ^9 7\
________________________________ Phone (work)
Address: /2-V/ g,^( J, City: 2\o: J9/~
DESCRIPTION OF REQUE^ . Estimated Constnoctipn Cost $ ^ c ^ o
Describe request in detail: Re.pUce. C-rJ/xA/Vg uJ.H\ 2.^'a 2^\-
r^«\C_/v//ey Cf-f 7g/w,v^ ScHh.<,L
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage
Setback:Front X Side X. R ear 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: C0J0 J'O'' ^ ^ tvJm
—if /m/»0jj,IU h> nA^^^.rTk
H ciTw
vdc vJ«
^ r> ^ w
l I I I ^
f-/r- <3/ ^o
0 Aft^OSH I P C.OAj'' 7"
nUc J^l-A-ce or^ 'TUQ. €A/i~AS?€L
CpP~^ J/^o/^ SiO^/r '{''^•L’/’ 'pLa.\^
\jJ/irf A^fo Mccesf-A^^ ^OAKjS’-e '^'p~
Cu ('W^ € ^yA/e -^/2-CC -l~^\A-~f If
cL^'ou-f /o^ S/>^A67£. . TH tS
f/A^e Mj'Ouu^ Mee^ -To j^e COT O^UrJ
I P~ LJZ. UJ'^n-,t -f^ -/cC4-^e <3- /u;e ^
Ca--^ ^ou!^ CjioS-e/^ /o /•/-. T^e.Uy^-n^Ar^ £,
Su^\j^!y on-^ pcc C-^
i^ e ^4^^
gu^/3 43- nnfL^’7'
•e y^4 e j/oc^-r/orj^
'Tc 2-V'^ i^iP€. (yjt. iJDu/c( /Jt.e.c>
7"/(^'ry'^e. y^-ee-
.! •: V- ' '^ ■'"'* *\
-••-.r* •'• /■ :? -w .I M
it 4 /v^5/
!<*
J
-rr
J
C/
Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Pep0i1p.$hi jJ ‘ N>'*V
ttO
n
140
1 vv
A f40
as ^
(40 ;■ * * (40
N sr ^ a
L‘ 140
m *•. - a
140
22
140
3
140
" -a(40 • *\ r!o *
2* / a* (40 .\.:o «
3 »
'•• a
(40 ^'■•,•40 »
• *• a.** r?5) *^ (70)
V* r «O'.o'*-.- a
0 s
•«> (0 9
rw; *0 '■•" a
»
»s (, '«a
• 1
, (4 (40
(73) ,40
0 12 •» I40q
^72; ;40 1
140 S)
rCRYS rAL ' ^
11 140
9) ** * •■ 9 (32) "
(0 (40-
8) "• * '*’a 2 ."(33) "
• ■‘"a
S .1404 0
17) *,1 uo
t I40q
36) *
3 a
^34) ^
r '*»a
>40
•/' 0 '■•0
f35i (40*1
12i f 90
8}n n
1 1
.30 90
CRYSTAL AVj
iOSPECTAVE
» al
(51) 175 I
LUE
Parcel Information
4i n>' ^ o
7^ 0
Parcel ID 1011723310066
House Number 1241
Street Heme MtOWN HO S
Cendomlnlum
* ’ • • I
• • • V e^ •
■ "'JrV'f}’,*--•
• , • * V ■ . . S' **- *
■ 'vTNsisnotahgMyncordt4map. HnpnsanUacompMionofInkhtMipnz:
and data fmm Cdy, County, and Stata road authoribat and odtaraourcaa.y. 'f‘
tUN DATE fi7/SI/Al
BATCH 503
HENNEPIN COUNTY PBOPEBTY XNFOIINATION SYSTEN
PBOPEiTY OUNERS LIST
REPMT NO. PXA35AA1
PAGE f
PROP ADOR
ONNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
3B 10-117-23 11 0002
0003B ADDRESS UNASSXCHEO
NCtEOD CNTY REG RAIL AUTH
DAKOTA RAIL INC
25 ADANS ST N
HUTCHINSON HN 55350
3R 10-117-23 2A 0022
01212 ARBOR ST
J R CADY t S R CADY
S R CADY t .1 R CADY
1212 ARBOR ST
WAV2ATA HN 55391
3B 10*117-23 29 §023
B1225 LAKEVXEN AVE
M A JOtifON IAN f ARNNAN
V A JOHNSON IAN fARNHAN
1225 LAKEVIEH AVE
NAVZATA HN 55391
PROP ADOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADOR
SB 10-117-23 29 0029
01295 LAKEVIEW AVE
VIRGINIA NORD CRIFflTHS
VIRGINIA NORD GRIFFITHS
1295 LAKEVIEW AVE
WAY2ATA HN 55391
31 10-117-23 31 0022
01251 BROWN RD S
CRAIG W I JUDY D CHRISTENSEN
CRAIG I JUDY CHRISTENSEN
1251 BROWN ROAD S
WAYZATA HN 55391
3B 10-117-23 31 0023
0003S ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
CRAIG W I JUDY D CHRISTENSEN
CRAIG I JUDY CHRISTENSEN
1251 BROWN ROAD S
WAYZATA HN 55391
PROP AODR
OWNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/ADDR
0029
S
3B 10-117-23 31
01275 BROWN RD
TOWN or ORONO
CITY OF ORONO
PO BOX 46
CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323
002938 10-117-23 31
01270 ARBOR ST
J E FULLERTON IAN HOLDZIO
J E FULLERTON IAN HOLDZIO
1270 ARBOR ST
WAYZATA HN 55391
31 10-117-23 31 0030
01250 ARBOR ST
CARY r BURTON
CARY r FARLEY
1250 ARBOR ST
PO BOX 22
CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323
PROP ADDR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/ADDR
38 10-117-23 31 0031
01250 ARBOR ST
CARY F BURTON
CARY R FARLEY
1250 ARBOR ST
PO BOX 22
CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323
38 10-117-23 31 0069
01205 BROWN RD S
ROGER A DAY
ROGER A DAY
1205 DROWN RD S
WAYZATA HN 55391
38 10-117-23 31 0065
01223 BROWN RD S
CURTIS R OUADY ETAL
CURTIS QUADY
BOX 127
CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323
PROP ADOR
OWNER NAHE
TAXPAYER
NAHE/ADDR
30 10-117-23 31 0066
01291 BROWN RD S
N T BROWN I H E BROWN
NONICA T I HICHAEL E BROWN
1291 BROWN RD S
WAYZATA HN 55391
38 10-117-23 31 0069
01230 ARBOR ST
P G NARTIN I C H HARTXN
P C HARTXN I C N NARTIN
1230 ARBOR ST
WAYZATA HN 55391
38 10-117-23 31 0099
01290 ARBOR ST
L S KENNEN I J N KELLAR
LEONARD S KENNEN
JANICE N KENNEN
1223 ARBOR ST
WAYZATA HN 55391
PROP ADDR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH 503 00015
w ^
I"r20'
liKUWA/’ G/\MeE ii'-it /^j;) S,
*•• :•
'ii
£f\MC£- 10-41 GM u ^a -^'M
*^S W
*..
“i-C %
V,
r .♦••, ■
m •• •
■•*», •■ I
/A’(I '!:•••"
K)
r
{
ucall /h" -- r
/
MigL
iL
1
I I ^rv
_____________________________________________________________________________—-*‘-________________________________________________________________________________________________
%*
•.\ . /
\
. t
V . N
4
■(
J
1
Corapktion Dale:
60 Day Deadline:
11/16/01
1/15/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:November 13,2001
SUBJECT:#01-2730 Ace Properties LLC.
3375 Crystal Bay Road
Variances - Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District {1/2 acre)
7,590 s.f. (0.17 acre)
List of Exhibits:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Application
Plat Map
Description of Request
Structural Engineer Report (Ericksen Road& Associates 10/16/01)
Site Photo
Building Permit (9/3/71)
1971 Approved Site Plan
PC Minutes (5/17/01)
CC Minutes (5/24/71)
Staff Memo (5/6/71)
Existing Site Survey
Proposed Site Survey
Proposed Elevation Views
Proposed Floor Plans
Hardcover Calculation Worksheets
Application Summary:
Ace Properties has requested variances to permit redevelopment of the property. The existing hoase
is proposed to be removed, except a 24' X 40’ concrete storage building that is attached to the house
but is not living space. The concrete building was constructed in 1971 sometime after the house was
built.
Three walls (rear and sides) from the existing storage building would be used as part of the
foundation for the new house.
The lot is located on Crystal Bay Road where most lots are small and are divided from the lakeshore
by the roadway. The total area outside of the 75' setback is 3,855 s.f. The proposed house w ould
be a 2 '/z story house with a defined height of 26'. The existing house is a 1 '/> stories, and has much
less finished living space than the proposed house.
iOI-2730 Ace Properties LLC.
3375 Crystal Bay Road
Page I of 4
Pertinent Ord»..jnces
1. Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (B>: Variances requested to lot area and lot width to permit
construction of a new residence on the property in the LR-IC district less than */i acre and
100' width. The defined lot area, absent the paved area of Crystal Bay Road, is 6.690 s.t.
The defined lot width is at the lakeshore and defined structure setback.
2. Section 10.55. Subdivision 8. Section 10.22. Subdivisions 1 and 2, and Subdivision 10.56,
Subdivision 16 (L) I and 2 : Variances requested for hardcover and structure within 75 ’ of the
lakeshore, where no hardcover or structure is allowed, and a variance to permit greater than
25% hardcover in the 75-250' of the lakeshore.
Total Area 0-75 ’ = 3,735 s.f.
Allowed 0-75' - 0 s.f.
Proposed 0-75 ’ = 730 s.f. (19.5%)
Existing 0-75 ’= 1,414(37.9%)
Total Area 75-250 ’ = 3,855 s.f.
Allowed 75-250 ’ = 934 s.f.
Proposed 75-250 ’ = 2,306 s.f. (60%)
Existing 75-250’ = 2,797 (72.5%)
3. Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (Bl: Variances requested to allow encroachment into the 10'
side/rear yard setbacks, and to permit the existing foundation and building to be located 4.2 ’
from the side property line and 19.2 ’ to the rear lot line.
Required Side Setback = I O'
Proposed = 4.2 ’ east property line - 5.1’ on the west property line
Required Rear Setback = 30’
Proposed' 19.2 ’
* The proposed setbacks are existing for the concrete storage building that would remain on
the property. Please note the concrete building is proposed to have two full stories
constructed above that would expand the building envelope within all required setbacks.
4. Section 10.03. Subdivision 14(0 : Variance requested to permit the structural lot coverage
in excess of 1,500 s.f. The Zoning Ordinance permits lot coverage of up to 1.500 s.f for lots
under 10,000 s.f of area. The proposed house is 1.895 s.f
5. Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(0(6V. Variance requested to permit a 2 ’ encroachment into
the average lakeshore setback.
6. Variances to permit expansion to the structure' ''cated within 1 O' of an adjacent structure on
an adjacent property.
#01-2730 Ace Properties LI C.
J375 Crysul Bay RuiJ
Pa|c2or4
IS— --------
L
Background/Historv
In 1971 the City approved variances to permit a 20' X 24* detached concrete storage building l^ated
10* behind the existing house. Drawings and Council Minutes have been attached. The City issued
a building permit a few months later for a 24* X 40’ concrete attached building. This is the existing
building that is proposed to remain on the property and be used as foundation for the back l^f of
the new house. Technically, the building was not ^proved by a variance but a building permit was
issued for the structure.
Site Plan/Drainage
Staff had delivered a letter on October 24,2001 requesting a site grading plan and drainage. The
plan was completed by Gronberg & Associates on November 15, 2001. Staff has not had an
opportunity to review the firud site plans to make a recommendation on the grading/drainage plan.
The City Engineer will be consulted on this since the property is a small lakeshore lot with a large
amount of hardcover. The Crystal Bay Road area has also had drainage problems in the past.
Redevelopment of properties has been the best opportunity to correct any drainage problems that
may exist in these areas.
Primary Issues for Discussion:
1.The proposed house is 1,895 s.f. A variance is required to permit more than 1.500 s.f. on this
lot. The existing structural lot coverage is 1,944 s.f. The primary difference is the finished
living space would be increased to approximately 5,000 s.f., where only about 1,900 s.f. of
living space exists. The increase in living space is accomplished by converting the existing
storage building from storage space to living space and adding two floors of living space
above the storage building, and having a 2 '/i story house rather than the existing 1 '/a story
house. The massing on the property will be greatly increased.
2. The increased mass may effect the light and air space to adjacent properties?
3.Should a final grading and drainage plan be appioved by the City Staff prior to proceeding
with the variance requests?
101-2730 Am Prapcitki LLC.
3373 Ciytial Bay Road
Pa|e3or4
1
• -i
staff Recommendation
Staff has recommended the applicants reduce the mass of the proposed building to not encroach into
the side yard setbacks. The concern is the existing building is within 4* of the side property line. A
building wall of 30* would be located only 4* from the property line, where a one story storage
building is located. Other than building height, at issue is the fact that the use of a house is different
ttmn that of a building used for storage (Activity, mass, windows, etc.)
Secondly, the City looks at what is best for the long term plan for the City. When ordinances were
adopted for structural lot coverage the City adopted this to limit the amount of development in
neighborhoods, and create space between buildings. Additional structure also contributes towards
additional hardcover which can negatively impact water quality by not allowing storm water to run
across natural ground surface. The concept is to allow storm water to be slowed and to infiluate into
the ground.
Staff can support the variances to permit lot area and lot width variances, as well as rear setback and
hardcover variances for the 0-75* setback for the driveway and to permit over 25% hardcover in the
75-250* setback to allow a reasonable sized house. If a 2 '/t story house is permitted we do
recommend the new house meet a minimum of a 10* side setback.
Planniny Cammisilon Options for Action
1. Approve
2. Denial
3. Table
4. Other Action
iOI-2730 Ace Properties LLC.
3373 Ciytial Bay RokI
Pife4of4
- \
.jr
i
Oct-IK8BI IO:Oln ProKITY OP Opmo ♦1522484616 T-882 P.0M/0I7 P-488
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION
Tniti«l Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming atnicrures S250.00
Afier-die-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
ADDlkaden<i0l«»730
Date Received fC'/k Ot
Amount Paid 3tyO> t>c
PROPERTY INFORMATION ^
Site Address
Propeily Idendfication Number ff JJ>.> V
d.rr7.
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired_____________________________________
I (do) (^j^) alM own the adjacent panels of land.
.(mondi/year)
Present use of property: residential
Zoning Dbnict:
other (specify).
Phone (home).APPUCANT
Name /L//^. Phone fwoik)
Addtess:.c*gy-s /<}^ ^Citv: ,.t 2io: «'<;is;.C-s;^ Citv: Zip:
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name _____________
Phone (home).
Phone (woric)_
Address;City:Zip:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail;
l^sdmated Construction Cost
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area ___Lot Mi^dth ^Hardcover .Lot Coverage
X. Setback:Front X Si»l<Rear Average Lakeshore
Other (qtecify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUaL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difiiculty ot unusual property conditions preventing
compliance widt Zoning Code leoujiements: _____________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
#2730 6
NOTE It REARRANGEMENT or LOTS
A2. A3. 57, 58.59, 69. 70 i *.
WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE
VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEI
Description of Request
The existing residence has a, 40 feet wide by 48 feet deep foundation and lower level area.
The first floor covers 40 feet wide by roughly 25 feet deep.
After meeting with Mr. Paul Weinberger on site October 11 ,2001 , the following consensus
was arrived at:
Leaving the newer rear foundation intact at 40 feet wide. We intend to remove the
existing first level entirely. The lower level or basement level foundation would be removed
fiom the fiK>nt of the structure back roughly 20 to 25 feet not to exceed the newer foundation
line.
Once the removal is complete the new foundation would start at the remaining foundation and
step in 4 feet on both east and west sides. Th<^ new east and west wall line would travel north
approximately 6 feet further to the 75*foot set back liue. This would become the fiont or
north elevation of the structure.
Finally, the driveway would be a two-car drive at the structure reducing down as it meets the
street.
Hardships (Description of Unusual Property Conditions
The existing lot is approximately 159 feet deep by 50 feet wide. Crystal Bay Road cuts thru
the property between the lake and existing residence. The basement foundation width is 40
feet on a 50-foot wide lot.
Existing lot conditions with a 75 feet setback and existing structure as it is provide
considerable issues to overcome. In an effort to retain a manageable site and step towards city
set back and hard cover issues the proposal is offered for variance approval.
'I O O €\' I oo
10/18/01 00:20 FAX 6812S17S78 ERICRSEN ROED A ASSOC.Btooi/ool
0
Sk jf^gsocicileg
Sinictiirii Ei^aera
ISSOXkhm^AmmWm Slt20l-S
\ikmwum S5ll4.1f04
•5l4JI-7S7a
i5l-2SI-757l
Liny Palm (oamer)
3375 Ciyotal Bay Road
Orono. MN 55391
October 16.2001
Re: Palm ReskJenoe
Via; Faxed to (763) 6944858
Comm. Ho. 2001-203
Dear Larry.
^iteof ? the exWing eondWons regarding the basement foundation
*jy,y
The obee^ walls consist of 12 Inch wide concrete masonry units (emu) approximatley 7 feet in height
SSSSSSSSSrsSsSs-
you*(wr*^rofo«^nal* w ^ comments you may have. We appreciate the opportunity of providing
Sincerely.
ricksen Rood A Assocfales
)bert A. CurtisTP.E.
Cc: Project File 2001-203
: ./
J
mm:
m
ixwgjfi^'*^i.T7>•'V-• >;.v„ • '
^i. ______j _ _. «
________
j 9b 19 9E 9191 .:" RHI ' >Hfl ^;
• U'<
yjt\ i;i\-'_r-. \* -M.j ;•./--"
• v »^ ' ^ \ ' • '' *
' ^ * O*' • ", ^ r*
/: \ y' -.
'I
^.V r
^ 'j ‘~
WL '^-
',mSy
••*^r-1'#?
1 • 'r' ♦
A'V' '■ .?»
’?•• - f
>ivr; '
O
VILLAGE OF ORONO BUILDING PERMIT
owNit c/oLcf
AOOIliU I . ^
PHONl NO. d
Ste. No.Porcol No.
PURPOSE OP RUIIOINC
lUllOIR
M^J L. Af ^“no.
/lot Bliek
PERMIT NS 2571
Addifion or Subdivision
lAloJuLAdiyO dJjfi
w
LAND DfSCtimON
Siio of lot
Land Sq* Ft.
Elovotiofi
aUlLOINO LOCATION
Dit. From Rood
Oit. SidBS
Dif. Sock
Droinago
CONSItUCnON
From#Bricky Solid
Stucco Brick Veneer
Stone Cement Block
POOTINOS ,
D«pth ^Least Depth
Width Below Grade S
FOUNDATION • Construction C-ft- i-i-
lASiMINT
Ground Drainoge Floor
Beoring Poets Size Spacing
Beoms Size Span
CHIMNEYS NO. OF FIREPLACES .
No.Typ.
Foundotion
Height Above Roof
Distance From Joists
PIOORS 1 i #•
- Sub Flooring
Joists Size Spon
Spacing Bridging
Bearing
STUDDINGS
Size
RAFTERS CEIUPM JOISTS
Six. ^ risftr
11
Spocing Spacing 1Spacing
Plates Spon 1V * Longest Span
Brocing
Exns
Bosement —No.Size Stairway
1st Floor —No.Size Stoirwoy
INSUUTION —Coiling Walls
VENTILATION AND LIGHT
Fercontogo of Floor Arto Vonl.
PtrcRnfogo of Light to Floor Arto
LINTELS
SIzt
location
Spon
WIU r. FE
Construction
Location
SEPTIC TANKS OK MUNICIPAL HOOKUP □
Size
Distonct From Wtll
Construction
DKAINFIELO
Depth
Width
Length
Distancr From Wtll
Distonct From Lot Lines
PLUMBING FIXTURES
Gerbdst Dispoiel
Sinks
Laundry
Both Tub
Dish Washer
Shower
Toilet
Lovotory
f-t
>V/C-/ . t 0 . •)
_ c L- C i.»u .1 »% rc
ill_________
/
h
Date.
Plumb. $_____
tJjdh- w.ii $.
Sewoge S.
Torol $.
PIUMBEH
ADDRESS.
WELL DRILLER
ADDRESS
SEWER CONTRACTOR.
ADDRESS__________
Approvec
owMi Of Ai/rMoti:ie aismt
.vO
m
is
H'* v«7>:-
M.O ^ o
^5~0
\
2^
•4^
1
Z__21 / X _y ^ ^
iT^.
//» /i o a s 2^ ^
4
f
\\
^ T ^ ^ ^ ^
Oma«
•Ar Uf :»
I ’^omB'
(X / S y ^ c.-
^ If / ^ o / r</ <s-^
OftcK
■m A
<(p>
1^
i
«Ay /3 He./zc/^
3^ys- I
V7/-
•{
J
*•
MINUTES OP A REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 17. 1971
Mr. Jay Reiser, 3375 Crystal Bay Road,
represented hinself in a setback variance
to place a combination storm cellar and
storage building, the building to be 3'
from one side and 10* from the rear lot
lines. Butler and Elliott stated they had
seen the site and it was a logical placement.
When questioned about the nearness to the
other garage, Mr. Reiser stated it would be
concrete block construction. Mr. Keisei
was asked about the usage of the buildi.ig
since a driveway to same would be awkward.
He stated that his work requires some
storage and that there would be no sales
from his home as his office was downtown.
Elliott moved, Butler seconded, that a
variance be recommended. Motion, Ayes (S) •
Nays (0).
Page 2
VARIANCE
3375 Crystal Bay Road
Mr. Navratil represented himself in an
application for lot size and frontage
variance on Tracts B. Q C., RLS R91,
Since Tracts A f| D were already built on
and the lots would represent an aggregate of
256* frontage if combined, involving a
high sewer and pending water assessment,
Elliott moved, Butler seconded, that approval
be'> recommended. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0).
William Gagne was present for a study of
the rezoning of property north of IVashington
Scientific consisting of 77 acres. It was
brought out that previous action had stated
that it was intended to rezone the property
contingent on the receipt of an appropriate
plan for light industrial or other reasonable
use. Mr. Gagne stated that the intent is to
develop 18 acres as multipl* with r. density
of 16 units per acre and a height similar
to the school, and 29 acres B-1, 29 acres B-3.
The multiples would be the first stage
developed.
Butler moved, Scuthworth seconded, to
recommend they get more information and
present their plans to the Village Council.
Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (1). Gasch Nay.
VARIA.'JCE
Tracts B 8 C, RLS 891
REZONING
VILLAGE OP ORONO
Regular Meeting of the Village Council,
May 24. 1971
The Village Council met on the above date
with the following members present; Mayor
Obcrhauscrg Councllncn Doriig McCarthy, and
Searles. Absent; Councilman Franzel.
Councilman Dorn left early*
McCarthy moved, Oberhauser seconded, that
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
May 10, 1971, be approved. Motion,
Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
Scenes moved. McCarthy seconded, that a
public hearing for a building permit for
the Clark Oil Company at 3830 Shoreline
Drive, be held at 8:00 P.M., June 14,
1971, in the Council Chambers, be ordered.
Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
Dorn moved, Searles seconded, that the
request of Jay Reiser, 337S Crystal Bay
Road, for a variance, be approved, tlotion.
Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
Dorn moved, Oberhauser seconded, that the
request of Thomas Navratil for a variance
to build a residence on each of Tracts Bo
C, RLS 891, be approved. Motion, Ayes C4j -
Nays (0).
The Mayor announced that this was the time
and place for a public hearing concerning
1970LW-1A, Fagemess Point Water Extension.
The Village Administrator presented the
Notice of^Public Hearing and the Affidavit
of Publication and the Certificate of Mailing
to affected property owners. After all
■embers of the public present were afforded
an opportunity to be heard, the hearing was
closed.
Searles moved, McCarthy seconded, that
Resolution 1392, A Resolution Ordering
Water Improvement In The Fagemess Point
Area Of Orono And Directing Preparation
Of Plans And Specifications For
be adopted. Motion, Ayes (4) ■ Nays (0).
7;30 P.M.
MIMU'.ES
PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Clark Oil Company
VARIANCE
3375 Crystal Bay Ro^
VARIANCE
Tracts B fi C • RLS 8&i
PUBLIC HEARING
1970LW-1A
Fagemess Point Water
RESOLUTION #392
1970LW-1A
Fagemess Point Water
■■
if*
•; ••
lip
vi
• j
41 7'-U... * .r. 4*
3^: y
L
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Ralph Martin
Mike Scheller
May 6, 1971
Variance - Jay Keiser - 3375 Crystal Bay Road
Jay Keiser, 3375 Crystal Bay Road. Lot 15. Wallaces Addition, has
applied for a variance for the purpose of constructing a 20' X 24'
storage shed 3' from the side line and 10' from rear lot line.
Problems involved are the nearness of the adjacent garage to the
proposed structure. The railroad abuts the rear of the property.
The need for the structure, as stated in the application, is the
need for more storage and a storm cellar.
He has permission from his neighbor that he is encroached on» e
REMARKSt THIS IS RSCOUMENDSD BY THE PLANNING C0MMIS3I0N
BUT APPARENTLY INVOLVES SOME TYPE OP COI.C.IEHCIAL STORAGE
IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN ^IVE FEET OF HIS
NEIGHBORS GARAGE.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF STORAGE IS CONTEMPLATED
SINCE HE ONLY HAS ONE-FIFTH ACRE LOT AND THERE REALLY IS
NOT ENOUGH ROOM ON THE LOT TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE PROPERLY.
RALPH MARTIN 5/20/71
,'1’*?*..? V-'
' ■ I
. • !
I
My
m
1
w
’
i
\
1 T
i
^ r.
.■I' •i
Ue ♦ *
'■ i
fev.1
^. • ijifiMBntnuvfftvnv •
HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA
LAKE
829.4 CONTOUR LME
Minnetonka
CRYSTAL BAY
RIPTION OF PREMISES :
HENNEPIN (JUUNI 1, iviiiMiNuo^ I
MINNETONKA
929.4 COMTOOR UNE^ CRYSTAL BAY
’-e’®” fe »n ,
•%\
\
(934.4)
(MO)
\ SURVEY
LINE
__ (9M4)
(MS-7)''^15
.-U* ^ \ 0^^^°- v> Wa V - - \
(MM)
EXISTING
HOUSE
iA
V&a
----------------------------------
(•♦M)
proposed tii’
HOUSE
existing
HOUSE
A/ore: ^am/(
'^fy}
%
\V“N^®0 o'
'
V 1
(^)
•AMWOOO
(9SSJ)
"I.- V . **’ • •*
,1^.; vi (•' •
. *VQ*
•>• -
.■••••*
^lU • lU I IM
• I I • M I
■ I'l I ’l I
- 'll•••• I'll ’^^''‘^'\',^'’7^
• HI I I I ■ I'l ■ HI • I I • I'l • •'• • "• • •'• • *. •J‘.'.*J,'fJ ,*, r< ■ •.«■ ». i m I, i m III ft III ■ III ■ III i til i 1^1 I 1*1 ^ i « *** ^mmemmaimsssmam
HI I HI I l‘l
■ HI I 111 ■ H
HI ■
• I'll h7^
I ■ HI I I I •
HI ■ Hi • HI
- s - \/A\
Sc*t** l/«‘*«'-0'
iim>l»iift"^-~--"------1 laiiitMiii'iitoii TMUMi^riiilr^—- *--------
1//1///
//
///
///I
/\d
□
/
/
/
»»:::::
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■•■■■■■■a
■■■■■■■■a
[7| /1 /\
r
/
/
/
i
se«t»> l/4*»r-0*
New Hone!
z□Address!
■ f «•
aim __»in.»w~ ife'iftl
HARDCOVERJCALCULATION NVOUKSUEET
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 250-500*
EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House X ________ =
SOO-1000*
Length Wida»
X
X
X
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.-POCK WAU
B. Garage
C. Driveway
S.F.
X
X
452.
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck X
X
S F. -Aftvn.
S.F.
8
8
SF.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
G. Other
0toci<
S.F."A<0
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONTI
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
S.F. A
+ B X 100
573S~ t S.F. B
?7. SQ %
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘ .* CATfr^C SA't 6lAn<riA> tl
A. House S.F.
Length Width
X
X
X Aafk. u^ALL
ts
m ZL
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
B. Garage
C. Driveway
S.F.
X
X
S.F.
S.F.
D. Sidewalk Ci»AJtA6T 4 X
X
/4 S.F.
SF.
E. Patio/Deck X
X
8
8
S.F.
S.F.
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Oi Fabric
X
X
X
S.F.
S.F.
SF.
G. Other S.F.
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A + B
7J0
X100 -
___S.F. A
_______ S.F. BJTIS-
/
LACCY
HARDCOVER CALCULAT
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'
EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A House X
y-i-t-o/
^VORKSUEET
250-500*
L4fi|U)WidUi
X
X
X
3
s
s
B. d^e
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk
E. Patio/Deck a
B
F. Lendscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
G. Other x
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ _ _ _ _ _ - B s 100
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE'
A House ________ X
Unath Widih
X
X
X
B. Garage etc,
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X CA*^0.9Tr r, Jcv f
E. Patio/Deck X
X
ti/JUcJ
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
0. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -r B =00
500-1000*
l^4-4- S.F.
9/ s.F.-lSf'MJSif^'*'
i3i S f OFHV
S.F.-w«»o Wau
S.F.
S.F.
SF.
S.F.
^37
iil
SF.-o««e
S.F.-IhriP
no
S.F. -
S.F.
1197 S.F. A
t S.F. B
5<C %
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
9/S.F.
SF.
S.F.
23 J S.F.
S.F.
^ 5 S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F. A
S.F. B
V*
s.F.-srfvj''‘“,
4
i^Tiifnliiiiin II .'%0.-.BkEirirV « •• >-it. .'nail Jk, Ail hl^i iv.'l n r<
Application Date:
60 Day Deadline:
10/26/01
12/25/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:November 13, 2001
SUBJECT:/I0I-2732 Revis Stephenson 111
1850 Fox Ridge Road
Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing
Zoning District:RR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre)
List of Exhibits:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Engineer Comments
Application
Description of Request
Plat Map
Site Grading Plan
Adjacent Propert>' Owners Comments
Tree Restoration Plan
Property Owners Notification List
Application Summary:
Property owners have requested a conditional use permit to permit land alteration on the property
over 500 cubic yards. The project would require clear cutting the slope and depositing of 3.280
cubic yards of fill, the purpose is to create a gradual slope rather than the existing steep drop trom
the immediate back yard of the house. The source of the fill is from the Orono Woods apartment
building located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brow n Road.
Some existing less mature trees would be removed with the intent to replant once the fill is placed
on the hillside. Additional trees will be added to the property where existing trees can not be used.
The hillside would not be a maintained lawn area that is mowed, but will be left to restore itself
naturally.
Conditional Use Permit Required (Section 10.03, Subdivision 19):
A conditional use permit is required for land alteration of greater than 500 cubic yards. The slope
is not located w ithin a shoreland area, where trees and existing grades on slopes are protected. The
CUP allows the City to notify surrounding property owners and requires City Council approval for
such proposed projects.
The City of Orono does not have a tree preservation ordinance that would prohibit the removal of
existing trees. The Comprehensive Plan does address the issue of tree preservation. The CMP
policy on tree preservation is as follows:
Tree Prciwrvatioii Polk\’ (CMP Part 3A)
t.The City finds that its trees and woodlands provide numerous benefits including, but not
limited to: stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction
of storm water runoff, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of
urban heat island effect, protection and increase of property values, protection ol privacy,
energy conservation through natural insulation, providing habitat for birds and other wildlife,
and conservation and enhancement of the city’s physical and aesthetic environment.
It is the City’s policy to preserve and protect significant trees, stands of trees and wooded
butter areas, the loss of which as a result of land disturbances associated with the process of
development or construction would adversely affect the character of the City and the integrity
and quality of its development. The City recognizes that, despite the best efforts of the City
and property owners, trees may occasionally be lost in the development or construction
process. In those cases tree replacement or reforestation shall be required.
3.The City will study whether adoption of additional tree protection and replacement
ordinances is necessar> to accomplish these goals.
The proposed restoration plan does replace some trees. Many of the existing trees, that are to be
removed include box elders, which »he property owners would like to replace w ith maples and other
trees that arc deciduous hardwoods.
Land Alteration and Transporting the fill to the Site
The elevation of the back yard is 966'. The lowest elevation at the wetland is approximately 938'.
The total drop of the hillside is 28'. Overall the slope will be decreased to a 4:1 slope. T>pically.
the City will require grading projects have a finished slope of 3:1 or less. The proposed slope is
flatter than 3:1 and therefore meets this requirement.
3,280 cubic yards of fill can be measured by the number of truck loads that will be required to
transport the material to the site. A t>pical truck can haul between 10 to 15 yards of fill. That w ould
mean a total of approximately 300 truck loads would be delivered to the site. The source of the
material is the senior apartment building site located at Highway 12 and Brown Road. The most
logical route the material would be delivered is south on Brown Road to Fox Ridge Road. The City
Engineer has stated the City is concerned about the potential of damage to Fox Ridge Road, w hich
is a City street. The Engineer has recommended, if approved, the property owner provide some type
of financial guarantee that could be used to correct any damage caused by the contractors activities.
Engineer Comments
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans. Comments and recommendations are attached as Exhibit
A.
»0l-2732 Rcvls Steplxnion III
1S50 Fox RidfcRoid
P«fe2of3
V.
A utility easement is lov led through the property. In the 1970s the easement was acquired for a
metro sewer main. The sewer main line was never constructed. Parts of the original easement
located over the 20 acre property north of the Luce Line Trail was vacated years ago when it was
determined the line would not be construr-ed. The easement located across this property and other
lots in the Fox Ridge neighborhood has not been vacated.
The City is in the process of determining the long term viability of the easement and requesting
comments from the Met Council on the future use of the easement.
Wetland Impacts
Below the hillside is a large wetland. The City of Orono requires a 26’ setback to wetlands for any
land alteration activities. The proposed grading plan does not impact the wetland or wetland setback.
A final wetland delineation shall indicate the edge of the protected wetland.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has been asked to comment on the proposed
project. They will require an erosion control permit.
Planning Commission Options for Action
A. Approval. A recommendation of approval shall include the following conditions:
I.
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
A determination is made by all agencies with rights to the utility easement that 12'
of fill can be located over the easement.
A letter should be submitted by the property owner indicating that two silt fences
would be installed to protect the existing wetland, and that the silt fence would be
installed prior to any tree removal or land alteration.
The MCWD shall issue an erosion control permit prior to issuance of a land
alteration permit.
The flushing station located on the property shall be protected by fencing to ensure
it will not be damaged during the project.
All slopes shall be restored with a minimum of 4-inches of topsoil and seeded or
restored with some type of erosion control measure, erosion control plan shall be
approved by the MCWD and City Engineer.
The property owner provide some type of financial guarantee that could be used to
correct any damage to the road caused by the contractors activities.
Fox Ridge Road is a residential street. Contractor shall place signs on Fox Ridge
Road alerting other users of the road of the contractor work taking place.
Temporary fencing shall be installed around the construction activity to separate the
land alteration activity from surrounding property.
B. Denial. Stating reasons,
C. Table
D. Other Action
•01-2732 Rcv!$ Stephenson Ul
1850 Fox Ridge Road
Page 3 of 3
1/1 Bonestroo
^ySRosene
Anderlik &
|\|| Associates
Engineers & Architects
Bon«siroo. >oftcn«. AndcrMli snd AstociMci. Inc. It sn Afflfmjtivc Actlon/EqyAl Opportiintty Employer
end Employee Owned
Principals.' Olio G Bonesiroo. PE • Mjrwin L Sorvala. PE • Glenn R Cooii. PE • Rotoen G SchuricHi PE •
Jerry A Bourdon. PE
Senior Consullanii: Robert W Roiene, PE • Joiepn C Anderlik, PE • Richard E Tjmer. PE • Susan M Eberlm. C PA
Aisociaie Principals: Keiin A Gordon. PE • Robea R Pfelferle, PE • Richard W Foster PE • Oavid O Loskota. PE •
Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K F.eid. PE • Renn«in P Anderson PE • Mark R Rolfs PE •
David A Bonestroo. MBA • Sidney P Williamson. PE. LS • A^nes M Ring MB A • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE •
Thomas W Peterson. PE • James R Maland. PE • Miles B Jensen. PE • L Phillip Gravel ill PE • Oaniei J Edgerton. PE •
Ismael Martmei. PE • Thomas A. Syfko. PE • Sheldon J Johnson • Dale A Grove. PE • Thomas A Rousrar PE •
Robert J Devery. PE
November 9.2001
Officer St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester and Wiiimar, MN • Milwaukee. Wi • Chicago. IL
VMbslie: WWW bonestroo com
Paul Weinberger
Zoning Administralor/Planncr
City of Orono
Post OfTicc Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Stephenson Site Improvements
File No. 139-2732
Dear Paul:
We have reviewed the proposed grading plan for the Revis and Meghan Stevenson property located on Lot 4, BUkIc 1.
Fox Ridge in Section 3. The plans propose to place approximately 3300 cubic yards of fill along an existing slope east of
the home. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters:
The proposed improvements include placing approximately 12-feet of fill over an existing utility easement. The
purpose of the easement should be identified and a determination made as to whether the fill will impact the use
of the easement.
A letter from the property owner indicates that a “double** silt fence will be installed to protect the existing
wetland. The plans should show two rows of heavy-duty silt fence installed west of the 26-foot wetland setback.
All silt fence should be installed prior to any clearing, filling or grading activity.
The amount of fill proposed to be hauled to the site will generate a substantial amount of heavy truck traffic.
The truck traffic has the potential to damage Fox Ridge Road, an existing City street that serves the
neighborhiKHl. We recommend that the City require some type of financial guarantee from the applicant to be
used to correct any street damage caused by the contractors activities. The contractor should also provide
appropriate traffic control and signing to alert and protect motorists and pedestrians in and near the
neighborhood.
The City recently completed sanitary sewer improvements to serve the area. A flushing station connection was
installed near the northwest corner of the Stephenson property. Some type of fencing or barrier should be
constructed around the flushing connection prior to construction to protect against damage.
The existing slope where the fill is to be placed is heavily vegetated. The applicant should provide the City with
a tree removal and replacement plan as part of the application.
The site lies within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Disuict (MCWD). The proposed improvements could
potentially impact the existing wetland located along the cast edge of the propeny. Plans should be submitted to
the MCWD for their review and approval.
All slopes should be restored with a minimum of 4-inchcs of topsoil and seeded or restored with some type of
erosion control measure (wood fiber blanket, etc.) immediately afier the placement of topsoil to minimize
erosion potential.
If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863.
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASS(X:iATES. INC.
/OTTt
Tom Kellogg
AlCachmenIs
Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono
2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 > 6S1-636-4600 • Fax: 651*636-1311
Application # /- ^73^
Date Received iC-f'^ ~C /
Amount Paid r
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address /^SO fitiU*
Type of Application to be Filed L jjf4
Property Identification Number (P.I.Dj
APPLICANT
Nam e t-
Address /fe CD <Q.I
Phone (home) qk, qc <c«y
______ Phone (work) C,,\ t7t~> ap.7~7
City __________Zip
OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)
Name y- Phone (work)_
' t CitvAddress Zip,
Date Propertv Acquired y/o/
I (do) (^l^^ilso own the adjacent parcels of land.
(month/year)
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
_____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application
_____$175.00 Residential Accessoiy Use
_____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
_____ 5225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
_____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg
$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
y $250.00 Land Alteration
Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
X Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more
Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore
PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule
$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
Aftcr-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
#27
’ E
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
1.
0>
a 3-
Completed Application Form.
Describe request in detail.
Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, l^bels^d map from Hennepin County Department of Finance,
A-603, Government Center,"348-3271),
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey
information.
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
, Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve
7.
changes in elevation (grades).
y 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).
8- N/A Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements).
9. Wa 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
FOR REPRODUCTION (11" 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.
.-tification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete.
Initials of Clerical Staff:____________ Date
APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or unusual e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information
^----- _ ---------------- —j yoiKxik iiiiiv. iiui uv uii|^iiiai ICC paymciii^
and/or unusual e.xpenses 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 /c’
OWTMER’S SIGNATURE
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees ro this application and further authorized reasonable
entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council
members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request.
Owner's signature
/
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 advise the
Builuj!^ A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
n V S T-
i
f
...A,
•J
V
'•j;.
h .A I
1
Detailed Summary of Proposed Land Use Permit for 1850 Fox Ridge Rd
Revis & Meghan Stephenson
The proposal
We are asking to bring in fill to change the back ofoiir lot from a steep drop off to a gradual grade
similar to the grades of the lots to the North and South.
Why?
The main reason is for the safety of our children and those in the neighborhood. Almost all of the
kids that have lived in ihc area have taken a spill at some time and there have been injuries. Although none
have been serious to dntc, we would like to take action before something serious does happen. There arc
many small children in the neighborhood, including our 3 year old and I year old, that play In the back yard
and are to young to understand the dangerous situation. The drop off is as close as 15 feet from the back of
the house and is adjacent to the play area. The second reason in to improve the aesthetics. Currently the
area is mostly overgrown with box elder trees and scrub brush and would be replanted with native trees and
tall grasses.
How?
The site will first be prepared by spading out as many good trees as possible for replanting. Shade
Tree Acres has been contracted to do this work as well as landscape the graded areas in the spring. Shade
Tree Acres was the primary landscaper for Spring Hill Golf course and has excellent experience working
with sloped areas and mound wetlands. Bel Air Excavating has been contracted to do the grading and
filling. Tlicy will use our driveway as a staging area for the dump trucks and use a cat to push tlie dirt into
place. Tlie trucks will not be driving on anyone else*s property or close to the foundation of the house.
The final grade will be at a slope of 4 to I which will be much safer and less prone to erosion problems.
Pending approval, the surveyor will hire a soil expert to accurately delineate the wetland boundary and 26ft
buffer zone. A “double** silt fence will be installed to insure protection of the wetland. Bel Air will make
sure the public roads are cleared of any residual dirt from the trucks. Black dirt will be brought in to cover
the new fill for ideal growing conditions.
Shade Tree Acres will landscape the area with the replanted trees and other trees that are native to
Minncsoia .such ns white pines, oaks, apple trees and more. Tlie area will not be a maintained lawn that is
mowed, but will be let to grow naturally with trees and fescue grasses. Currently the ground cover is bare
dirt because the box elder trees and buck thorn arc so overgrown. The proposal would be better for tlie
wetland because the new grasses would act as a filter for runoff.
When?
What makes this whole project possible is the availability of ample yards of clean fill coming from
the construction project on Hwy 12 and Brown Rd that will be trucked out of Long Lake and Orono
beginning in early to mid Nov. Time is of the essence because once this project has started the source of
fill is lost. Anything that can be done to expedite approval will be very much appreciated.
If there is anything f can do please let me know.
Sincerely,
Revis L Stephenson i!i
1
I^^^ennepin County Taxpayer Services Department ^
information
Parc«l ID 031172319
Houm Numbar 18S0
Straa t Nam# FOX RIDGE RD
TNs 18 not $ l9g^ ncofdtd map. n tapmsanta a ampliation of infonnMon
and data h)m City, County, and Stala mad authoridaa and olharaoureas.
•--976 --
oso>-5x
Tobin J. Dayton
1895 Fox R idge R oad
Long Lake. Minnesota 55356
November 11.2001
Orono Planning Commission
2750 Kelley Parkway
Crystal Bay. MN 55325
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to communicate my support to the project being proposed by Revis Stephenson at 1850 Fox
Ridge Road in Long Lake. While the project is certainly not insignificant. I am confident that it will add to
the aesthetics, safety, and overall quality of the neighborhood in a number of ways.
Of particular interest to me as Revis and I talked at length and walked our two properties, w*as the
environmental impact on both the trees and the wetlands behind our houses. On both counts. 1 am of the
opinion that in the end, the project will not only prove to have minimal impact in either respect, but in the
case of the trees, will substantially improve the overall quality of the woods. While a significant number of
trees will indeed be lost, the vast majority of those to be lost arc low-quality, short-lived box elders. These
will be replaced with much higher-quality, longer-lived trees including maples and white pines.
Concerning the wetlands. I am comfortable with Revis* assurance that his project will maintain more than
an acceptable distance from the wetlands behind our houses and will have minimal to no impact on this
valuable and fragile ecosystem.
Equally as important a consideration is the positive impact that the project will have on the overall safety of
the neighborhood. The hill behind Revis* house and adjacent to my property is exceptionally sleep, with an
immediate and sudden drop-off behind their house. While we have strict rules for our kids about playing
near the * fall-line* and have been fortunate that no one has been seriously injured to date, it remains a
dangerous part of the neighborhood. By lessening the severity of the hilfs slope, the project will
dramatically improve the overall safety of the neighborhood.
For certain, I have given significant thought to the issues involved and have talked at length with Revis
about a number of points. He has been very open and communicative, and I have appreciated the
opportunity to provide him with my thoughts and feedback. After careful consideration, I share Revis*
opinion that the project being proposed will add substantially to the overall aesthetics, environmental
quality, and safety of the neighborhood. If any members of the Planning Commission have any questions
concerning this matter, 1 can be reached at 952-473-7787.
Sincerely,
j
I fc r H fe M - I
17E rL
//III//// /11 V\i\ \
i i j)H) 11 i rri a » j \%
4
I- •
> t
I
mm DATE If/lA/ll
•ATCN SAS
NENNCflN COUNTV PIIOfEtTV INfOEHATXQN SYSTEM
PEOPEETY OMNEES LIST
EEPOET NO. PX4SSAEI
PACE 9
PEOP AODE
ONNEE NAME
TAlfPAYEN
NAME/ADDE
PEOf ADDN
OUNEI NAME
TAXPAYEE
NANE/ADOE
ONNEE NAME
TAXPAYEE
NAME/ADDE
PEOf ADDE
ONNEE NAME
TAXPAYEE
NANE/ADOE
PEOf ADDE
ONNEE NAME
TAXPAYEE
NAME/ADDE
SO tS-U7-2S II •••!
•••SO AOOEESS UNASSXOtED
CAEOXU MAC NXLLAN JE ETAL
LONCEXDGE ASSOCXATES
f 0 MX 5420
MPLS NN 5544A-S420
SO •S-II7-2S 12 •••2
•••SO AODEESS UNASSX6NE0
CAEOXU MAC NXLLAN JE ETAL
LONGEXOQE ASSOCXATES
P 0 MX 5420
MPLS NN 55440-5420
SO •S-117-21 12 OOOS
•••SO AOOEESS UNASSXGNED
STATE OP NXNN
ONE EEAL ESTATE MONT
ATTN DEOOXE CUETIN
500 LAFAYETTE ED
ST PAUL MN 55155
I •
SO 00-117-25 15 •••!
••550 OEONN ED S
N F FAELEY i K 0 FAELEY
NXLLXAN I KATHLEEN FAELEY
550 OEONN ED S
LONG LAKE NN 55554
SO 00-117-25 15 0002
•0500 OEONN ED S
JOHN C OOUTHXT ETAL
JOHN C DOUTNXT
500 S OEONN ED
LONG LAKE NN 55554
SO 05-117-25 15 0005
•1995 FOX EXDGE ED
E I 0 HACK
EAYNOND H MACK
1995 FOX EXDGE ED
LONG LAKE NN 55554
SO 05-117-25 IS 0004
•1945 FOX EXME ED
D E KXEKNAN I J N KXEKNAN
DAVID E I JOANNE N KXEKNAN
1945 FOX EXDGE ED
LONG LAKE NN 55554
50 05-117-25 15 0007
•1095 FOX EXDGE ED
T J DAYTON 0 N DAYTON
TOOXN J I MAE OAYTim
1095 FOX EXDGE ED
LONG LAKE NN 55554
SO 05-117-25 15 OOOO
•1050 FOX EXDGE ED
EEVXS L STEPNENSON XXX ET AL
EEVXS L STEPHENSON XXX
1050 FOX EXDGE ED
LONG LAKE NN 55554
50 05-117-25 15 0009
•1900 FOX EXDGE ED
S N I E N POLANSKY
STEVEN N 0 ELLEN N POLANSKY
1900 FOX EXDGE ED
LONG LAKE NN 55554
50 05-117-25 15 ••!•
01950 FOX EXDGE ED
D S PNELPS I E D PHELPS
DAVXD S 0 ELLEN D PHELPS
1950 FOX EXDGE ED
LONG LAKE NN 55554
SO 05-117-25 14 0001
00050 AODEESS UNASSXGNED
CAE6XLL MAC NXLLAN JE ETAL
LONCEXDGE ASSOCXATES
P 0 MX 5420
NPLS NN 55440-5420
I i
\
TOTAL OATCH 505 00012
'’'•'Vs
J
1
(i -
........ itNfiiiiiyitii
Applicatkm Date:
60 Day Deadline:
11/7/01
1/6/01
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:November 13,2001
SUBJECT:#01-2734 Margie Newton
SOS Orchard Park Road
Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning District:RR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (S acre)
List of Exhibits:
A
B
C
D
E
F
Application
Plat Map
Regulations Related to Horses
Memo - Man Bolterman. On-Site Systems Manager
Plat of Kokesh Farm
Final Site Plan
Application Summary:
Property owner has requested a variance to permit an existing horse bam to remain on the property
located closer to the front property line than the new proposed house. The Zoning Ordinance
prohibits accessory buildings from being located closer to the front property line than a principal
building. Included with the variance request to allow the bam to remain on the property. Owner has
also requested a variance to permit construction of a 620 s.f. addition to the bam. The proposed
building would be 1,700 s.f. Any building over 1,000 s.f. is considered an oversized accessory
building.
One oversized accessory building is permitted on a lot subject to the condition the building meets
all required principal building setbacks and property owner shall agree to covenants that state;
A.No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure wi»hin a lot that has no
principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time
period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure,
in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the
oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal stmeture has been constructed.
B.If the projjerty is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be
located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size
of accessory building.
•01-27)4 Margie Newton
S05 Orchard Park Road
Page I of)
0
1
c.In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined
herein shall remain.
Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property ownere and shall be filed in the chain
of title of the property.
Horse Bams
Horses are a permitted accessory use in the RR-1A district. The minimum setback for a private bam
from any lot line is 75'. The minimum setback from adjacent residences is 150'. The bam location
meets standards required for special setback regulations that apply to private bams and stables.
Property Background
The property was part of the recent 6 lot plat of Kokesh Farm. This lot is a record lot meeting
minimum lot size and lot area requirements for the zoning district. Earlier this month the City of
Orono issued a demolition permit and the old non-conforming house and garage were removed. The
house was non-conforming because it was located within the 100' front yard setback.
A 50' pasture easement is located over the south 50 ’ of this property. The easement was recorded
by the developer of Kokesh Farm and is for pasture use by the propery owner to the south. The
proposed development does not impact the 50' easement.
Zoning/Septic Review
Front yard setback
yard setback
Side yard setback (south)
Side yard setback (north)
+ 400 ’
125'
+200 ’
98 ’
The new house meets all required setbacks. The house was located to take advantage of existing
topography for a walkout and to locate the building a greater distance from the street.
New soil testing and septic design has been submitted by the property owTier and approved by the
City On-Site Systems Manager. The final septic design is for a 4 bedroom house but could be
expanded to a 5 bedroom if needed.
Staff Rccom mendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the oversized accessory building to remain on
the property based on the existing building location, the best building site on the lot is located behind
the bam, and it allows for a walkout at the highest lot elevation.
«0l-2734Mwtic Newton
$05 Orchwd Pwfc Ro«l
PH<2of3
Planning Commission Options for Action
A. Approve
B. Denial
C. Table
Other Action
iOI-2734M«gic Newton
505 OrehMd Pufc RomI
PineJon
iL
Applkatfam# r
Dale Received lij'lfO!
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)
Amount Paid
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquire d 2.00 1 ____________________^(month/year)
I (do) fdo nod also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: i^esidential ___other (specify)
Zoning District: K ^ - | A____________
APPLICANT Phone (home)
Name /VcT. Phone (work) Vo/
Address: 7$Z(p ' C\\s\/yi/!^Pc£. Zip:_S£X£!2-
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name i01.4-€<^/£.
Address: 4<7/_? j^A
Phone (home)
Phone (work)_________________
City: tfrtitmtn £.bfAJA- Zip:_£5Vg^
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail:
Estimated Construction Cost $
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
___Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage
X Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore
X_ Other (specify) Kth/i »^/aur A Pa.it>^AA^
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Stre
T%__^ C£l^Ct, ^SfltAC. A a - /^jlJX.4 r
(attach additional sheets if necessary’
»r. ■mam 11 ll■lnli^l
V
o
\ J'l'CITY of ORONO
Munkipai Oflkcs
A
Horses m Orono
StTMt MdrtU:
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono. MN 55356
Malliag Address:
P.O. Boi 5:
Crystal Bi/ MN 55323 0066
Zoning Code Regulations:
Section 10.02, Definitions. 5. Animal Unit
Section 10.20, Subd. 3, Conditional Uses
Section 10.27, Subd. 4 A
Section 10.28, Subd. 4A (Accessory Use in RR*l A, RR-IB
Districts)
Requirements for keeping a horse:
• Permitted Accessory Use in RR*1A and RR-IB Districts
• Conditional Use Permit required in R and LR Districts
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional uses are reviewed by the Pla.nning Commission v\ith final approval by the City Council A
public hearing is held at the Planning Commission meeting and all property owners w ithin 350' of:he
property are notified of the public hearing.
Minimum Acreage Requirement
3 acres minimum lot size for I horse. The 3 acre minimum requires at least I acre for the residence and
2 acres for pasture area. The pasture area cannot include the primary and secondary septic system
drainfield site. The pasture area cannot include low lying unusable for pasture or grazing. The C cy
Council may reduce the required pasture area if the horse is stabled and pasture is not needed for feed.
1 horse 3 acres minimum
2 horses 4 acres
3 horses = 5 acres
4 horses = 6 acres
Location of Private Stables and Barns
The minimum setback for a private stable or bam from any lot line is 7S*. The minimum setback from
adjacent residences is ISO'. Contact City Staff to discuss any proposal fora private stable or bam.
Revised 6/13/01
Tdcphoiie (952) 2494600 • Fax (952) 2494616
www.cl.orooojno.iis
O' O'
• • •
.... t• V\)
1!CITYef NO
Municipal Offices
Stmt Addms:
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
ManetMdms:
P.O. Boi 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
TO:Paul Weinberger
FROM:Matt Bolterman, On-Site Systems Manager
DATE:November 15,2001
SUBJECT: Septic Review for 505 Orchard Park Rd
The property at 505 Orchard Park Rd has an approved design for the septic system. The septic is
designed for a four bedroom home but can be expanded to a five bedroom site if needed. Both sites
are for mound systems. The information provided indicates that both drainfield sites meet all Orono
and Minnesota 7080 standards for location and design.
Based on the above information, staff recommends approval in regards to septic conformance.
TVItphwi(952)249-4400 • Fai(«S2)14M«l<
A*
HENNBPIK COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
TAXfAYIR
MMa/ADOR
31 31 lit 23 U 0011
00030 APBRISS MNDlilG
a 0 LSOUl 0 N P LISLIB
JANB8 D LBSLIB
€3S2 OXBOW BBID
CHANKA8SXN Ml SS317
comMi •
30 31 110 23 11 0012
00030 ADOOBSS PBNDINO
D B JOHMSON OKA CXMIORS
DAVID B JOHMSON
10905 4STM AVB N
PLYMOUTH m 5S440
CONDfBI i
30 31 110 23 14 0009
00030 ADOBBSS PBMDXliO
N D LXTBCKY & A K UTSCKY
MARX D LXTBCKY
2035 ARTHUR ST N B
MIHNBAPOLIS 111 55410
PROP ADDR
TAXPAYER
NANB/ADDR
30 31 110 23 14 0012
00030 ADDRESS PBNDINO
MARJORIE Y NEWTON
MARJORIE Y mWTOH
4713 MEADOW RO
EDINA Ml 55424
CONDMI 0
PROP ADDR
TAXPAYER
MAn/AODR
PROP ADDR
TAXPAYER
HAME/ADDR CO
■S3»
=tt:
I CERTIFY THAT THE PACTS RiftPRESENTED ARE AH ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION CF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OP PROPERTY TAXATKM, TO THE BEST
OP MY KNOHLEDOE AND BELIEF
DATe//~'Z» -O/ BY
»•» >>••••»«» W
> 1 -rr-T 4 *<0m» •• J*%^ ^•*l
«• SmJ* (WM> ^ •# •• Ok.*** * a***
** p*« «Mi* «W<» •« *• tik*4* •» •• !**«»>* «W»* * ••• m0m4mt
4W** * V*«*» U >—■»» "* ••*•• #1
«* ^* •* *• ib*' **-<ws* •» •• 3k*** •« •• %**•** ;b*«* i*
'«*.** •*• iJ «—M «****o*« •* •• *«••*•*• w *• .*>•* *••#*•
«** **••* ««%*■•*•♦ •mm*** * •• a* «*M •• ••
!«•« *« W M* »M ** •*»* *• 0«*** W *• W*M* «A*** •••H#
I n »* r«* *« • ***«• •« 'itiw «■* ••*«• !••* •• •'**» «
***«• W >1 W •• W« #-*« ............. •« "T‘ ..•*#!*»*• •
***«• * wgp ^ W*^* »*-k a*** mm mm tm* mm *• -• t**** mm m mm mmt
<«*«• >*■>—f »> **• M* r*^ mm •• mm l«M •• *••»•• •••• *-• •*• •• »•
M« mmrn* m* »•*• '
•mtm J
•ba Wo<a a» b* #a«* Jk*w b**Ma** 3k*»* •» rnm^m I fmmmm *'•
•*i«a tS mm ">mt mmt m* mm tmi mmi •* mm immm t’V mtmm ,• mm rnmmi ••» m mm imt mm*
m mm mmmmmm* a^<* •*« •**#**# ^*»»*. »mm mrmrmrn* * *«»«■<■• ••
<p»*«aH •*«• •# tmm f %i m»mrn * ••# la* a* •* * *a A-a** a# w*
i***i »f k**oa W* mmm *a la* *a a# »*a r»a* ■^* V *a Va.* .*» v* mmm * •«*
mu m* m* mm tm*i <**« * mm a»*aa * gk*>* a mrnm^tm * J0 aa* *• .#
«vaM »•« *a «ra» *a * *a f *» a»/aa * «a (a* 0k*«* * »• WniaMi i^i*
a Af*Ha a/ ** aka*# iaa* a*Ma a«* laa a^a»*»«a*** laai *a *a Ma .aataaaa
* ••# aa>a«i*i #aa« •>*«# fc»*aa»**‘» a*^ aa* ca»*aH*a ka «» ••mmtm mm *a
•a,. «.»**• h»«B *%> *«aa * *a la«i Ja*t* •* mm **<*aaai Jk*'a **kia *•*
mmt mmm mm 'm mm a** * tmmm-mf
mm-m •
*a ^* J'« W «a> * *a V*.* 'J»»4 mm* m* mm Wmm «»* * «a k*« .*•*» *•* *a
aM< * !•# laai mm* * *•# »*««ao* Jk*t* * fakik* >» >^»*-*a • « m^m* :t •***
•a* * mm im-»m*mm * »ka l*..— *a a«a »i**a** ba*
>** a*« * i*a ia>' mm* t* mm /•><* mmmm •* mm 9m%t mm* ** •* tm* mm* •* mm
•••mmU Xm*m mm*m a* *a l*k»aka a« ak# ar*'»** ai »awak.a« *
mm mmrnmmmt .*«* * mm U^m 'M a»aa •' mm la«* kWa * *a k*i«aa* kX*«* ,*
Vn-k* >• (aaa** >’• “Wkia /J *•%.# a*ia *akf «a I Ml aka «« *a* « a* x** a* >«a
Ma* • * V *»aa * a* «a* a^ mm fmt* mm* * aa*aa* Ok*i* a ak*ak,a a*
.1M M b* >a a* «wa aa*i a# trnmmmmm •* •mm *m *m *mm*mrnm. mmrnm <a*i**ak« w*
mm tmm •• •* mmrn *mm> mm* •• mm V*** l»> aaaa *»*a^<*ka»*i^afa*a*«*
*• rnmmmmtt Jk*** *a mm a.***.* .*«* **a* *a«.a •* akai^, -a •*• mm M mm
V'J* a-aa «a *a «b* *a * aa la* aa>* * *a Oa*** A*.a t*aa»a i^aarka aa
aa ** *a * a* f«* mm* * *ka a»aaaai U^*a la aa .a»»* mm t* mm aa»a*i.a a»a
Ta~i -ia- aaa« a*aa 1 r ■^-t—r‘r aia« aM •«■•* a* *a at **mmm*~m mm m mm m*rnm
••S J0 aaa aaa* * a# bba* ak# * aa *••• ' *0 mmmm * aa fai Joa<* m a# %j,mmmt
.war a*aa a*a **aaa aa aaa *•».» «* «b* * aa ••* *a * aaa Wa f w
«rat •<•1* ^ a a a**a »4k£W b* i# aa a w aaa* * tmmmm m rnmn* la* ••! «»
b* •# aa a**t aaat * »»»aaa<
'r*'
''''"\V.ltf;
U '
I I '
/
/' /
if* j It a# ** .^a aa» JJ Jf aa*
/t. / .* mm f * J m* mm o ‘ >'*
t i n* k'-Ii -, ■-■,• •■'1 t I ' *i H\.'
’•V' V ^
D€V€LOPiR.
THE CRAIG COKtPANY
CRAIG ALSHCUSC
tJOO \MLiO\RBROOH DRIVE
WAY^ATA. MN 55391
763-473- 6414
- I.\i,
' -
T«r( ':i2^
^
193.:
aa»a •
Ika aati gka«a * aa kaa ^a 1^** a* aa a*aa«* ta*** * >•• waata' Xm*m
mm a* mm* * ***a «* Jk*>a * a# waaai i^k* * aa a*aa«a* a a-* <**a w»
* aa <*•* *a * aa bik.aa.at m* rn^mtmm* «aaa a 1*«*» « 'avaai >'4 a*.^
iX *mm*
ba «kal Jia V a* * »a U»a ' *• *fl a* »/ aa at* mm* * a# v..a . » ki a>a« .*
ba* M*# mt mm r#* aa* * aa baataal tJb*'a * »a*at f* '#*•*♦ /J m%
«*a * aa «ak*a aka a* aa trnmmmmm ** a»«**aaa *aM
>NewT^
R?
r • a,»a
b*a a a a pka aa**a r*mm>, *mm*m**m* *m aa a»a jk* a a* ••# "ka. .* .a
a* «a |] -rn- Ok*** * kaaaaa* «Jk*>* ** aa >**» * V a>aa >' aa *a* *
a^aaaaa* X*'* .aat* Jl •• •** aa*> a-a #« . wa ar*a#* m* m itm * mm^m’^m i
•m tm *** b«#a* a *•*-#* *a .a»*taa *a aa»* aa *■*•"
Oaa'a.«a a/ Vi*
a* a** * aka la
Jf >a«aa • >«
a* dk*t* * aa Waaata* db**a a* mm ka..»aa»* Jk*«a> .* at*
/t *,.iba i-akatt awatia a* *a wa .* «• a*a ..a at
ab Wa »» *taa a*aa* aol kab * «a ka* aa at aa b** » •«« * «* WaM
«ik*t* * aa taxaaai* Jk*** a* i«a b-aaa*. Ok***
--------a--.
A*^
I' ,>r*- \ ^
/ -."x
OHCHMO
5IP»
^v'l' /1 ‘ Wy>vVs\^v
:r ^ ' N |i '
NOTTS 1) Wt\rLAND DCuNEATtO 6^ KJCUiAUG £*VV/faVAC/V T^i JfPVfCfS
2) TOPCCRAP hIC m CRMATiON PROVIDED DY Th€ CITY Of OR(JNO
3} EyiSTING ACCESS W LOT 5 TO PEKtAis XCCESS TO LOT 6 TO
Be Ci^f ORCHARD PAPf. ROAD
4) nil's MEET iHi MIMMUM 5 ACRE DRY diiiLDAdiC AREA‘1
ZCNh^G HR 1A
KtiNiMuit lot Size 5 ac
MINIM CM lot WDTh * 300'
MiNIMUlt lot fRONTACE - 100'
NCJE 4|£>iS ShOAN llQ_NQJ INCLUDE
ROAD PH'>Hr-Cf-YYAr
• aatw*at taa •mmmmm** kik* * ', >« P
> a«ai* mm mmm •* * * *t
# atabt * aak.a*> b** a* 'f 9^*9
aaa.aaa *m* a*a a* a t «a
A aaaatat a i* m •: • •*
aatw-a *m mm w* m> <J 9 9*
%» aa*taa faa 0mm^
9 a*«*aa 'a- aa#
____f____J
)«nM
0 mm t* mm ml i a »>'* ■»• •■R Jenefti pjii-t'iv ♦'Ous#
a*aa.I OOM OMW
«iZZI a^'a |aar»*- •atf’l f 1 : • '•*i * rt .*•Jk« J<b» iaj4w%'i • aaaaaa i#»r
.• a .►*^ j k a.« \ iw> a t.«ak'*O4CU0
lift 1 ''i mm M »< '
____
'b‘IJ -.■' •* k.^' ‘‘li yjm ‘,*X .• •.*’jm - kia.*-
•a', bi«t*b*\t> #» bt -* '.•t.'tn w* &«x V V -kk-.'.v b
«,b. 'tktl' ) ■* 4 >*.l lalSML aa «|\.<a*k. la ‘*«l«
cblf* »•■< ,)T -n j**.j .vr kaa*.i,<,o*4
bat I . taa*
■ tb t J •fiKt
II? !SS$
i’r-
r-----1--------
1
1
-----i—--------
1
-«■ 1 1
1
^------
7
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:Novembe*’ 1S. 2001
SUBJECT: #01-2735 Proposed Amendment of Zoning Code - Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C):
Lot Coverage by Structur !s Standards
(Please refer to your November 7th 19* Work Session packet.)
Staff Recommendation
Notice for a Public Hearing was pt hiished .early in November, hence members of the public may
be present to listen or to comment. Depending on the outcome of the November 19* work
session. Planning Commission should hold the Public Hearing, then either make a
recommendation to Council or table the item for further discussion.
1
km t / « k
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Chair Hawn and Planning Commissioners
Mike GafTron, Planning Director
November 15,2001
#2333 Proposed Amendment of Zoning Code - Section 10.20, Subd. 4C:
Home Occupation Standards
(Please refer to your November ?drl9th Work Session packet.)
Stair Recommendation
Notice for a Public Hearing was published early in November, hence members of the public may be
present to listen or to comment. Depending on the outcome of the November 19 work session.
Planning Commission should hold the Public Hearing, then either make a recommendation to
Council or table the item for further discussion.
Note: For tracking purposes we are treating this review as a continuation of item #2333, the Planning
Commission ’s 1998 review of the Home Occupation ordinances which was never acted on by Council.
r. ■«
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on ihe above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Daniel
Kluth, and Alternate David Rahn. Commissioners Sandra Smith and Janice Berg were absent. The
following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul
Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council
Representative Jay Nygard was present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Hawn noted Items #01-2719, #01-2721, and #')l-2725 are on tonight ’s Consent Agenda, and
inquired whether any members of the audience would like to comment on any of those applications.
There were no public comments.
*(#l) #01-2719 JODI AND DAVID DALVEY, 1520 BOHN’S POINT ROAD - VARIANCE
Lindquist moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2719, Jodi
and David Dalvey, 1520 Bohn’s Point Koad, granting of a lot width variance and an accessory
building variance to construct a new residence on the lot. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
*(#2) #01-2721 WALTER HOLZER, 1130 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - VARIANCE
Lindqubt moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2721,
Walter Holzer, 1130 North Shore Drive West, granting of a lot width variance and an accessory
building variance to construct a new residence on the lot. V’OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
*(#3) #01-2725 ROBERT HOWELLS, 1423 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE
Lindqubt moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2725,
1423 Park Drive, granting of a lot width variance and an accessory building variance to
construct a new residence on the lot. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
Item #4 was heard after Item #5.
PAGEl
1
1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(#5) #01-2711 WESTERN STEEL ERECTION, INC., 2687 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:34 p.m. -6:58 p.in.
Chuck and Stephanie Jochims, Applicants, were present.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to permit permanent
“outside storage” to provide outdoor parking for six trailers, two trucks, two cranes, and one boom
truck as shown on the site plan. Western Steel Erection, Inc., has leased the 16,200 square foot
building located at 2687 Wayzata Boulevard. Western Steel constructs steel framing beams used for
construction projects, which is a permitted use in the Industrial District.
Weinberger stated all the outdoor storage is located in the far comer of the property furthest from
Highway 12. The Applicants have submitted a plan showing the layout of the property and the
storage area, with the intent of the Applicants being to store as much inventory as possible indoors.
Weinberger stated due to the type of business, the majority of the equipment will be kept on various
job sites rather than on the subject property.
The revised site plan submitted by the Applicants addresses some of the issues raised at the
September Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission at that time requested the
Applicant revise their plan to address the required setbacks and parking requirements. The
Applicants are proposing to remove the existing perimeter fence, construct a new fence along the
perimeter that would fence in the yard from the 75-foot setback to the rear property line. Within that
fenced in area would be the employee parking which consists of 29 parking stalls.
Staff is recommending that the employee parking area be paved and striped. The Applicant has
indicated they would like to gravel both the employee parking area and the outdoor storage area. All
parking areas containing more than six spaces which face a public street 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 designed so that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the
lot. The Applicant has also submitted a proposed landscape plan, with a row of evergreens along
Highway 12. Staffis recommending that some evergreens also be planted closer to the fence to
provide some additional screening.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is also proposing to install an above ground fuel tank, which will
need to meet all fire standards.
Staff recommends the outside storage area meet the minimum setbacks and requirements of the
zoning chapter, with the following standards being met:
A. The outside storage area shall be located within the required parking setbacks, including a
minimum 75 foot or more from the front property line.
B. The parking and outside storage areas shall be located a minimum of ten feet from side property
lines.
C. A screening plan should be provided hcluding fencing and landscaping on site in accordance
with zoning requirements.
D. Parking surfaces shall be paved and striped.
PAGE 2
i
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(MI-2711 WSESTERN STEEL, CONTINUED)
E. A final drainage plan, based on required pav ing and regrading, shall indicate drainage pattern::
and stormwater detention areas or drainage areas to properly manage stormwater flowing over
and leaving the property.
F.TIte 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.
Mrs. Jochims staled the reason they would prefer not to pave the parking and outdoor storage areas is
the heavy equipment that will be moved over the area. Jochims stated in the long-term the
blacktopping would become a maintenance issue, with the gravel holding up better. Jochims stated
while they were in Long Lake they used gravel for their outdoor storage and parking areas, which was
very well maintained and worked well for their needs.
Hawn e.xpressed concern that blacktop would be better in the event of an oil spill.
Mrs. Jochims stated any spills would be contained in a cement cry pt, which they are required by law
to have.
Hawn stated she was thinking more in terms of oils leaks from the equipment in the outside storage
area.
Mrs. Jochims stated there is a very slight possibility that that would happen, noting they take very
good care of all their equipment.
Hawn opened the hearing up for public comment.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Lindquist inquired whether the Applicants arc agreeable to blacktop the employee parking area.
Mrs. Jochims stated they would also prefer to keep that area gravel, noting the traffic in and out of
that atea is verv minimal and would not create much dust.
Lindquist inquired whether the Applicants would be agreeable to putting in additional landscaping
between the fence and the line of tiees along Highway 12.
Mrs. Jochims stated they arc planning to construct a solid fence along the front of the property , but
would be agreeable to putting in additional landscaping in that area.
Stoddard inquired how many feet of chain link fence the Applicant is proposing to erect.
Mrs. Jochims stated ‘he chain link fence would go around the rear perimeter of the property.
Mr. Jochims stated they are planning to do something similar to what ABC has done on their
property.
PAGE 3
..... ...
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001
(M01-27I1 WESTERN STEEL, CONTINUED)
Mabusth inquired uhat the fence would look like around the parking area.
Mrs. Jochims stated that would be a solid fence.
Mabusth inquired whether Staff has reviewed the traffic flow on the property in relation to the fuel
site.
Weinberger stated the Fire Marshall has rev iewed that area, with the Applicants needing to meet all
the fire standards.
Mrs. Jochims stated the amount of traffic in that area would also be minimal.
Mabusth inquired what Western Steel's business hours are.
Mrs. Jochims stated they start at 5:30 a.m , and are finished by 4:30 p.m.
Mabusth inquired whether any new lighting is being proposed for this area.
Mrs. Jochiris stated the bu'Iding is already currently lit, with the only additional lighting being
proposed is m the fuel tank area. Jochims stated it was her understanding the e.\isting lighting does
meet the City ’s standards.
Kluth inquired whether the Applicants feel they have sufficient room for their outdoor storage in the
event they expand.
Ntrs. Jochims stated they are increasing their storage area inside by relocating to this new building.
Hawn inquired why the City requires parking areas to be blacktopped versus gravel. Hawn stated she
does not see a hardship in this case to permit the gravel.
Weinberger stated the dust is one issue, with maintenance being another issue. Weinberger stated the
blacktopping al- > assists with the drainage on the property. Weinberger stated the City Engineer will
need to review the grading and drainage plan for this property.
Rahn commented in his view he would prefer to see the parking stalls defined.
Hawn noted the blacktopping and striping of the parking area is part of City Code.
Kluth commented he understands the desire to have gravel in the area where the heavy equipment
will be stored. Kluth indicated he would like to see the employee parking area blacktopped.
Gaffron stated he is not aware of any situation where the City did not require the parking area be
paved.
Mabusth commented the Planning Commission would certainly be consistent by requiring the
Applicant to pave the employee parking area.
PAGE 4
1
J
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(MU-2711 WESTERN STEEL, CONTINUED)
Mrs. Jochims stated they would like to relocate to this area, but did not anticipate the need to blacktop
the employee parking area or outdoor storage area. Jochims stated they will attempt to comply w ith
whatever the City requires.
Stoddard stated for consistency purposes the employee parking area should be biacktopped, but that
he would not be opposed to leaving the outdoor storage area gravel.
Mr. Jochims slated he does not see the need for the blacktopping in the employee parking area.
Jochims staled the employees would enter the parking area at 6:00 a.m., park their vehicles there for
the day. and then leave at 4:00 p.m. Jochims stated the parking would be enclosed by a fence.
Rahn reiterated he would like to see the parking stalls defined somewhat. Rahn questioned whether
the outdoor storage area might encroach Into the employee parking area if the parking are.-’ is not
belter defined.
Mr. Jochims stated they could pul something up designated the employee parking area..
Mrs. Jochims staled they have very few visitors coming to the site, and that they would be agreeable
to designating this area as employee parking only. Mrs. Jochims stated their business is seasonal,
with appro.ximately 20 to 25 vehicles c.xpected to park in this area.
Kluth stated in his view as a matter of consistency the Planning Commission should require the
employee parking lot be paved.
Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2711,
Western Steel Erection, Inc., 2687 Way^ata Bouelvard, granting of a conditional use permit to
permit permanent **outside storage**, subject to the recommendations contained in the
October 11,2001 Planner’s Report, with the understanding the 28 employee parking stalls w ill
be paved and striped and that the outside storage area can remain gravel.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#4) #01-2689 MANDEEP SODHl, 4080 DAHL ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:59 o.m. - 7:17 p.m.
Mandeep Sodhi, Applicant, was present.
Weinberger st iled the Planning Commission had reviewed this application at their August meeting,
w ith the application being tabled due to recent grade changes above the slope that were not reflected
on the plan. The Applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances and a conditional use permit to
permit replacement of a stairway and retaining walls within 75 feet cf the lakeshorc. Weinberger
noted some work did occur within a bluff impact area, with the City allowing a stainvay within a
bluff area.
Weinberger stated the subject property is 45 feet wide, with the existing stainvay and retaining wall
having been replaced. The City does not have any photographs showing the condition of the area
prior to construction. Staff issued a permit for the work with the request the Applicant obtain an
PAGES
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Daniel
Kluth, and Alternate David Rahn. Commissioners Sandra Smith and Janice Berg were absent. The
following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul
Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. and Recorder Jackie Yourg. City Council
Representative Jay Nygard was present
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Hawn noted Items /VOI-27 1 9, #0 1 -272 1, and /^OI-2725 are on tonight ’s Consent Agenda, and
inquired whether any members of the audience would like to comment on any of those applications.
There were no public comments.
*(#I) /VOl-2719 JODI AND DAVID DALVEY, 1520 BOHN’S POINT ROAD - VARIANCE
Lindquist moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application 1101-2719, Jodi
and David Dalvey, 1520 Bohn’s Point Rsad, granting of a lot width variance and an accessory
building variance to construct a new residence on the lot VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
*(#2) Mil-2721 WALTER HOLZER, 1130 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - VARUNCE
Lindquist moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application Mil-2721,
Walter Holzer, 1130 North Shore Drive West, granting of a lot width variance and an accessory
building variance 1o construct' a new residence on the lot VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
*(113) #01-2725 ROBERT HOWELLS, 1423 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE
Lindquist moved. Mubusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2725,
1423 Park Drive, ^•'4ot!ng of a lot width variance and an accessory building variance to
constmet a new residence on the lot. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
Item #4 was heard after Item #5.
PAGEl
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(«S) #01-2711 WESTERN STEEL ERECTION, INC., 2687 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:34 p.m. - 6:58 p.m.
Chuck and Stephanie Jochims. Applicants, were present.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to permit permanent
''outside storage” to provide outdoor parking for si.\ trailers, two trucks, two cranes, and one boom
truck as shown on the site plan. Western Steel Erection, Inc., has leased the 16,200 square foot
building located at 2687 Wayzata Boulevard. Western Steel constructs steel framing beams used for
construction projects, which is a permitted use in the Industrial District.
Weinberger stated all the outdoor storage is located in the far comer of the property furthest from
Highway 12. The Applicants have submitted a plan show ing the layout of the property and the
storage area, with the intent of the Applicants being to store as much inventory as possible indoors.
Weinberger stated due lo the type of business, the majority of the equipment will be kept on various
job sites rather than on the subject property.
The revised site plan submitted by the Applicants addresses some of the issues raised at the
September Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission at that time requested the
Applicant revise their plan to address the required setbacks and parking requirements. The
Applicants are proposing to remove the existing perimeter fence, construct a new fence along the
perimeter that would fence in the yard from the 75-foot setback to the rear property line. Within that
fenced in area would be the employee parking which consists of 29 parking stalls.
Staff is recommending that the employee parking area be paved and striped. The App'icant has
indicated they would like to gravel both the employee parking area and the outdoor storage area. All
parking areas containing more than six spaces which face a public street 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 designed so that liiey arc architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the
lot. The Applicant has also submitted a proposed landscape plan, with a row of evergreens along
Highway 12. Staff is recommending that some evergreens also be planted closer to the fence to
provide some additioni * screening.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is also proposing to install an above ground fuel tank, which will
need to meet all fire standards.
Staff recommends the outside storage area meet the minimum setbacks and requirements of the
zoning chapter, with the follow ing standards being met;
A. The outside storage area shall be located within the required parking setbacks, including a
mininmm 75 foot or more from the front property line.
B. The parking and outside storage areas shall be located a minimum of ten feet 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.
P\GE2
J
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2711 WSESTERN STEEL, CONTINUED)
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.
Mrs. Jochims stated the reason they would prefer not to pave the parking and outdoor storage areas is
the heavy equipment that will be moved over the area. Jochims stated in the long-term the
blacktopping would become a maintenance issue, with the gravel holding up better. Jochims stated
while they were in l.ong Lake they used gravel for their outdoor storage and parking areas, which was
very well maintained and worked well for their needs.
Hawn e.xpressed concern that blacktop would be better in the event of an oil spill.
Mrs. Jochims stated any spills would be contained in a cement ciypt, which they are required by law
to have.
Hawn stated she was thinking more in terms of oils leaks from the equipment in the outside storage
area.
Mrs. Jochims stated there is a very slight possibility that that would happen, noting they take ver>
good care of all their equipment.
Hawn opened the hearing up for public comment.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Lindquist inquired whether the Applicants arc agreeable to blacktop the employee parking area.
Mrs. Jochims stated they would also prefer to keep that area gravel, noting the traffic in and out of
that area is very minimal and would not create much dust.
Lindquist inquired whether the Applicants would be agreeable to putting in additional landscaping
between the fence and the line of trees along Highway 12.
Mrs. Jochims stated they are planning to construct a solid fence along the front of the property, but
would be agreeable to putting in additional landscaping in that area.
Stoddard inquired how many feet of chain link fence the Applicant is proposing to erect.
Mrs. Jochims stated the chain link fence w ould go around the rear perimeter of the property.
Mr. Jochims stated they are planning to do something similar to what ABC has done on their
property.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2711 WESTERN STEEL, CONTINUED)
Mabusth inquired what the fence would look like around the parking area.
Mrs. Jochims stated that would be a solid fence.
Mabusth inquired whether Staff has reviewed the traffic flow on the property In relation to the fuel
site.
Weinberger stated the Fire Marshall has reviewed that area, with the Applicants needing to meet all
the fire standards.
Mrs. Jochims stated the amount of traffic in that area would also be minimal.
Mabusth inquired what Western Steel’s business hours are.
Mrs. Jochims stated they start at 5:30 a.m., and are finished by 4:30 p.m.
Mabusth inquired whether any new lighting is being proposed for tnis area.
Mrs. Jochims stated the building is already currently lit, with the only additional lighting being
proposed is in the fuel tank area. Jochims stated it was her understanding the existing lighting does
meet the City’s standards.
Kluth inquired whether the Applicants feel they have sufficient room for their outdoor storage in the
event they expand.
Mrs. Jochims stated they arc increasing their storage area inside by relocating to this new building.
Hawn inquired why the City requires parking areas to be blacktopped versus gravel. Hawn stated she
does not see a hardship in this case to permit the gravel.
Weinberger stated the dust is one issue, with maintenance being another issue. Weinberger stated the
blacktopping also assists with the drainage on the property. Weinberger staled the City bngineer v>ill
need to review the grading and drainage plan fur this ptupeity.
Rahn commented in his view he would prefer to see the parking stalls defined.
Hawn noted the blacktopping and striping of the parking area is part of City Code.
Kluth commented he understands the desire to have gravel in the area where the heavy equipment
w ill be stored. Kluth indicated he would like to see the employee par’iting a; a blacktopped.
Gaffron stated he is not aware of any situation where the City did not require the parking area be
paved.
Mabusth commented the Planning Commission would certainly be consistent by requu ir.g the
Applicant to pave the employee parking area.
PAGE 4
I
I
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(MH-2689 MANDEEP SODHI, CONTINUED)
after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit. Staff had concerns at the time the permit was
issued that erosion could occur due to the vegetation removal and amount of e.xposed dirt in the area.
W«*inberger stated the Planning Commission should also review the vegetation replacement plan.
The Applicant removed a significant amount of the undergrowth on the hillside as well as two large
and several small trees that were removed.
Weinberger staled following issuance of the permit to complete the stairw ay, the contractor for the
property owner requested a land alteration permit in order to install a retaining wall, with the
elevation of the land being raised in one area to create a Hat walkout area.
Staffdiscovered in reviewing this application that the putting green was constructed two to three feet
above the e.\isting grade. Staff also discovered that the permit issued as part of the putting green
project allowed the putting green to encroach about eight feet into the bluff impact zone. An
after-the-fact variance would be required in this case for the putting green to permit fill to be
deposited in the bluff impact zone. Weinberger stated the propert> ow ner did have the appropriate
permits for all the work that occurred from the bluff line back, and only became an issue when
reviewing the application for the other permits.
The Planning Commission will need to consider whether the after-the-fact variance should be
approved, with City Code permitting one stairway down to the shoreline. Weinberger stated the
retaining wall constitutes hardcover within the 0-75 foot setback as well as structure within the bluff
line.
Weinberger stated he did visit the site again today and noticed that wood chips have been
deposited in this area over landscape fabric. The City Engineer did review the situation and is
recommending that the landscaping fabric remain in place through the winter and spring in order to
alleviate any erosion concerns in the spring, w ith a deadline of June 30,2002, for w hen the fabric
should be removed and the additional landscaping be installed.
W'einberger stated the landscaping plan shows the proposed plantings. Tlte Applicant has planted a
spruce tree, and is proposing to plant a maple tree and an apple tree Weinberger stated there are a
number of existing trees on this property , which provides canopy. Weinberger stated tlie addition of
trees in some areas may not be appropriate given the number of mature trees that already exist in this
area. Staff is letommcnding that an additional tree be planted somewhere between the gtass pathway
and the stairway toward the lakeshore, which should help to stabilize the bank and provide additional
screening to the stairway and retaining ways. The Applicant is also proposing to plant ivy along the
retaining walls. Staff recommends approval of the landscape plan subject to the condition that the
additional trees be planted.
Staff further recommends that the putting green project also be approved. The City Engineer did
review this area as well and concluded that the drainage in this area w ill work w ith the rest of the
property.
Haw n inquired whether Staff was aware that tlie putting green was going to encroach into the bluff
setback line at the time the permit was issued.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15.2001
(#01-2711 WESTERN STEEL, CONTINUED)
Mrs. Jochims stated they would like to relocate to this area, but did not anticipate the need to blacktop
the employee parking area or outdoor storage area. Jochims stated they will attempt to comply with
whatever the City requires.
Stoddard stated for consistency purposes the employee parking area should be blacktopped, but that
he would nut be uppused to leaving the outdoor storage area gravel.
Mr. Jochims stated he does not see the need for the blacktopping in the employee parking area.
Jochims stated the employees would enter the parking area at 6:00 a.m., park .heir vehicles there for
the day, and then leave at 4:00 p.m. Jochims stated the parking would be enclosed by a fence.
Rahn reiterated he would like to see the parking stalls defined somewhat. Rahn questioned whether
the outdoor storage area might encroach into the employee parking area if the parking area is not
better defined.
Mr. Jochims stated they could put something up designated the employee parking area..
Mrs. Jochims stated they have very few visitors coming to the site, and that they would be agreeable
to designating this area as employee parking only. Mrs. Jochims stated their business is seasonal,
with appro.ximately 20 to 25 vehicles e.\pected to park in this area.
Kluth stated in his view as a matter of consistency the Planning Commission should require the
employ ee parking lot be paved.
Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2711,
Western Steel Erection, Inc., 2687 Wayiata Bouelvard, granting of a conditional use permit to
permit permanent **outside storage'*, subject to the recommendations contained in the
October 11,2001 Planner's Report, with the understanding the 28 employee parking stalls will
be paved and striped and that the uuUide storage area can remain gravel.
VOTE; Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#4) #01-2689 MANDEEP SODHl, 4080 DAHL ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:59 p.m. - 7:17 p.m.
Mandeep Sodhi. Applicant, was present.
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission had reviewed this application at their August meeting,
with the application being tabled due to recent grade changes above the slope that were not reflected
on the plan. The Applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances and a conditional use permit to
permit replacement of a stairway and retaining walls within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Weinberger
noted some work did occur w ithin a bluff impact area, with the City allow ing a stairway within a
bluff area.
Weinberger stated the subject property is 45 feet wide, with the existing stainvay and retaining wall
having been replaced. The City does not have any photographs showing the condition of the area
prior to construction. Staff issued a permit for the work with the request the Applicant obtain an
PAGES
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(W)l-2689 MANDEEP SODHl, CONTINUED)
Weinberger stated they would have requested the putting green be constructed further back on the
property.
Sodhi stated he could have located the putting green further back had he known it encroached. Sodhi
indicated he basically is in agreement with Staffs recommendations, but would like to discuss with
Staff the location of the additional tree due to the limited amount of sun that is currently in this area
due to the mature trees on his lot.
Weinberger stated he did discuss this issue with the Applicant, and that perhaps a better location for
the tree is further back on the property.
Sodhi stated he is in agreement with the placement of the one tree but would like to discuss the
placement of the other tree. Sodhi indicated there are appro.ximately 30 trees in this area already.
Sodhi stated he would like to meet with Staff to discuss placement of the one additional tree.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn stated she has a question regarding the species of the trees and plants the Applicant has chosen
to plant in this area. Hawn noted a significant amount of the proposed plantings are hostas and
daylilies, which appear to be replacing shrubbery.
Sodhi stated they are replacing buckthorn, poison iv7, and other natural growth.
Hawn stated in terms of screening and soil retention, the Applicant should perhaps consider other
plantings other than hostas and daylilies.
Sodhi indicated he has planting hostas and daylilies as a result of the last discussion he had with the
Planning Commission, who had recommended those types of plants.
Hawn inquired what goldfingers arc.
Sodhi stated it is a shrub.
Hawn noted it is a type of potentilla.
Stoddard commented the City is concerned with the canopy cover as well as the ground cover, and
requested the Applicant work with Staff to arrive at a suitable vegetation plan for this area. Stoddard
suggested that perhaps the City ’s forester also revie v the landscaping plan. Stoddard noted in the
past the Planning Commission has required that evergreens also be incorporated in the landscape
plan, and recommended the Applicant consider adding some eve.'green type shrubs.
Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant is agreeable with removing the landscape fabric.
Sodhi indicated he was unaware that landscaping fabric was not permitted and installed it at the
recommendation of his landscaper. Sodhi stated he is agreeable to removing it.
Lindquist noted the City of Orono does not permit landscape fabric.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COM^HSSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(MM-2689 MANDEEP SODHI, CONTINUED)
Stoddard moved, Kluth acconded, to recommend approval of Application #01>268V, Mandeep
Sodbi, 4080 Dahl Road, sranting of after>the>fact variances and conditional use permit to allow
the replacement of a stairway and retaining wall on the lakcshore side of the property, subject
to the Applicant adding one additional hardwood tree on the lakeside of the stairway and one
additional tree at the top of the bluff in the center of the property, and further subject to any
other recommendations of Staff for adding evergreen type plants on the lakeside portion of the
retaining wails, with the understanding the landscape fabric will be removed by June 30,2002.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(U6) ffOl-2716 BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT, 2200 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES,
7:18 p.m.-7:29 p.m.
Steve Dehnke. Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg stated this application was tabled at the September Planning Commission meeting to
allow the Applicant time to redesign the proposed application to better adhere to Orono's zoning
ordinances.
The Applicant has submitted a revised plan, with the new proposal being to construct a two-stor>‘
residence with an attached garage. The e.xisting residence and detached garage will be demolished.
The lot is served by sanitaiy sewer.
The Applicant is requesting variances to lot area and lot width as well as a variance to hardcover in
the 75-250 ’ setback area. The Applicant is requesting 27.8 percent hardcover where 25 percent is
allowed. Bottenberg stated she did not have the elevations at the time the report was prepared.
Staff is recommending approval of the variances subject to the drainage/grading plan being approved
by City Staff.
Behnke stated he has revised his plan significantly and is proposing to construct a smaller size
residence on the property with a hardcover variance being requested for the 75-250' setback area.
Behnke indicated he is requesting the additional hardcover in that setback area in order to meet the
string test on the adjacent residences.
Behnke stated he is in agreement with the recommendations of the City Engineer, with work already
having been commenced on the drainage and grading plan. Behnke stated the drainage and grading
plan would be ready prior to the Council meeting. Behnke stated the entire structure would have
gutters installed on it.
Hawn inquired w hether any of the adjoining property ow ners have been show n the revised plans.
Behnke stated he did show one of the neighbors the new plan.
Barry Bennett, 2208 Shadywood Road, stated he welcomes the new development, noting it will be an
improvement over the existing vacant structure. Bennett inquired whether the developer has
considered a detached garage. Bennett stated perhaps by relocating the house further back it would
help with the hardcover. Bennett indicated the drainage in this area is a concern. Bennett stated it is
PAGES
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER !5,2001
(Ml-2716 BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED)
his understanding the lots in this area SO feet wide at the lakeshore, with the proposed residence being
32 feet wide.
Hawn noted the Applicant is not requesting any setback variances.
Bennett stated the current home is 20 feet wide.
Lindquist pointed out the proposed residence does meet the City’s setback ! according to the survey
Gaffron stated the City’s plat map shows that the lots in this area are 57 feet wide at the roadway.
Lindquist stated the decision to construct a detached garage versus an attached garage is up to the
developer.
Mabusih stated in her view the revised plan is a good iniptovement.
Rahn inquired whether the gutters to be installed on the residence is the primary method of dealing
with the drainage from this structure.
Behnke stated the primary method of dealing with the water runolT is the grading around the house,
with an attempt being made to minimize the amount of grading on the lot. Behnke stated the City
Engineer is recommending adding a swale, which he is in agreement with. Behnke indicated his
topographical maps do not show a significant amount of water runoff to the south, and in his opinion
the grading on this property will direct the water further towards the lake rather than elsewhere.
Behnke stated the proposed grading on the lot in his opinion would mitigate a number of the e.xisting
drainage problems on this lot.
Lindquist indicated he is in favor of this proposal, and requested the Applicant continue to work with
Staff and the neighbors to resolve the drainage problems in this area.
Kluth moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2716, Brensbcll
Devclopm;ent, 2200 Shadywood Road, granting of variances to lot area and lot width, and a
variance to hardcover in the 75-2S0’ setback area to allow 27.8 percent hardcover, subject to
the drainage and grading plan being submitted for Staff review and approval prior to the City
Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#7) #01-2707 ROBERT EDDINGTON AND MARK LARSON, HILL STREET, VACATION,
7:30 p.m. - 7:32 p.ro.
Robert Eddington, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting approval to vacate 1 25 plus feet of that portion of the
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2707 ROBERT EDDINGTON, CONTINUED)
unimproved dedicated right-of-way of Mill Street which lies beUveen 285 and 315 Crestview Avenue.
The right-of-way was originally dedicated in the plat of Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka in
1912. Bottenberg stated (here liavc been a couple of other sections of Hill Street w hich have been
vacated over the years west of Crestview Avenue. Hill Street is a 40 -oot wide unimproved street
right-of-way traversing Bayside Addition from cast to west.
Bottenberg stated this application does meet all the criteria for vacation. The Public Works Director
has been asked to review the proposed vacation and has agreed to proceed with the vacation finding
no current or future public use for the 40-foot right-of-way. Bottenberg stated she has received
responses from the utility companies who have indicated they have no concerns relating to this
request.
Staff is recommending approval of the vacation subject to the property ow ners granting a ten-foot
drainage and utility easement within the vacated right-of-way. The location of the easement should
be five feet either side of the new shared lot line.
Eddington had nothing to add to Staff s report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn moved, KiuHi seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2707 Roben
Eddington and Mark Larson, Hill Street, vacation of a portion of unimproved Hill Street
located adjacent to properties located at 285 and 315 Crestview Avenue, subject to the property
owners granting a ten foot drainage and utility easement within the vacated right-of-way, with
the new easement being located five feet either side of the new shared lot line.
VOTE; Aves 6, Nays 0.
(#8) #01-2720 CRAIG AND BEV MILLER, 1325 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCE,
7:33 p.m. - 7:43 p.m.
Craig and Bev Miller, Applicants, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants arc requesting a lot width variance and an accessory building
variance to construct u new residence on the lot. The e.xisting residence constructed in 1973 will be
removed. A lot w idth variance is required due to the lot being 130 feet wide where 200 feet is
required in the l.R-1 A zoning district. An accessory building variance is required because Orono
zoning code does not permit an accessory building on a property without a principal structure.
Cunently there is an existing accessory building located within 75 feet of the lakeshore.
Staff recommends approval of the lot area variance, but recommends that the shed either be removed
or moved to a conforming location. Bottenberg noted there is not a permit on file for the accessory
structure, but it does appear to have been constructed a number of years ago. The shed does appear to
be in sood condition.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY. OCTOBER 15.2001
(001-2720 CRAIG AND BEV MILLER. CONTINUED)
stated they are requesting the vai ian-.e because the sned is in good condition. Miller indicated
the two adjoining property owners arc not opposed to the shed remaining in its present location,
noting it is screened by several pine trees. Miller stated they would like to keep the shed in order to
provide sU'rage as well as add value to the home. Miller stated the existing residence does not
comply with the side yard setbacks, with the proposed new residence meeting the required setbacks.
Mabusth inquired when the Applicant is expecting to start construction.
Miller stated they would like to start this spring.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Lindquist stated he would like to see the shed moved out of the 0-75* setback area. Lindquist
commented the Planning Commission has been consistent in the past by not allowing structures
within the 0-75 foot setback area.
Kluth stated he is in agreement that the shed should be moved.
Hawn inquired whether the shed has a foundation beneath it.
Bottenberg indicated there is a concrete slab presently under the shed.
Miller stated he has not considered moving the shed.
Rahn noted the City does allow lock bo.xes in this area for storage.
Hawn indicated the Planning Commission on new construction attempts to limit the number of
variances as much as possible.
Mabusth stated she is in agreement with StafTs recommendations.
Kluth stated he would be agreeable to allowing the shed to remain until the new residence is
completed.
Lindqubt moved. Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application Mll-2720. Craig and
Bev Miller. 1325 Shoreline Drive, granting of a lot area variance to allow the construction of a
new residence, with the recommendation that the accessory building (shed) be relocated to a
conforming location on the property upon completion of the new residence.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(#9) #01-2722 MICHAEL AND MONICA BROWN, 1241 BROWN ROAD SOUTH,
VARIANCES, 7:44 p.m. - 8:16 p.i».
Michael Brown, Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Afildavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants arc requesting variances to permit construction of a 28 ’ by 24'
detached garage to replace an existing garage. The second part of the application is a 'equest for a
variance to permit replacement of an existing fence that is six feel in height w ithin the side yard
adjacent to street setback where a maximum height fence is allowed to be 3.5 feet. The fence is a
privacy fence to the back yard. The fence is located 27 feet from the property line and has existed in
its present location for a number of years.
Weinberger stated the existing garage has existed as a legal non-conforming structure for a number of
years and was built prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinances. The new two-stall garage
is proposed to be located six feet off the south (Minnetonka Avenue) property line. The south
property line is defined as a side y ard adjacent to street y ard requiring a SO-foot setback. I'he garage
doors are facing the street, which also requires a 30-foot setback regardless of zoning district. The
garage is also proposed to be located five feet from the rear property line where a ten-foot setback is
required. The garage doors would be located 18.5 feet from the paved surface of Minnetonka
Avenue.
The Applicants currently have a side loading one-stall garage and would like to construct a larger
garage. Also on the property is a 40-foot w ide gravel parking area located near Minnetonka Avenue.
The Applicants have indicated the garage could not be moved further to the north due to a large pine
tree being located behind the garage that they w ould like to keep on the property. Staff has measured
the tree and has confirmed it has a trunk diameter of approximately 16 inches and has a 30-foot
diameter drip line. The tree is located 12 feet from the back w all of the existing garage. The new
garage would not be located any closer to the tree than the existing garage. Weinberger stated two
ways to maximize the setback to the street and save the tree w ould be to reduce the size of the garage
or mo% e the garage farther to the north and east between the tree and the house.
Weinberger stated the majority of the garages built in the Crystal Bay neighborhood on comer lots
have the garage w ith direct access, including the two lots across the street. One garage is located 12.5
feet from the paved surface of Minnetonka Avenue and the second garage is located 25 feet from the
paved surface of the street. The proposed garage would be located 18.5 feet from the paved surface.
Thirty feet is the standard. Adequate off-street parking is not always available, with Minnetonka
Avenue being a narrow road paved only 1 5 feet wide. City standards also only allow one curb cut per
property with a 20 foot width. The 40 foot wide parking area located east of the existing garage will
remain . W'einberger stated the w idth of the parking area would be narrowed somewhat because the
larger garage would encroach into the existing parking surface. Weinberger noted hardcover is not an
issue in this application.
Weinberger stated the fence is located 27 feet from the property line and approximately 30 feet from
the edge of the pavement on Minnetonka Avenue, with the proposed fence remaining in the same
location. The fence is designed to provide privacy to the back yard, as the property is a comer lot
with a public street on two sides of the lot.
PAGE 12
J
MINITTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001
(#01-2722 MICHAEL AND MONICA BROWN, CONTINUED)
Bro\^-n indicated parking in the area is a problem and he does require an additional parking area.
Brown commented he prefers to have the parking area located to the side of the garage to avoid cars
parking in front of the garage.
Mabusth inquired whether parking was allowed on the street in that neighborhoor..
Brown indicated the road is only IS feel wide and docs not have sufficient room to park a vehicle on
the street.
Mabusth inquired whether there were utility lines in or near the alleyway or whcthi r there was any
public purpose to the alleyway.
Brown stated the sewer is located in front of the house, with the alleyway having a utility easement
over it.
Rahn inquired whether the garage was also intended for storage.
Brown stated it was.
Rahn inquired whether the Applicant would be satisfied with a 24 foot door, with a larger area to the
rear of the garage.
Brown slated they had originally thought of it, but follow ing a conversation with Staff, it was
concluded it would be too difficult to back out of the garage onto the street.
Rahn stated he would like to see the garage located at least 10 feet from the lot line.
Brown slated they arc required to locate the garage in this area due to the large tree located on the lot.
Hawn inquired whether the garage could be brought closer to Minnetonka Avenue and his residence,
with the garage being side loading.
Brown staled a front loading garage would be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood
and would allow them to do more landscaping.
Rahn stated the .Applicant could also encroach two feet into the drip line and reduce the size of the
garage somewhat, which would give him ten feet from the lot line.
Brown stated in his view if the garage is moved any closer to the tree, it might damage the tree.
Hawn commented it was her understanding the City did not prefer garages to face the street.
Brown stated the majority of the garages in the area face the street, with his current garage being the
exception.
Gaffron stated one issue the City considers is whether a vehicle is able to park in the driveway
without any portion of the vehicle encroaching into the roadway. Gaffron stated in this instance a
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2722 MICHAEL AND MONICA BROWN, CONTINUED)
vehicle would not be able to park in the driveway without hanging out into the street. GafTron noted
the Code does require a SO-foot setback from the lot line. Another issue for consideration is whether
the City wants a structure that close to the street.
Hawn inquired w hether the members of the Planning Commission would like to see the size of the
garage reduced.
Mabusth and Kluth stated in their view the garage could perhaps be relocated somewhere else on the
property.
Rahn stated in his view the garage could perhaps be moved five feet closer to the house.
Brown stated he does not need to park in front of the garage since he has a parking area to the side of
the garage. Brown reiterated the other garages in the neighborhood face the street.
Rahn stated the issue for the Planning Commission is whether a hardship exists to grant the variance.
Hawn stated in her opinion the Applicant could design a garage that would avoid the need for a
setback variance, does not load from the street, and does not require two curb cuts.
Brown indicated he was not familiar with curb cuts prior to tonight's meeting.
Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission had any issues with the fence replacement.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they are in favor of a variance to permit
replacement of an existing fence.
Lindquist stated he is not in favor of the garage facing the street.
Brown stated he needs the Planning Commission to explain why they would approve a garage within
the last year for the mayor for the very same type of reasons.
Hawn indicated it was her understanding there were some issues dealing with setbacks in that file.
Gaffron stated he will check the file to see what the setback was from the street front line to the front
of the garage.
Brown staled one option would be to cut down the pine tree.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission is not asking the Applicant to remove the pine tree,
Brown stated he would prefer not to have to cut down the tree.
Rahn stated if the garage is located five feet closer to the house, a variance would not be required.
Brown stated it is his belief the pine tree is located more towards the middle of the garage than the
street. Brown stated in his view his request is reasonable.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001
(#01-2722 MICHAEL AND MONICA BROWN, CONTINUED)
Weinberger stated the issue he had with a front loading'garage is that the location of the garage near
the street would not allow parking in the driveway. Weinberger stated the garage in this location does
make some sense given the parking area to the side.
Gaffron stated the mayor’s garage is located ten feet from the street lot line and 20 feet from the
traveled roadway.
Hawn inquired whether there was any other location the mayor could have built her garage. Hawn
stated it is her recollection there was only one location available for the garage.
Lindquist stated he would not have a problem with the garage if it were located ten feet from the
street and ten feet from the rear property line.
Stoddard stated he also is in agreement with that.
Lindquist stated the garage could be moved closer to the house.
Rahn indicated he would prefer the garage be located ten feet from the lot line.
Hawn commented the Planning Commission should not be designing the garage for the Applicant.
Brown stated he would like some direction from the Planning Commission. Brown indicated he is
requesting the variance due to the pine tree.
Lindquist stated in his view the garage could be located closer to the residence or reduced somewhat
in size to allow for a larger setback to the street.
Hawn stated she would not have as much concern regarding the location of the garage if it was a side
loading garage. Hawn stated in her view a portion of the parking area could be utilized for the
garage. Hawn suggested the Applicant review his options for location of the garage.
Brown requested his application be tabled.
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to table Application #01-2722, Michael and Monica Brown,
1241 Brown Road South, to allow the Ap'^Ucant time to review the location of the garage.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 8:16 p.m. to 8:18 p.m.)
PAGE IS
I-,. .. .
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15.2001
(«I0) tfOI-2723 MARK BREWER, 3800 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCUL SITE PLAN
REVIEW, 8:19 p.m. - 8:41 p.m.
Mark Brewer. Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and AITidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Brewer Chiropractic Clinic in Mound has filed an application for a commercial
site plan review to convert the existing non-conforming single family dw elling located at 3800
Shoreline Drive into a clinic. The property is located within the B-S District, with clinics being a
permitted use in this district. Weinberger noted no variances are required.
Weinberger slated the building has undergone some extensive interior remodeling by Brewer as part
of the conversion of the structure from a residential use to a clinic/office use. The remodeling has
included making the building handicap accessible per .ADA requirements. The City has issued
permits for the interior remodeling, but the creation of a commercial parking lot has triggered the
need for a commercial site plan review. The proposed parking lot was partially installed prior to the
issuance of permits, and work was slopped by the building inspector pending approval of this
commercial site plan review.
Weinberger slated the site plan does meet all the requirements of the B-5 Zoning District, w ith the
proposed use being an excellent fit for the B-5 District. The primary issues w ith the site is the ability
to adequately direct runolT without curb and gutter and the proposed location and direction of the
drainage outlet. The City Engineer and Staff are recommending that the parking lot be provided with
concrete curb and gutter to provide positive runoff control and that the runoff be directed to the
northwest toward the planning Hennepin County stormwater pond rather than eastward toward the
future City park site. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to provide eight parking stalls,
which meets the minimum requirement. Ihe Applicant has also been in contact w ith the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District, with Ihe MC WD issuing a permit for the proposed plan.
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the follow ing conditions:
1.The final design of the parking lot must meet the requirements as specified by the City Engineer,
including the installation of curb and gutter to positively direct runoff to its intended end location,
avoiding ptential negative impacts to adjacent properties.
2. The final stormwater management and drainage plans, including a drainage area map and
calculations, must be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineei. and the final
stormwater plan must be confirmed as acceptable to the MCWD.
3. All other comments noted by the City Engineer, in the letters dated September 27.2001, and
October 10. 2001. must be satisfied.
Brewer stated he is agreeable to directing the water in the direction recommended by Staff, but
indicated he was unaware of the City ’s requirement for curb and gutter. Brewer stated due to
financial concerns, he would like to delay installation of curb and gutter. Brewer indicated to install
curb and gutter would cost between $10,000 and $12,000.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS. 2001
(#01-2723 MARK BREWER, CONTINUED)
Lindquist noted the City Engineer is recommending curb and gutter, and that the Planning
Commission follows the recommendations from the City Engineer.
Hawn suggested that perhaps Brewer speak with the City Engineer regarding the curb and gutter.
Stoddard commented the Planning Commission i>pically deals with the zoning issues and generally
accepts the recommendations of the City Engineer.
Brewer stated time is also a concern if the driveway is to be installed prior to winter.
Hawn stated the application could be sent forward to the City Council with the recommendation that
curb and gutter be installed. Hawn stated the Applicant could speak to th<* City Engineer prior to this
application being heard by the City Council.
Brewer inquired whether he would need the parking lot to be paved prior to opening his business.
Weinberger stated the Applicant needs to receive approval of his site plan, and that a revised plan
showing a parking area without curb and gutter would need to be approved by the City Engineer. The
Applicant would need to submit a revised plan showing how the drainage would be handled.
Kluth stated the issue relates to drainage and that if cement curb and gutter is required to help address
that problem, then he would not disagree with the City Engineer.
Gaffron stated in the other commercial applications approved by the City, the City has required curb
and gutter. Gaffron stated he is unsure whether there is a specific B>5 standard that requires parking
lots be blacktopped, but in general City Code requires parking lots be paved to control the dust and
for drainage and maintenance.
Mabusth stated typically oth 'ities have the applicants enter into a development agreement
stipulating that certain conditions w ill be met, which perhaps could be done in this case. Mabusth
stated perhaps the Applicant could operate with a gravel parking lot over the w inter, with one
condition of approval being that the parking area be blacktopped in the spring.
Gaffron stated the City would not have a problem with leaving the parking lot gravel over the w inter
as long as there was an agreement that the lot w ill be paved in the spring.
Brewer stated he has spoken with two curb and gutter companies recently who have indicated they
will not be able to fit him into his schedule this year. Brewer indicated he also did inquire about
whether the curb and gutter could be retrofitted and was told that it could be as long as you leave
some extra space for the forms. Brewer stated that would allow for one layer of blacktop to be put
dow n this year, w ith the curb and gutter and final layer of blacktop being completed in the spring.
Brewer inquired w hether the curb and gutter would need to be cement.
Weinberger indicated that would be up to the discretion of the City Engineer.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,200!
(#01-2723 MARK BREWER, CONTINUED)
Brewer indicated he has tried hard to comply with the City's regulations, and suggested that perhaps
the City work closer with people who do not have development experience sooner in the process.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mabnsth moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2723, Mark
Brewer, 3800 Shoreline Drive, Commercial Site Plan Review, based on the findings that it is
consistent with the B-5 zone, subject to all drainage issues being resolved for this site, with the
understanding the water runoff will drain to a future Hennepin County retention pond to the
northwest of this property ’, and further subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer
contained in his September 27,2001 and October 10,2001 reports. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#11) #01-2724 MICHELLE AND DAVID TIMP, 1000 WILDHURST TRAIL,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:42 p.m.-9:12 p.m
David Timp, Applicant, and Tim Oberg, Southview Design, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants arc requesting a variance and conditional use permit to permit
construction of a boulder retaining wall on the west and lake-side of the residence. The variance is
for average lakcshore setback and the conditional use permit is to permit grading of greater than 500
cubic yards for the landscape work. The elevation of the land between the east and the west lot lines
varies by approximately 20 feet. The property owners wish to construct a boulder wall on the south
and west sides of the property to allow better use of the land.
Bottenberg stated the boulder w all starts on the back of the property and follows along the w est
property line for approximately 104 feet and is located 20 to 30 feet from the west property line. The
wall starts at grade level and gradually increases in height until the southwest comer where it is eight
fe't high. The remaining boulder wall is six feet in height. Bottenberg noted the boulder wall has
been designed and signed by a professional engineer. The City Engineer has reviewed the retaining
wall layout and feels the wall design is adequate. The City Engineer is recommending the global
slope stability of the wall be further investigated, particularly for worst case scenario.
The Applicant is also proposing to plant five 10-foot spruce and three 10 foot birch trees to screen the
boulder wall from lake view.
Timp stated he does not have anything to add to Staff s report.
Shawn McElhatton, Attomey-at-Law with Leonard, Street & Deinard, appeared on behalf of Ron
Zebeck, ^8 Wildhurst Trail. McElhatton stated his client has concerns relating to the stability of the
wall, the sight lines, and the drainage in the area. McElhatton stated he does not see any indication in
the Planner’s Report relating to how the drainage will be handled.
Oberg stated the trees are located on the bottom side of the wall, which will make them lower then
both of the adjoining residence.^. Oberg stated the drainage would not change since the wall ends
PAGE IS
#TM»n<.UL>4.J
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001
(#01-2724 MICHELLE AND DAVID TIMP, CONTINUED)
before it reaches the property line. Oberg stated the natural grade of the land flows to the west, which
will not be changed with constmction of the wall.
Gaffron stated the topography of the site shows the new grading directs the water runoff to the west
rather than straight down the lot, whicli siiuuld improve the situation. Gaffron noted there are two
areas where there will be some very minor grading within 73 feet of the lake to taper the land into the
wall at the very east and west ends. Gaffron inquired whether those cuts could be avoided, noting
they would technically require a variance.
Oberg staled the face of the wail lies behind the 7S-foot setback area, so the cut would be located
behind the 7S-foot setback as well.
Gaffron requested the grades within the 0-75’ setback area not be changed.
Oberg stated they put the stairway straight down to avoid any grading within that area.
Gaffron inquired if any steps have been taken to insure the global stability of the walls.
Hawn requested global stability be defined.
Oberg stated the walls are designed to support the amount of fill that is placed behind it. Oberg stated
the global stability comes into play if the whole slope would fall awa> f^rom the house and down the
hill, similar to a mudslide. Oberg stated he was unaware of that recommendation until today, but
would be agreeable to having ati engineer look at that aspect of the wall. Oberg noted the land is
virgin slope, w ith the chances of that slope being unstable relatively slim.
Hawn inquired whether there were any further public comments relating to this application.
There were no further public comments.
Mabusth inquired whether the drainage behind the wall has been addressed.
Oberg stated the wall has been designed with drain tile located behind it. Oberg stated the wall
consists of three-foot boulders with one foot of aggregate behind it. W ithin the aggregate is four-inch
drain tile with outlets every 40 feet out the face of the wall to handle the w ater runoff. Oberg stated
the only water that would run west would be surface water that would run across the top of the wall.
Mabusth inquired whether a two-tier type wall had been considered for this area.
Oberg noted there is only 12 feet from the house to the 75-foot setback, which does not allow
sufficient room for a two-tiered wall.
Stoddard noted the City generally likes to see some type of plantings to help screen the walls, and
inquired whether any type of creeping vine was considered.
Oberg stated due to the design of the wall, with the one foot of aggregate behind it, there no soil for
the vines to grow.
PAGE 19
I
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001
(Ml-2724 MICHELLE AND DAVID TIMP, CONTINUED)
Stoddard inquired what the visibility of the wall would be from the lake from the highest point of the
wall.
Oberg stated at maturity the spruce trees would be taller than the wall, which will eventually totally
screen the wall.
Stoddard pointed out the view irom the adjoining residences need to be kept in mind when screening
the wall.
Oberg stated it is not a matter of the view from the neighbors but rather the view from the lake.
Oberg stated it is his belief the wall would not encroach into .'.nyone’s sight lines.
Stoddard reiterated that the view from the adjoining property owners needs to be considered when
screening the wall.
Oberg stated there is a possibility the neighbor to the west may experience some screening of a
portion of the take due to the trees that will be planted.
Mabusth inquired whether the City has heard from the other adjoining propert)’ owner.
Oberg stated he has not.
Stoddard inquires what will screen the boulder wall.
Oberg stated there is nothing that will screen the wall, with the height of the boulder wall ranging
from 30 inches high to 18 inches high.
Stoddard commented the Planning Commission does routinely request shrubhciy along boulder walls
to help screen the wall.
Lindquist inquired why this boulder wall was not approved at the same time the original permits were
issued.
Gaffron stated that is a question to ask the propert>' owner rather than Staff since Staff had approved a
drainage plan that shows a yard that tapered down to the lakeshore and did not require a boulder wall.
Oberg stated he did request a drainage plan and was told there was not one by Staff.
Gaffron stated the information Staff was originally prov ided did not show they intended to create a
flat yard to the west of the house. Staff had the impression they were just going to let the land in that
area taper off. Gaffron stated he would have preferred to deal with this issue as part of the house plan
and perhaps the Applicnat would have redesigned the house differently.
Lindquist inquired whether this should be considered a bluff impact zone.
Gaffron stated to his knowledge it does not rise high enough to be considered a bluff, but it certainly
is a steep slope.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(MM-2724 MICHELLE AND DAVID TIMP, CONTINUED)
Oberg staled the area where the boulder wall is to be constructed is pretty much virgin ground, with
no extra soil being brought in.
Hawn inquired whether landscape fabric would be used on *his project.
GafTron staled in order to construct the boulder wall properly, landscape fabric would need to be
used. Gaffron stated the boulder wall would be considered hardcover.
Mabusth recommended the Applicant compile some elevations for the area and the view from the
lake prior to this application proceeding to the City Council.
McElhatton reiterated his concerns relating to the global stability of the wall.
Lindquist stated the Planning Commission and City Engineer has recommended that issue be looked
at further.
Klulh inquired whether any additional fill would be needed.
Oberg stated in his view there probably is too much fill on the site, which will need to be hauled
away.
Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01*2724, Michelle
and David Timp, 1000 Wildhnrst Trail, granting of a conditional use permit to construct a
boulder retaining wall on the west and lake side of the residence and permit grading greater of
than 500 cubic yards of fill ,and a variance to the average lakeshore setback, subject to review
and approval by Staff of a landscape and drainage plan and in cooperation with the adjoining
property owners on the sight lines.
Hawn inquired whether a hardcover variance is needed for the 0-75' setback.
Gaffron stated the City does allow a staiivvay in the 0-7S' setback area.
Weinberger stated the only hardcover shown on the plan is the stairway.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Hawn recommended the motion be amended to include global stability.
Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to amend the motion to include the condition that the issues
relating to global stability be satisfied and approved by the City Engineer prior to this
application proceeding to the City Council, with the understanding the erosion controls and silt
fencing will be maintained until completion of the boulder wall and landscaping is established.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(#12) #01-2726 EROTAS BUILDING CORPORATION WITH AN INTEREST IN 450
ORONO ORCHARD ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES, 9:16 p.m. - 9:23 p.m.
Dave Erostas and Mike Miller. Erolas Building Corporation, appeared on behalf of Kevin Garnett,
property owner.
The Certificate of Mailing and Aflidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated Erotas Building Corporation has submitted an after-the-fact variance to permit a
six-foot fence to be located within the 50 foot street yard setback where fences are permitted to be 3.5
feet in height. The fences would be located along Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson Street. Under
City Code, fences are not permitted to e.\ceed 3.5 feet in height within the 50-foot front and side yard
adjacent to the street setbacks.
Weinberger stated the principal residence on the property has recently undergone e.xtensive
remodeling and updating. Part of the property improvements include removal of the “old” guest
house and construction of a new guest house on the property. In June, 200 1, the Council approved
the conditional use permit for the new guest house. The overall site plan also includes a security gate
and enclosing the entire property with a fence. Last year a permitted si.x-foot fence had been installed
along the north and east property lines, with a 3.5 foot fence being installed along the south property
tine.
Weinberger indicated this property consists of 14.7 acres, w ith security being an issue. The property
owner has planted a vegetative buffer consisting of trees ranging in height from 13 feet to 16 feet.
The landscaping has consisting of planting a dense row of arborvitae trees, which leaves no view of
the property from the street. The fence has been installed between the trees and the house.
Weinberger stated the new portion of the fence was installed in August, 2001, w ith a stop work order
having been issued for the new fence along Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson Street.
Staff is recommending approval of the variance request ba.sed on the hardship that the fence would be
securing a large property in the RR-IB zoning district. The property is in an area where the general
development is consistent with other properties in the area.
Erotas staled approximately 90 percent of the fence is screened by the row of arborvitae trees.
Mabusth inquired w hether there is another access point to this site.
Erotas stated there is not. Erotas stated they are attempting to screen the bedrooms from Orono
Orchard Road.
Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #091-01-2726, Erotas
Building Corporation, 450 Orono Orchard Road, granting an after-the-fact variance to permit
a six foot fence to be located within the 50 foot street yard setback, with the finding that the six
foot fence will be securing a large property, subject to the wall being screened.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001
(#13) #01-2727 MARY AND JOE KING, 142 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE, VARIANCES,
9:24 p.m. - 9:37 p.m.
Mary and Joe King, Applicants, were present, along with Mark Sharratt, Architect, and JefT Switzer,
Architect.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a lot area variance to construct a new residence on the
lot. The Applicant’s initial proposal has been revised, with the proposed size of the residence being
downsized to 14.9 percent structural coverage, meeting the 15 percent structural coverage for the lot.
The Applicants have indicated a desire to retain an in ground pool on the property. Orono City
Ordinance adopted in February, I9<)0, states that pools, including pool basin and associated deck or
patio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, deck, or patio is enclosed with a fence, shall be
included in the calculation of lot coverage by structures. The proposed residence, pool, and deck total
6,790 square feet or 23.2 percent structural coverage.
Cit>' Staff is considering the possibility of revisiting the ordinance and amending the ordinance, with
Planning Commission review in November. The Applicants have stated they would remove the pool
when the existing residence is demolished if their lot area variance is approved. However, the
Applicants would prefer to delay removal of the pool until the ordinance has been revisited and a
determination is made as to whether pools should be included in structural lot coverage. However,
they will then have an accessory structure without a principal residence. A variance for this needs to
be applied for and approved prior to construction of the new residence.
Staff is recommending approval of the lot area variance with the condition that the pool be removed
when the house is demolished. Staff also recommends the granting of a conditional variance for
accessory structure without a principal structure, which would only be effective if the code is changed
prior to the demolition of the house to no longer calculate pools and their patios as lot coverage.
Weinberger stated the City has received a petition from a number of the adjoining property owners
indicating they are supportive of the project.
Mark Sharratt stated the Applicants would like to replace the existing house since it is outdated and
rebuild on the lot. Sharratt stated the only variance they are requesting at this time is a lot area
variance, but they would like to request the City reconsider their ordinance regarding pools and
whether pools should be included in the structural lot coverage. Sharratt stated the property owners
would prefer to keep the pool if at all possible.
Mrs. King requested the Planning Commission reconsider their ordinance, noting they would like to
retain the pool.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Lindquist inquired whether the Planning Commission would need to review the ordinance.
Gaffron stated at the time this ordinance was adopted, he was opposed to including pools and their
patios as structural coverage in the ordinance back in 1990. Gaffron stated the intent of the ordinance
was to regulate visual density, bulk and massing of structures on property, with the Council electing
PAGE 23
V' t___.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001
(#01-2727 MARY AND JOE KING, CONTINUED)
at the time they adopted the ordinance to include pools in the calculation of structural lot coverage.
Gaffron noted the City also has an accessory structure ordinance regulating pools and other structures
as far as setbacks are concerned. Gaffron stated normally the City only includes things that are six
feet above grade in their calculations of structural lot coverage, and in his view this ordinance should
be revisited.
Hawn recommended the Planning Commission review this ordinance at a work session.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission would need to have a work session the early part of
November to discuss another topic, and suggested this item be added to that agenda.
Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with the pool remaining as long as there is an
understanding that the pool will be removed if structural coverage is over IS percent.
Stoddard inquired whether the Applicants also own Lots 42 and 43.
Mrs. King stated those lots are the property of the City of Orono.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicants would build a new residence if the ordinance is not amended.
Mr. King stated they may elect not to build a new residence if the ordinance is not changed.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission may want to place a time limit on when the pool should be
removed if the Applicants choose to build a new residence and the ordinance is not amended.
Mr. King stated Staff sent them a letter stating the pool would need to be removed at the time the
existing house was demolished.
Hawn stated that would be fine.
Kluth stated the Applicants have one year to decide whether they want to construct the new residence.
Lindquist pointed out if the ordinance is to be amended, it probably will not happen until January or
February’.
Mr. King stated they understand that. Mr. King inquired whether an above ground pool would also
be considered structural coverage.
Mabusth stated it would be considered structural depending on the size of the pool.
Hawn moved, Lindqubt seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2727, Mary and
Joe King, 142 Chevy Chase Drive, granting of a lot area variance, and granting of a conditional
variance for accessory stmeture without a principal structure that would only be effective if the
code is changed to no longer calculate pools and their patios as lot coverage, with the
understanding the pool will he removed at the time the house b demoibhed if the ordinance b
not amended. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 24
MINUTFS OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(#14) #01-2728 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD, 4365 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:37 p.m. - 10:15 p.m.
William Stoddard. Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a new house on the property located at
4365 North Shore Drive. The lot currently has an existing house, detached garage and boathouse.
Weinberger stated a lot line rearrangement changed the side property line location. The Council at
that time made a finding that the lot does meet the one acre minimum lot requirement but was slightly
short on property width, and so granted a lifetime variance for this lot in the event it would ever be
redeveloped that it would be considered a record lot.
Weinberger stated a varianee is required to permit the 16’ by 23.8’ boathouse to remain on the
property. The existing house is not proposed to be removed, but would be converted into an
accessory building to the new house. The existing house would be resized to meet a 10-foot setback
from the street. This would be done by removing a three-season porch and part of the structure.
Weinberger stated the second part of the application is for a conditional use permit for plumbing in an
accessory building. The current residential structure would remain on the property with plumbing
fixtures in place; however, the kitchen would be removed from the building. In 1998, the Council
adopted an ordinance that allowed plumbing in an accessory building subject to a conditional use
pemiit.
Weinberger indicated variances would also be required for the location of the building. Tlie building
is located 5.4 feet from the west property line where a 15-foot setback is required, and would be ten
feet from the street lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. A 15-foot side setback is required for
accessory buildings greater than 750 square feet. Staff did discuss the issue of reducing the size of
the house to meet the 10-foot setback from the side property line, but posed a problem as far as the
plumbing since all of the plumbing is installed on that portion of the house and w ould require removal
and re-installation of the plumbing.
Weinberger stated the issues before the Planning Commission include clarification of the position to
allow accessory buildings to remain on properties and whether to deduct the hardcover within 75 feet
of the lakeshore from the total allowed in 75-250 ’ lakeshorc setback, and whether the boathouse is of
quality, historical value, and character to make findings that there is a unique situation that exists on
the property. A third issue for discussion is whether the current location of the existing house and
location of plumbing fixtures w ithin the house a hardship that would be unique to this propert> and
justify granting of the conditional use pennit and variances.
Stoddard stated his application contains nvo requests, w ith the first one requesting that the boathouse
be allowed to remain on the property. Stoddard stated he has contacted the Historical Society but has
not heard back from them at this time. Stoddard indicated the boathouse was part of Uie original Saga
Hill Colony.
Stoddard stated if he moves the existing garage somewhat, he could make it a conforming structure.
Stoddard stated he would remove a portion of the house to reduce the size of the house and remove
the kitchen. Stoddard stated since this lot does not consist of two acres, they are unable to rail this
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(#01-2728 WILLUM AND LAURA STODDARD. CONTINUED)
structure a guest house, and that he would be willing to enter into an agreement stipulating that the
house cannot be rented out or subdivided.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn inquired why Stoddard would like to keep the existing house.
Stoddard stated in his opinion it would add value to the property and that he perhaps may use it for
storage.
Lindquist inquired whether he intended to use it as a mother-in-law house.
Stoddard stated he is unable to have a kitchen in the residence.
Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with the boathouse, noting it is structurally sound.
Lindquist stated if Stoddard is over on the hardcover limits, the boathouse would need to be removed.
Stoddard cited some e.xamples where the Planning Commission has not included boathouses in the
hardcover calculations, such as the Hart residence on Kelly Avenue. Stoddard staled the Planning
Commission in the past has randomly chosen to include boathouses in the hardcover calculations.
Lindquist stated according to his calculations, he would be 141 square feet over on the hardcover if
included in the calculations.
Hawn concurred that the Planning Commission and StalThavc sometimes forgotten in the past to
include boathouses in the hardcover calculations.
Lindquist recommended Stoddard consider reducing hardcover by 141 square feet.
Mabusth commented the Planning Commission would need to be more consistent in the future on
including boathouses in the hardcover calculations.
Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with the existing house remaining on the property.
Stoddard stated he would be removing the deck and garage.
Kluth inquired whether Stoddard would be willing to reduce hardcover by 141 square feet.
Stoddard indicated he was unaware he was over on the hardcover until this evening, and that he will
leave it up to the Planning Commission on whether the hardcover should be reduced.
Lindquist noted the existing house would be located 16 feet from the street lot line following removal
of a portion of the residence.
Stoddard commented the adjoining property owners have signed off on the variances.
PAGE 26
L
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS. 2001
(001-2728 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD, CONTINUED)
GafTron stated the grading on the west-side of the property line will need to be reviewed in order to
determine whether the water runofT goes toward the lake. GafTron noted the drainage arrows on the
survey show that the drainage does not follow the natural flow to the lake.
Stoddard stated there is an easement in that area, with the elevations for the basement and first floor
being the same as the house to the east.
GafTron inquired where the neighbor’s house to the west lies in relation to Stoddard’s house.
Stoddard stated the house to the west is approximately five feet higher and that the drainage from his
lot would not run into the neighbor's house.
Hawn stated the question before the Planning Commission is whether the boathouse should be
included in the hardcover calculations.
Mabusth stated the Planning Commission should be consistent on this issue, and inquired whether the
current ordinance should be amended.
GafTron stated in his view the ordinance should be amended, and recommended discussing this item
in the upcoming work session. Gaffron stated this item needs to be formalized in the ordinance in
order for Staff to give f rm direction on the policies of the City.
Stoddard reiterated there have been examples where the boathouse was not included, citing a house
on Casco Point and another house down the road from his residence.
Lindquist stated in his opinion the 141 square feet should be removed.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission has gone both ways on this issue in the past, but
recommended that Stoddard consider reducing the hardcover by 141 square feet.
Kluth stated in his opinion if boathouses have not been included in the hardcover calculations in the
past, it has been a mistake on the part of the City. Kluth stated until the ordinance is changed.
Stoddard is probably entitled to the additional hardcover.
Hawn stated in her view the 141 square feet of additional hardcover should be removed even though
inclusion of boathouses in hardcover calculations have not been formalized by the City.
Stoddard pointed out that inclusion of boathouses in the hardcover calculations is not included in the
ordii:ance.
Rahn stated in his view the 141 square feet is relatively minor, and questioned whether there is
anyplace on the lot where the hardcover could be reduced further.
Stoddard stated one issue not before the Planning Commission tonight is the fact that a mistake has
been made on their title and that he actually has one extra foot on the east side.
Mabusth stated she would like the existing residence meet the 16-foot setback.
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001
(/rai-2728 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD, CONTINUED)
Hawn slated the City’s ordinance reads that an accessory building may have plumbing as long as it is
conforming, which this structure is not. Hawn noted the plumbing is located on that side of the
house, which makes it difficult to reduce the house in that area.
Gaffron stated the house needs to meet a 30-foot street setback and a 10-foot side setback in order to
make it conforming.
Hawn noted the house is not conforming on cither side. Hawn stated the kitchen would need to be
removed.
Mabusth commented in her view this is a unique property.
Hawn stated there are lots of properties in Orono w here the propert>’ owTicrs are tearing dow n the
c.xisting residences and constructing new residences.
Gaffron stated there arc two instances that he is aware of where the original house is still located on
the properly following the construction of a new residence. Gaffron stated those property ow ners
were required to remove the plumbing. Gaffron stated the one residence on Old Ciy stal Bay Road
did not meet the setbacks, and he is unsure at this time whether the residence on County Road 6 met
the required setbacks. Gaffron commented these situations do exist in Orono.
Mabusth inquired whether the exterior on the existing residence would be the same as the new
residence.
Stoddard stated it would be. Stoddard stated his hardship is the fact that the house is existing in that
location and that it would be a big hardship to relocate the house to conform to the setbacks.
Lindquist commented he does not have a problem with the location of the existing residence but
would still like to see the hardcover reduced slightly.
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend ap(.eoval of Application #01>2728, William
and Laura Stoddard, 4365 North Shore Drive, granting of a variance to permit the boathouse to
remain in the 0-75' setback as an accessory structure without a principal structure during the
time of construction of the new residence, subject to a review of the hardcover in the 0-75*
setback.
Lindquist stated Stoddard would still need a variance to hardcover in the 0-7S' setback.
Hawn stated he would not need a hardcover variance unless the hardcover in the 0-75’ setback is
added to the other hardcover in the 75-250* setback area.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Hawn moved, Lindqubt seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2728,
William and Laura Stoddard, 4365 North Shore Drive, granting of a conditional use permit to
allow the retention of the exbting residence to remain on the property as an aemsory structure
during the time of construction of the principal residence, with the undeiutandiiif the exbting
PAGE 28
!l
J
MINITTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(001-2728 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD, CONTINUED)
residence will be reduced in size resulting in a 16 feet from the platted lot line and 10 feet from
the Hennepin County right-of-way. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application 001-2728,
William and Laura Stoddard, 4J65 North Shore Drive, granting of a conditional use permit to
allow the retention of the existing residence to remain on the property as an accessory structure
during the time of construction of the principal residence; granting variances to the street
property line setback and the side yard setback, with the understanding the existing residence
will be reduced in size resulting in a setback of 16 feet from the platted lot line and 10 feet from
the Hennepin County right-of-way and a five to six feet setback on the west side of the
property; subject to the removal of the existing kitchen, with the understanding the remaining
plumbing in the residence may stay. It is further understood the existing structure will never
be considered an independent residential structure and that no future additions to the residence
will be permitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(015) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 24,2001 AND OCTOBER 8,2001
Hawn staled she was unable to attend the October S"* Council meeting.
Gaflron stated the Council denied the request by Sprint at their October 8*^ meeting for placement of a
cell tower in Ciystal Bay Park. The City Council also discussed the cat situation at the Hollander
residence. The Council determined that further revision of its ordinance regulating kennels would be
appropriate by requiring a license be obtained if there are more than four cats being kept on a
property. Gaffron indicated he is working on the ordinance at the present time, which will be
presented to the Council at its meeting in October. Gaffron stated the Council had elected not to
restrict the number of cats that could be kept on a property.
Stoddard recommended a ma.\imum number of cals be included in the ordinance.
Gaffron slated he suggested a ma.ximum number of ten cats for an> one properts.
(816) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission formally open a public hearing for the applications
on the Consent Agenda and formally close the public hearing. Gaffron stated a public hearing still
needs to be held even though the applications are on the Consent Agenda.
Kluth stated the City Attorney has recommended that the record clearly reflect that the public hearing
was opened and closed on each of the Consent Agenda items.
Hawn inquired when the Planning Commission work session should be scheduled.
PAGE 29
1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15,2001
(OTHER ISSUES, CONTINUED)
GafTron suggested the first week of November. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission would need
to discuss home occupations, whether pools should be included in the structural lot coverage
calculation, and hardcover in the 0-75’ setback.
The Planning Commission directed Staff to schedule a work session for Wednesday, November 7.
2001, at 8:00 a.m.
Stoddard requested the Council consider allowing landscape fabric be used in certain setback areas in
order to avoid situations where lawn chemicals will be used to eradicate the weeds.
(#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 17,2001
Lindquist moved, Mabusth seconded, to approve the minutes of the September 17,2001
Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0, Kluth abstained.
(#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
OCTOBER 22,2001 AND NOVEMBER 13,2001 I
October 22 - Stoddar.1 November 13 - Mabusth
ADJOURNMENT
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 10:28 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Elizabeth Hawn, Chair
PAGE 30
■ ii': ^ - -■ - -■