Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2000 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 19,2000~6:30 p.m. 2780 Kelley Parkway—Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Mayor Jabbour AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action b taken on any items on thb agenda, they will be scheduled for the February 14,2000, City Council meeting unless otherwbe noted by the Chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 1.#2540 Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue, After-the-Fact Conditional Use PermitA^ariancc. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 p.m. 2.#2400 Mark and Arlette Ploen, 4345/4365 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 7:15 p.m. 3. #2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development. (Staff: Paul WeiiAcrger). 8:00 p.m. 4. #2555 Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive, Zoning Code Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. #2543 Ted and Judith Edin, 3025 Casco Point Road, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). 6. #2547 Kimberli and William Abbott, 470 Big Island, After-the-Fact Variances. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). 7.#2551 Thomas Michael Randgaard, 2765 Shadywood Road, Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). i .j 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. #2552 #2553 #2554 #2556 #2557 #2558 Steven and Sheila Sigel, 1399 Park Drive, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). Ann and Gil Anderson, 845 Willow Drive South, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). Barbara and Collins Cavender, 1405/1395 Rest Point Road, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). Judith and Daniel McAthie, 1449 Bay Ridge Road, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). Anthony Patterson, 1780 Shadywood Road, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 14. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on November 22,1999 and December 13,1999 and January 10,2000. 14. Other issues for discussion. 15. Planning Conunission approval of minutes for November 22,1999. 16. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on January 25,2000 and February 8,2000. ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance Meeting D ate L /7-oV □ Council ET Planning Commission Park Commission □ Other •:. • I IPL^ASE out the information f RI^UESTED BFLOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. • •••■ ••■■.XVy-- ■ ::-;x NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1. 2 _ _ _ i,___________0oc6 Sfie'j}ke/A C^X^t-K iOrr, 1 1 /cl ^ HIjCj! I C) /IvC.H. rrvi I *^SS/ 4.^T1A iI< Awl.-fff- Pktfn ___-------------------------------------- a ^rv3 7. (-ifLi Avi^ f\'To h/' D^C 5^_______^<T c? v> . 8 o 6- T ^ A tKi C ^ h ( Aj UAfVi £.fr-CKt4<<»(tP 9. r bf If A IA Cxi N/ ti v\^ g r—.Lu! p,,.4 AJ AldLX ..'rnj^r^C M.I It ^ ^0. ft w» a W/J 11.7 7 V i "J J ^ ^ / TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner January 14,2000 SUBJECT:#2540 Bradley A. Hoyt 2523 Kelly Avenue Conditional Use Permit Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area: (Eristing)53,170 s.f. The City Council reviewed this application on December 13,2000 and recommended tabling the conditional use permit request to allow the applicant an opportunity to amend the application to include a request for variances. Staff provided a letter to the applicant at the City Council meeting requesting additional information to proceed. A variance application is required for the conditional use permit as the CUP cannot be granted when not in conformance with all provisions of the Municipal Code. Again, the variances required are to permit structure and hardcover within 75' of the OH'AO. (929.4’) of Lake Minnetonka. The application deadline has been extended to February 26,2000. As of the date of this memo no additional information has been submitted by the applicant to allow Staff to proceed with the request. StafT recommends the Planning Commission table the conditional use permit request to allow Mr. Hoyt to make a complete variance application for the scheduled meeting on Wednesday, February 23,2000. List of Exhibits A B C D Council Minutes (December 13,1999) Letter (December 13,1999) Planning Commission Minutes (November 15,1999) Staff Report H2540 Bradley A, Hoyi Conditional Use Permit 11 15 99 Page I r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#5) #2418 RELEASE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM CRYSTAL BAY PRESERVE - RESOLUTION NO. 4399 Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4399 Releasing Lots 1 Through 8, Crystal Bay Preserve from Resolution No. 1757. VOTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2522 BANCOR GROUP, INC., SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WILLOW DRIVE, CLASS HI SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WILLOW VIEW This item was continued on the agenda. (#7) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE - AFrER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Rick Sheridan, Continental Property, and William Skolnick, Esq., represented the applicant, Mr. Hoyt, regarding an application for a Conditional Use Permit at 2523 Kelly Avenue. Weinberger stated that Mr. Hoyt filed an application for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit. The application is a result of a request made by the City of Orono to bring the property into confonnance as there was some work completed on the property without contacting the City about permits to complete some retaining wall work. Staff had told the applicant tl.it the non-permitted work could be remedied by applying for a conditional use permit or he may have to restore the property. Consequently, the applicant agreed to apply for after-the-fact permits which included a conditional use permit and variances for the retaining wall work on the property. Weinberger displayed an existing survey of the conditions on the property. Weinberger said this is Minnetonka lakeshore property on Kelly Avenue. It is a triangular, narrow lot with somewhat of a steep grade firom the building area on the property down to the lakeshore. A boulder retaining wall is shown on the current survey. Sometime in September of 1999 Mr. Hoyt requested a conditional use permit application. The ap,.'lication was completed and brought into the City of Orono on October 1. Staff at that time had determined the application for a conditional use permit was incomplete. Staff had requested some additional information that included survey work showing conditions of the property prior to any construction on the lot and also requested surveys and as-builts for the property as the construction was completed. The applicant submitted the current survey on October 29th and stated there was no other information available. Staff had also requested Pages •. % ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (n?) U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELL YA VEMJE • Continued information regarding cut and fill calculations to determine the amount of land alteration on the property. Although the property owner stated he had not done any land alteration at that time, it is staff s belief that land alteration had occurred simply because building a retaining wall in most cases would require some land alteration. The retaining wall and slope area are located within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. Weinberger stated the code requirements for granting a conditional use permit in this case would also require approval of variances. The variances required would be for hardcover within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The applicant has not submitted an application for a variance. Weinberger said the notices for the public hearing before the Planning Commission did note that variances were being requested because staff felt the application for variances would be submitted; however, the variance application has not been submitted up to this time. Weinberger cited the three sections of the code that would require variances in order for the retaining wall to be approved. Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Section 10.55, Subd. 8, and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L). Weinberger said this application is only for the retaining wall. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 15 th and recommended denial of the application for the Conditional Use Permit based on not having enough information to proceed with the application. They did not have an application for variances to review. The applicant’s request did not meet the requirements of the code; therefore, the Planning Commission was not in a position to make a recommendation of approval. The Planning Commission commented that additional information such as photos and information from the contractor would be helpful. Weinberger said that typically, if a resident were to make an application for the work that was completed on this property prior to it being an after-the-fact situation, staff would have required a current survey showing all existing grades on the property, a survey showing the proposed topographic changes, additional engineering details on the walls, and a drainage study. Weinberger said that staff recommends the application for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit be denied or, if the applicant requests, to table and revise the application. He requested that the applicant provide a variance application for the hardcover within the 75 ’ lakeshore setback, additional information regarding the property conditions prior to construction of the wall such as plans submitted to the contractor, photos and site survey, and information relating to the contractor and plans the contractor used for the project. The information that the contractor would have used would be very important in determining hardship on the property as well as the impact of the conditional use permit. Jabbour stated that filing an application for a permit does not ensure it will be approved. Rick Sheridan stated that Mr. Hoyt is present at the meeting. Sheridan said he wanted to clarify some points from the staff report. He referred to the first paragraph of the report which Page 4 •• \ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13» 1999 (§7) U2S40 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued states, “Consequently the applicant has applied for the necessary permits for the boulder retaining wall.” He feels this is a statement that his client has applied for all the necessary permits for the boulder wall which is contrary to Weinberger ’s assertion that Mr. Hoyt has not applied for the variance. Jabtour asked if Mr. Sheridan was reading from the most recent staff report. Sheridan agreed that he had received the most recent report. He referred to the Background sec*'on of the report which states, “Mr. Hoyt had requested a conditional use permit application.” He said that is an incorrect statement. Mr. Hoyt came to the City Offices and asked for an application for the necessary permits the City was requiring that he have for his property. Sheridan said his client maintains that he didn’t need any permits or variances for his property. Sheridan referred to a letter that was sent to Mr. Hoyt in response to his application that indicated that more information was required. That letter said the information was requested for consideration of the conditional use permit and variances. They supplied the survey that is being displayed and told Mr. Weinberger that, at that time, they did not have in their possession a pre-existing survey. They didn’t say that there wasn’t one available, but that they didn’t have one in their possession. Sheridan said it is their position that they have made all t!ie applications that are required. Sheridan referred to the second paragraph on page 2 of the staff report regarding the action taken by the Planning Commission. He feels the entire paragraph is inaccurate. The next paragraph says the Planning Commission offered the applicant an opportunity to revwe the conditional use permit application to include variances, but went on to deny the application. Sheridan said he does not understand what the basis for denial was. He does not agree that they were offered an opportunity to revise the application. He does agree that they were offered an opportunity to come back with a variance application. Sheridan said his client maintains that he has not regraded within the 75’ lakeshore setback or filled the shoreline with rip rap, which staff says his client has done. Sheridan said he would like to discuss the issue of the conditional use permit. He and Mr. Barrett had a discussion about this application and that Mr. Barrett told him one of the conditions of the conditional use permit is getting a variance for hardcover. Mr. Barrett said that misstates their conversation. Barrett said Hoyt could apply for a ^ conditional use permit. The condition that is set out with respect to the retaining wall is that such permit is subject to the other prohibitions and regulations of the City Code and other applicable statutes and ordinances. As it stands, Mr. Hoyt’s application is in violation of several salient city ordinances. Most specifically. Section 10.55, Subd. 8, says “Except as Pages ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»7) U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued specifically permitted, no hardcover, temporary or permanent structures.... shall be permitted on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary high water elevation.” He asked if Mr. Sheridan understood that. Sheridan said he understood, and also that Mr. Barrett was drawing the conclusion that the retaining wall is hardcover. Barrett said he is drawing the conclusion that it is a temporary or permanent structure or hardcover. He asked if Mr. Sheri jan denies that it is a permanent structure. Sheridan said that based on the City Code’s definition of what a structure is, yes. Barrett asked if he denies that it is hardcover. Sheridan said that is correct. Sheridan said the City is asking for his client to apply for a conditional use permit and some variances. He said that a conditional use permit and a variance are two different government actions that can be taken with respect to use of property. He read to the Council fi’om a case that the Minnesota Supreme decided regarding what a conditional use permit is and its affect, Chanhasscn Estates v. City of Chanhassen. Minnesota Supreme Court, 1984, which states, ’3y express designation as a conditional use in a particular zone, such a use is deemed consistent wdth the public health, safety and general welfare and consistent with goals of the comprehensive plan of that municipality. Until the district is rezoned or the zoning ordinance is either amended or successfully challenged, that determination is conclusive.” Sheridan said Orono’s conditional use definition says that conditional uses are permitted and, therefore, that a conditional use is a use permitted in a particular zone subject to conditions. A variance is an attempt by someone to come in and get a variance for a use that would not othervrise be allowed in a particular zone. He said you can’t have a permitted use subject to conditions and say that you need a variance for a permitted use. Barrett said the conditional use permit does not fall under the difficulties that Mr. Sheridan suggests. If you want a conditional use permit, all you need to do is demonstrate that you are in compliance with the city ordinances and the city will grant one. If you wish a conditional use permit when you stand outside of compliance with the chy ordinances, then it follows that unless you get a variance from those ordinances, you cannot have the conditional use permit and that is why the variance question arises. Sheridan said he disagrees for the reasons he has stated. Jabbour said the City asks someone that wants to put less than three yards of sand on thor beach to obtain a conditional use permit. He does not feel it is out of line to ask Mr. Sheridan Page 6 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (UT) U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued and his client to present the City with information for a conclusive and accurate summary of the facts. Jabbour said he is obligated on behalf of the City and Mr. Hoyt to perform diligence because the conditional use pemut must be filed on the deed for the land. He sai e City needs additional information to make a proper decision. Sheridan said he does not know what additional information the City needs. He said City staff has been to the property and seen the retaining wall. He feels that is better than a drawing. Jabbour said the person that the City asks to get a conditional use permit for three yards of sand on the shore would he extremely disturbed if the City doesn’t know how many y^ds of dirt Mr. Hoyt put behind the retaining wall, if the City doesn’t know how far he went lake or if the City doesn’t know if he obtained the appropriate permits from Ae Waterehed District or the Corps of En^eers or the DNR. All of that is part of the City s due diligence. He s^d the Council could table this item and ^ve the applicant a list of the documents necessary for the Council to make a decision. Sheridan said he and his client do not agree with that. He said the City has a current airvey and a survey from 1990 prior to when the house was built and based on comparmg toose two surveys, staff has concluded that the applicant put rip rap in the water. He said that is m erroneous conclusion. He does not believe that the retaining wall is a structure or hardcover and there is a structural engineer present who will testify as to why he doesn t believe that either. Jabbour said they should figure out exactly what the Council needs to facilitate the application. Sheridan said if Jabbour is going to ask his client to concede that the retaining wall is hardcover, they will not do that. Barrett said Sheridan is correct, that if he wishes to make a legal argument that the rrtaining wall is not hardcover, he can make one and the City will make a legal argument that it is^ He does not feel it is fruitful to make that debate since it is clear that the City’s posiuon is that it is hardcover. Jabbour said there is a substantial amount of information that the City needs. He suggested that the list be sent to the applicant in writing. Sheridan said it should be contemporaneous with the decision they are making and not after- the-fact. Jabbour said this is a fluid issue and other issues might arise. He said the Council is trymg to bring this after-the-fact issue into compliance or find out if it is appropnate for the CouncU to Page? \ ' ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»7) U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued grant the appropriate approvals. The only way they can do that is by knowing the facts. He s^d they need to know who the contractor is, the amount of dirt moved, and the condition of the property before, during and after. Sheridan asked what the benefit would be of knowing who the contractor was. Barrett asked if the applicant takes the position that the entire retaining wail was built without moving any dirt on the property. Sheridan said he could not speak to that issue. Barrett said the reason the City would like to see the contract and to speak to the contractor is to find out what he did on the property. Sheridan said that assumes there was a contractor. Barrett said someone moved the rocks and the City would like to know who did that and how much dirt was moved. Sheridan said the City is telling his client that he has done regrading and presumably has done more than ten yards, so why doesn ’t the City tell them how it was done. Barrett said the applicant is being asked in good faith to submit the facts which support the application. Jabbour stud the City could obttun the aerial photographs from prior years. Sheridan said the City has engineers on its staff and they can give the Council their calculations. Barrett said that does not preclude the City ’s right to ask the applicant for valuable information in his possession. That is what the City is doing and he asked why the applicant is refusing it. Sheridan said he would let Mr. Skolnick respond. Kelley said if the applicant is not willing to supply the information, he will make a motion for denial at this time. He asked Mr. Sheridan if he is willing to supply the information to the City. Sheridan said the information was supplied with the application. Pages i i J \ % ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»7) U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVESVE - Continued Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to deny Application #2540, from Bradley A. Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue, for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit. Flint said he is wUling to look at further information if it is submitted, but he wUl vote in favor of the motion. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to table Application #2540, from Bradley A. Ho^ 2523 Kelly Avenue, for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit. He requested permissiw for staff to visit the site in order to determine the information they need, he that staff send Mr. Hoyt a letter telling him what the City needs, and he requested that the applicant be given notice of a 60-day extension to act on this application. WilUam Skolnick said he is an attorney for Mr. Ho>t in a lawsuit with the City of Orono. He said that when there is a request for information, there ought to be a good f^th belief that the City needs the information and that they don’t have the information. He said the statement m the staff report that Mr. Hoyt has filled and extended the rip rap approximately five to ten feet into the lake is an outright Ue. He said Bruce Vang, the City Inspector also said it is false m his deposition. He said Mr. Hafiher also said it is not true. Jabbour said that most of the Council members are oblivious to the lawsuit. They know there is an action, but they don’t know what it is about. Skolnick said he does not believe that is the case. He said there has been correspondence between his office and the City’s attorneys talking about Mayor Jabbour’s own deposition. Jabbour said he understands that. Skolnick said the Council is not oblivious to the lawsuit. Jabbour said he would like to go on record that most of the CouncU members know nothing about the lawsuit. Barrett asked Skolnick to specify the statement in the staff report that says that Mr. Hoyt extended the rip rap into the lake. Skolnick quoted, “The most recent survey indicates the slope has been regradj^ area on the lakeside of the boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately 5-10 feet into the lake.’’ Skolnick said that is not a true statement. Barrett asked if Skolnick is sa>ing that what is described there is not true, that the difference in the surveys doesn’t show that. Page 9 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (§7) »2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued \ ' Skolnick said the entire statement is not true. Barrett asked if Skolnick is saying there is no rip rap that has been extended five to ten feet into the lake on the comparative surveys. Skolnick said that is correct, that they have the sworn testimony of the DNR, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Mr. Hafher, who said he has no facts to support an allegation that Mr. Hoyt did anything or that the rip rap has been altered. Barrett said Mr. Skolnick is making two different statements. One is what his client did and the other is that there is an alteration. That is a disputed fact about whether there has been any alteration. Skolnick smd he wouldn't say it is a disputed fact. asked who says it. Barrett responded that City’s staff says it. Skolnick said the City employee that was in charge of it, that made the claim, later admitted that he had no factuad basis to make that statement. He said that the indication that the flat land between the boulder wall and the water was something that was done by his client is also not true. Barrett asked if his client changed the topography in order to install the wall. Skolnick said no and that they have engineers present who will tell the Council that that flat surface was there prior to Mr. Hoyt’s owning the property. He wants the record to reflect that there are some assertions that are not supported by anything. He said they are present because they asked the City what they need to do to satisfy the City. They were told to submit the conditional use permit application and it was done. The City requested additional information and it was submitted. The application was put on the Planning Commission’s agenda and then they were told that despite the agenda saying it was on a permit and variances, that it was only on the permit and, therefore, they really could not decide the issue because they hadn’t applied for the variances. His purpose in making a statement tonight is to get the truth out. He said his client did put boulders on the property, but he did not do anything else. Skolnick said that the people that have testified fi’om the other agencies cannot tell them what is wrong wth the boulder wall or what code it does not meet. He said it is encouraged to put rip rap, to make sure there isn’t soil erosion into the lake and that is what has occurred. He said there has been a lot of information developed so far, including a visit to the property and an inspection by three of the City’s staff members and the City’s independent attorney. He said they walked the property and they were given free access to look, take measurements and take pictures. Page 10 i % ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (§7) »2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE - Continued Jabbour said that some members of the Council are not aware of the litigation. He s^d that most of the Council did not know the content of the lawsuit or what issues are pen ing. Barrett said that because the applicants have suggested that they are unclear ® ^ that the City seeks, he would support the Mayor’s motion that the matter be tabled and extended for 60 days. He asked that the City staff prepare a letter to Mr. Ho>t which lays out precisely what is required of him if he wishes to be successful in his application for a conditional use permit. It doesn’t mean that if he applies for the variances, that they e granted. It does demonstrate what the City needs in order to evaluate the vanances^He said he has a copy of the letter and he would be happy to give the letter to Mr. Hoyt or ms attorneys at this time. He suggested that the matter be heard after better notice to the pubUc and a reopened pubUc hearing on January 19th for the purpose of havmg a public heanng in front of the Planning Commission with all the facts which the City believes are necessary. At that hearing the Planning Commission wiU make a recommendation and then the Couned wiU make a final decision. Jabbour suggested that perhaps the City staff should change its way of ^tmg reports. He said the report should refer to the land instead of saymg that Mr. Hoyt filled m the lake. He said the applicant is probably right that no one can say that Mr. Hoyt physicaUy took a shovel and started filling. He said the only thing the City has in its records is what was from the hist appUcation versus today. He said the City and the appUcant can work together to obtwn tota between 1990 and 1999, such as aerial photographs, and if something has is a problem with the land and the present owner is stuck with that problern. Until the City has all of the information, there is no way to make an educated decision regarding the land. Sheridan asked if the 60-day rule is being started over based on an incomplete application or if this is an extension. If this is an extension, he would like to know what the reason is. Barrett said the City will send him a letter pursuant to the statute which extends for 60 ^ys the time witmn which the City has to make a decision on this matter. He said the letter he wUl give Mr. Sheridan now will suggest the information and the form the City needs in order to be certain that the variances are properly noticed and applied for. Sheridan asked why they are getting this information now and why they didn’t get it previously. Barrett said he does not know . r.ether the applicant has willfuUy misunderstood the request of staff or whether staff has misstated the requests. He said this letter will clarify the the matter can go before the Planning Commission for proper consideration wth the facts ana it can go before the City Council for a final decision. That is the reason for the extension. Sheridan said he does not understand what is wntten by the City staff. Page 11 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»7) U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued Jabbour said the state statutes ‘^'vc the City the right to have 60 days, so they are not asking for any concession. Sheridan asked why they are getting a request for additional information now instead of in response to the application that was made by his client. Jabbour said that if Mr. Sheridan reads his own correspondence, it shows that the variances needed are to expedite the application and make sure that it doesn’t have to be readvertised. Staff did put the ad in the paper for the public hearing on a conditional use permit and a variance, hoping the applicant would present the information necessary to review the variances. Jabbour said that the applicant can continue or discontinue suing the city. The City will treat the applicant the same regardless of the lawsuit. Skolnick said he would like to believe the Mayor. Mr. Ho>l had offered to sign a document saying that if there is anything that needs to be done to fix this property, he would be responsible and post money to fix the problem. The City said they would not give him such a document and continued to threaten Mr. Hoyt with prosecution. Jabbour said he will get due process independent of the litigation. Skolnick said that hasn’t been their experience. Jabbour said again that the majority of the Council are totally oblivious to 90 percent what Skolnick is referring to in litigation. Sansevere said he was completely unaware of the lawsuit until the Planning Conunission meeting, and he is not aware of the particulars of the lawsuit. Barrett said the application process is independent. If Skolnick wants to put information into the application process that he has garnered fi’om depositions, he may do so. Sheridan asked if Barrett is suggesting that the information provided as part of the application will not be forwarded to the City’s counsel in regards to the lawsuit. Barrett said that if the counsel for the City wants it, they can have it because it is public information. Liz Hawn said she would like to clarify the Plarming Commission’s position. She said they were only dealing with the conditional use permit. As a practical matter, particularly because there was reference to storm damage which compelled the building of the retaining wall that had accelerated the erosion of the slope, they needed a reason to grant a conditional use permit because, generally, such retaining wall structures are not permitted in the 0-75 ’ Pa«el2 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»7) m40 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE-Continued setback. She said in fact that retaining walls of this nature are referenced in the comprehensive plan as not being a desired alternative. Without compelling information presented to the Planning Commission suggesting that the conditional use pemut should, in fact, be granted because of a severe circumstance of erosion that came as an act of God from this storm, they were not in a position to grant the conditional use permit or to grant v^ances when and if they should be proposed to them. This is why they would like information suggesting what the property was like before hand and what it was like after the storm. Unfortunately, if people choose to proceed in building in these areas without coming to the City, they destroy the very evidence that would compel the Planning Commission to believe that this was an appropriate action to take. It would be her hope that evidence suggesting that the shoreline was sufiBciently degraded and that it needed help could be provided by historical surveys. Without such information, the Planning Commission is not going to be in a position to take a different p :>sition than the one which they have already taken. She said they need information simply to decide whether or not what they consider to be hardcover and have always considered to be hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback should have been permitted. Mayor Jabbour said there is a motion to table seconded by Flint which supersedes Kelley s motion to deny. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Break, 8:10 p.m. - 8:15 p.m. (m #2522 BANCOR GROUP, INC., SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY 6 AND WILLOW DRIVE, CLASS HI SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WILLOW VIEW Dave Newman of The Bancor Group and Marty Campion, Project Engineer, were present. Weinberger presented the staff report. He said this application is for a subdivision of property with a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for a 58-acre parcel which is located at the south and west comer of County Road 6 and North Willow Drwe. c property is located just cast of the new middle school properly, to the west of the Shadowoo ighborhood and to the northeast of the City Offices. It is located in the two-acre residentialnet district within the MUSA where sewer service is available. The proposal is for 25 lots acres of dry buildable land which would maintain a one dw elling per two-acre density, proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 15th and recommended or approval. A conservation casement would serve as a buffer zone around the proposed development. The Planning Commission recommended the developer amend the site pl^ to include a vegetation plan and berming plan that would help to buffer the development from the surrounding properties and provide for areas that would be more aesthetically pleasing and protect vegetation on the property. The trail plan would include a trail along Willow and along County Road 6. The only concern staff has with the location of the trails is it appe^s may be some areas where the trail would be in the lowest portion of the ditch. Staff woul Page 13 ------— ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»6} U2522 BANCOR GROUP, INC - Continued recommend that the trail be moved to take advantage of the natural topography of the site to insure it is above where drainage areas and water would naturally stand. The trail does create a vital link along Willow and along County Road 6, especially to the school properties and to connect into the more regional system toward the Baker Park. Weinberger said the plan proposes a pressure sewer system. Pressure systems are usually only used when a gravity system will not work. Staff recommends that a gravity system be used because there is less concern for long-term maintenance. Weinberger said the City of Orono is requesting as part of this PRD that municipal water connection be made to the property. He said there are concerns due to public health and safety issues because many of the lots within the development are smaller than the standard two-acre lot. Weinberger said the City Engineer has reviewed the grading plan and it is, for the most part, acceptable. The City Engineer has recommended the lowest basement elevations be above the Normal High Level of the ponds and the exposed opening 2' higher than the High Water Level of the ponds. The applicant has indicated that this can be accomplished. Another issue to be discussed is the concept of the road. The Comprehensive Plan states Private Roads shall have a maximum service of approximately ten residential properties and that they be maintained and owned by a homeowmers association. The other alternative is a public road. The Comprehensive Plan would suggest a public road for this development; however, the City has not required private roads in other developments become a public road, such as Sugarwoods. The road will serve this development only. Weinberger said the proposed lot layout indicates the lots to the northern portion of the development are on average smaller than those within the southwest portion of the property. Many smaller lots are located along County Road 6 and Willow Drive North. The lot layout would indicate that there would be a higher density of homes along County Road 6. Prior to recommending approval for the plat, staff would request that the City Council and tfie developers discuss the following issues: 1. % ^ 2. The conservation easement be platted as a conservation outlet to be held in the ownership of the Homeowner’s Association. A conservation easement w ould allow a house to be built to the easement boundary, but the property owner would not be allowed to remove or alter any vegetation to the rear of the house. Platting the outlot would ensure houses would be built allowing a minimum setback to the conservation areas. The lots are developed that would concentrate the least amount of higher density to impact the properties near the intersection of County Road 6 and Wllow Drive North. Page 14 I • • » » • GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 December 13,1999 Bradley A. Hoyt 2S23 Kelly Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Application #2540 Dear Mr. Hoyt: The Planning Commission review on November 15 resulted in a recommendation for denial of your CUP request, based partially on a lack of sufficient information to support a variance approval. We believe that the following infonnation is critical to a variance review for your project, and should be submitted if you wish to proceed with amending your request to include the necessary variances: 1. Completed variance application form, including statement of hardship/unusual propert>' conditions, etc. 2.Name/address of any landscape designer who may have been involved in designing the improvements. Name/address of contractor who completed the work. 3.The plans given to the contractor defining what work was intended, such as existing and proposed contours; retaining wall specifications; engineering calculations on any segments of wall in excess of 48" in height; any pre-construction surveys you may have available; cut and fill calculations indicating the volume, in cubic yards, of material proposed to be mo\ ed on the property, etc. 4.Any as-built specifications provided by the contractor, especially if the final result was different than the proposed plan. We do have your post-construction survey on file as submitted. 5.Any photographs or other documentation of the condition of the shoreline prior to construction of the walls, especially any tree damage, or any documentation from any tree service which may have removed storm-damaged trees. 6.Any additional information which you believe will enhance the City’s understanding of w hat work was completed and the reasons it was undertaken. Telephone (612) 249*4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 Bradley Hoyt December 13,1999 Page 2 You should set up a meeting with City staff prior to your submittal, so we caii assist you in making your application as complete as possible. Submittal of the above listed information by noon on Wednesday, December 22 vill allow this item to be placed on the Planning Commission’s January 19 agenda. Please call me .it (612) 249>4600 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner end.: Variance application packet ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 NEW BUSINESS (#6) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA/ARIANCE, 7:03 p.m. -7:58 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Richard Sheridan, Attomey-at-Law, and William Skolnick, Attomey-at-Law, were present. Bradley Hoyt, Applicant, was not present. Weinberger stated the Applicant has filed a general land use application for aii after-the-fact conditional use permit, which also requires variances for hardcover. The application is a result of a request by the City of Orono to allow the property to comply with Code requirements and have the necessary permits issued. The application deals with the construction of boulder retaining walls within the 0-75’ lakeshore setback but not with any lakeshore land alteration that may have occurred on the property. City Staff has Indicated to the Applicant that the property can be restored or an application for after-the-fact permits can be filed with the City. The Applicant has chosen to apply for the nece^ry permits for any work that has been completed on the property. The Applicant has Indicated he Is unaware of any lakeshore land alteration that may have occurred on the property. However, it is the belief of Staff that some land alteration may have occurred with the construction of the retaining walls. The Applicant has stated he did construct a retaining wall in a letter dated October 29,1999, which is attached to this report, but denies doing any land alteration work within the 75 foot lakeshore setback. The property surveys indicate that substantial regarding has occurred on the property within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Typically this would be considered extensive grading within the 0-75 setback since It is Staffs belief that more than 10 cubic yards of fill have been moved in this area. Weinberger noted that the only application that has been filed by the Applicant Is for the retain!^ walls. The land alteration work is not a part of this application. Mr. Hoyt acquired this property In approximately 1996 or 1997. Weinberger stated that It is City Staffs position that Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, has been violated, v^ich states that It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the Council: C. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore pro^fty, which would require the issuance of a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit can be granted In this case if the proposal meets all the other sections of the zoning code. Weinberger stated, however, this proposal would not meet the other sections of the zoning code since the retaining walls would constitute hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. If the retai^g wall had been constructed outside the 0-75' setback, a conditional use permit may not be required and would be subject to other restrictions. Weinberger stated a variance would be required under Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, which states that no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain aM Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within of the ordinancy highwater elevation of any lake shoreline. In order to grant a variance, a definite hardship must be demonstrated by the Applicant. In addition, variances to permit the construction of the retaining wall would also fall under Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L), for a total of three variances being Page 5 ORONO PLANNING CO\LMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) required for the construction of the retaining wall, Weinberger noted that regardless of the conditions that existed for the regrading of the property demonstrated by the two property surveys, after-the-fact permits are still required on the property to bring the property Into conformance with the City’s Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. City Staff is recommending the application for a conditional use permit be denied based on the adverse impacts of hardcover within the shoreland area as well as the lack of an application by the Applicant for variances. However, in discussions held with legal counsel for the Applicant today, Mr. Sheridan has indicated that they would be willing to apply for variances, but based upon the application before the Planning Commission tonight. City Staff is recommending denial of the application. A recommendation of denial is also based upon the findings within the Comprehensive Plan and the fact that variances are required in this case, noting that the conditional use permit cannot be granted since it is in violation of the regulations governing this application. Weinberger stated a second alternative available to the Applicant would be to request that this application be tabled to enable City Staff to meet with the Applicant’s representatives and to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised and complete application. Weinberger reiterated that this application deals only with the construction of the retaining wall. Richard Sheridan, Attorney-at-Law, commented that the language included in the Planner's Report stating that the Applicant was informed by City Staff that the property can be restored or he can file an after-the-fact permit is the first time they have seen anything in writing by City Staff that the Applicant is able to restore the property. Sheridan remarked that restoration of the property was raised in connection with some litigation regarding this matter. Sheridan stated a conclusion is being drawn by City Staff that substantial grading has occurred on the property based on a 1990 survey and a 1999 survey. Sheridan stated to his knowledge Staff has not viewed the property to make that determination. The property was acquired by Mr. Hoyt in late 1996 or early 1997, with the residence being constructed in 1990 or thereabouts. The most recent survey indicates the slope has been regraded creating a flat area on the lakeside of the boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately five to ten feet Into the lake. An issue of contention In this matter Is whether Mr. Hoyt actually placed the rip rap into the lake, which is being adamantly denied by the Applicant during his ownership of the property. Sheridan commented that these changes to the shoreline could have been undertaken prior to his purchase of the property, and the Applicant is objecting to any conclusion that grading work has occurred within 75 feet of the lakeshore during his ownership of the property. Sheridan stated that some of the ordinances that City Staff is contending the Applicant has violated did not become effective or were not modified until the late or mid 90s, and that the conclusion being drawn by City Staff is.incorrect as it relates to Mr. Hoyt undertaking the grading work. As it relates to the three variances that City Staff has indicated are required. Sheridan stated in his view only one variance is actually required since they all deal with the 75 ’ setback. Sheridan stated that the first time they were informed of the need for a variance is when they received the legal notice from the City that their application was for a conditional use permit and variances. Sheridan indicated that the Applicant is willing to apply for after-the-fact variances at this time, noting that Weinberger indicated that he did have sufficient information to file an application in their discussion earlier today. Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Sheridan requested that the Planning Commission consider the application before them tonight. Skolnick commented that the Applicant has found himself involved in litigation with being threatened with criminal action concerning this boulder retaining wall '1?f®®'* in fact for it, with a potential sale of the residence being lost. Skolnick stated that most of the information is inaccurate; such as. placement of rip rap In the lake. The Applicant denies placing any rip rap in the take. Chair Hawn remarked that the rip rap is not an issue before the Planning Commission tonight. Skolnick stated the Applicant is also denying doing any grading in the 0-75 ’ setbac^. Due I® windstorms approximately a year and a half ago, some trees were blown some boulders being placed In the area to prevent erosion. Skolnick wmmented that thallSTO survey does not depict the concrete wall which has been In existence for 30 or 40 yea property. Skolnick commented a survey should be obtained showing the topography of the land just prior to Hoyt's purchase of the property. Skolnick stated the Applicant is attempting to work with the City by filing variance. Skolnick noted that the Applicant was not inforrned that the application is recently. The matter be' )re the Planning Commission tonight deals with an after-the-fact vartan for the boulder retaining wail. In *2gards to the Comprehensive Plan as the basis for denial. Skolnick remarlted that his complied with the Comprehensive Plan. An expert hired by the Applicant has re:aining wall has been constructed to industry standards and does not present any issues g to v/ater drainage or runoff into the lake. Skolnick Indicated that the Applicant is willing to continue to work with the City on this 'J?W®[* noting that they are willing to submit additional paperwork if needed, but that *^®y any decision that is made on inaccurate information. Skolnick stated he has not hea^ tonight which would prevent the Planning Commission from granting the after-the-fact vanance except for the lack of some forms being submitted by the Applicant. Sheridan expressed a concern with the 1990 survey being the recorded P^®P®'^y* noting that he is unsure what that means, and would not like the decision ♦Ifi'hLiSrAuor in Commission to be based solely on that survey. Sheridan comrnented regarding th eh«ridan the 0-75 ’ setback, a stairway previously existed In that area, which are allowed ^® , ‘ . stated that the amount of hardcover in this area has not changed significantly and questioned whether rocks should be counted as hardcover. Skolnick stated as it relates to an adverse impact on the shoreline or retaining wall does not present an adverse on the shoreline, the water, or the hardcover. With the removal of the stairway, the hardcover In this area has been diminished. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth inquired about the nature of the litigation that relates to this property. Skolnick stated that there is presently a lawsuit filed In federal court relating to the Applicant as well as the loss of the sale of the residence. The parties are currently in tne process of discovery in that lawsuit. Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Kluth inquired what the defammation lawsuit resulted from. Skolnick stated that it is alleged In the complaint that Mr. Vang made some untrue statements to a realtor representing a buyer and as a result of those statements, the buyer cancelled the purchase agreement with the Applicant. Kluth inquired whether the statements made by Mr. Vang related to the retaining wall. Skolnick stated they related to the retaining wall as well as the rip rap. Skolnick remarked that a statement was made that the Applicant has altered the rip rap, which caused a problem for the City, and that the rip rap will need to be removed as well as the retaining wall. The buyer decided at that point to cancel the sale. Skolnick stated in his opinion there is no issue relating to the rip rap and there should be no issue regarding the boulder wall. Kluth commented that the matter before the Planning Commission tonight relates to the boulder wall, which the Applicant has admitted to constructing. Skolnick stated the Applicant is not denying that he had the retaining wall constructed after the windstorms. Kluth questioned whether the Applicant and the contractor hired on his behalf were unaware that they were violating policies of the City at the time this retaining wall was constructed. Skolnick stated he cannot comment on what the Applicant or his contractor knew. Sheridan stated the Applicant is not present tonight due to the legal action that has been threatened against him by the City. Kluth stated in his view the two matters are interrelated and Impact one another. Skolnick stated they were told by the City Attorney that the two matters would not impact one another. Skolnick commented they are appearing tonight before the Planning Commission in good faith and that the permit should be granted. Kluth inquired what impact a decision would have on the litigation. Skolnick stated the claims alleged in the lawsuit would not be settled tonight. Kluth inquired whether this matter should be tabled to allow the other items to be resolved. Skolnick remarked this application should not be tabled because they were promised by the City of Orono that this would be a fair process. Kluth commented he was merely asking if the Applicant's representatives thought it would be a good idea to table the application tonight. Skolnick stated they are in favor of obtaining the permit, and if there are still some unanswered questions, they are willing to address those, but they would like to avoid this becoming a long-drawn out affair. Lindquist inquired when the retaining wall was constructed. Page 8 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 \ 1 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Skolnick stated to his understanding it was constructed in 1998, with the issue being raised in April of 1999 relating to the boulder wall. Lindquist inquired how the City became aware of this matter. Skolnick stated the house was listed for sale, a buyer was interested in acquiring the property, an agreement was signed, and the realtor checked with the City on some items, with Mr. Vang making some statements that resulted in the buyer cancelling the sale. An effort at that time was made to try to resolve this matter with the City, with Mr. Hoyt then being threatened with legal action, which has led to the application tonight. Lindquist stated if this matter appeared before the Planning Commission in June of 1998, he probably would have voted against the retaining wall at that time and would have liked to see other options pursue in an attempt to lessen the impact on the 0-75 ’ setback. Lindquist commented he is familiar with the area and that there have been a tremendous amount of changes made to the shoreline over the years. Chair Hawn commented In her view the Planning Commission is looking at a conditional use permit application after-the-fact, and the issues relating to the rip rap and land alteration Is not before them tonight since the Applicant has not filed that application with the City. Hawn stated It Is unclear whether the retaining wall was truly needed after the windstorm, noting that the Planning Commission has lost the opportunity to review the situation at the time the wall was constructed due to the lack of an application being filed by the Applicant. Hawn stated due to the loss of that opportunity, under Orono's ordinances, the Applicant needs to demonstrate the need for the retaining wall, which will be difficult at this time. Hawn stated absent a showing of need by the Applicant for the retaining wall, given Orono's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, she would not have voted in favor of the retaining wall at the time It was constructed and is not In a position at this time to vote in favor of the after-the-fact. Kluth stated he was in agreement with Lindquist and Hawn regarding this issue, noting that a hardship has not been demonstrated by the Applicant. Kluth noted that In general the Planning Commission does not look on this type of application favorably when it relates to land alteration within the 0-75 ’ setback. Chair Hawn stated the Planning Commission will approve after-the-fact permits if they would have approved them in the first instance. Hawn commented there appears to be consensus among the Planning Commission that absent a showing of hardship, it is unlikely that the retaining wall would have been approved at the time it was constructed. Hawn stated as a matter of public policy, the City should not give a benefit to a property owner who does not comply with the City’s ordinances in the first place and then later approaches the City requesting after-the-fact variances. Hawn commented it is doubtful that this application would have been granted in the first instance. Berg commented that every community has ordinances regulating shorelines, noting that it has been well published in this area that Orono takes a very proactive approach to protecting the lakeshore. Berg inquired why the Applicant chose not to ask the City what steps need to be taken to address this issue before any work was commenced in the 0-75 ’ setback, noting that an answer to this question has not been given tonight. Smith commented that some of the issues relate to work that has apparently occurred between the time of the two surveys. Smith inquired whether there were any neighbors or witnesses or tests Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) that could verify when the work was completed. Weinberger stated the City has not heard anything from any of the adjoining property owners. Nygard inquired whether there were any other surveys previous to 1990. Weinberger stated the City is in possession of a topographic map taken from some 1990 aerial photographs, noting that the map does depict a rather significant drop to the lakeshore. Weinberger stated the City does not have any other surveys on file subsequent to 1990. Smith inquired whether the Applicant and City Staff could work together on restoring the property should this application be denied tonight. Weinberger stated City Staff is willing to work with the Applicant, noting that it is unlikely that City Council and the Piannig Commission would recommend approval of any after-the-fact permits if the property remains in the same condition that exists today. Weinberger remarked it is possible due to the nature of the lakeshore that a retaining wall may be necessary due to erosion concerns, but the Applicant will need to be willing to make those changes to the property and obtain the necessary permits for that work. Nygard inquired what will happen with the rest of the property. Weinberger stated the Applicant will need to obtain the three variances discussed earlier before any other work can be commenced on the property. Weinberger stated this application only deals with the retaining wall. Nygard commented that photographs showing the condition of the property prior to the retaining wall would be helpful in considering this application, and encouraged the Applicant to obtain some photographs which might assist in this matter. Skolnick inquired whether a permit would be necessary if the retaining wall were removed. Nygard stated that a permit would need to be issued to remove the retaining wall. Skolnick questioned what would happen if the City denied issuance of a permit to remove the retaining wall. Skolnick inquired what action the Applicant should take in this matter. Smith stated that City Staff would be willing to work with the Applicant on this matter to address the concerns regarding erosion and water runoff. Sheridan commented that there has been a lack of cooperation on the part of the City in this regard. Sheridan stated as it relates to hardcover, it was his understanding that hardship applies to variances and not to conditional use permits, and that perhaps the appropriate standard should be defined. Sheridan remarked as it relates to denial of the retaining wall in the first instance, he has not heard one single reason for the denial and what adverse impact the retaining wall has on the 0-75* setback. Chair Hawn stated it has been determined that hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback, which is a public policy in Orono, does have a more severe impact on the drainage issue. Hawn commented she is hopeful that this situation can be resolved amicably. Hawn indicated she would like to deal strictly with the conditional use permit after-the-fact application tonight. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COM>DSSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Kluth commented in his view, due to the litigation, the parties have taken more of an adversarial role versus that of attempting to assist the Planning Commission in resolving this issue. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2540, Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue, based on the adverse impacts that the hardcover would have In the 0-75 ‘ setback and the incomplete application that has been submitted by the Applicant VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#4) #2522 THE BANCOR GROUP, INC., SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 6^D NORTH WILLOW DRIVE - SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 5:00 p.m. *9:13 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. David Newmann and Marty Campion. The Bancor Group, were present. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has received a new Preliminary Plat appliMtion for a 25 lot development on 58 acres for property located at the southwest comer of Couiity Road o ana Willow Drive North. Previously the Planning Commission had reviewed a proposal for a 49 unit development at this site. The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed this development as part of an application tor rezoning. The proposed rezoning was denied by the City Council. This application also Includes a continuation of the conditional use permit for a PRD. The puri^se of a Planned Residential Development is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and rnonotony. to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare In general of City residents. Weinberger stated the City has changed its Comprehensive Plan to reflect medium density residential for the property located directly souUi of the proposed development. Medium density residential will likely be lownhomes. It Is the Intention to extend Kelley Parkway to Willow from Old Crystal Bay Road. Properties located to the south of Kelley Parkway and north of Highway 12 are guided for offices uses. The lots located to the east of the subdivision, on average, are smaller than those lots to the south and west. The PRD would allow the lots to be developed at the sizes shown on the site plan, \^n the overall density of the subdivision not exceeding one unit per ^o acres dry buildable. The city has approved PRD’s in the past with an allowance of property being dedicated for other purpi^s such as roadways and ponding to count towards the lot area with the idea that the PRD would meet all the other criteria listed in the City Code. The roads are proposed to be developed to City standards and dedicated as public streets. No lot within this proposed development would have direct access to Willow Drive or County Ro^ All lots would be required to access a newly platted street. The Applicant in their ongmal^appllMUon had proposed a trail along Willow Drive and along the south side of County Road 6. The intent o the trail is to connect to the larger regional system towards the school property and to Baker Park. This trail would provide future access to the middle school property. This latest Page 11 ki' L Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 10/1/99 10/29/99 12/28/99 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 12/13/99 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2540 Bradley A. Hoyt 2523 Kelly Avenue Conditional Use Permit Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District Exhibits: A B C D E F G H 1 J K Application Plat Map Property Owners List Site Topography 1990 Survey 1999 Survey Comprehensive Plan pg. 3-20 Comprehensive Plan pg. 4-13 Applicant Letter (10/1/99) Applicant Letter (10/29/99) Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Summary' of Request Mr. Hoyt filed an application for an after-the-fact conditional use permit. The application is a result of a request made by the City of Orono to bring the property into conformance. The need for the CUP results from lakeshore land alteration and construction of a retaining wall. Staff indicated to the applicant that the property must be restored if permits are not granted. Consequently the applicant has applied for the necessary permits for the boulder retaining wall. The surveys indicate work within 75' of the lakeshore, please refer to Exhibits E (1990) and F (1999). Backiround Mr. Hoyt had requested a conditional use permit application, at that time an application was delivered to Mr. Hoyt. Mr. Hoyt made a conditional use permit application with the Cit> on October 1, 1999 that was reviewed by Staff and determined to be incomplete. A notice of incomplete . - - -lirfihmi application was sent to Mr. Hoyt on October 8, 1999 requesting some additional information, including an updated survey and information regarding the condition of the property prior to construction of a retaining wall. On October 29,1999 an updated survey was delivered to the City which determined the new retaining (boulder) wall was in fact within 75' of the lakeshore. Staffhad indicated to Mr. Hoyt that variances would be required for hardcover within the 75' setback. Mr. Hoyt and his representative Rick Sheridan again stated no information was available regarding grade changes that likely occurred during construction of the boulder retaining walls. The Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit and Code requirements for granting the conditional use permit. They determined for approval of a conditional use permit variances must be applied for, no approval can be granted without variances. Staff had notified the applicant variances are required for hardcover within the 75' lakeshore setback. Based on no application for variances the Planning Commission could not properly make a recommendation on the variances or undue hardship to support the granting of a variance. Therefore they could not conclude that the CUP could be granted because the retaining wall did not conform with City Code. The Planning Commission did offer the applicant an opportunity to revise the conditional use permit application to include variances. The Planning Commission also had requested additional information about the property, to include photos and other property information. Mr. Hoyt’s representatives stated it is there position to resolve this matter without any delays. The Planning Commission, based on the statements made by Mr. Sheridan to move the application forward, did not table the request but chose to recommend denial. Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 permits a CUP to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property if the work meets all other requirements of the Code. Mr. Hoyt has stated he did construct a retaining wall in his letter dated October 29,1999 attached to this report, but also stated he had not regraded within the 75' lakeshore setback. The property surveys indicate regrading has occurred on the property below the retaining wall. Mr. Hoyt has refused to apply for conditional use permits for the regrading on the property. The most recent survey indicates the slope has been regraded creating a flat area on the lakeside of the boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately 5-10 feet into the lake. The surveys indicate the 929.4' shoreline has been extended into the lake. Attached (Exhibit I) Mr. Rick Sheridan, in his letter dated October 1,1999 has stated "Bradley Hoyt makes this request for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit based upon the request of the City of Orono and its attorneys, Greene & Espel, P.L.L.P". The application is only for retaining walls within 75' of the lakeshore. No other application has been received for any additional land alteration or variances for hardcover. Based on the surveys the following is a list of the ordinances which we believe have been violated when grading and retaining wall work was done. Code Section 10.03 Subdivbion 19. Land Alteration; Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the Council: B Fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. C. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property. All of the above-referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed only with "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Some of the other "Regulations and Prohibitions of the City Code" which govern this matter include. 10.55 Subd. 8. Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary high water elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Section and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. 10.56 Subd. 16(L) & 10.22 Subd. 2 Retaining walls constructed constitute hardcover within 75' of lakeshore where no hardcover is allowed. A variance is required. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variances Required 0'-75'21,700 s.f 433 s.f. (2 %) none (0%) 433 s.f. (2 %) To permit hardcover for the retaining wall. 75'-250 ’27,800 s.f.9,630 s.f (34.64%) 6,950 s.f (25%) 9,630 s.f (34.64%) none 250'-500'3,670 s.f.400 s.f (10.90%) 1101 s.f (30%) 0 none Issue for Discussion The application made by Mr. Hoyt is only for the retaining wall. The recommendation of denial was based on the conclusion that the retaining wail does not comply with ail requirements of the Code. No after-the-fact permit has been received for the regrading required for the wall and variances for the hardcover within 75' of the lakeshore. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the application for a conditional use permit because variances required have not been applied for. The Planning Commission commented that a hardship may be difficult to demonstrate based on the total hardcover and other unresolved issues. Staff Recommendation Staff Recommends the application for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit be denied or if the applicant requests to table and revise the application: Approval for a conditional use permit per Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 requires the project to meet all other provisions of the Municipal Code. Variances are required to permit hardcover within 75' of the OHWL of 929.4' designated for Lake Minnetonka. 1) Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 (Regulations for the Lakeshore Residential Districts), 2) Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 (Flood Plain and Wetland Management) and 3) Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) do not permit hardcover within the 75' setback zone. If the applicant wants to proceed with the request they must make an application for variances, and it is Staffs position additional land alteration occurred on the property simultaneously with construction of the retaining walls. Any land alteration would require additional permits. Staff is again requesting the applicant provide the following information and application: 1. Variance applications for hardcover within the 75' lakeshore setback. 2. Information regarding the property conditions prior to construction of the wall. This information should include plans submitted to the contractor, photos and site survey. 3. Information relating to the contractor and plans the contractor used for the project. All the above information is required for a detailed review of a variance application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to direct staff to draft a resolution to be adopted by the City Council at the ne.\t available meeting. GlTY^if ORONO Municipal Offices Stmt Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 5S3S6 MaHliif Address: P.O. Box 66 CrysUI Bay. MN 55323-0066 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION October 8,1999 . Bradley A. Hoyt 2523 Kelly Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Rer Application #2540 The City of Orono is required to notify you within ten (10) business days as to the status of your application. The following information is required before we can proceed with your request for a Conditional Use Permit and Variances. 1. The survey you have provided to us indicates existing structures and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, however the survey is required to show previous and existing topography over the entire property. Cut fill calculations for the amount of fill, in cubic yards, that has been added within the 75' lakeshore setback. 2. This information needs to be submitted by October 29,1999 to remain on the November 15,1999 Planning Commission agenda. Please call me at (612) 2494600 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Telephone (612) 2494600 • Fax (612) 2494616 'D0;-O=-l'?r? 11:2b cot IT 11 lEt IThL FFQFEPTY 6124732700 P.02 03 I ;*\':yK\TAL Inc. I ’ 4 .; : f 70n xno s > I I 2-47] 2 7lH) I . December 7,1999 Mr. Paul Weinberger City of Qiono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.Q. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5S323 Rc: Application of Bradley A. Hoyt No. 2540 Dear Mr. Weinberger This letter concerns the planning application of Bradley A. Hoyt for an after-the-fact conditional use permit and variances for his property located at 2523 Kelly Avenue. As you arc aware, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of Mr. Hoyt’s application for an after-the-fact conditional use permit. The Planning Commission, on the recommendation of staff and* despite the request of Mr. Hoyt’s representatives, refused to consider Mr. Hoyt’s application for certain variances. At the Planning Commission, the record will reflect the following: 1. It was the City that identified the necessary afler-the-fact permits required upon inquiry from Mr. Hoyt. 2. An application was given to Mr. Hoyt by yoitrsclf and marked as to the type of permit required by the application. A variance was not indicated as required. ■ 3. A letter dated October 8,1999, from yourself in response to Mr. Hoyt’s application identified certain items necessar>' for consideration of the CUP and the variances. This information was either provided in a timely manner or not available. 4. Per your own admission, the public notice for the application included the CUP and variances, and no additional i^ormation to what was provided by Mr. Hoyt would be necessary* to consider any variances as part of the application. 253 Ean Lake Street, Wayzau, Minoesoca 55391 ^ -^ --- ----------dU i»ii fciniriMiwinaii mb n i la A Application " ^ ^ Date Receh-ed" Amount Paid ^ S'OO *' CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION „ a ^ Site Address Type of Application to be Filed ' I ^ ~Type of Application to be Filed ^ I ^ - C kj \ __ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) DO 00^^ A. Ha '^ gss APPLICANT Name Address ^PO*2, Phone (home). ______ Phone fwork ’) hP- JlhSO City /•) d_______Zip. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name____ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address City Zip. Date ProMCty Acquired (month/year) I (do) ^o no ^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____S200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____S300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ^ S250.00 Land Alteration X Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ^ Grading; 4 tawaU; retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) .« / ^ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Cunent Application Fee li OTHER APPLICATIONS _____S250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______ S300.00 Vacation ____ S200.00 Easement Vacation _____S 100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____S350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____SI00.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule - • ;>'* s!: IIC4M •r t4 If i'2l ! «! **TT i:-v.T:r.i i. u. u ^ri-vi. u v. 'Vi A^\-y u Tw-rr* ^ vi-.'j ,,, «. -^\ . _ At \ • jr:. Rl»l ►/•#/' haicii s«i nop ADDR OWNCR NAHE TAMPAVtR IIAIIE/ADOR St 2a-117-23 11 6022 62S2S KELLY AV£ K 6 IICIHRACII IRE tIEIHBACII K 0 IIEIHRACH IRE MEIHBACII ES2E KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 IIENNEPIII COUNTY PROPERTY XNfORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNCKS LIST 36 20-117-23 11 0023 02SAS KELLY AVE R II PONZETTX IDA PONZETTX ROBERT ll/BARBARA A PONZETTI 2505 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 REPORT NO. PI03S001 PACE O' SB 20-117-23 11 0020 033S3 SIIOKELINE OR H6T COHPANY SUPER VALU STORES INC CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO BOX 990 HPLS HN 55000 PROP ADOR OWIER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 20-117-23 11 0032 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED DAVID J DELANEY DAVID J DELANEY 0000 CASANXTA RD EXCELSIOR HN S5SS1 30 20-117-23 12 0037 02509 KELLY AVE C I C NADLER CHARLES I CANDICE NADLER 2509 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN 55331 30 20-117-23 12 0030 02515 KELLY AVE DAVID R HARDTEN DAVID R IMRDTEN 2515 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 5S33I PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SO 20-117-23 12 0039 02523 KELLY AVE BRADLEY A HOYT CONTINENTAL PROPERTY CRP INC 253 LAKE ST E HAYZATA HN 55391 30 20-117-23 12 0090 02505 KELLY AVE BRADLEY A HOYT CONTINENTAL PROPERTY CRP INC 253 LAKE ST E VAYZATA HN 55391 30 20-117-23 12 0047 00030 'ADDRESS UNASSICNED BRADLEY A HOYT BRADLEY A HOYT 253 LAKE ST E VAYZATA HN 55391 ! • PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 30 20-117-23 12 0040 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO BOX 00 CRYSTAL DAY HN 55323 30 20-117' '3 12 0652 02499 KELLY AVE R V DAHL INS DAHL SYLVIA A BERTACNOLX 2499 KELLY AVE EXCELLSIOR HN 55331 30 20-117-23 12 0053 02501 KELLY AVE TODO JONES TODD JONES 3555 CO RD NO 44 HXNNETRXSTA HN 55304 PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 30 20-117-23 12 0054 02503 KELLY AVE OTL ONE INC JOIRt E KUPFER 2503 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 30 20-117-23 12 0055 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED KELLY COVE HHOWNRS ASN/ORONO KELLY COVE HHOWNRS ASN/ORONO 2497 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 30 20-117-23 14 0019 02565 KELLY AVE E J SCIIROEDER ET AL TRUSTEES E J SCHROEDER 2565 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 PROP ADOR OWNER NANI TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 501 OOOlS JJ li 7yit rt)A/I •• •• L ■ >. ■* WfMtw '^3^Ikiiiii Cl U| I Cl%k.u ouiwui r«sj. it*io k -V 'X e }^‘]0 < irabf MMify IImI tliit turvty ha« 6««n tf«9orta M w anMr «y airtel tupirvUlan and that I am a y llcaaMd Land Saryayor midar Hia tost el tha au af Mbinatata. •rpiN tk GR0N8e^0,INC. irh S. OroAbd^fl MiMiaaala'^Ma Na i2755 SCALE *1 INCH*30 FEET DATE * APRIL 30,1982,r«< » datum :MEAN SEA LEVEL NOTE ‘NOT ALL TREES ON TRACT HAVE BEEN LOCATED < >, /*! \ I .*• • rC^' • I : // s; 3 •./- d . •<C-;V i • I ^ V •/ \ "r* • '. \ . • V .4 . ^h-ii / «4#« // COFFIN a GRONBERG.INC. ENGINEERS 6 LAND SURVEYORS long LAKE. MINNE?-* * i F ,jzaiapT>QN-y,,e^Lv»«s: 0. RfQistvrto lond Survty No. U28. unr of TUlos. Honn«p«n County, Uinnosoto. t!f*ro*ii« iron mo^kri oiitlinQ «put €ltf«al)On, rrutcn ufu Ivvd itciturn flnitoUs CJiisting contotif lir.e. mean sen kvcl datum tho«n of€ based upon on assumed dotum. survey intends to show the boundcfies of the above described property, tcol ’on of on existing house, end the location of efl visible •‘hcrdcorer ’* yi. II does not purport to show cny other improvements or ^rocchm«nts Out to srow ond ice cover, locction of c9 herdcover 4H^/^ ^r c P^vtrqnmemt JUNE, 1980 6. 7. 8. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED J AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE PRACTICAL METHOD OP FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOrF FILTRATION. The Barza Study, the 208 Water Quality Management Study, and Orono's surface water Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition# the Orono Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that require protection as part of the City's storm water management prograt It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen­ dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Management Plan. PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEW.AYS S^ALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOV^. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction, wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE A^D enjoyment while PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT, in conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulation will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasons e control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroacnm lake shorelines will be protected from ALTERATION. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reason in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areasof .-or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection be encouraged. 10. LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TEW AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adverse y affects water quality for long periods of tine. Dredging of new channels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian . where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in lim circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the " control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the ow desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds. 9. CMP 3-20 'K LAND JUNE, 1980 3. 4. 5. 6. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be deternined by conparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease­ ments for conservation of these lands. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will bt preserved insofar as practical and reason­ able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip cap shoreline protection will be encouraged. 9 . '‘iI CMP 4-13 L CONTINENTAL n, CfO'J?. Inc. . •', * ■ • ■-■*T •'v''•. ^ * ♦> • .. V ■ ‘ *■ • •’'S f ^ -V-T JMil & - • jG* - '-i ^ ' i > ■ w • ‘ ^ ^ ^ >» ■p^^l'-S'^' ■■ N. rv: • • ?,>$“ ^12^f73^t700 'tx :••' I«L,. October 29,1999 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55356 Re: Request for Further Information on Application No. 2540 Dear Mr. Weinberger: I write in response to your letter of October 8,1999 in which you request the following additional information relating to my applicaw4v/n for a conditional use permit on my property located at 2523 Kelly Avenue. The survey you have provided to us indicates existing structures and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, however the survey is required to show previous and existing topography over the entire property. 2)Cut and fill calculations for the amount of fill, in cubic yards, that has been added within the 75 lakeshore setback. In response to your first request for a previous and existing ^ topography over the entire property, I am unable to fully comply wit your request because I am not in possession of a preexisting topographic surs’ey of my property. However, I have had prepared an existing topographic survey, a copy of which accompames this letter. I do not understand your request for a topographic survey of the entire property when only lakshore area is the subject of my application. During c Spring and Summer of 1998, wind and rain storms toppled several trcM, which was likely to cause the soil to erode on the hill facing the shoreline of my property. For this reason, I placed boulders on my property to prevent erosion of the hill. Other than this landscaping, no change to the topography has taken place. In response to your second request for cut and fill calculati<^ within 75 feet of the lakeshore setback, I reiterate that nothing added or removed from the property other than the boulders place at^ e edge of the hill. No soils were added in connection with the landscaping, and the grade is substantially the same as it was before the trees were 253 East Lake Street, Wayzata, Minneiota 55391 i:/' h' . ii'-vI w. al':m Mr. Paul Weinberger October 29,1999 Page 2 toppled. I can give you no additional infonnation on this issue other than what has already been provided.i If there is any specific information you would like to know other than that which you already observed on the property, please let me know. Sincerely, Bradley A. Hoyt • . • c: William R. Skohiick, Esq. % t! B rad H HARDCOVER C^CULATiOiN VVOKlv5«Jb:E i * Setback ZONE: (circle one ) (p^ 75-250* 2s-soo*500-1000* ^-^7- EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House* _____________ • X S.F. Leat^ X X X B. Garaje C. 'Driveway ••• X X D. Sidewalk X X • • « E. PaUo/Deek X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • cc/> coA^r. uiAu. /tauLS PA _ _ _ _ _ _ X ^ X G. Other . TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TpTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ B • • • •pPOPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length X X -X B. Garate C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Ucderlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other j:_S.F. • S-Fr'• • • ' ^S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • • • .1 S.F. ‘.S.F. ^3 "9^ O S.F. S.F. S.F. ^33 - 1 • ^S.F. . S.F. XIQO -V • 4 • A B 2.06 t •% •• •• waA • • S.F. •T% S.F. S.F. S.F. r% •«••••■ • .« • S.F. S.F. S.F. ■ ■ •; A ■- 1 /r- S.F. S.F.*?•• S.F. S.F. Vs-'. • • ' S.F. •S.F. S.F. 1 S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B xlOO - . S.F. ^ “"S.F. ® — % • ••••• ».' * 14 J . i-i HARDCOVER CALCULAliOiN VVOiOwa>MjLK i SETBACK ZOi^: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S* 25-500’ existing ' hardcover in ZONF. A. Rouse X 500-1000’^ Cf/MS^C Lcnjd} B. .Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X 17.3 • *•»•••• • • E. Pa:io/Deck ■!■ P<9(2CH- Ii3F. Ludseape________ U&derlain 4o . By Plastic. . I 0<r Or Fabric • X X X X X X • X X X G. OLher Bock oh Vc^jrie. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN TQ^'V A. House • Lcn|*.^ B. Czragc C. Driveway D. Sldewillc E. Patio/Deck F. ULsdjcape Uzdsrlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. O’ier SOO& s.P. • • • • • • • r ^S.F. _S.F. — S.F. S.F. 'IblOt S.F. ^ S.F. S.9 102 • • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE SSOr m *1 6S2. 'ZiO S.F. .S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2ta S.F. X 100 <i63o± S.F. - zy^mor" s.f. k-4 • " % .— *• • •• • v.Tde» __S.F. _S.F. _S.F. __S.F. — S.F. — S.F. ^S.T. — S.F* S.F.rnmmmm __S.F. __S.F. ___.s:f._ 1,'S.F. S.F. r. #• H* B X100 » S.P.• S.F. S.F. % A 5 •• *14' It . t *•’ f..JW Hov-r . . HARDCOVER CALCULATlOiN VVOKKb * SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75» 75-250* • •'5004000' 2-27- rVTSTTNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________S.F. Width X X ^S.F. S.F. . S.F. : B. Gance - x •• 1 S.F. C. Driveway x •• • • • • 91 •S.F. •X • ___S.F. • D. Sidewalk • ' ’ x • ------------------------------- 1 — m • S.F. ' X S.F. * •*••••. • •• •• • • • E. Patto/Deck X • ... . ,S.F. X S.F. P. Landseaoe x •S.F. Underlain x - _S.F. By Plastic. x ■■ __S.F. Or Fabric •• • • • • •••« • • • G. Other x •S.F. • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •• • “■ •• • 4 OJ> S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE m " A + B X 100 « I id.^a f# proposed hardcover in zone ••• • • • — •* a* •• • A. House X ■i S.F. • . LenfLh S.F.X • • X »■• S.F. • * w • *•S.F. • • • B. -Garace x •S.F. • . c. Driveway ’ x • wm • • S.F. • X 1H m D. Sidewalk x . • m S.F. • X m S.F. P. Pailo/Deek x 4 S.F. X 4 V. Lscdscaoe x •s:f. Underlain x 9i By Plastic * x *s«* • Or Fabric •• X ! Vi*• S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •• • S*F* -------------------^S.F. total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE X ICO •■ r— -------_f* A ----------------------------- . •*■ ** — m • t ••§»••••* ••• • • • • • • 14 • i i' •'A >* ^vdJ|] A B a TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner January 12,2000 SUBJECT: #2400 Mark and Arlette Ploen 4345/4365 North Shore Drive Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement ~ Class I Subdivision Zoning District: Lot Area: (Existing) Lot Area: (Proposed) Required Minimum Lot Size LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) 4345 North Shore Drive 72,200 s.f. 4365 North Shore Drive 18,100 s.f. 4345 North Shore Drive 45,150 s.f. 4365 North Shore Drive 45,150 s.f. e 43,560 s.f. List of Exhibits A B C D E Application Plat Map Survey/Proposed Property Line Property Owners List Resolution No. 3042 Summary of Request; The applicants are owners of properties located at 4345/4365 North Shore Drive in the City of Orono. They have proposed a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement between the lots that results in two lots that will be greater than the one acre minimum lot size for the zoning district. Both lots, however will not meet the 140 feet required lot width at the lakeshore and structure setback. Variances to this requirement would be required to be approved to permit uie lot line rearrangement. Lot A is proposed to have a lot width of 114 feet and Lot B is proposed to have a lot width of 113 feet where lots in the LR-1B district u. * required to have a 110 foot lot width. Both properties are sewered. The house at 4345 has had a demolition permit issued last year. The lot is vacant. Septic testing is not required for sewered property. it24(H) Mark and ArUlle Ploen 4345^4365 North Shore Drtvr Lot Ltne Rearrangement January 19, 2000 Page I Lot Front Side Lakeshore Width Yard Yard 929.4 ’ OHWL 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 75 feet 436S North Shore Drive Existing Lot Size 18,100 s.f. Lot Width (lake) 31.54 feet Lot Width (front) 79.00 feet Structure Setback (side) 6.00 feet Proposed Lot Size 45,150 s.f. ^ Lot Width (lake) 114.00 feet Lot Width (front) 116.00 feet Structure Setback (side) 6.00 feet Lots in the LR-IB district are required to be 140' wide at the front yard setback. Each lot would require a variance to permit a lot width less than what the district requires. Previous Application for Lot Line Rearrangement: I have attached City Council Resolution No. 3042 approving a previous lot line rearrangement on the property. The lot line near the existing garage on Lot A was rearranged to allow additional hardcover on the lot and allow the garage to meet minimum setback requirements. Staff Recommendation • Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement as both lots will meet the one acre minimum lot size for the zoning district and to grant variances to lot width that will allow both lots to be developable, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easement along new property lines and vacate any drainage and utility easements along the old property line. 2. 3. 4. Applicant shall provide to the City any documentation relating to easements on both properties. Prior to City Council review 3 original surveys of the survey completed by a licensed surveyor in the State of Minnesota shall be submitted, with signature blocks. Variances be granted for lot width on both Lots A and B and both shall be considered RECORD LOTS. 5. Applicant shall dedicate or quit claim right-of-way to Hennepin County, »2400 Mark and Arlette Ploen 4345/4363 North Shore Drive Lot Line Rearrangement January t9, 2000 Page 3 Application # orVc o_______ Date Received Amount Paid M9 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 4 4g>/^ N7>r-(-h ^hrrg. t)r. Oirom Property Identification Number (P^ Dl ~~ <45 QQ?)0 q>^cl QQZ<=1 Please check one - Property [/abstract or ____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name (InW Arl/fe Pbm Address NOnln ^hr?r€ lS7T City (Vn n D ______Phone (home) ^-|~70-yr)Q '7 ZiDS5'^^ Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name 5^ nrv>. Address City__;Zip _ Phone (home) _ Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL , Division for Tax Purposes i/^ _ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) ___ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Existing Units New Units ^Tctal Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) I___Units per__[_ Acres I ^ Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________ 5- MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4‘. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this ^plication, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wu]t|iotifred of this application Zoning Official's Signature _______ Date MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official’s Signature_________________________ Daig I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pC] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 Totals X__ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 ___ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 ___ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residenUal) ___ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 ___ Legal Review and Filmg; _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 3^0 Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as Incurred) _ Renewal of Class I and 11 Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application ^00.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; lin. ft. X .50 “ J lin. ft.x.50-$ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonmg Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Ci^ncil necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees est.'’’'lished by Applicant's Signature __________________ Date ______________ Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. '• 4 y * * // / ?! »«is lo: ‘V ^... r, (-’) Vi/* '7 /«? •>» / / 7 £,7-//7- "'a ^"}C4lo 8/i^j ^9V»C* *. *i , .'^-*'\ C55J V‘^“‘ m''m u a • V >:(3C).>X ■ • \ / > ' "im4----5^"- % I (7) jJ o 65 tT’ 'S ’g •t. «! 1 L (1) <v.‘ ,•.*.•••. r**/ ‘.'.V.- V.*.N *?;•! Is-X' *^‘X?'I';;Iv • ^ 14 •%, i'S c7- l'7-Z'3 k /’t: / » ^r|' %/•■ / "14 '"r^ / //7' / / ” /V v^' ‘^/;j‘>/ ;;/ ' ' / X-X! I "TT- i y -; i / V; 9'^/i ^1./ ''W' 1 .'VT MS8?k11 QO-h XU uwua J —O f IW#«« A ^ H. C. S .A. H.A/o.19 aM ... S89»fx*£ 99.00 „_^Ar.7*Zt'^3- R^/043 ,____ 4jIjTTT^ __L • • fUmt* 9<*k > i« ; ftu'r^Uj, 3€.Bt 989*SZ*e \i Xlji ^ oAuJ*y //>r of /f.C. \A.f*.A^of9,//o*^So ^rr O K. A/». /494t8l I « ,;/^W 11 / .: iuffAU^ •1/ —T .4 •. /i*** >4*rtk »A •% !r o'i f*.Fr *Si > ^ FT. 4Fre/i jti I • • ♦•/7-J wA . $r vstoff tomf ^ 84*oVT^, fS.y i VJV 794.83 '~224.J7 I « Cony. //>*, rnyOLpQALDESCRIPTIONS . ' 0.«2 » CcOt^'f-f j\as4 \ |ta( • I • I • «»• • i I I y • * 4 •:iron marker found otlj^’on marker set % • •■• «••• C/ry 9^ WW^ I' Cfry^fifo oM0A4^ TCTaW « 44re, 4FF»0»ffo I < ^TIm) E^ Half of Lot 5, piock 18, ."Saga IHiH Revised, Hennepin’County, Minnesota.', and that part of Lot‘6; said Block 18, desc.'ibed as ; fqH8w« Baginnifig at Uie'florthwest comer of said Lot 6; then.ee Sbutherfy along ihjB Westerly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 138.50 feet; .' tHanoif Easlarty paraNartwith the Northerly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 36.81 feet; thence Northerly to a point on the Northerly line of said , LO^'O <|iilant 47.00 feet jEasteriy of said Northwest comer of Lot 6; thence Westerly along said Northe/ly lino to the point of ginning. UM;>0,7. and 8, Block 18, 'Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Cpunty, Minnesota', EXCEPT that part of said Lot 0 described ap follows: ‘ Baginning at the Northwest comer of said Lot 6; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 6 a^distance of 138.50 feet; thence Eartarty par iMa l wtth thp Northerly tine of said Lot 6 a distance of 36.81 feet; thence Northerly to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 6 S'. _____«_•_______•____M________•_____ RUN DATC R7/2R/9S HENNEflN COUNTY FROfERTY INfORNATlON SYSTEN PROPERTY ONNERS LIST •ATCH Stl PROP AOOR OMNER NAUR TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 5« A7-117-2S S4 tOtl M42S NORTH SHORE DR J A HILLER I E N HILLER JOHN A HILLER ELIZARETH N HILLER AA2S HORTN SHORE DR hound HN 5S3M 3D 07-117-23 34 0002 •I03D ADDRESS UNASSIUNED HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY PROP AOOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SS 07-117-23 42 0008 01375 VINE PL T D I A E LANOON TIHOTHY D I ANY E LAM 1375 VINE PL hound NN 55344 38 07-117-23 42 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 PROP Al OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 07-117-23 42 0020 01435 PARK DR N J KELLEN A L C KELLEN HlCtUEL J KELLEN 1435 PARK DRIVE HOUND HN 55344 38 07'117-23 42 0021 01447 PARK DR P J SCHLENOER 8 N R PALH P J SCHLENOER I H R PALH 1447 PARK DR hound HN 55344 PROP AOOR OMNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 42 0023 04300 NORTH SHORE DR THEODORE 0 NETZ 8 MIFE THEODORE 8 NARY J HETZ 4300 NORTH SHORE DRIVE hound HN 55344 38 07-117-23 42 0024 04330 NORTH SHORE DR 0 8 H STRELOM DOUGLAS 8 HARLENE STRELOM 4330 NO SHORE DR HOUND HN 55344 PROP ADOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 42 0037 01340 VINE PL EARL B 8 6AILENE J NOI EARL B 8 6A1LENE J NORt 1340 VINE PL hound HN 55344 38 07-117-23 42 0039 04340 NORTH SHORE DR J D PATTISON 8 H V PATTISOH J D 8 H V PATTISON 4340 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55344 PROP ADOR ’.OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 07-117-23 43 0017 04415 NORTH SHORE DR F K SETTERLUND ET AL N/L EST HRS FRANCES D SETTERLUND 4415 NORTH SHORE DR NDUNO HN 55344 38 07-117-23 43 0018 04395 NORTH SHORE DR X D HARDEN ORA HARDEN KENT D MAWDEN 4395 NORTH SHORE DR hound HN 55344 .V a b REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 07-117-23 42 0007 01375 VINE PL T D 8 A E LANOON TIHOTHY D 8 ANY E LANDON 1375 VINE PL hound HN 55344 38 07-117-23 42 0010 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 07-117-23 42 0022 01453 PARK DR B A BENTROTT 8 K S BENTROTT BRENT A 8 KATHRYN S BENTROTT 1453 PARK DR hound HN 55344 38 07-117-23 42 0031 01340 VINE PL RICHARD J CNERBA ETAL RICHARD J CHERBA 1340 VINE PLACE HOUND HN 55344 38 07-117-23 42 0040 04380 NORTH SHORE OR MILLIAH T SCHOENINO NILLIAH T SCHOENINO 4380 NORTH SHORE OR hound HN 55344 38 07-117-23 43 0024 01535 ORCHARD BEACH PL L N DELTON 8 N N DELTOH LESLIE N 8 NANCY N DELTON 1535 ORCHARD BEACH PL 'A--'' LL r:•■ ; V 5 ’• i f-V RUN DATE tr/Zt/fS HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PMSMRl PACE 2 •ATCN SRI ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANi/AOOR SR I7-117-2S AS RR2S RISSB ORCHARD REACH PL PATRICIA H HYSOCKY PATRICIA H HYSOCKY 1S5S ORCHARD REACH PL HOUND HN 5SSM SR R7-117>2S AS RR26 •RtSR ADDRESS UNASSICNED HIP PFEPFER HERBERT PFEFFER 2R5R TANAOER LANE EXCELSIOR HN 55SS1 SR 07-117-2S AS RR27 •lAAR PARK OR D D ERICKSON SLR ERICKSON DAVID D A LAUREL D ERICKSON lAAR PARK OR HOUND HN 5S3AA PROP Al ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR SR R7-117-2S AS RR2R BASIS NORTH SHORE OR RAN NlLt.vAHS RICHARD J NILLIANS ASIS NORTH SNORE DR HOUND HN SSSAA SR 07-117-25 AS A02» RASAS NORTH SNORE DR H S PLOEN A A PLOEN HARK A ARLETTE PLOEN SAIS SUHHER SNOW DR HOUSTON TX 77RA1 SR R7-117-2S AS ROSA RASAS NORTH SHORE DR N S PLOEN A A PLOEN HARK A ARLETTE PLOEN ASAS NORTH SNORE DR hound HN SSSAA » V. PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR TOTAL BAfCH SRI RRR2A 400 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNONLEDCE AND BELIEF. DATE OPERTY TAXAo f|i*R TW/VlTMt 1 L CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 30_42_ _ _ _ _ A RBSOLDTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE NO. 96, SECOND SERIES, AND APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4345 AMD 4365 NORTH SHORE DRIVE FILE #1695 WHEREAS, the City of Orono 1« a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and s^fe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 96, Second Series, an ordinance establishing an interim moratorium on the granting of land subdivisions that have not received preliminary approval from the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement by Thomas and Alice Stuck of 4365 North Shore Drive and John Bauer of 4345 North Shore Drive (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as followsI A. B. The North 125 feet of the West half of Lot 6, and the East half of Lot 5, Block 18, "Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co Minn.". _ .. Lots 7, 8 and the East half of Lot 6; ALSO that part of the West half of Lot 6 lying South of the North 125 feet thereof. Block 18, "Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co Minn."; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have requested « Ordinance No. 96, Second Series to allow the proposed subdivision or lot line rearrangement to proceed; and Page 1 of 3 CITY of ORONO ), g*£s»o:s RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3042_________ WHBRBASr the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the request for the T’oratorium variance on October 21» 1991 and recommended approval, finding that no new building lots will be created by the proposed subdivision; and WHBRBAS, the City Council finds that the proposed variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, that it is compatible with the zoning and official control amendments being considered by the City as part of the Shoreland Regulation review process, that it promotes the health, safety and welfare of the citizens, and that failure to grant the variance would create a hardship for the applicant; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for metes and bounds subdivision for division and combination purposes. « NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby grants a variance to Ordinances No. 96, Second Series and hereby approves the metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Thomas and Alice Stuck and John Bauer as on the Certificate of Survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated September 30, 1991 and attached to this resolution, subject to the following conditions: 1.Upon approval of this subdivision by the City Council of Orono, the owner of Parcel A as described in the Certificate of Survey referenced above must apply to the City combination for tax purposes with Parcel C as described in that same survey. 2.The aforesaid division as shown on the attached Certi^cate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono the Hennepin County Recorder's office on or before May Y, together with a certified original copy of this resolution. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire division has not been filed by the date specified above. event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City o£ Orono foi subdivision review. Page 2 of 3 • •• :v CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3042_________ Adopted by the City Council of Orono» Minnesotar this 12th dar9l of November^ 1991. ATTi :ST * allin. City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of November 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public r V HENNf PIN coumv^ My wplr** 8-12^ Page 3 of 3 i.1 • ! iite L'* 3 MEMO CITY OF ORONO TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 14,2000 SUBJECT: Access to Property Previously we had discussed a 20 acre site located at 120 South Brown Road that is proposed for subdivision by Charles Van Eeckhout. The primary issue concerning the site is legal access. The property has no direct access to a public road. Mr. Van Eeckhout has stated he was granted an easement for road purposes over a 40' corridor legally described as Tract G of RSL No. 1022 (PID # 03-117-23 12 0004) which is not owned by Mr. Van Eeckhout. The property is owned by John Dunn. The City has confirmed an easement for driveway purposes has been granted in favor of Mr. Van Eeckhout over Tract G, but we have not located any easements for roadway purposes. A second easement was dedicated to the City of Orono over a lot located at 130 South Brown Road for road and utility purposes. I have been in contact with the Recorder’s Office and believe the Document No. for this easement to be 4348630. The easement was dedicated on the Plat of Kallestad Acres over the north portion of Lot 1, Block 1. A second issue with access to the property is whether Tract G must be replatted, or if an easement does exist for access is that sufficient for private road construction? The private road within Tract G would be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association, but the corridor is owned by Mr. Dunn. The City of Orono is researching to determine if the proposed road arrangement is legal. I have included the Staff report without detailed discussion regarding legal access to the property. This information should be available for the meeting on Wednesday evening. To:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Date:January 10,2000 Re:#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Zoning District:RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Comprehensive Plan:Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) Site Area:20 acres (14 acres dry buildable) Proposal:Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. List of Exhibits: A Planning Commission Minutes (November 15,1999) B City Council Minutes (December 13,1999) C Revised Site Plan and Grading Plan D Notice of Planning Conunission Action (November 15,1999) Pcrtineiit Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 - RR-IB Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 - Planned Residential Development Application Background: The Planning Commission has previously reviewed this application and recommended by a unanimous vote to deny the request based on additional issues to be resolved and concerns about DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. Tl.e Planning Commission also had concerns with the lot size of Lots I through 4, Block 1. #2550 Charles Van EeckhoiU 120 Brawn Road South Subdivision 1/19/00 pagi--l \ Mr. Van Eeckhout has revised his plan to not create a lot south of the Creek. This eliminates any concerns of placing hardcover and grading within 75' of a protected waterway. The DNR, Trails and Waterways Unit had requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property. By not developing the southern lot and platting it as a conservation outlot the buffer area between development and the Luce Line Trail will be preserved. Revised Plan: The RR-1B zoning district allows a property to develop as a PRD as a conditional use. Under the PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The dry buildable areas of lots 1,2,3 and 4 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dry buildable. The lots also are similar to the lots located north of the development in the City of Long Lake. The proposed setbacks shown on the site plan indicate a 35' front yard setback, 10' side yard setback and a 30' rear setback. The established setbacks are similar to other lots in Orono that are zoned 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. The revised plan has maintained the lot arrangement for Block 1 . The Planning Commission had requested the lots be platted with an average size of about 1 acre, however to maintain the best building sites, and to allow larger lots to the south in Block 2, the lots have remained similar to those lots previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. They are consistent to the development to the north in the City of Long Lake. Block 2 has provided 3 lots with an average size of about 2 acres. The lot originally planned for where Outlets C and D are located has been eliminated from the plan. Outlets C and D would be platted as conservation outlets. Previously the lot were found to have adequate building sites. Summar>' of Request: The City of Orono has received a Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The request would require the following approvals: 1.A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development — This would allow the property to develop at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. 2.Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is placted 40' in width where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50'. Although the plat indicates a 28' paved width the applicant has proposed a 24' width road. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for property serving 7 or more sites to develop the road at a 28' width. 3. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUSA amendment shall be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to •^2550 Charlts Taw Eeckhout 170 Brown Road South Subdivision 1/19/00 pagi-2 the site. A small portion of the Tract G is platted to the center of Brown Road. Hennepin County has indicated it would require the west 33’ be dedicated to the County for right-of-way. 5.A Homeowner’s Association shall be created for the maintenance of the private road and drainage structures within the development. The owner of the 130 Brown Road property, southwest of the development and south of Tract G, has access from the private driveway within Tract G and shall become part owner of a private road. Sketch Plan The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposal as part of the Sketch Plan review process. Please note the attached Minutes (Exhibits J and K). The City Council recommended to the property owner the City of Orono has no intent to rezone the property from the two acre standard. The Council has indicated they would consider developing the site as a PRD and make a provision for sewer. Access The City Engineer has commented (Exhibit E) the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. Further, he recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50’ width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City’s Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. The ponding location is shown on the prelimmary survey. Final grading plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond normal water level. The outlet structures shall be provided on the final plans indicating the location and actual size of the pond. The City Engineer will require Best Management Practices in all areas where stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. Sanitary Sewer A MUSA amendment is required to allow sanitary sewer service to the property. Sewer service has been discussed and a feasibility report has been completed for the Fox Ridge neighborhood south of the Luce Line Trail. The report identified a pressure sewer system as the most feasible to seive the neighborhood. The pressure sewer would be routed up South Brown Road to an existing gravity sewer on Watertown Road. This system would have the potential to serve properties north of Fox ^^2550 Charles Van Eeckhoul 120 Bro\¥n Road South Subdivision 1/1900 pagt-3 J Ridge and south of Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. The plans show a gravity sewer system that ties into an existing sanitary manhole at the south end of Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary serv ice. The City and developer had explored the option of extending sewer across the Luce Line Trail and the Longridge Associates property to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood. After looking at this option it has been determined this is not the best option to extend sewer to the south to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood. Surrounding Properties The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f. (approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-IB. Just to the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. Easements 1. 2. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along tue property lines will be required for the final plat. Subdivider shall grant Conservation and Flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75* of Long Lake Creek. A conservation easement shall be granted ovej* the conservation outlots to protect the outlots from future alteration and development. Park Dedication Fee 8% of the land value, to be determined by the City Assessor, will be required for Park Dedication Fee. The City of Orono has established a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. Issues for discussion H2550 Chatki you Eeckhout 120 Brawn Road South Subdivision I 19 00 page^4 1.Access to the property is via a Tract G which is not owned by Mr. Van Eeckhout. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50' in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. The Tract should be in ownership of the Homeowner's Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. 2.Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' setback for hardcover and structure. 4.The private road would require the City approve land alteration within a City protected wetland. 5.Is the proposed lot layout acceptable with 4 smaller lots to the north and 3 larger lots to the south? Does the plan meet the intent of the PRD for creation of open space areas. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Ccmmission table the application to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues. A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. B More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City reconunends driveways not exceed a 10% slope. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. The Planning Conunission should provide some direction to the applicant regarding the road width variances for T ract G and the conditional use permit for a PRD. The applicant shall be advised the following information is requested to complete the review prior to a final plat application. 1. Detailed Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plans shall be submitted for review as 1^2550 CharUs Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 1/19/00 pagt-S k f 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. requested by the City Engineer. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. The Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the developnent may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) pre- development. The applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a seven lot subdivision. If2550 Chariis Van Eeckhoui 120 Brown Road South Subdivision lfl900 pag^^6 ORONO PLANNING COMxMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 Lou and Marilyn Fegers, Continued) Kluth inquiri^ha^igthei^e shed still exists on the property. Fegers stated the wind has*talflwn the shed down. Stoddard stated with the acquisition o on this application. djoining piece of land, he would tend to look favorably Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend appro>^ ), Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a i> permit construction of an attached 24' by 30' garage to the w< ence subject to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and fur . cal of the shed at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9:35 p.m. -10:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has received a Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. The RR-1B zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRD as a conditional use. Under a PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which would gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac. The development would also include three larger lots. Lots 5,6, and 7. This property is located immediately north of the Luce Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRD would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes. This application would require a road width variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40 feel wide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road. The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the seven lots being proposed as part of this development, which requires a road width of 28 feet. The subdivision is located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the too floodplain. This subdivision would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 feet of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD will need to approve any wetland alteration on site. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of the MUSA area, however, this area is proposed to be serviced by City sewer in the future. It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the number of wetlands and high water table in the area. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with Page 16 A ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999(#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work with the DNR on this Issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenanw issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City’s Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easernents across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction o'Jj^nd alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR Is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property Is via Tract G, which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff Is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access on of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tnbutaiy and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, with a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff Is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows; A. The property owner of y^flct G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval; B. More detailed engineering data Is required to enwre lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a ten percent slope;Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat ali runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka; D. City Staff, the applicant, and the DNR ® permit can be Issued to cross the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox R'^®- •' "J® determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are curren y In place and It would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition. Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one. since the access Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999(#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)corridor will not front any building sites, no parking is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the DNR issues resolved as well prior to approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this properly meets the qualiHcations for a PRD, noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line in this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred that some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRD the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Page 18 rt1 w/: ■ »W iL* 1* •W7 •II •■•irn^i • I • r% I iTiiv/tTii fi ■ n Rf«T5TZiliTTl RMW •mitfcit •]lBf«]| • •lilkBt •II «•(• ^Til rsi iTiWiTilil ^•PTil CtTil iT»I71 C«1 • IC*r«Tiir«i« I ■: rriVTn^ :firrn »ctT il;H« •vtiiit mint p.rnui ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 B m) U2522 BANCOR GROUP, INC - Continued Ban^said there has been one 60 day extension by the City. Permission of the applicant wouIa\e required for another extension. Newman s^^ doesn’t have a problem extending the time limit. Jabbour said the would need something in writing regarding extending the time limit. Kelley seconded the m^on. Flint amended the motion ^^tate that it is subject to stafT drafting the resolution and presenting it to the Council atW next meeting. He asked if Newman would give his written consent to extend the deadline. Newman said he understands the proces^hnd he is willing to give his written permission. Jabbour said he would like the motion ame^t^d to state that the Council is giving approval based on these conditions, if written p^mission for an extension is not obtained. Flint and Kelley accepted the friendly amendment to the md^on. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Break, 10:30 p.m. - 10:35 p.m. (#8) #2544 ALFRED AND MARILYN RICHIE, 905 TONKAWA R PLAT OF RICHIE ADDITION - RESOLUTION NO. 4400 FINAL Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4400, (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - CLASS m SUBDIVISION Charles Van Eeckhout, applicant, was present. Weinberger presented the staff report. This application is for a seven-lot Planned Residential Development on property located at 120 Browm Road South. It is approximately a 20-acrc parcel with approximately 14 acres considered dry buildable. The current access to the property is via a private driveway casement across a property known as Tract G which is owned by Mr. John Dunn. The Planning Commission reviewed this matter at their last meeting and recommended by a vote of 7 to 0 to deny the request for this subdivision, conditional use permit and variances based on a request by the applicant to move this item forward to the City Page 28 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»9) U2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH • Continued Council. The Planning Commission was prepared to table this application as there was a lengthy list of issues to be resolved regarding this property. Weinberger said the application requires the following approvals: 1. A conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. 2. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Kelley said he would have a hard time appro^dng this when the Planning Commission has voted 7 to 0 to deny the application. He would like to see what the rest of the Council members feel before Weinberger proceeds with the staff report. Sansevere asked Mr. Van Eeckhout if he has received any information from Mr. Dunn that he will sign the plat documents. Van Eeckhout said that Mr. Dunn has not signed the access documents. Van Eeckhout said his attorney has told him that he has all the legal access that he needs. He suggested that the City Attorney and his attorney work out the access question. Sansevere said he would not be comfortable moving forward unless it was clarified. Van Eeckhout said it is clarified and that he has an absolute ability to access this property adequately. The worst circumstance would be a condemnation which the City has the authority to do. He said the City approved this access to serve this property and he bought it under those circumstances. He feels this is a legal issue, not a planning issue. Jabbour said Van Eeckhout should expect the elected officials to be ve^ up front with him. He said the Council members are uncomfortable acting on this application. Jabbour said there is a difference between having an access to several homes versus a private easement for one home. Flint asked if access could be from the north for lots 1,2,3 & 4. Van Eeckhout said it was the general consensus on the part of City staff and his marketing people that access from the north would not make as nice of a community, but it isn ’t impossible. Flint said that perhaps some of the problems with the 30 percent inclines resulted because of the direction of the access. Van Eeckhout said this application has had some dark shadows cast over it from day one. One of those shadows are the 30 and 40 percent grades. He said they are strictly fictitious and Page 29 I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (U9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - Continued there are no 30 and 40 percent roadway grades anticipated. He has a layout that shows they can serve all the lots with seven percent grades. Flint said that validates Kelley ’s point, that the work has not yet been done at the Planning Commission level that allows the Council to decide on the issues. Van Eeckhout agreed that the Council should not override the Planning Commission. He said this is a difficult process and he does not want to change the plans based on individual suggestions. He again stated he does not feel there is an access problem and it can be worked out between the attorneys. He said the main issue that the Planning Commission raised is the size of the lots in the north portion of the property. The Planning Commission said those lots were too small, but they would not make any kind of commitment regarding the size of lots they would approve. He is reluctant to do detailed road design when he doesn’t know where the road is going to be and he is reluctant to do detailed sewer designs when he doesn’t know where the lot lines will be. He wants direction from the Council before making changes. He said he told the Planning Commission that he is comfortable with a 24 ’ road width and he doesn’t understand why the City wants a wider road because it will create more hardcover. He said that in light of what they talked about at the Planning Commission, he came up with a new plan wUch the Planning Commission has not seen. He presented a new plan with more open space. The new plan would eliminate all the creek crossings. Sansevere said he was present at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Van Eeckhout had queried each Conunission member on issues that Sansevere thought should have been dealt with at the staff level. Van Eeckhout said the staff will not give him the information. Jabbour said that the Council members want to have a thorough understanding of the project and Mr. Van Eeckhout should work through the Planning Commission process. Regarding the access, the City doesn’t usually go through other people’s land for a road. Kelley asked if this project should be included in the MUSA line. He said there has been an assumption that the City will bring sewer to this property. Jabbour said that assumption was made by the Council when the applicant asked. Sansevere said he is uncomfortable with the fact that Mr. Dunn has not signed the plat documents and dedicated the easements in favor of the City of Orono. He asked Barrett if that is something the City must wait for before acting on this application. Barrett said he would recommend that the Council make the PRD conditioned on demonstration of access or the proper title. He said he would give an opinion on the title and if the applicant doesn’t have proper title, then he can’t file the documents. Page 30 1 L ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - Continued Dave McCoskey, 130 South Brown Road, asked how the easement questions can be resolved. Jabbour said that is between Mr. McCoskey’s and the applicant’s title companies. Jablwur said the City cannot act as Mr. McCoskey’s agent. McCoskey said he does not want the development. Jabbour said the applicant has the right to develop the property. McCoskey asked if the access issue controls the whole layout. Jabbour said it can be approved subject to access and it will be up to the applicant to get the access. Douglas Coleman, 140 South Brown Road, asked if the development of the property is dependent on sewer. Jabbour said there must be sewer for this project. It would be hooked up to the Long Lake part of the sewer. The cost of the sewer t^l be paid for by Mr. Van Eeckhout. Coleman asked about the impact on the stream that runs from Long Lake to Minnetonka. Jabbour said there are shoreline management ordinances that the applicant has to adhere to. There are restrictions up to 300 feet from the creek. Weinberger explained some of the restrictions. The original proposal contained a cros^g of the creek for a driveway and the sewer would have crossed the creek. Van Eeckhout said the new proposal eliminates those crossings. Kelley asked about the building envelopes and perhaps there isn’t room for seven lots. Van Eeckhout said the only problem would be the sewer and there is legally room for seven lots. He showed where they would be located. Jabbour asked what the Council wants, a standard subdivision or a PRD. Kelley said he believes it should be developed as a PRD because of the topography. Van Eeckhout said the Planning Commission was hung up on the size of the lots in the north and that is what Van Eeckhout objected to. He said he had guidance from staff on the size of those'. ts. He said staff felt the size of the lots was appropriate from a transitional point of Page 31 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (U9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - Continued view. He is trading the small lots for all the open space on the south end. He said that if the Council likes this concept, he will go back to the Planning Commission. Flint said he prefers the new proposal over the proposal in the staff report. Sansevere asked why the applicant doesn’t make the lots bigger. Van Eeckhout said the best budding sites are in those four spots. Jabbour asked how the neighbors feel about the new proposal Weinberger said there is dry buildable area around the lots in the north that would expand the size of the lots, but the Council should keep in mind the lots to the north of this area in Long Lake are zoned and platted for a 10,000-15,000 minimum size. He said this design maintains all four sewer connections in the same area. He said that originally this was shewn using the entire development as part of one of seven lots. Now the applicant is showing open space. The entire area to the south just north of the Luce Line Tr^ is shown as open space which is really almost four acres diy. This also addresses many of the issues the DNR had with the driveway and the sewer crossing of the creek as well as the issue of the sewer line crossing the Luce Line Trail. These are some of the things that the applicant discussed with staff. Kelley asked how everyone feels about the flag lot. Van Eeckhout smd he lives on that lot. Coleman said this plan is better than the previous one. Kelley asked why the flag lot was so narrow at the top. Van Eeckhout said it is basically just a driveway at that point. Flint asked if the open space would be deeded to a homeowner’s association. Van Eeckhout said that would be subject to agreement between his attorney and the City’s representative. He would not object to deeding the open space to a homeowner’s association. Jabbour said he wants the applicant to understand that this proposal will be subject to the access. Sansevere asked if Mr. Dunn is agreeable to sign the documents. Van Eeckhout said Mr. Dunn is in Florida, but he has talked to him once. He stud Mr. Dunn has been paid twice for the easement and he wants to be paid again. Page 32 Rifrfiiiti II ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (U9) »2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - Continued Kelley said he would like to send this matter back to the Planning Commission. He doesn't have a problem with the size of the four lots in the north. He would like to have the outlet combuied with lot 7 so it is a two-acre parcel. He feels it needs to be connected to sewer because the Comprehensive Plan includes protection of lakes and waterways and there is a waterway throu^ this land. Jabbour told Mr. Van Eeckhout that this matter will be referred back to the Planning Commission and he asked staff to send the applicant a notice for a 60-day extension. Sansevere asked if there were trees on the western portion of Lot 7. Van Eeckhout said Lot 7 is totally wooded. Kelley said the setback could be increased as part of the PRD. Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to refer Application #2550 for Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, back to the Planning Commission and directing staff to send Mr. Van Eeckhout a 60-day extension. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. RESO l TO mSiN n6! 44oi Moorse stl^ed that this is a resolution approving the Mn/DOT adopted preliminary layout for Highway 12 wS^letter to go along with the resolution laying out the objectives of the City as the process is coIuhl^ed to the final design phase. He reviewed changes to the resolution. The Design Review C^hnmittee members reviewed and commented on the resolution and the letter. Sansevere said he objects to meterbi^amps. He asked if that can be addressed at this time. Moorse said it is addressed in #7, Objectivb^o be Addressed. Kelley asked about the lighting on the bridges. Jim Murphy said that in the final design there will be a corN^erable amount of discussion about the Idnd of lights that go on the bridges. Kelley said he walked the corridor and he feels there will be a lot of Ma^ght wash as cars that are westbound on the new road go underneath Old Crystal Bay Road^le said that Mn/DOT should do something to eliminate that headlight wash. Murphy said he will look at the cross sections, but he thinks the highway will be low^than the railroad by two or three feet all the way through there. Page 33 I UK r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 249-4600 ZONING FILE #2550NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSIONACTIONDATE OF NOTICE; November 24,1999TO: Charles Van Eeckhout120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION;Preliminary Plat Review Conditional Use Permit (PRD) Variances DATE OF MEETING; November 15,1999 Planning Commusion recommends the following: Denial of the application by request of the applicant to allow the matter to move forward to a future City Council agenda. The Planning Commission, based on their review, recommendations of staff and the DNR required additional time for a thorough review. There were also a number of unresolved issues with the zoning request. The Planning Commission recommended Lots 2 and 3 were not consistent with lots that could be approved under standard zoning for the RR-IB district. It was recommended the applicant increase the lot sizes to approximately 1 acre in size. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS; The following issues must be resolved prior to any approvals by the City Council. A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. B C. D. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 10% slope. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek w^ach flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. City Staff, the applicant and the DNR shall determine if a permit can be issued to cross the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox Ridge. If it is determined the sewer service can not be completed the City shall review alternatives. E.F.A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review.The DNR, MCWD and any other agencies with jurisdiction must approve grading plans and a crossing of the Long Lake Creek, which is a protected waterway.City Council ReviewBecause the applicant requested the Planning Commission take action on this application it will be before the Council at a future date. The applicant shall be advised the Council may defer any direction to the applicant until the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to fully review the preliminary plat. Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 11/1/99 11/1/99 12/31/99 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 12/6/99 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit Variances Zoning District: RR>IB One Family Rural Residential District Proposal: Seven lot Planned Residential Development on property located at 120 Brown Road South. The proposal will also require vanances and a conditional use permit for land alteration, filling in a wetland and road width standards. The DNR is reviewing the proposal for permits to allow filling and crossing a protected tributary (Long Lake Creek) and crossing the Luce Line Trail for sewer extension to the south (Fox Ridge). Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 7 to 0 to deny the request for subdivision, conditional use permit and variances based on a request by the applicant to move thb item forward to the City Council. The Planning Commission was prepared to table this application to allow additional time for the applicant to revise the Planned Residential Development (PRD) and implement changes to the proposed lot layout based on recommendations by the Commission. Mr. Van Eeckhout then requested the Planning Commission take action on this item to allow the City Council to review the proposed lot layout and conditional use permit for a PRD. Concerns by the Planning Commission included the size of the four lots located in the northeast portion of the proposed plat and no dedication of conservation space. A PRD would normally require preservation of natural open spaces. This concept does not have any conservation outlots proposed. It would not be desirable to accept areas designated as wetlands as conservation areas since they would be considered protected areas by the granting of conservation and flowage easements with a standard plat. Please review the draft Planning Commission minutes attached as Exhibit M. !r Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Section Map D Site Survey E Engineer Comments F Property Owners List G Wetland Map H Shoreland District Boundary Map I MUSA Map J Planning Commission Minutes (May 17,1999) K Cit\' Council Minutes (July 26, 1999) L CMP 4-12 through 4-22 Land Use Policies M Draft Planning Commission Minutes Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 - RR-1B Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 - Planned Residential Development Summary of Request: The Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South requires the following approvals: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development ~ This would allow the property to develop at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40 ’ in width where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50*. Although the plat indicates a 28' paved width the applicant has proposed a 24 ’ width road. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for property serving 7 or more sites to develop the road at a 28' width. The subdivision will require a road crossing of a City Protected Wetland and locating a NURP pond within 26' of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD shall approve any wetland alteration on site. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MU S A). A MU S A amendment shall be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to the site. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. Mr. Van Eeckhout would install sewer to the south boundary to provide service for the Fox Ridge Sewer Project area. The DNR has stated it is opposed to the line under the trail. Long term maintenance appears to be the main issue. Staff has met with representatives from the DNR and have determined the DNR would issue a permit for extending the sewer along Brown Road to the south. They have indicated this is the preferred location for a sewer line to cross the Luce Line Trail. 6.A small portion of the Tract G is platted to the center of Brown Road. Hennepin County has indicated it would require the west 33' be dedicated to the County for right-of-way. 7.Tract G is owned by Mr. John Dunn. Mr. Dunn is not a co-applicant. He would be required to sign the plat documents and dedicate easements over the lot in favor of the City of Orono. The easements would be necessary for public utility and drainage purposes. The standard road easement would be required should it become necessary for the City to acquire the road and open it as a public road. 8.A Homeowner's Association shall be created for the maintenance of the private road and drainage structures within the development. The owner of the 130 Brown Road property, southwest of the development and south of Tract G, has access from the private ^veway within Tract G and shall become part owner of a private road. Sketch Plan The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposal as part of the Sketch Plan review process. Please note the attached Minutes (Exhibits J and K). The City Council recommended to the property owner the City of Orono has no intent to rezone the property from the two acre standard. The Council has indicated they would consider developing the site as a PRD and make a provision for sewer service. Conformity to Zoning District Standards and Comprehensive Plan TTie RR-IB zoning district allows a property to develop as a PRD as a conditional use. Under the PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The dry buildable areas of lots 1,2,3 and 4 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dry buildable. The lots also are similar to the lots located north of the development in the City of Long Lake. The proposed setbacks shown on the site plan indicate a 35' front yard setback, 10' side yard setback and a 30' rear setback. The established setbacks are similar to other lots in Orono that are zoned 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. Lots 5,6 and 7 are located south of the proposed private road and be subject to setback standards for the RR-1B zoning district. They would be developed with an average size close to two acres. They would be a transition between the higher density to the north and the RR-1 B two acre south of the Luce Line Trail. All lots appear to provide suitable building sites based on sewer service being available to the property. Lot 7 is very wide and has very little lot depth. The property is bounded to the north by Long Lake Creek and the South by the Luce Line Trail. The rear yard setback is along the Trail. The front yard setback is 50', but Long Lake Creek is defined as a tributary stream and is within the shoreland protection area. A 75' setback for structure and hardcover is required the same as they apply to lakeshore areas. More detailed grading plans are required. The surveyor shall indicate on the plan set the OHWL of the Creek and 75' structure setback I Access The City Engineer has commented (Exhibit E) the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. Further, he recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50' width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. The grades are a concern regarding driveway access to several lots on the property. It appears that existing grades exceed 40% on Lots 2,3 and 7. Driveway design on these Lots will be ciitical as the City recommends that driveway grades not exceed 10%. Access to Lot 7 across Outlot B will require the construction of a bridge or culverts at the stream crossing. The plans should provide a design for this crossing. Outlot B would be a shared driveway in favor of Lots 6 and 7. The drive would be required to cross Long Lake Creek which is a protected tributary stream and subject to Orono's Shoreland Management regulations. A variance would be required to allow a driveway to cross the creek. Driveway locations and proposed grading shall be shown on the survey. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City ’s Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. The ponding location is shown on the preliminary survey. Final grading plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond normal water level. The outlet structures shall be provided on the flnal plans indicating the location and actual size of the pond. The City Engineer will require Best Management Practices in all areas where stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided for review by the City Engineer prior to ftirther review. Sanitary Sewer A MUSA amendment is required to allow sanitary sewer service to the property. Sewer service has been discussed and a feasibility report has been completed for the Fox Ridge neighborhood south of the Luce Line Trail. The report identified a pressure sewer system as the most feasible to serve the neighborhood. The pressure sewer would be routed up South Brown Road to an existing gravity sewer on Watertown Road. This system would have the potential to serve properties north of Fox Ridge and south of Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. The Van Eeckhout plans include a preliminary design for sanitary sewer to serve the site. The plans show a gravity sewer system that ties into an existing sanitary manhole at the south end of Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. This proposed system could potentially serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood if the DNR issued permits for to cross the Luce Line Trail. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. In discussions with the DNR on December 6,1999 it is clear the DNR would issue a permit for the sewer crossing along Brown Road not as proposed in this plan. The purpose of extending sewer service from Long Lake through the Van Eeckhout property is to provide sewer to the Fox Ridge neighborhood. It is unlikely the DNR will issue permits for crossing the Luce Line Trail as proposed because a better alternative is available to cross under the trail below the Brown Road bridge. Longridge Associates Property To extend the sewer south of the Luce Line Trail to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, as proposed on the plan, it would be necessary to obtain a utility easement across a property owned by Longridge Associates. It is not kno’.vn if obtaining the easement would even be possible. Surrounding Properties The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f (approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-IB. Just to the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging I acre in area, developed in the 1960's. Easements 1.Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. 2.Subdivider shall grant Conservation and Flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75' of Long Lake Creek. 3.The DNR has made efforts to maintain a wooded and natural corridor along the Luce Line Trail. They have requested the applicant dedicate a 50' conservation easement over the southern portion of lot 7. Park Dedication Fee 8% of the land value, to be determined by the City Assessor, will be required for Park Dedication Fee. The City of Orono has established a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. Issues for discussion 1.Access to the property is via a Tract G which is not owned by Mr. Van Eeckhout. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50' in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. The Tract should be in ownership of the Homeowner's Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. 2.Several lots would be served by driveways with severe slopes exceeding the recommended slope by at least 30%. 3. 4. 5. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek. A variance would be required for the alteration, however the building pad of the lot is restricted by the lot requiring a 75' OHWL setback. The private road would require the City approve land alteration and mitigation of the City protected wetland. Is the proposed lot layout acceptable with 4 smaller lots to the north and 3 larger lots to the south? Does the plan meet the intent of the PRD for creation of open space areas. Staff Recommendation Conformity to Surrounding Properties and PRD Standards The intent of the PRD Ordinance is to preserve natural open spaces. The subdivision has not made a provision for any space to be held as conservation/open space. Conservation and Flowage Easements will be granted in favor of the City of Orono for those areas determined to be within protected wetlands. Under subdivision requirements in a standard plat (not a PRD) the City would also require the same C & F easements for wetland protection. This plan has not dedicated land that would be considered preservation land or "open space". The land located south of the Long Lake Creek has potential to eliminate a few concerns if the lot would be used for conservation purposes. The DNR has requested in a letter dated November 10, 1999 an easement of up to 50' wide along the entire southern border with the Luce Line Trail to benefit the adjacent land owners and trail users by providing a buffer zone of vegetation. A 50' easement would restrict vegetation removal and land alteration. If an easement is requested with the PRD it would not remove the ability to develop the lot. The lot also requires regrading and filling of a portion of the Long Lake Creek for driveway purposes. If the lot does not develop a grading and hardcover would not be required to serve Lot 7. Staff feels a conservation outlot over Lot 7 would be desirable to meet the intent of the PRD standards. The Planning Commission recommended Lots 1 through 4 be realigned to have a minimum size of one acre. It appears the applicant has located the lot lines as shown on the survey to preserve the most ideal building sites. The lots located immediately north of the development are zoned for 10,000 s.f. (approx 1/4 acre) minimum lot size. The properties, as shown, have a greater lot size than those to the north in the City of Long Lake. Other Concerns A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 10% slope. The applicant shall provide to Staff for engineering review a proposed grading plan for the entire site. c.Stonnwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D.A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. E.Road width for access to the property shall require a variance. The Code requires 28 feet of width. The applicant has proposed a road 24 feet wide. He has requested a variance from the Subdivision Code requirements. The Council should provide some direction to the applicant regarding the road width variances for Tract G and the conditional use permit for a PRD. Tabling the application to allow additional review by the Planning Commission would require the application deadline to be extended an additional 60 days or the applicant submit a letter requesting die application deadline to be waived. - - -------- - Application for Final Plat The applicant shall be advised the following information is requested to complete the review prior to a final plat application. 1. 4. 5. 6. Detailed Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plz_is shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by St^. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. 7. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. 8. DNR permits shall be issued for crossing the Long Lake Creek for access to Lot 7 (if required). 9. MCWD permit for grading, drainage and erosion control plan. 10. Any additional information requested by the Staff, Planning Commission and Council to be documented in the Preliminary Plat Resolution. A Application if _______ Date Received Amount Paid __ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address ________| Z>0 5 e>ilouJ *J pjD A.O Property Identification Number (PID)_______________ Please check one - Property____abstract or ^torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Nam e \/\a; • Phone (home) City Zip^f:>3^LPhone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name .• Address Phone (home) City Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels i Development Size /*/Acres Dry Land c.Acres Wet Land •7,0 Acres Total, all parcels Present use (check)Residential: no. of units i Other (specify) Present Zoning District V-.. PROPOSAL ■■4 •• "7 Division for Tax Purposes • • . •* * Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) ^ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites 1 Existing Units i* c New Units i.:.. 7 Total Units . Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size 5 Units per 1 Acres V: Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use (check)Residential ler* Other (specify) 4 J 2 .. *• . ^ -V i____ k ci. 1 g (26) ** (32) ^^ (^J «I4S» (s’l) *- r ?TITT^ = s 1 2 ^ (^) l>"-------!• VTW) *•4 . « c 5(>l)3 c • n J/ 5(K)i IT' Ur^ (K£M»iEDY LA)’” ej] Q (T6) !(T3)=es ‘®*' i7 •? S i MO SSI i (T3) 1 5 07) 4 s 19.1« 7 5'oa) c 19 Tl . • O V imj m 19L *« 1\. s> t (20) S lan • • n t© s (21) S 151 n ; RTiirW art c I - mm 1 I mm ♦••• •*•• • ••• N 00*00*00* c : kLf ^ M V'V^ ; , jj^sjaso---- •:vii» 'N ‘*1 _ i *. •. • • •• • ••« •• • - 2-5 5 nf«|S6 is 5XiiWi — #n lOl.^ f*. «•< t f 7J r^' £;-4:;K,mm§ i#tim/Mm t. £‘ ,'f -' 'k' JN/f ^ .A. 1 •) nm ] «0C .tOdOO t i- •. ♦• • •• • »i»ijiiLui«j Hiiij im im Rta WtiJMtJLiJ *nr nrxtnriTVT Om nnrviVoc ’llj/*’ 1 ,?v'i:a VI M *> 1/ i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Soncitroo. !7osent. Anatn.A ,inj AucciJtes. Inc. a an AfftrmMtyc Act»on iQua! Opportunity Employer Pnnc’pals Otto G Boresrroo PE • Joseph C. Andeflik. PE • Marvin L Sor/ala. PS. • Glenn I? Cook. PE • Rocerr G Scnunicni. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Rooert W Rosene Pc , Rtcnard E Tcimer. PE and Susan M EOerim. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principal Hc.vard A. Sanford. PE • Kenh A Gordon PE • Rooer: R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • Oavid O touota. PE • Roocri C. Russcn, A I A. • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T. Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE. • Kervieth P Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. P£. • Sidney P Williamson. PE. L S • RoDert F Kotsmith • Agnes M Ring • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE Offices St. Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St. Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wi Weosite WWW oonestroo com November 9.1999 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re:Van Eeckout Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Dear Paul: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckout subdivision. The site is located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Streetss The proposed access to '...e site is across a parcel marked easement area. The parcel is 40-feet wide. The ownership of this easement area is unclear. We recommend that the access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not across an easement. The access should be a minimum of 50-feet in width to meet City standards for a public or private street. The proposed typical street sections do meet the City standards for a private street serving seven or more units. The typical street section for station 0+00 to 4+00 shows an urban curb and gutter section while station 4+00 to the end shows a rural section with ditches. A method of conveying storm water from the urban to rural section should be shown on the plans. This may require flumes, swales, ditching or storm sewer construction. The driveway serving the existing house will need to be relocated so that it doesn ’t encroach onto Lot 6. Proposed driveway locations to all Lots should be shown on the plans. It appears that existing grades exceed 40% on Lots 2,3 and 7. Driveway design on these Lots will be critical as we recomonend that driveway grades not exceed 10%. Access to Lot 7 across Outlot B will require the construction of a biioge or culverts at the stream crossing. The plans should provide a design for this crossing. 2. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the wetland. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows tliat the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. A general locafron for a NURP pond has been identified on the plans. The final plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond normal water level (NWL). The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides l-foot of skimming to remove fioatables and debris. Best Management Practices (BMP s) should be unplemented on all areas where storm water cannot be routed directly to the pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The City ordered and received a feasibility report for sanitary sewer to senre the Fox Ridge neighborhood located just south of the Van Eeckout property. The report identified a pressure sewer system m the most feasible to serve the neighborhood. The pressure sewer would be routed up South Browm Road to an existing gravity sewer on Watertown Road. This system would have the potential to serve properties north ot Fox Ridge and south of Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. The Van Eeckout plans include a preliminary design for sanitary sewer to serve the site. The plans show a gravity sewer system that ties into an existing sanitary manhole at the south end of Apple Glen in Long Lake. This proposed system could potentially serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood if permission were obtained to cross the Luce Line and the parcel directly south of the Luce Line. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography tvould allow the gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. The City of Long Lak should be consulted regarding proposed connections to their sanitary sewer L 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651*636-4600 ■ Fax: 651*636*1311 E r system. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road and determine whether a westerly extension of the sewer to South Brown Road makes sense. We can provide a cost estimate to extend the proposed sewer southerly to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood with gravity sewer if the City so desires. S. Easements: Final platting should include 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way for C.R. 146. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of - ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 6. Flaaiida] Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Cc: Oreg Gappa, City of Orono RUN Dm t9/t8/f9 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OUNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI93M01 PAGE 29 BATCH 587 PROP AODR OMIER NANE TAXPAViR NAHE/ADOR ^ i PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR nOP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAHE fAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR «. SB . BS-117-2S 11 Bfil •••SB ADDRESS UNASSIGHED CARBILL HAC HILLAN JR ETAL LQNBRIDBE ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 9SBB DEPT 2B HPtS NN 55990 SB 03-117-28 11 0002 •••SB ADDRESS UNASSXGNED STATE OF HINNESOTA STATE OF HINN CDNRI ILUCE LINE TRAILI SB 03-117-23 12 0002 •••SB ADDRESS UNASSXGNED CARGILL HAC HILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES P O BOX 9300 DEPT 2B HPLS HN 55990 SB 0S-117-2S 12 BOOS •••SB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE Of HINN STATE Of HINN IDNRI ILUCE LINE TRAILI SB 03-117-23 12 0009 •••SB ADDRESS UNASSXGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BRONN RO P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 0S-117-2S 12 BOOS ••120 BROUN RO S CHARLES E VAN EECKHOUT ETAL CHARLES E VANEECKHOUT 120 BROUN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 0S-117-2S 12 BOOB •••SB ADDRESS UNASSXGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BRONN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 03-117-23 12 BOOT •••SB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 03-117-23 12 OOOB •••20 BRONN RD S JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BRONN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 03-117-23 12 BOBO •••SB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BRONN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 03-117-23 12 0010 ••ISO BRONN RD S WALTER RICHARD HCCARTHY JR WALTER RICHARD HCCARTHY JR C/0 FCX 332 HINNESOTA ST B2100 ST PAUL HN 55101 3B 03-117-23 12 OOll ••190 BRONN RD S D B L COLEHAN JR DOUGLAS R COLEHAN JR 190 BRONN RO S LONG LAKE HN 55S56 SB 0S-117-2S IS •••! ••S50 BRONN RD S N F FARLEY • K G FARLEY NILLIAH • KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 BRONN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 03-117-23 IS BOOS •1995 FOX RIDGE RD RIB HACK RAYHOND H HACK 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 3B 0S-117-2S IS •••6 •1995 FOX RIDGE RD D E KIRKHAN I J H KXRKHAN DAVID E I JOANNE H KXRKHAN 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE HN 55S56 SB 03-117-23 IS BOOT •1B95 FOX RIDGE RO T J DAYTON • H DAYTON TOBIN J I HAE DAYTON 1B9B FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 03-117-23 21 OOBl •••25 BRONN RD S S BITTHAN I L BXTTHAN SCOTT i LISA BXTTHAN 25 BRONN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB .03-117-23 21 •••7 •0195 BRONN RD $ JOHN H NINTON JOHN H NINTON 1319 HARqUETTE AVE B90S HPLS HN 5590S o I >1 r ■) >5. T1 I' • RUN DATE 09/IS/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIAS5<i01 PACE 50 RATCH 507 PROP Al OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO OS-117‘25 21 0009 00050 AOORESS UNASSICNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN (ONR) ILUCE LINE TRAIL) 50 05-117-25 21 0019 02010 COLIN DR 00U6LAS W FRANCHOT 111 DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III EOlO COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55550 SO 05-117-25 21 0019 00050 AOORESS UNASSIGNED JOHN P EARLING JOHN P EARLING 2155 COLIN OR LONG LAKE MN 55550 SO 59-110-25 99 0005 00155 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EDMUND W F RYDELL EDMUND RYDELL 155 ORONO ORCHARD RD LONG LAKE MN 55550 72 59-110-25 95 0020 00052 APPLE GLEN RD K V DIGELOW 0 J T OIGELOW RENNETN 0 JUDY OIGELOW 52 APPLE GLEN RO LONG LAKE MN 55550 72 59-110-25 95 0021 00020 APPLE GLEN RO JAYE ANN ZULLO JAYE ANN ZULLO 20 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55550 72 59-110-25 95 0000 00090 CREEKSIDE OR J T PASTER I A L PASTER JANES T PASTER 00 CREEKSIDE LONG LAKE MN 55550 72 59-110-25 95 0001 00052 CREEKSIDE DR J L OHNAN ORA OHNAN JOHN L OHNAN 52 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55550 72 59-110-25 95 0005 00009 CREEKSIDE DR NARY ANN HANSEN NARY ANN HANSEN 09 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55550 72 59-118-25 95 0009 00095 CREEKSIDE DR R 8 ROACH OKA ROACH ROOERT G 0 KIMBERLY A ROACH 95 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55550 72 59-110-25 95 0072 00091 APPLE GLEN RO 0 J DUOINSKY ET AL DAVID J DUDINSKY 91 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55550 72 59-110-25 95 0075 00055 APPLE GLEN RD N E ■ M J STRUZIK NICHOLAS E STRUZIK 55 APPLE GLEN RO S LONG LAKE MN 55550 38 05-117-25 21 0010 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LLOYD S KELLEY LESTER S KELLEY 2155 COLIN OR LONG LAKE MN 55550 ‘ i 72 59-110-25 95 0019 00050 APPLE GLEN RO M E 0 H 0 GUTHRIE HARY 0 MITCHELL GUTHRIE 50 APPLE GLEN RO LONG LAKE MN 55550 72 59-110-25 95 0022 00020 APPLE GLEN RO T W WOLLIN OMR WILLIN THOMAS 0 MELANIE WOLLIN 20 APPLE GLEN RO LONG LAKE MN 55550 f" '1) f.•• ••I 72 59-118-25 95 0002 00050 CREEKSIDE DR N 8 J DERNS MICHAEL E 0 JOLYHN H OERNS 50 CREEKSIDE OR LONG LAKE MN 55550 \\ '■"'v S.) 72 59-110-25 95 0070 00025 APPLE GLEN RD S C FEDIE OWL FEDIE STEVEN C 1 WENDY L FEDIE 25 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55550 \ * •' H V»a. > 72 59-110-25 95 0079 01900 KENNEDY LA L R DANIELSON/N H DANIELSON LEE R 0 NANCY M DANIELSON 1900 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE MN 55550 RUN DATE •Vt8/«9 BATCH SB7 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATXON SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 72 SA>118-2S A3 0875 B198S KENNEDY LA NANCY E PETERSON NANCY E PETERSON 198E KENNEDY LA LONO LAKE NN 55SS6 ( PROP ADDR ONNER NANS TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 72 34-118-23 43 8883 88818 DRONN RD S D P 8 L A ERICKSON DAVID P A LISA ANN ERICKSON 18 DRONN RO S LONO LAKE HN 553S4 \X- REPORT NO. PI43S481 PACE 31 72 34-118-23 43 8881 888S5 VALLEY VIEN RO 0 N ANDERSON 8 S J ANDERSON GREGORY N 8 SALLY J ANDERSON 55 VALLEY VIEN RD- LONG LAKE NN 55354 72 34-118-23 43 8882 88818 DRONN RD S JUDY L KELLETT JUDY L KELLETT 18 DRONN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55354 TOTAL DATCH 587 88848 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE REST OF NY KNONLEOGE AND RELIEF. DATE * • ^ 9- 1 f I o. %*• ]■ ':) » •a . i »y -1 G. 3, TUZ R. 23 G VIL. OF ORONO StSS Tl!8, R. 23 -iV•-'V §V ^ Sis •... ^ (0 1 s »10 1 A M-ir •>#*if.34 ^ 25 y ^■ HJJS If, • • SEC.34,T.116,R,23 ^(tepwMb '^isrttwir It L S ««•» * l.‘S:»q 1st J in) >in=ri3b=-^ I m II m (21) tfUfl m / 1 II 1 »}>£ ■i J^l wr t COJ ii.'. t:. MII < a ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17,1999 #2488 GREGG KLOHN, CONTINUED Klohn stated he would like the application to be tabled. • • Hawn Inquired whether he would be wilting to waive the 60 day time limit. Klohn indicated that would be fine. Berg moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2488,4455 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans, and to extend the 60 day time limit to 120 days. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0/ SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#11) #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH • SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Charles Van Eeckhout was present Gaffron stated the Applicants are requesting to subdivide a 20 acre parcel to create nine sewered building sites ranging from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acres In area. This proposal would require rezoning the area from RR-1B, Single Family. 2 Acre, to R-1A. Single Family. 1 acre; extension of the sanitary sewer from the City of Long Lake; expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area; variances to the back tot ordinance; creation of a private road In a substandard corridor; variances to lot width; creation of a shared driveway crossing of Long Lake Creek; construction of a road or driveway through at least two delineated wetlands; creation of a wetland outlet for Park; and construction of an 800 foot private driveway extending from the private road to serve Lot 4. Charles Van Eeckhout stated that he has owned the property for the past 29 years. Van Eeckhout stated that he has done other subdivisions within the City of Orono and has made it a point to avoid the need for variances as much as possible. Before purchase of this property. Van Eeckhout commented that he checked with the City of Orono regarding what regulations existed regarding possible subdivision of this area and that this proposal encompasses essentially what he was told he could do at that time. Van Eeckhout stated that in 1975. the City rezoned this area, which changed this area from a one acre density to two acre, and that rezonIng should be considered as a taking of value, and that this property should be allowed to be developed under one acre standards as he was originally told. Van Eeckhout remarked that he did not receive any compensation for the taking, which In his opinion decreased the value of his property. Van Eeckhout noted that a lot of new rules and regulations have been adopted by the City over the years, and requested that the Planning Commission rezone this area back to what it originally was at the time of purchase. Gaffron commented that the City of Orono would disagree with the opinion that the rezoning was a taking. Van Eeckhout stated tha ’ he has quarter acre lots to the north adjacent to his property, one acre lots on the northwest, and one acre lots to the south, and wetlands to the east Van Eeckhout remarked that In essence his property was spot zoned at the time the area was rezoned. Van Eeckhout commented that this subdivision would contain one acre lots, which in his opinion are Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17,1999 #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, CONTINUED sufficient lots, noting that two acre lots would cost more, and that due to environmental concerns because of its location by Long Lake Creek, this area should be connected to City sewer. A large number of trees aisp exist on the property which cannot be cut down. Van Eeckho'ut stated that he would like to have a forester out there to review the situation to determine whether some of the trees can be cut down to help the undergrowth grow back. Van Eeckhout stated he is willing to work with City Staff on these Issues. Lindquist remarked that he understands Van Eeckhout's position on the taking, but that is an Issue for the City Council. Lindquist commented that in his opinion this area should remain zoned at two acres. Hawn stated she Is In agreement with Lindquist and that the Planning Commission does not do rezoning. Hawn remarked that this area might be a potential site for a PRD and might lend itself to some cluster development. Van Eeckhout commented that In his opinion under this sketch plan there Is sufficient spacing for the proposed residences, noting that he would not have a problem with doing a PUD on this area as he has presented it tonight Stoddard stated that he also concurs that this is an Issue for the City Council to determine, noting that the Planning Commission Is a recommending body and it does not appear that the Planning Commission would recommend rezoning of this area. Stoddard remarked that the City also needs to make a determination on whether this area should be Included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Hawn noted that this application is driven by whether or not the Applicant can rezone this property and that issue should be resolved first before further consideration is given to this sketch plan. , Gaffron stated that the area south of the Luce Line Is zoned two acres, noting that Fox Ridge was developed back In the 1960s. Stoddard commented that the Applicant will also need to determine the type of wetlands that exist on the property. Van Eeckhout stated that In his opinion this area Is incorrectly zoned wetland and he has farmed the wetland area on a regular basis. Van Eeckhout remarked that the wetland is sbc feet above the water level. Van Eeckhout commented that In his opinion this area can adequately support nine structures. Lindquist stated that in his opinion this area will probably remain zoned at two acres. Hawn noted that it has was the consensus of the Planning Commission in a meeting regarding the comprehensive plan not to extend sanitary sewer to prevent denser housing. Hawn suggested the Applicant look at a PRD. Van Eeckhout noted that a PRD would require extension of the sewer. Hawn stated that a PRD probably would require extension of the sewer. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COM\nSSION MEETING ^^NUTES FOR MAY 17,1999 #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, CONTINUED Gaffron remarked that if the Applicant took the total buildable acreage of the property and divided K by two. the Applicant might be able to put a maximum of seven homes on this property. . and that clustering may help to preserve! some of the natural features of the ai Van Eeckhout commented that the City should take a long-range view as far as U relates to sewer Issues, noting that In his opinion eventually sewer will more than likely be needed In Orono. Gaffron stated this application will go before the City Council at their June 14th meeting, noting that no formal action Is needed to be taken by the Planning Commission on this application. (#12) #2491 DEBORAH SHOLL, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN Deborah Sholl was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a sketch plan review for a Cla» III Subdivision • for property located at 4100 Watertown Road, which consists of approximately 37 acres. Approximately two acres is classified as Orono Wetlands and appear on the CHy Wetland maps. The Applicant is proposing to create two parcels, with one parcel being approximately 14 acres, 12 acres dry buildable, and the other west parcel would be 23 parcels. Weinberger stated that there was a conditional use permit on this property to allo.v the keeping of domestic animals for commercial purposes and to allow the continued use of the prepay for a public riding stable. Following sale of the property, the commercial use of the property has ceased. The property also contains two resldenUal properties on one lot wrthout a wnditional use permit for a guest house. The lot was combined with another five acre lot to the northea*i in January of 1996. Weinberger remarked that two oversized accessory buildings are located on the property. Oversized accessory buildings are allowed In this district subject to the condition that not more than one oversized accessory structure shall be permitted on any property. An oversized ^mdure Is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area In excess of 1,000 square feet. The total footfrint area for the two accessory buildings is 14,497 square feet. A number of variances would be required for this subdivision due to the oversized accessory buildings. Variances would be required to permit two oversized accessory buildings on orje 12 acre lot where one is allowed; to permit two oversized accessory buildings larger than the 3,000 ^uare feet maximum allowed for oversized accessory structures; and to permit 14,497 square feet for all accessory buildings where 6,000 square feet is allowed. Variances are also needed for setbacks to the houses and the guest house. There are also some structures located on me property without a principal structure. Weinberger stated that the use of an accessory building for keeping animals for non-commercial purposes is a perTritted use provided It is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the available area standards, which requires that a minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. Weinberger stated that Watertown Road Is a City owned right-of-way. The Subdivlslon^de requires the north 33 feet of Watertown Road be dedicated to the City. The portion of the property dedicated is not considered as iot area. Page 18 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 26,1999 (#5) #2490 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present along with Tom Loucks, Planner. GafiBron stated the Applicant is requesting City Council direction regarding potential rezoning of this site to allow higher density housing. This lot is comprised of 20 acres, with roughly 12 to 14 acres being dry buildable. This lot is located outside of the M(JSA, but an issue for City Council consideration is whether this property should be developed with City sewer regardless of whether it is rezoned. A third item for consideration is whether Council believes the site should be considered for a Planned Residential Development. Gaffron stated the Applicant presented a sketch plan to the Planning Commission which called for nine sewered building sites ranging in size from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acre. The Planning Commission did not offer the Applicant much direction as they felt that the City Council should determine whether this property should be rezoned and whether City sewer should be provided. Loucks stated that this 20 acre parcel has unique characteristics, noting that the site abuts the City of Long Lake as well as the Long Lake sewer lines. The site is adjacent to some two acre developments as well as a number of one-third to one acre residential developments in Long Lake. Loucks requested that the City Council consider the possibility of a PRD for this property. Loucks stated the proposed lots range from 15,000 to 20,000 feet to 1.5 acres with a diversity of housing being contemplated. The Applicant will attempt to preserve as much of the natural features of this property as possible. Gafifron stated that a zoning code amendment requires a 4/5's majority vote, noting that this property would not need to be rezoned in order to do a PRD if density standards are met. The number of units being proposed does exceed the number that could be accomplished throu^ a standard two acre plat, and a PRD does not allow the City to increase the density, hence this proposal for nine lots on 12 - 14 acres would require rezoning. Kelley commented that he is not in favor of rezoning, but would support a PRD with seven lots and hookup to City sewer. Mayor Jabbour thanked the Applicant for his efforts in attempting to preserve the natural characteristics of this property. Kelley remarked that he was unsure whether onsite sewer sites would be available on this site due to the topography and wetlands that exist. Flint inquired if the zoning is not changed, how a PRD would assist the Applicant. kidl ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 26,1999 (#2490 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Loucks stated under a PRD they would be able to have lots that are less than two acres as long as the density standard is not exceeded Flint inquired what the density standard is for this lot. Loucks stated the area will need to be calculated, but in his view there is approximately 16 acres of upland. Loucks stated they are willing to work with City Staff on ^s matter. Sansevere stated he was in agreement with Kelley on the density. Peterson commented that she also was in agreement with Kelley regarding the density. Mayor Jabbour stated that in his view a PRD would be appropriate, noting that he is amenable to extending City sewer to this property. (#6) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD - VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Rick Luzaich, Applicant, was present, along with Phil Reznick, Attomey-at-Law. Weinberger stated that the Applicant's reforestation plan was denied at the last City Council meeting, with a revised plan having been submitted by the Applicant today. The ^plicant is proposing to add a number of trees, which increases the canopy cover over the entire property. The City's consu.ang forester is recommending a minimum spacing of 25 feet which will allow for greater ci nopy coverage when the trees mature. Bedker is recommending that any plan submitted by the Applicant restore a minimum of 90 percent of the estimated 14,450 square feet of tree canopy that was removed. The Applicant's plan achieves 83 percent canopy restoration over the 25 year period. Bedker is ready to recommend adoption of the plan with the recommended changes. Weinberger stated the issues for consideration by the City Council include the right to ceview the subject property by City Staff to ensure eventual fiill restoration on the property. Staff is recommending that a letter of credit be on file with the City to ensure reforestation of this property as well. Reznick stated according to his understanding, the Applicant's landscape architect was to meet with the City's forester, which has been done, and the recommendations of the City’s forester 8 • •« . I LAND USE JUNE, 1980 I AND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Orono’8 Land Use Plan is based upon the following 9°*^® and policies which in turn have been actively developed by Orono residents over the last 25 years. I AND USE GOALS 1. TO REINFORCE ORONO'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT. 2.TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE URBAN AND RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 3.TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR A °p„^°^O^CO^RC^EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. 4. TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES. 5. TO COORDINATE ORONO'S LAND USES WITH THAT OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. A TO COORDINATE LAND USES AND DEVELOPED DENSITY WITH THE pSyS 2^L^TIES OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. fiFNFRAL LAND USE POLICIES 1.THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) IS FIXED. Orono*s Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Sewer Serv ce Area (MSSR) are fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan and are legally described by Resolution of the City Council as shown on Map No. 6. 2.ORONO-s lAND USE PLANS WILL BE BASED UPON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES. Land use and development must assure the conservation, protection and preservation of sens ve environmental resources in accordance with the goa s and policies of the Environmental Protection Land use policies will encourage the management of natural resources while prohibi ng misuse, abuse, overuse or exploitation. CMP 4-12 Tn-iirtlifii HShaAi 1 LAND U.S£ JUNE, 1980 3. 4. 5. 6. Sa S ™e°WA t1“ d Sag 2 FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization ® speed and quantity of surface runoff decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity fo ponding and nutrient assimilation. - ..... awnc np THP CITY WILL BE PROTECTED ANDTHE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE ClTX SPACES, AND AS THE a «d stohm and from alteration or destruction by grading, excavation or drainage. g^^ase- the City will acquire open space and flowage ments for conservation of these lands. PROTECTION OP LAKE RESOURCES WILL ^LOW ^^SONABLE MCESS^^OSEMD ^ ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING .AND E in conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Wj^^^ement regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake us regulations will be promoted to limit excess boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be ‘^®^®^°R®. provide reasonable t:)ntrol over building density, land alteration anu lakeshore encroachment. laSd use function. These same ^perly development which can be destructive ^ regulated. Natural vegetation will be preserved insofar as practical and reason able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess „J*® ' cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil wave action erosion, material stone r p rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 h. LAND USE JUNE, 1980 7.DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION OF FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. Host of the City's identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected by regulations applicable to those areas. In addition, where floodplains do exist on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. 8.NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will include topographical information, soil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project, whether public or private. 9.ORONO'S LAND USE PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR. Sufficient open spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air and recreation for all residents. 10. PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP OF LAND AND RESOURCES IS PREFERABLE TO INFLEXIBLE PUBLIC CONTROL. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. 11. ALL LAND Ol-JNERS MUST HAVE EQUAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES. No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and require­ ments of the Community Management Plan. 12. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY. Land development should respect and enhance neighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City, preserving the value of the land and the integrity, stability xnd beauty of the community. CMP 4-14 t i if 1 i 3 I U i 3 « II n LAND USE JUNE, 1980 13. 14. 15. 16. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematic- - division to the highest possible density. PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configura­ tions, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform. City- established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence Increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road righti of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. CMP 4-15 I and use JUNE, 1980 not conducive to public land lieu of lands the developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal such lands or the improvement of proportionate to the cumulative effect density increase from multiple small developmen . 17. NO LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED UNLESS I^'S ^CATION ^D PHYSIC^ CHARACTERISTICS ARE SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSp USE IN ACCORDANC WITH THIS PLAN. Land to be developed must be ot such size, character and location that it can e safely used for the intended purpose without danger to health, without peril from fire, flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties. NO land will be permitted to be subdivxdea or upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequa drainage, soil formations with . for development, severe erosion potential, unfavor topography, inadequate water supply or ®®''®^®.. , disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, the future residents of the proposed subdivision of the community. URBAN LAND USE POLICIES 1.THE MAJORITY OF ORONO’S URBAN AREA WILL BE RESER^D FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's urban residential neighborhoo s Will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Low-density multi-family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and services, but will not bo appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. CMP 4-16 iSUi I i 0 « il k land use JUNE, 1980 2. LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES. The primary function of Orono’s commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are d rect y necessary to serve orono's urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature which would duplicate existing services in the neighboring town centers will be discouraged. 3. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND LIMITED LAKE-USER SERVICES. Orono’s residents and other lake users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono’s Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public’s general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer, and adequate transportation are available. 4. THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE UNIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAS. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged. 5. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this land use is entirely conaistent with Long Lake’s neighboring industrial development. CMP 4-17 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 6. 7. 8. 9. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. The location and scale of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land us^s. PUBLIC URBAN SERVICES MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL FUTURE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Commeicial, Industrial and urban-density residential uses wi'l be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, adequate transportation, police and fire protection services are available. In addition, commercial, industrial and multi-family residential development will be permitted only where a municipal water system is available for adequate water supply and fire protection. URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES. New land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water, sewer, drainage transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. THE EXISTING URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono*s Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas. 10. THE DESIGN AND DENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. CMP 4-18 I I JUNE, 1980 I AMP USE I 1 5 II f i i 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL W^DLANUS^D OPEN SPACE WILL BE HETAINED on each property. ®tina each urban property .,TTT ttmtt the impact of urban ENCROACHMENT ON 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMT THE IMPACl u. u U9« regulations will limit the "»“b« oer property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat s orag 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT T^ IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE PROM THE LAKE. Building ’'•*■9*'** "f* “ limited to less then the Minimum green belts will >»« thinning of vegetation. be preserved on slopes and retaining be discouraged except when absolutely F to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LAND HRP PQLICIES^ 1. ^ mttt up pv«;erved for permanent low-densityORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE RtSERTOD FOB RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's rolling rura. i'ihiris'e^^tS^'deu'ca^rrarai:. *ori'toin. waler .. ' nutrient loading « ««.hl.nd^as.imil.tlve^cap^^^^ Mjoi”envlMomental problems for ?h«efore, the ideal land use for that Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area (HUSA) is the planned low-density rural i^nluse! commercial and Industrial uses will not be permitted in the rural area. CMP 4-19 land use JUNE, 1980 2. LJ. 3. 4. 5. 6. ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR QUASI AGRICULTURAL LAND USES. Greenhouses, orchards, truck farms, riding stables and recreation areas such as large golf courses and park reserves are not possible in more crowded urban areas but they are compatible with rural residential properties. Thus, the total commercial activity of Orono is broader and more varied than if the City were all urban or all rural. RURAL DENSITY IS LIMITED BY NATURAL CONDITIONS. Development of rural Orono is naturally limited by a number of conditions including extensive wetlands, steep slopes and areas of high water table, which factors influence building locations and transportation options as well as the location and spacing of on-site sewage treatment systems. THE EXISTING RURAL AREA WILL NOT BE URBANIZED, orono*8 Community Management Plan is no^ a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area. Municipal urban services will not be extended into the rural area or across open, rural lands. Rural land uses and rural land use density will*be maintained at a level to ensure that private on-site sewer systems will operate satisfactorily and that rural wetlands and drainageways will not be overloaded with storm water nutrient pollution. RURAL LAND USES AND DENSITIES DO NOT REQUIRE URBAN SERVICES. Urban services are not compatible with rural land use. Extension of certain urban services, such as extensive public road maintenance or municipal sewer or water cannot be economically justified or easily provided to developments in rural areas or at rural densities. RURAL LAND USES DO NOT REQUIRE MUNICIPAL SEWER SERVICE. Orono*s soil, topography and low-density rural land use provide the ingredients necessary to ^ assure safe, adequate, permanent on-site sewage treatment and waste water disposal without hazard to ground water, surface water or the public health. CMP 4-20 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 11. RURAL LAKESHORE AREAS V7ILL HAVE DUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. The low-density residential land uses will automatically reduce environmental pressures on the shoreline. In addition, the rural areas will be subject to the same shoreline protection performance standards as the urban areas, including minimum setbacks, green belts, clear- cutting prohibitions and lake use regulations. Taken together, these factors should preserve to a large extent the original appearance of Orono's rural shoreline as seen from the lake. THE LAND USE PLAN MAP NO. 6 INDICATES THE BASIC LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY; THE DESIGNATION OF ORONO'S URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA. The details location of the dividing line (the MUSA line) between the Urban Service Area and the Rural Service Area has been established by careful evaluatior of each of the elements of this Community Management Plan. Environmental concerns, historic land use patterns, and the availability of sewer, transportation and other public facilities all enter into the local decision of actual MUSA line location. Orono's Urban Service Area identifies those portions of the City that have been provided with public services and facilities necessary to support urban types and densities of land use as defined by the Metro­ politan Council's Development Framework Guide. Orono's Rural Service Area identifies those portions of the City that do not have urban service; and are not planned to have urban services. Orono's Rural Service Area is intended to permanently accommodate General Rural Land Uses and housing densities defined by the Metropolitan Council, and as distinct y different from a Commercial Agricultural region. Orono's MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 has been legally describ; and established by City Council Resolution No. 1135 adopted April 14, 198' This Resolution is included in the CMP Appendix. The detailed location of this line will not be changed without further official action of the City Council. Orono's MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 is consistent with the broad-brush location of the MUSA line as drawn by the Metropolitan Counci Orono's MUSA line location is consistent with the MUSA location and land use plans of adjoining municipalities. Orono's MUSA line location direct affects the detailed land use and facilities plans of the City. MAP NO. 7 INDICATES THE DETAILED LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY. IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE LAND USES AND DENSITIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD. This land use map will form the basis for land use zoning decisions. CMP 4-22 k i LOT TABULATION - VanEeckhout Property Description Upland.Wetland Total Area (sq.ft.) .(sq ft.)(sq. ft.) Lot 1. Block 1 31,259 155 31,414 Lot 2 21,780 0 21780 Lots 29,505 155 29,660 Lot 4 37,054 3021 40,075 Lot 1, Block 2 78.788 1,160 79,948 Lot 2 85,607 1,935 87,542 Lots 88,620 12,518 101,138 Outlot A 43,257 21,196 64,453 Outlot B 50,180 220,533 270,713 Outlot C 41,192 10,767 51,959 Outlot D 34,176 30,212 64,388 Roadway 37,781 3.836 41,617 Entrance Road 16,000 0 16,000 TOTAL 595,199 305,488 900,687 ACRES 13.7 7 20.7 (2.9 ACRES PER LOT) 99202 y TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 7,2000 SUBJECT: #2555 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit Variances—Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:6.65 acres Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Application Plat Map Section 10.25 LR-IC Code Amendment Section 10.20 - R-1A District Section 10.50 Industrial District Zoning Map Existing Site Map/Survey Proposed Site Plan Survey City of Orono Wetland Inventory Hardcover Worksheet DNR Letter Sample Photo of Proposed Building Hennepin County Project Narrative Property Owners List Application and Project Summary: The Hennepin County Transportation Department has proposed to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The property has been used for other seasonal purposes in addition to the salt/sand operations in the fall and winter months. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has used the site for storage of milfoil harvesters. The milfoil harvesters have been stored in the location where the proposed salt storage building would be located, thus requiring a A l^255S Hinnepm County S3S0 ShoTilim Drixt Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use PermiL'Variances t 19 00 Page I new outdoor storage area to be designated for the LMCD harvesters. (Please refer to E.xhibit H for the proposed site plan.) A new circulation plan and parking plan has required the County to develop a stormwater management plan for the site as it is located within 1000 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka. The County has proposed to construct a stormwater pond on the site to treat surface water runoff and for rate control. Proposed stormwater pond would be constructed within an existing wetland area that is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). County staff has indicated 3,947 square feet of a type 3 wetland would be impacted by the project. The wetland loss for the purposes of a stromwater pond will be mitigated on-site and will exceed the 2:1 replacement ratio. This application requires the following approvals: 1.A Zoning Code Amendment would allow the County Maintenance Facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district. The facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial purposes, however, that zoning changed to residential in the early 1970's, hence use of the property for the maintenance facility has continued as a legal non- conforming use. (Section 10.25) 2.Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover w ould result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) 3.Variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed height for a structure and exceed the defined height of the principal structure on the property. The proposed structure would be 42 feet in height. (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) and (C) (3)) 4.Variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility' to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 70 feet X 112 feet in size, 7,840 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessor>' structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,840 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) The accessory building is subject to a restrictive covenant that states the following: No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within 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 ^2555 Htnnepm County 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit/Variances 1/19 00 Page 2 } 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 structure has been constructed. 2) If the property 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. 3) 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 owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. 5. Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property- and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). The wetland alteration will occur within a non-City protected wetland, however the wetland is protected by the WCA and will require a MC WD permit and may require approval by the Corps of Engineers. This wetland and the wetland located over the southwest comer of the property are subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to any future property owner that the wetland is subject to WCA regulation and/or Corps of Engineer jurisdiction. The stormwater pond shall require the County file a Conservation and Flowage Easement on the chain of title. Use of Property The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR- 1C. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to e.xist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. Other Public Uses of the Property The DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning mussels off boats, trailers and other watercraft. The wash rack is located north of the parking area and is used voluntarily by boat owners before boats are placed into Lake Minnetonka. •2555 Hennepin County 3SS0 ShortUm Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit Variances 1/19 00 Page3 L The LMCD has used the property for storage of milfoil harvesters. The harvesters are currently stored in a parking area where the salt/sand storage facility is proposed. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will be relocated to a new parking area that would be constructed at the northwest comer of the property. The LMCD has 4 milfoil harvesters. The large parking area between the existing building and the south property ’ line has been used as overflow parking for vehicles and boat trailers when the public landing are full. The overflow' parking would remain as a continued use. Overflow parking only occurs in the spring/summer/fall mainly on weekends not to interfere with the winter road maintenance facility operation. Use of Salt/Sand Storage Building The proposed building would be approximately 7,840 square feet with a storage capacity of 2,000 tons made up of 1,000 ton annual salt storage amount and 1,000 ton salt/sand mix amounting to approximately one-third of the annual mixed usage. The building would provide for interior mixing and loading of materials. That operation is currently done on-site, outdoors. County staff has indicated the operations would reduce noise to surrounding neighborhoods and eliminating the salt and sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wetlands. The wetlands drain into a stormsewer pi;-^ and are routed to Lake Minnetonka. Due to the proposed buildings capacity, Hennepin County has estimated approximately 60 round trip truck runs annually would be eliminated and the salt/sand operations would occur during daytime hours. Zoning Code Amendment The Hennepin County facility has been in operation since the early 1960s. A 1970s rezoning changed the zoning from commercial to residential, although the use has not changed over that time. The use has remained as a non-conforming use in the LR-IC zoning district. Hetmepin County has made an application to the City of Orono to request a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-IC district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district (please refer to conditional uses for R-1 A in Exhibit D). Staff has suggested the following amendment to Section 10.25, Subdivision 4. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. 1^2355 Hifwepm County 3330 Shorelme Dn\e Zoning Code Amendmeni Conditional Use PcrmiiTariances I 19 00 Page A \ *1% conditions: acres. B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (5) b. Property shall have direct access to a County road. c. County facilities shall only be permitted as Hermeoin County facilities. d. The Orono City Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined bv the City Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. If the Planning Commission shall recommend approval of a code amendment to permit the use in the LR-IC zoning district, it would be appropriate to add ‘'County Buildings or Facilities” to the definitions section of the Municipal Code. Section 10.02 would be amended to include 18(a). “County Buildings or Facilities” - Countv buildings or facilities shall include only those structures owned and operated bv Hennepin Countv. The Orono Code permits non-conforming uses that were actually and legally devoted to a non- conforming use to continue operation. The Code does, however, not permit the non-conforming use to be changed to another non-conforming use and/or expand the non-conforming use. Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of 12 months, any future use of structures or land shall be in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. It appears the non-conforming use, as proposed, would actually be less intense than the use that exists because the number of salt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60 trips annually and the salt/sand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. The operation being indoors would also result in less noise. Rezoning the Property If the code would be amended to include the County facility as a pennitted or conditional use in the I, Industrial district the property would also be subject to all permitted and conditional uses in the I district. The property is located in a primarily residential area that would not be compatible with many of the uses that are allowed in the Industrial district. Surrounding Properties North, Burlington Northern Rail. South, Property to the southwest is zoned LR-lC-1; the southeast is zoned B-5, Commercial; site access to County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). East, The City of Orono has recently purchased the immediately adjacent parcel zoned LR-lC-l. West, Residential property. City of Spring Park. i^2555 Htnnepin County 3S30 ShortUm Drhe Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit'Variances 1/19.00 Page 5 Stormwater Management The proposed stormwater management plan will include construction of a stormwater pond on the southeast portion of the property. The land alteration on the site and for the pend will require a permit from the MCWD. The County has provided preliminary plans to the City, however final plans will not be available for review by the City Engineer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the permit request a condition of approval should be a submission of final rate control calculations to be approved by the City Engineer. Height and Size Variances The County has a plan to construct the sand/salt storage facility' to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 70 feet X 112 feet in size, 7,840 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property to be 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,840 square feet). The site plan indicates the building would be located on the northeast comer of the property. The final fioor elevation for the structure is proposed to be 944.3' which would be a peak height elevation of 986.3'. The Hennepin County site is located at a much lower elevation than the property that surrounds it. The east peak elevation is 972'. Based on the elevation, the peak of the structure would be approximately 14' higher than the adjacent property*. The height and size of the building is required to accommodate the storage of materials and the operation within the structure. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 75-250'499 s.f.386 s.f (77%) 124.75 s.f (25%) 386 s.f (77%) no change to entrance 250-500'40,278 s.f 12,238 s.f (30.3%) 12,083.4 s.f (30%) 12,238 s.f (30.3%) no change 500-1000'242,023 s.f 148,835 s.f (61%) 84,708.05 s.f (35%) 138,188 s.f (57%) salt/storage facility, new parking area ^2555 Himipin County 3380 Shoreline Dnve Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use PermitTariances I 19 00 Pageh Recommendation The Planning Commission has the following options to consider regarding the use of the property and requests for variances to permit the site alterations and future use of the LR-IC district. A. t. . To approve the application as presented by Hennepin County and the ordinance revisions as proposed by Staff. OR B.To iq)pi^ve variances to permit construction of the salt storage facility and a CUP to allow land alteration under the existing non-conforming use of the site, since the building will not ‘intensify’ the use on the site. A Code Amendment would permit County facilities to operate in the LR-IC district under a conditional use permit, subject to conditions as stated in the Code. OR C. To recommend denial of the application. The site will continue to exist as a legal non- conforming use. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends alternative A to amend the code and approve variances for the structure, a conditional use permit for the use as a County Highway Maintenance facility, and a conditional use permit for land alteration on site. Approval subject to the following conditions: 1.A final drainage and erosion control plan is submitted by Hennepin County and approved by the City Engineer. 2. Drainage calculations are approved by the City Engineer. Drainage rates shall not be increased. 3.Final engineering details for pond construction and control structures are approved by the City Engineer. 4.Permits and/or approval by the MCWD and Corps of Engineers of grading and drainage on site. 5. The three separate tax parcels are combined into one lot. lt233S Htmupitt County 3880 Shortline Drtvt Zoning Code AmendmenL'Conditional Uu PermH/Variances 1/19 00 Fagtl 6. Any future expanded use of the property shall require a conditional use permit amendment. Such CUP amendment shall be subject to the provisions in the Municipal Code.Restrictive covenants shall be recorded on the chain of title of the property alerting property owners of WCA protected wetlands. A Conservation and Flowage easement shall be granted over the stormwater pond. The County facility shall remain as a site primarily for winter County Highway Maintenance. 10. All outdoor storage shall be limited to approved parking areas and screened from immediate view to residential properties. 11. The direct source of outdoor lighting shall not be visible to adjacent properties. A final lighting plan shall be submitted for final approval. 12. A restrictive covenant is filed on the chain of title stating conditions for an oversized accessory structure. 13. Building and Land Alteration Permits will not be issued until all requirements of the conditional use permit are satisfied. WiiJ Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive AppBeitloii'iif 7_ DrteRecgtwd /2/xo/^«y Anonat Hid----------crnf OF ORONQ - GENERAL LAND USE AFPUCATIONPROPERTY LOCATIONShe.Address 3830 Shoreline Drive i)5391TVpe of Appfication to be Rled • • Storage Building Construction Property Idemificstion Number (PXD.) 171172330002______ APPLICANT Nime Guv K. Now!an Phone Oun&e)M/A . __________________________Phone (work ) -612-745-7652 Addreii_ 1600 Prairie Drive______City Medina ______Zra 55340 OWNER Qf different than applicant) Narne County of Hennemn Phone (home).N/A _____________________________Phone (work) 612-745-7500 AddfCM_ . 1600 Prairie Drive_______Chy Medina 2m 55340 N/ADate Property Acquired_________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request .with CUP application _____SI75.00 Rendeatial Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S225.00 Guest House7(3uest Apartments . _____S200.00 Dv^lex Credit/Bldg ____S300.00 Commercial/Industriil Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ‘Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ___ Grading, seawall, retaining walb within 75* of lakeshore ■ PRD^ID - see Fee Schedule _____S150.00 Renewal Fee (no diange firom original application) After-the-Fact Fee • Double Current Appllcatioh Fee • • • OTHER APPUCATIONS - - - $250.00 Commercial She Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation VHth Subdivision $350.00 Reroning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 App^s Other - tee Fee Schedule (monthtyear) ic.cir*^ 50 25 i (5)(6) 52 r4 ^:c: it: uir,rz 10 ^ ■ rtM irctvi u rv. w« irtTiTiiur*^roiUTsirtiW«lT«P.TiT'J ros^ictMl¥irtfltict ¥jLiiirm«fi«aKiirtV?I •) • W OI T^il« Hitj »• r»x:iir« fiVM I r«wr^« Hull •J:T¥«ITiT*J iiJMt rmW'.Tii fiJiTiTa*Trri ■tTYiwn wi i MimVfTiTVtrtliTtl nrnrii ^¥niTi ITiV) P.l I rtl 111 n l:riTi 1:1 tl tl o V/^t 1 i reiiTil P.lWiI P.liTticp.i \ e. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. f. Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment shall be housed within the existing structure. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping. g. All obsolete and unused antennas shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Administrator or designate. The removal shall be the responsibility of the communication provider. h. Antennas shall utilize camouflaging techniques or shall be side mounted to an antenna support structure in order that such facilities are compatible with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. i. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer that the location of the antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency spacing needs of the personal wireless service system and to provide adequate portable personal wireless serv ice coverage and capacity to the area. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-1 C” One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-IA” District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following conditions: a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (5) acres. b. Property shall have direct access to a Countv road. c. County facilities shall only be permitted as Hennepin Countv facilities. d. The Orono CiK Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined bv the City Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted' accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District any 'private docks' subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area 1/2 acre Lot Front Side Rear Side Yard Adjacent to Width Yard Yard Yard Street 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet w J 0 § 10.20 SEC. 10.20. R-IA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "R-1 A” One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permit. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "R-1 A" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. C. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-1 A" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Schools. Public schools and parochial or private schools which teach a curriculum similar to a public school provided no building shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District and that a fence be erected fifteen feet or more from all street lot lines where the abutting use is for open play, and nursery schools providing fifty square feet of playground space per pupil. 1. Uses Accessory To A High School. The following uses are accessory to a High School use and require a separate conditional use permit: a. Indoor Ice Arenas. All such facilities and structures shall be located on the same tax parcel as the principal High School Use to which they are accessory. No such structures shall be located less than SO feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Such facilities shall not be separated from the principal High School use by a public i oad. All such facilities shall be owned and operated by the school district, or by a non-profit organization under a land lease arrangement with the school district. The developer of such a facility, prior to final Conditional Use Permit approval by the City Council, shall demonstrate financial capability to complete construction of said facility, by providing suitable documentation that at least eighty percent (80%) of the estimated project costs are in the control of the school district or non-profit lessee. Source: Ordinance No. 145,2nd Series Effective Date: 3-11-96 ORONO CC 279 (4-1-84) I § 10.20 B. Churches. Churches including those related structures located on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, convents or homes’ for persons related to a religious function on the same site provided no building other than a residence shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. C. Clubs, Camps, etc. Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public SNvimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, YWCA camps, church camps, or private non- profit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for any of the above listed uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot in an "R" District, and accessory structures shall be a minimum of fifty feet from any lot line. D. Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50' from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures as defined above that have been approved by the City at required public hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a conditional use permit but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the City to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the Council. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 'i Source: Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series Effective Date: 5-27-97 E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed fiom the public street or adjoining lot. Commercial greenhouse structures shall not be located in a required yard area, and are subject further to the general zoning code requirements pertaining to accessory structures. Source: Ordinance 72,2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 ORONO CC 280 (4-1-84) .ii § 10.20 F. Recreation Areas. Private gun clubs, archery ranges, ski slides, provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 150 feet from any lot line. Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 G. Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments. 1) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 2) Non-rental Guest Apartments. An apartment within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, entryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 H. Planned Residential Development. Limited to detached single family dwellings only and subject to the limitations of Section 10.32. I. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, or within (250') two hundred fifty feet of the B-3 District, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial district A duplex is defmed as a two-family unit residential building. Source: Ordinance 178,2nd Series Adopted: 12-8-97 J. Apiaries. ORONO CC 280-1 (4-1-84) § 10.20en the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that ia not attached to another atnieturi; provided the height ef the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna strueturc ia set back ft any lot line< diatanee at leaat equaHo the total height of the antenna atruetvire. WUl Source: Deleted via Ordinance 161,2nd Series Effective Date: 5-27-97 L. Farms (Crop and stock). Provided that the area is ten or more acres. M. Animals. The keeping of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises. A minimum of one acre in aggregate, exclusive of one acre for the principal building, must be available for each animal unit, except as hereinafter set forth. A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. When the horses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low' lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing. Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of the City Code. N. Stables and Bams - Private. The use of an accessory building for keeping animals for non-commercial purposes provided it is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the available area standards outlined in Paragraph M of this subsection. Further, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and no closer than 75 feet from the nearest lot line. O. Stables and Bams - Public. Tne use of accessory buildings or land for the storage or rearing of animals not owned by the property owner or resident. Such must meet the requirements of Section 10.03, Subdivision 18. Further, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line. P. Riding Academy. Any such instmetion maintained as an accessory use and conducted by the owner shall meet the requirements of Sections M, N and 0 of this subdivision and no such instruction shall occur less than 100 feet from an adjacent residence or less than 75 feet from the nearest lot line. Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 ORONO CC 280-2 (4-1-84) ^1J L § 10.20 M. Antenna Stfueture. One independent antenna atruetufe with antenna or combination of emtenna attached thereto, suberdinate to and sewieing the principal use or atrueture on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is net attached to anothefotfuetiire provided the height of the antenna stnieture docs net exceed 65 feet and the antenna strueture ia act back from any let line a distance at leaat equal to the total height of the antenna atruenifc. Seufee? Ordinance Nor^77 Effective Date;-6-5*75 Source: Deleted via Ordinance 161,2nd Series Effective Date: 5-27-97 Q. Plumbing in Accessory Building. The provision of a toilet, bathtub or shower in an accessory building. Approval shall be conditioned on provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from the building plumbing. Approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: 1. The Council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The Council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. 3. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger. 4. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. 5. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that: a. the accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allowed by City code. b. the accessory building uill not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained. c. the accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Source: Ordinance No. 179,2nd Series Adopted: 10-12-98 ORONO CC 280-3 (4-1-84) I § 10.20Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. W’ithin any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no accessory structure or use of land shall be permitted except for one or more of the following uses:A. Garages. Private garages and parking space. B. Pools, etc. Private swimming pool, teimis courts, and paddocks. C. Home Occupations. Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only by penons residing in their dwelling, when there is no employed assistant, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street, no signs other than those permitted in ”R" Districts are present, no excessive stock in trade is stored on the premises, over the counter retail sales are not involved, the entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure, and the use docs not adversely affect the character of the uses permitted in the district in which it is located. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance of religious rites but not for general practice of his profession when such general practice will involve the need for more than three off-street parking spaces for the occupant and visitors. D. Signs. Signs as regulated in the Zoning Chapter. E. Temporary Structures. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of constructing on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary for such constructing. F. Gardens, etc. Gardening and other horticultural uses including aviaries and decorative landscape features. G. Roadside Stands. One roadside stand offering for sale only farm products produced on the premises provided that such stand does not exceed 200 square feet in area and that it is located at least thirty feet back from the public right-of-way. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 H. Communication Reception/Transmission Devices. 1. Accessor}' Antennas. Accessory antennas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVRO's, and amateur short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory antennas that are accessory to the principal use of the property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: ORONO CC 281 (4-1-84) § 10.20a. Height. A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not excedd twenty (20) feet in height from ground level.b. Yards. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback, comer side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. c. Roofs. If vegetation or obstmctions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. d. Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizontal distance no less than the maximum height of the antenna. e. Building Permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural component data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. f. Lightning Protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. g. Electrical Code. Acessory antenna electrical equipment and cormections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electricril Code as adopted by the City of Orono. h. Color/Content. Accessory antennas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. 2. Amateur Short-Wave Radio Antennas and Towers which do not meet the conditions for accessor>’ antennas, may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: a. Height. When an amateur short-wave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the anterma and tower shall not exceed 65 feet b. Yards. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and tpwers shall '* not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. ORONO CC 281-1 (4-1-84) U__ Lot Lot Front Side Rear Side Yard Adjacent to Area Width Yard Yard Yard Street 1 acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet 35 feet § 10.50SEC. 10.50.I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.r % Subd. 1. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "I" Industrial District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review.Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "I" District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Processing, Etc. Conducting a process, fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling operation or providing of a service as listed hereafter: 1. Apparel. 2. Artificial limbs. 3. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed building. The storage of automobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be within a fenced area. Open sales lots shall be subject to a conditional use permit. 4. Bakery, commercial. 5. Bicycles and toys. 6. Boats and marine products. 7. Bus, truck and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards. 8. Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and millworks, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop. 9. Camera and photography. 10. Canvas and cloth products. 1 1 . Ceramic and cloth products. 12. Ceramic products. 13. Cork products. 14. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceutical and toiletries. 15. Electric motors, generators, electric products. 16. Engraving and printing. 17. Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works. 18. Laundries, commercial. 19. Machine shops. 20. Metal polishing and plating. 21 . Musical instruments. 22. Novelties. 23. Paper products. 24. Pharmaceutical products. 25. Products made of glass, cellophane,leather, plastic, wuod. 26. Shoes and footwear. ORONO CC 352 (4-1-84) § 10.50Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "I" Industrial District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses:A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1"' District.Subd. 5. Area, Height, Setback and Design Requirements.A. Lot Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres. B. Building Area. Each individual building shall have a gross floor area (not including basements) of not less than 5,000 square feet when designed for a single tenant nor less than 15,000 square feet when designed for multi-tenants. C. Lot Coverage. Not more than 30% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land three acres or less in size may be covered by buildings or other structures. Not more than 45% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may be covered by buildings or other structures, e.xcept that when the total building floor area on a site is contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks and berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60% will be permitted. D. Height. No structure or building shall e.xceed three stories or 40 feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. E. Building Setback and Yards. 1. Street Setbacks. All buildings and structures must be set back at least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or street which has been designated as limited access, freeway or expressway; and 50 feet from those designated as thoroughfares, collectors, minor or secondary streets. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District there shall be a building setback from that street of not less than 75 feet. 2. Side Yards or Rear Yards. Any building or structure required by any building code adopted by the City to have openings in the rear wall, shall be erected no closer than 30 feet to a rear property line. Where rear wall openings are not required by any such code, and the rear wall has no openings, buildings or structures may be constructed to within 10 feet of a rear property line. No building or structure shall be erected any closer to a side property line than a distance equal to one and one-half times the average building height. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District, the side or rear yard abutting such residential district shall be not less than 100 feet. ORONO CC 354 (4-1-84) mnL '' <Mr‘•%H*AyT' -fi»v •*\#v ?.4i >,•0« * lf<P •* f jl T^-*'" ^; a .1 ••■ t'V i'*.^ *. * * * ^ -'•VfijiW ..«;/ ../;•■ ' •.>> l>? l^- ■ W! ’'^uue'*v ,^ *•* *J f-Zen/O' Co <C^- j r ‘ ^ *^.V V ’.'t ^ ,^ISwm I nL.- ' Ci/ BiUcJ A * •• V4 1^ ORONO MAINTENANCE FACILITY C.P.9990072 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET AREA SURFACE TYPE INPLACE S.F IBIT/CONC. AREA1 IGRAVEL 75-250’ IbUILDINGS 25% AREA COVERED TOTAL AREA S.F. PERCENT IBIT/CONC. AREA 2 (GRAVEL 250-500' (buildings 30% Iarea covered Itotal area S.F. PERCENT iBIT/CONC. GRAVEL AREA 3 (buildings 500-1000’ 35% I AREA COVERED iTOTAL AREA S.F. PERCENT jBlT/CONC/ AREA 4 (GRAVEL 1000-I- (buildings AREA COVERED TOTAL AREA S.F. PERCENT HDCOVR.XIS 1:20 PM12/9/99 386 0 0 386 499 77% 12.238 12,238 40.278 30% 81,22 67,608 PROPOSED S.F 386 0 0 386 499 77% 12,238 0 0 12,238 40,278 30% 118,622 19,566 INCLUDED IN BIT AREAS 148,835 242,023 61% 0 782 0 782 7,077 11% 138,188 242.023 57% 0 7.077 0% 4 ■41 K Ml Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Waters -1200 Warner Road, Su Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 January 5,2(KX) Mr. Joel Senles Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340 RE: Project Notification, Hennepin County Maintenance Facility, City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Settles: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is in receipt of your project notification for the Hennepin County Maintenance Facility project at 3880 Shoreline Drive in Orono. The project will affect wetland(s) located in the southwest quarter of Section 17, Tl 17N-R23W in Hennepin County. Based on our review of the notification form, data and maps of the area, we agree that the wetland(s) are not under DNR. protected waters permit jurisdiction and therefore the project does not require a DNR permit. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR Appropriation Permit. You are advised that it typically takes 60 days to process the permit application, however, dewatering of up to 50 million gallons can be processed under DNR General Permit No. 97-0005 in approximately one week. This letter is only a notification on the need for a DNR permit for your proposed project. You should be aware that your project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations, as noted on the Local-State- Federal Water Resource Project Notification/ Application Form". The Department may provide additional comments on your project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 772-7914, Sincerely. Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c:U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Joe Yanta City of Orono, Greg Gappa Hennepin Conservation District, Ali Durgunojlu Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Jim Hafner Conservation Officer Jim Konrad Wayne Barstad, Ecol. Services w/PNAF DNRInformJlion:65l-296-6l57 • l-S8!i.646-6367 • TTY: 65l-2%-54S4 • 1-800 M7-3929 An Equal Opportunify Employer Who Valuer Diytfr\iiy o Pfirttd on Rtcycied Pasr Coruininfl a N'lnmum ol 10% PoatCertumaf WMit TYPICAL STRUCTURE ; =?;. 1. .. -;■. > i->.:- . ■ •../•:v-‘-.-5• W •icV • . * • / • . 1 . • *•* ■ . . I * ••*”*•*--•* . ■ * ... .....;- - • . • • • m M» • * ^ r . •* * #* • • • * *• * •••' ..— . ••• •• < ' • f £? J - ■« tt ‘:i a c j % -t ' / . 1 ••; / <i •^-^. # • ;:/ IT ^ ^ ^ ^PROJECT NARRATIVE HENNEPIN COUNTY MAINTENANCE FACILITY PROPOSED SALT STORAGE BUILDING COUNTY PROJECT 9990072 The Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch Gambrel type salt storage building at the Hennepin County maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive in the City of Orono. The current zoning for the property is LR-IC (One Family Lakeshore Residential District) which would need to be amended to allow highway/road usage in a residential zone. A conditional use permit would be required for the property to be used for highway/road usage. The property would be used to store various materials used for highway maintenance. Five variances would need to be acquired for hardcover, accessory building size, building height, grading within a wetland, and grading in excess of 500 C. Y. The Building (See Typical Structure) The proposed building would be located in the northeast comer of the property with its long dimension running west to east and having one entrance on the south side. The building dimensions would be 70' W X 1 12' L X 42' H with 1 2^ high retaining crib walls and one gable end roof type entrance with dimensions of 24' W' X 30' H. The roof material would be asphalt shingles with a continuous skylight made of corrugated translucent fiberglass panels. The framing would consist ot pressure treated columns and braces with 3/8" embossed painted siding panels. Typical footings would be poured concrete 2' W X 12' L X 2 ’ H in dimension with footing bottom located 4' below grade with a 3,000 PSI soil bearing capacity and perpendicular to the building at each crib wall support. The floor would consist of 6" thick bituminous material sloped to the entrance for drainage. The finished floor elevation would match the existing buildings floor elevation of 944.3' (NAD 1983). The interior working height would be 30*. The electrical consists of an outside service panel and dutlet located on the south end of the west wall and the source of power would be an electrical panel in the existing building located 120' west of the storage building. Interior and exterior lighting would be provided with a motion detector photocell light fixture above the entrance and a flood light on the southwest and southeast building corners. The exterior lighting would be positioned and aimed as to not become a point source for the surrounding neighborhood. Building Usage The proposed building has approximately 7.840 square feet with a storage capacity of 2,000 tons. 1,000 ton annual salt storage amount and 1.000 ton salt/sand mix amounting to approximately one third of the annual mixed usage. The building size would provide for interior mixing and loading ot materials eliminating the current exterior storage requirements and operations thus reducing noise to the surrounding neighborhoods and eliminating the salt/sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wetlands. The building capacity would eliminate approximately 60 round trip truck runs a vear by allowing direct deliver}’ and storage during the dayiime hours. The stored materials would provide the southwestern cities of Hennepin County' with improved snow and ice control by having the materials readily available in demand quantities in the proximity of usage. f- I bMk fl ■ ■ I L Site Modifications iO • j rl The existing property is used for other seasonal purposes in addition to the salt/sand operations during the fall and winter months. The proposed storage building would be located in the northeast comer of the property which is currently used to store the Lake Minnetonka Conser\ ation District (LMCD) milfoil harvesters. To continue accommodating the storage of the milfoil harv esters, a proposed storage area would be provided in the northwest comer of the property. The storage area would be 68' W X 141' L with an 8" deep aggregate surface. The grade of the storage area would be 0.5% east toward the existing bituminous. The storage area drainage would flow east and south to an existing 18" CMP culvert which outlets into Wetland #1 in the southwest comer of the property. The area east of the existing bituminous mat and including the storage building and 10' perimeter would be changed from a gravel surface to a bituminous surface 147' W X 257' L consisting of 6" of bituminous and 8" of granular material. The grade of the proposed bituminous mat would be 0.9% toward the southeast. The drainage would flow to Wetland "3 in the southeast comer of the property. The proposed bituminous area would provide a stable maneuvering area for vehicles and a surface for aggregate stockpiling. The grading excavation necessary for the improvements would be approximately 400 C. Y. for the milfoil harvester parking area. 1,500 C.Y. for the Pond A grading, and 7,000 C.Y. for the salt storage building site including the three swales and bituminous mat. The salt storage building footing excavation would be additional and dependent on the footing design. Stormwater Management The building location in the northeast comer of the property is the farthest practical location from the wetlands receiving stormwater runoff from the site. This location will maximize the time of concentration allowing the turf areas to filter stormwater mnoff. The existing drainage flow is to three separate wetlands located on the south side of the property. The existing wetlands are referred to as Wetland #1, Wetland #2 and Wetland #3 from west to east. The peak rate of stormwater runoft would be limited to the predevelopment condition. The hydraulic analysis is being performed and will be forwarded immediately upon completion. The mnoff shall be analyzed for events of critical duration with return frequencies of 1,10 and 100 years which is criterion set by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District under Rule N. The proposed drainage closely mimics the existing with the following modifications: • Drainage Swale 1 is 2 ’ wide with variable depth paralleling the north edge of bituminous with 0.3% grade to proposed catch basin 2 located north of the existing bituminous and central to the property. Drainage Swale 2 is 4' wide and 1' deep paralleling the north side of the proposed storage building with a 0.5% grade to proposed catch basin 2. Catch basin 2 outlets through a proposed 15" plastic storm sewer pipe that flows to proposed catch basin 1. Catch basin 1 outlets into proposed Pond A through a proposed 15" plastic storm sewer with a CMP apron end section. Drainage Swale 3 is 4' wide and 1' deep and parallels the east side of the proposed bituminous mat with a 1.5% grade to proposed Pond A. -i 1 The proposed bituminous mat runoff is to the southeast at a 0.9% grade. This runoff is collected by Swale 3, Catch Basin I, and proposed Pond A. Proposed Pond A outlets to Wetland # 2 through a proposed 18" CMP standpipe weir and culvert. The proposed standpipe replaces the existing which is no longer functioning as designed. The pond will incorporate the replacement wetland on the 12:1 bench area. The pond will also have a depth of 5' which will provide for quality as shown on the Water Quality Calculation attachment. Wetland #1 and Wetland #2 flow thru existing outlets, 30" RCP and 15" CMP respectively, to manhole 1 located in the center of the access readjust south of the entrance gate. Manhole 1 has a 30" RCP outlet that drains through an existing 700' storm sewer system which outfalls into Lake Minnetonka. There is an existing sump catch basin 2 with a 2.25' sump immediately prior to outfalling into Lake Minnetonka. Krosion and Sediment Control Temporary erosion and sediment control would be accomplished through the use ot straw bales and silt fence. Silt fence would be installed prior to any construction activity. Straw bales would be placed to protect wetlands and storm sewer inlets. Permanent erosion control would be accomplished by using wood fiber blankets with seeding on those areas of exposed ground including the three proposed swales. The existing catch basin 2 has a 2.25' sump to catch sediments before outletting into Lake Minnetonka. Riprap would be installed at each apron outlet. Exposed soil would be kept to a minimum and restricted to those areas of immediate construction. No unnecessary disturbance ol natural soil cover and vegetation would be permitted. Wetlands A Wetland Permit application has been forwarded under a separate submittal to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Notification has been forwarded to Hennepin Conservation District, Department of Natural Resources, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, and the City of Orono. Maintenance Maintenance of the drainage components would occur on an as-necessary basis to include the drainage swales, wetlands, ponds, storm sewer, standpipe with culvert, and sump catch basin. IS ]l d ' K 4 MM DATE 11/17/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPEHTV INFOPHATION SVSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PWS5A91 PACE 19 MTCH S95 PROP AMIR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/MBR 17 17-117-2S M iPAY •SUO NORTHERN AVE ROOER ALLAN RUEHL ROCER ALLAN RUEHL SRlt NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55SM 17 17-117-2S SS 991# •SRU NORTHERN AVE HAROLD R KORESH ETAL HAROLD R KOKESCH 3R1A NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55S84 17 17-117-2S 5? 0914 9SR92 NORTHERN AVE E R TISCHLER I K J TISCHLER ERIC R TISCHLER SR42 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 5SSS4 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 17 17-117-25 55 ftlG* •5SS2 NORTHERN AVE REITN J ENERY REITN ENERY 5GSE NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 5S5M 17 17-117-25 55 9919 95S77 PARK LA •ANKERS TRUST CO OF CALIF WILLIAM A ANDERSON 5077 PARK LA SPRING PARK NN 55599 17 17-117-25 55 9929 95992 NORTHERN AVE JAN W STRUCK JAN H STRUCK 5992 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55399 109922 TAXPAYER NAHE/AROR 17 17-117-25 S3 93991 PARK LA A N NOUO SNR FARINHA ANCEU N NOUO 5299 NINNENANA AVE NPLS NN 55917 17 17-117-25 S3 9939 93919 SHORELINE DR DOUGLAS C OANU.E DOUGLAS GAN9LE 2995 NOUNTAIN VIEW DR ESCONDIDO CA 92927 17 17-117-25 53 9939 93929 SHORELINE OR CLARK R OLTNAN CLARK R OLTNAN 3929 SHORELINE OR SPRING PARK NN 55599 10J PROP ADOR 17 17-117-25 55 9999 95952 SNORELINE DR JOHN P RASTER TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 2999 CASCO POINT RO NAY2ATA NN SS591 17 17-117-25 55 9995 05999 DEL OTERO AVE J N RASAT2 ETAL JOHN HENRY RAOATZ 3999 DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK NN 55599 17 17-117-25 55 9999 95929 DEL OTERO AVE CATHY JO TURNER CATHY JO TURNER 5557 SARTLETT SLVD HOUND NN 55399 TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 17 17-117-23 33 9997 93939 DEL OTERO AVE mCNAEL R ERICKSON HICNAEL R ERICKSON S959 DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK NN 55599 17 17-117-25 53 9991 05999 NORTHERN AVE THONAS E CHRISTENSEN ET AL THONAS I LUANN CHRISTENSEN 5999 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55599 17 17-117-23 35 9999 93919 NORTHERN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOCK ANTHONY POLLOCK 3919 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55599 OWNER NANS TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 17 17-117-23 33 9995 95999 NORTHERN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOCK ANTHONY POLLOCK 5919 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PAH( NN 55399 17 17-117-23 53 9999 95999 NORTHERN AVE GERALD ROLAND HANSEN GERALD R HANSEN lOX 152 SPRING PARR NN 55599 17 17-117-25 33 9997 92259 HAZELDELL AVE ROOIN L SHERNAN RODIN L SHERNAN 2259 HAZELDELL AVE SPRING PARK NN 55599 • i1 • I RUN DATE •ATCH 5RSPROP AMR OMNER NAMEtaxpayerNANE/AMtPROP AMR OMNER NAHitaxpaVerNAME/AOMPROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAVER NANE/AMR PROP AOM OMNER NAME TAXPAVER . NAME/AOM PROP AOM OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOM 17 17-117-25 55 OOOA•2254 LILAC W»T D t J L NASONTNOHAS D • JOLENE L MASON2254 LILAC LASPRING PARK MM 5558417 17-117-25 55 AiVAp A OARTON 8 N K RARTON 2245 NAZELDELL AVE SPRING PARK MM 5558417 17-117-25 55 8154•2241 HAZELDELL AVE BQUOLAS J SIPPEL OOUeiAS J SIPPEL 2241 MAZELOELL AVE OPRING PARK MM 55584 17 17-117-25 55 «144 •5914 OEL OTERO AVE J A FRITZ 8 N S JENSEN :!aHRS FRITZ 8 HENDY JENSEN S914 OEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK MN 55584 17 17-117-25 55 8147 •5942 SHORELINE M 0 A KLITZKA 8 V V KLITZKA 0 A 8 V V KLITZKA 5982 SHORELINE OR SPRING PARK HN 55584 PROP AOM OMNER NAME TAXPAVER NAME/AOM 17 17-117-25 54 8821 •S888 NORTHERN AVE LOIS A TOMNER LOIS A TOMNER S088 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 55584 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM HENNEPIN C list17 17-117-25 55 888785872 NORTHERN AVE NOREEN F OENJEGEROES NOREEN F OENJEGEROES 5872 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK MM 5558417 17-117-25 55 0157•5822 NORTHERN AVE N A SCNHEL1N6 ET AL ELIZAOETH M SCHMELINO P 0 MX 81 3822 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 5558417 17-117-25 35 8142•3918 DEL OTERO AVE RICHAM S llOERAMTE RICHARD S LIOERANTE 3918 DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK HN 55584 17 17-117-25 55 8145 •5918 DEL OTERO AVE OREGMV A DAVIS GREGORY A DAVIS 3918 DEL OTEM AVE SPRING PARK NM 55584 17 17-117-25 55 8148 •3984 SHORELINE DR VINCENT K OURNNART . VINCENT K MRMHART 958 MAPLE CREST DR hound MN 55544 38 17-117-25 55 RSeZ •3888 SHORELINE DR CO OF HENN HENNEPIN COUNTY RTTN MARCIA HILDA M/C 488 417 5TH ST N 0528 MPLS MH 55481 REPORT MO. PI455481 PAGE 1517 17-117-25 55 888885874 NORTHERN AVE ROGER DALE ROGER OALE 3874 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 5558417 17-117-23 33 813883832 NORTHERN AVE KEITH D TRASK KEITH D TRASK 3852 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK MM 5538417 17-117-23 33 814385914 DEL OTERO AVE ZACHARY S SMANSON ZACHARY S SMANSON 3914 OEL OTEM AVE SPRING PARK HN 55384 17 17-117-23 33 8144 83984 SHORELINE OR S N 8 P K OSNERA STEVEN M 8 PAMELA K OSMERA 3988 SHORELINE M SPRING PARK HN 55384 17 17-117-23 55 8149 83984 SHORELINE DR DONALD L LANOON DONALD L LANDON 3984 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK MM 55584 38 17-117-23 33 •••3 83888 SHORELINE DR COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ORONO SHOP C/0 HENN CO - P.S. DIO 328 MASHINGTON AVE S HOPKINS HN 55545 u L.v.t: e. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. f. Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment shall be housed within the existing structure. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping. g. All obsolete and unused antennas shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Administrator or designate. The removal shall be the responsibility of the communication provider. h. Antennas shall utilize camouflaging techniques or shall be side mounted to an antenna support structure in order that such facilities are compatible with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. i. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer that the location of the antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency spacing needs of the personal wireless service system and to provide adequate portable personal wireless service coverage and capacity to the area. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-1C" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit; A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-IA" District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following conditions: a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (5) acres. b. Property shall have direct access to a Countv road. c. County facilities shall only be permitted as Hennepin Count\’ facilities. d. The Orono Ciw Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined bv the City Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be pennitted' accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District any 'private docks' subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed; Lot Lot Front Side Rear Side Yard Adjacent to Aesa Width Yard Yard Yard Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet 1 0 § 10.20 SEC. 10.20. R-IA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "R-1 A" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permit. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. C. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-1 A" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use pennit: A. Schools. Public schools and parochial or private schools which teach a curriculum similar to a public school provided no building shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District and that a fence be erected fifteen feet or more from all street lot lines where the abutting use is for open play, and nursery schools providing fifty square feet of playground space per pupil. 1. Uses Accessory To A High School. The following uses are accessory to a High School use and require a separate conditional use permit: a. Indoor Ice Arenas. All such facilities and structures shall be located on the same tax parcel as the principal High School Use to which they are accessory. No such structures shall be located less than 50 feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an ”R” District. Such facilities shall not be separated from the principal High School use by a public r^ad. All such facilities shall be owned and operated by the school district, or by a non-profit organization under a land lease arrangement with the school district. The developer of such a facility, prior to final Conditional Use Permit approval by the City Council, shall demonstrate fuiancial capability to complete construction of said facility, by providing suitable documentation that at least eighty percent (80%) of the estimated project costs are in the control of the school district or non-profit lessee. Source: Ordinance No. 145,2nd Series Effective Date: 3-11-96 ORONO CC 279 (4-1-84) § 10.20 B. Churches. Churches including those related structures located on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, convents or homes’ for persons related to a religious function on the same site provided no building other than a residence shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. C. Clubs, Camps, etc. Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, YWCA camps, church camps, or private non- profit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for any of the above listed uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot in an "R" District, and accessory structures shall be a minimum of fifty feet from any lot line. D. Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50' from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures as defined above that have been approved by the City at required public hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a conditional use permit but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standard set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the City to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the Council. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 Source: Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series Effective Date: 5-27-97 E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed fi’om the public street or adjoining lot. Commercial greenhouse structures shall not be located in a required yard area, and are subject further to the general zoning code requirements pertaining to accessory structures. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 ORONO CC 280 (4-1-84) § 10.20F. Recreation Areas. Private gun clubs, archery ranges, ski slides, provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 150 feet from any lot line.Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 G. Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments. 1) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 2) Non-rental Guest Apartments. An apartment within the principal separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 H. Planned Residential Development. Limited to detached single family dwellings only and subject to the limitations of Section 10.32. I. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a con^tional District, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industnal district A duplex is defmed as a two-family unit residential building. Source: Ordinance 178,2nd Series Adopted: 12-8-97 J. Apiaries. ORONO CC 280-1 (4-1-84) § 10.20K. i\ntenna Structure. One independent antenna atnieturc^ iMtlt antenna ef combination ef antenna attached thereto, 3ubofdinata to and aervieing the ptmeipal uae ar jtnicturc on U tc jorne lot and euatomarilrtneldental thereto Qiat h not attaeliLJ to another flU uetufedia height of the antenna stmetufc does not citcecd C5 feet imd tlie antenna a^eture la o^t bacU trom my let line a diatonee at leaat equal to the total height ef tl^e antcmia jtnicturc. Source: Deleted via Ordinance 161.2nd Series Effective Date: 5-27-97 L. Farms (Crop and stock). Provided that the area is ten or more acres. M. Animals. The keep'mg of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises. A minimum of one acre in aggregate, exclusive of one acre for the principal building, must be available for each animal umt, except as hereinafter set forth. A minimum of mo acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. When the horses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low lying iMds unusable for pasture or grazing. Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of the City Code. N. Stables and Bams - Private. The use of an accessory building for keeping for non-commercial purposes provided it is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the avaiiabie area standards outlined in Paragraph M of this subsection. Further, no such stnicture shall be located less than 150 feet ftom the neatest adjacent residence and no closer than 75 feet from the nearest lot line. O. Stables and Bams - Public. The use of accessory buildings or land for the storage or rearing of animals not owned by the property owner or resident. Such must meet the requirements of Section 10.03, Subdivision 18. Further, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line. P Riding Academy. Any such instruction maintained as an accessory use and conducted by the owner shall meet the requuements of Sections M. N and 0 of this subdivision and no such instruction shall occur less than 100 feet from an adjacent residence or less than 73 feel from the nearest lot line. ^ a c-^a.cSource: Ordinance 26,2nd Senes Adopted: 7-14-86 ORONO CC 280-2 (4-1-84) § 10.20M. Antenna Strueture. One independent antenna jttuetufe widi onttiinn or^iQiiilimation of amenna attached thereto, imbofdlnate to aiid jcn’ielng the principal use wi.....It., aame lot and etutomatily meldenial ttiucte that is nol attached to aiiuaia sluitimt providM111! Ill iilil nflh- nil................- ................ftLi uiijqn <u>«nB. juuauii. ujatoUframaiQ let line a distance at leaat equal to the total height of the, antenna Jtructurc. Source: Deleted via Ordinance 161,2nd Series Effective Date: 5-27-97 Q. Plumbing in Accessory Buildmg. The provision of a toilet, bathtub or shower in an accessory building. Approval shall be conditioned on provision sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from the buUding plumbing. Approval shall be granted only when the followmg cntena are met. 1. The Council finds that the proposed use of the accessor>’ structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The Council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. 3. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger. 4. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height 5. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of *e property providing fliat: ^ ^ occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allowed by City code. b. the accessory building wU not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained. ^ ^ „ otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Source: Ordinance No. 179,2nd Series Adopted: 10-12-98 ORONO CC 280-3 (4-1-84) § 10.20Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any ”R-1A ” One Family Residential District, no accessory structure or use of land shall be permitted except for one or more of the following uses;A. Garages. Private garages and parking space.B. Pools, etc. Private swimming pool, tennis courts, and paddocks.C. Home Occupations. Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling, when there is no employed assistant, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street, no signs other than those permitted in "R Districts are present, no excessive stock in trade is stored on the premises, over the counter retail sales are not involved, the entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the s^cture, and the use does not adversely affect the character of the uses permitted in the district in which it is located. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance of religious rites but not for general practice of his profession when such general practice will involve the need for more than three off-street parking spaces for the occupant and visitors. D. Signs. Signs as regulated in the Zoning Chapter. E. Temporary Structures. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of constructing on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary for such constructing. F. Gardens, etc. Gardening and other horticultural uses including aviaries and decorative landscape features. G. Roadside Stands. One roadside stand offering for sale only farm products produced on the premises provided that such stand does not exceed 200 square feet in area and that it is located at least thirty feet back from the public right-of-way. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 H. Communication Reception/Transmission Devices. 1. Accessorv' Antennas. Accessory antennas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVRO’s, and amateur short-w^ve radio transmitting and receiving anteiuias. Accessory antermas that are accessory to the principa use o the property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: ORONO CC 281 (4-1-84) § 10.20a. Height. A ground mounted accessory antenna shall notcxcedd twenty (20) feet in height from ground level.b. Yards. Accessory antennas shall not be located within therequired front yard setback, comer side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street.c. Roofs. Ifvegetation or obstructions interfere with satellitesignals at a location in any allowable placement are^ the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. d. Accessory anteiuias shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drmnage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizontal distance no less than the maximum height of the antenna. e. Building Permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use pemut. Building penmt applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural component data for the acceswry antenna, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. ^ Lightning Protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. g. Electrical Code. Acessory antenna electrical equipment and cormections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. h. Color/Content. Accessory antennas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. 2. Amateur Short-Wave Radio Antennas and Towers which do not meet the conditions for accessor>' antennas, may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: a. Height. When an amateur short-wave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed 65 feet. b. Yards. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and tpwers shall ' not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. ORONO CC 281-1 (4-1-84) Lot Width Front Xacd Side XaiL Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet 35 feet ^ % SEC. 10.50. I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.Subd. 1. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "I" Industnal District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planmng Commission foSubd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses;A. Processing, Etc. Conducting a process, fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling operation or providing of a service ^ listed hereafter:1. Apparel.2. Artificial limbs. . , , j r j3. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fei^rwork uBholstering, tire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed building. The storage Sfautomobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be withu. a fenced area. Open sales o shall be subject to a conditional use permit. 4. Bakery, commercial. 5. Bicycles and toys. 6. Boats and marine products. ^ 7. Bus, truck and contractor’s terminals and maintenance yards. 8. Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and millworks, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop. 9. Camera and photography. 10. Canvas and cloth products. 1 1. Ceramic and cloth products. 12. Ceramic products. 13. Cork products. . 14. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceutical and toiletries. 15. Electric motors, generators, electric products. 16. Engraving and printing. 17. Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works. 18. Laundries, commercial. 19. Machine shops. 20. Metal polishing and plating. 21. Musical instruments. 22. Novelties. 23. Paper products. 24. Pharmaceutical products. , 25. Products made of glass, cellophane,leather, plastic, w'ooa. 26. Shoes and footwear. ORONO CC 352 (4-1-84) Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "I" Industrial District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses:A. Any accessoiy use as regulated in the "B-l”’ District.Subd. 5. Area, Height, Setback and Design Requirements.A. Lot Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres.B. BuildineArea. Each individual building shall have a gross floor area (notincluding basements) of not less than 5,000 square feet when designed for a single tenant nor less than 15,000 square feet when designed for multi-tenants.C. Lot Coverage. Not more than 30% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land three acres or less in size may be covered by buildings or other structures. Not more than 45% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may e covered by buildings or other structures, except that when the total building floor area on a site is contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks Md berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60/o will be permitted. D. Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories or 40 feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. E. Building Setback and Yards. 1. Street Setbacks. All buildings and structures must be set back at least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or street which has been designated as limited access, freeway or expressway; and 50 feet from those designated as thorougWares, collectors, imno or secondary streets. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District there shall be a buildi g setback from that street of not less than 75 feet. 2. Side Yards or Rear Yards. Any building or structure required by any building code adopted by the City to have openings in the rear wall, shall be erected "o closer th^ 30 feet to a rear property line. Where rear wall openings are not required by any such code the rear wall has no openings, buildings or structures may be constructed to wthin 10 feet ot a re property line. No building or structure shall be erected any closer to a side distMce equal to one and one-halftimes the average building height. . adjoins an ”R” District, the side or rear yard abutting such residential district shall be not less th 100 feet. ORONO CC 354 (4-1-84) i^4 Aw ow .< W .« I ~\ M4S^>:\3» ^ \ r :« \r••s"* '^\ *) '/-rH’iL'i'*- i'^.'/ '^1^ . r-A,: .: 5 ?’im %% '"tv - *•*<% ^ /•-'f »^: -i.*- <l#’ V -» ► A' >J?V .•.'■I r > ^JV ' * •.> iW'W:ir>l| V; w> » mm.mm - • »• ^ \ \ T>-' vC ,*-sV V^: mm .ucS }>iF\ i 1iJ. A cJ V %► Q‘\| *«is ORONO MAINTENANCE FACILITY C.P. 9990072 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET AREA SURFACE TYPE INPLACE S.F BIT/CONC. AREA1 GRAVEL 75-250' IBUILDINGS 25% AREA COVERED ItOTAL area S.F. PERCENT I BIT/CONC. AREA 2 IGRAVEL 250-500' {buildings 30% Iarea covered TOTAL AREA S.F. PERCENT I BIT/CONC. GRAVEL AREA 3 {buildings 500-1000' 35% I AREA COVERED iTOTAL AREA S.F. PERCENT J BIT/CONC/ AREA 4 [GRAVEL 1000-I- {buildings AREA COVERED ITOTAL AREA S.F. PERCENT HDCOVR.xls 1:20 PM12/9/99 386 0 0 386 499 77% 12.238 12,238 40,278 30% 81.22 67,608 PROPOSED S.F. 386 0 0 386 499 77% 12,238 0 0 12,238 40,278 30% 118,622 19.566 INCLUDED IN BIT AREAS 148,835 242,023 61% 0 782 0 782 7,077 11% 138,188 242,023 57% 0 0 0 0 7,077 0% ¥ L. K Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Waters -1200 Warner Road, Sl Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 January 5,2000 Mr. Joel Settles Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340 -I RE: Project Notification, Hennepin County Maintenance Facility, City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Settles: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is in receipt of your project notification for the Hennepin County Maintenance Facility project at 3880 Shoreline Drive in Orono. The project will affect wetland(s) located in the southwest quarter of Section 17, T117N-R23W in Hennepin County. Based on our review of the notification form, data and maps of the area, we agree that the wetland(s) are not under DNR protected waters permit jurisdiction and therefore the project does not require a DNR permit. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR Appropriation Permit. You are advised that it typically takes 60 days to process the permit application, however, dewatering of up to 50 million gallons can be processed under DNR General Permit No. 97-(X)05 in approximately one week. This letter is only a notification on the need for a DNR permit for your proposed project. You should be aware that your project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations, as noted on the "Local-State- Federal Water Resource Project Notification/ Application Form". The Department may provide additional comments on your project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 772-7914. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c:U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta City of Orono, Greg Gappa Hennepin Conservation District, Ali Durguno|lu Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Jim Hafner Conservation Officer Jim Konrad Wayne Barstad, Ecol. Services w/PNAF DNR Information; 651-296-6157 • 1-88S-646-6367 • m': 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929 Pnrrtd on Rtcycftd ConUlning a ^ Minmum of 10% Poai Ccnsumor Waalt An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Vjlutf> DiveiMiy i PROJECT NARRATIVE qJ ^ \ \HENNEPIN COUNTY MAINTENANCE FACILITY PROPOSED SALT STORAGE BUILDING COUNTY PROJECT 9990072The Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to St storage building at the Hennepin Countythn Citv of Orono. The current zoning for the property IS LR-1C (One ha > a District) which would need to be amended to allow highway/road usage jj? Snditional use pemtit would be required for the ;» s^rbSaSrhaTorr^^^^^^^ =■ wetland, and grading in excess of 500 C.Y. The Building (See Typical Structure) The proposed building would be located in the northeast corner of ** " continuous skylight made of corrugated translucent fiberglass panels, i ne ira s footings “essure treate^d columns r paS wluoVbearing «pacit; and perpendi^^ fuDDort. The floor would consist of 6" thick bituminous matenal sloped to the entrance . The finished floor elevation would match the existing buildings floor ® ^ ‘ service panel 1983). The interior working height would be 30’. Theelectnca consi ...nnid be an electrical and Outlet located on the south end of the west wall and the exterior lightins panel in the existing building located 120’ vvest of the storage building^ light would be provided with a motion detector photocell light fixture nositioned and Tn L southwest and southeast building corners. The exterior lighting would be positioned and aimed as to not become a point source for the surrounding neighborhood. Riiiiding Usage The proposed building has approximately 7.840 square feel with a storage ‘;P^ 1 000 ton annual salt storage amount and 1,000 ton salt/sand mix amoun in^ P. _ . of third of the annual mixed usage. The building size would P”' '^„ois'e to materials eliminating the current exterior storage requirements and o^rattons tWsjM ^ g^^ the svrroundina neishborhoods and eliminating the sail/sand transp pound trin truck runs a adjacent wetlands. The building capacity would eliminate vear by allowina direct delivery and storage during the daylime hours. The s'°'“ ‘ ^ j provide the souStwestem cities of Hennepin County with tmproved snow and tee control by ha , . the materials readily available in demand quantities in the proximitv of usa^e. i . . ••t-j ■) ''D V f of Site ModificatiopsThe existing property- is used for other seasonal purposes in addition to the °P“f‘“"iduring the fall and winter months. The proposed storage building would be located tn the no^t come? of the property which is currently used to store the Lake M.nnetonka Conservation D strict (LMCD) milfoil harvesters. To continue accommodating the storage of thenmnosed storaee area would be provided in the northwest comer of the property. The storage area Sh he 6S' W X 14 r L tvith an 8" deep aaareaate surface. The grade of the storage area wodd be ea:ttL tie Ixttog Mmminoul The 'storage area drainage would «ow-<o an existing 18" CMP culvert which outlets into \V etland # I in the southwest comer of p P y The area east of the existing bituminous mat and including would be changed from a eravel surface to a bituminous surface 147 W X 2o7 L ^onsis mg oi biZinous »d 8" of aranularmaterial. The grade ofthe proposed bitummous mat -o “ldbe toward the southeast. The drainage would flow to Wetland « tn the '““**“* The proposed bituminous area would provide a stable maneu\ enng area or aggregate stockpiling. The grading excavation necessary for the improvements would be ^“r fhe^saU smm^ milfoil harvester parking area, 1,500 C.Y. for the Pond A grading, and 7,000 Y- for = building site including the three swales and bituminous mat. The salt storage buildin^ footing excavation would be additional and dependent on the footing design. Stormwater Management The building location in the northeast comer of the property is the farthest Zands rcceivinn stormwater mnoff from the site. This location will maximize Concentration albwing the turf areas to filter stormwater runoff. The existing three separate wetlands located on the south side ofthe property. The existing runoff to as Wetland # 1, Wetland #2 and Wetland #3 from west to east. The peak rate of storm would be limited to the predevelopment condition. The hydraulic analysis is being P®J will be forwarded immediately upon completion. The mnoff shall be analyzed for ev preel- Ciirafion xZZumTequencfes Cf 1,10 and 100 years which is criterion set by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District under Rule N. The proposed drainage closely mimics the existing with the following modifications. I Drafnaae Swale T is 2' wide with variable depth paralleling the north edge of 0.3"/. grade to proposed catch basin 2 iocated north of the existing bituminous and central to property. ? :s ™u;-. c» . Drainage Swale 3 is 4’ wide and 1' deep and paraliels the east side of the proposed bituminous mat with a 1.5% grade to proposed Pond A. The proposed bituminous mat runoff is to the southeast at a yj.y/o gtauc by Swale 3, Catch Basin I, and proposed Pond A.ProDOsed Pond A outlets to Wetland » 2 through a proposed 18" CMP standpipe weir and culvert.. Wetland #1 and Wetland S2 flow thru existing outlets, 30" RCP and 15" CMP ^spectively, to"et lo “at^tn the center of the access readjust south of the ^^ea 30" RCP outlet that drains through an existing 700' storm sewer system which ou tails into Lake M^Leml." ^ an existing sump catch basin 2 with a 2.25 ’ sump immediately pnor tooutfalling into Lake Minnetonka. Frosion and Sediment Control Temporary erosion and sediment control would be accomplished through the use silt fLce. Silt fence would be installed prior accomplished nlaced to orotect wetlands and Storm sewer inlets. Permanent erosion con j .i,^ three by using wood fiber blankets with seeding on those areas ot exposed gro^ int-before outlettin® natural soil cover and vegetation would be permitted. ‘f Conservation District, Department of Natural Resources, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, and the City of Orono. ek Maintenance Maintenance of the drainage com drainage swales, wetlands, ponds ponents would occur on an as-necessary basis lo include the storm sewer, standpipe with culvert, and sump catch basin. S9 * ’•v MJN BATE 11/17/**MTeH SISnor AomOMNEI HAIC TAXTAVEB NAME/ABMnor AOM OMm NAMtaxtayerNAHE/AOMrROr AOM OMMR NME TAHrAVRO NAM/AOM RROP AOM ONNER NAM taxpaver NAHE/AOM taxpayer NAHE/AOM 17 17-117-2S SS •*•* ■SOI* NORTHERN AVE R08ER AUAN OOEML r OOER AUAN OUEHt Ml* NORTMRN AVE SniNB PARE HH 553*417 17-117-23 S3 **l*•M52 NORTHERN AVE REITN J EMRY XEITN EMRY S*M NMTHERN AVE sniNO PARE HH 553*417 17-117-23 S3 **22I*S‘nom^«"n e*parinha anocuhnom S248 HINMNAHA AVE M^S NN 55417 17 17-117-23 S3 **4* *3932 SHMELIM M JOHN r RASTER JOHN P EASTER 2m* casco point RO NAY2ATA HH *53*1 17 17-117-23 S3 **47 *3*34 OEL OTERO AVE MCNAEL R ERXCESON HXCNAEL R ERXCESON S*S4 OEL OTERO AVE SnXNO PARE NN 553*4 PROP ABM OWNER NAM taxpayer NMRE/AOM 17 17-117-23 S3 **45 •S*** NMTMRN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOCE ANTHONY P«N->-ME S*14 NORTMRN AVE snXNB PARE HH *53*4 17 17-117-23 S3 **1*•M14 NMTHERN AVE HAROLO R EOEESH ETAL HAROLD R EOEESCH Ml* NORTMRN AVE SPRING PARE NN 553*417 17-117-23 S3 **1*•M77 PARE U BANEERS trust CO OF CALIF HXLLXAN A ANDERSON 3*77 PARE LA SPRING PARE HH 553*417 17-117-23 S3 **S*•3*14 SHORELXM M oouclas C OAHOLE D0U6LAS GAMLE 2*43 HOUHTAXN VIEW DR ESCONDIDO CA *2*2717 17-117-23 S3 **4S •STt* DEL OTERO AVE J H OABATZ ETAL JOHN MNRY OABATZ S*** ML OTERO AVE SniNO PARE HN 553*4 17 17-117-23 S3 O**! 5*H^SS tSsm 594* NMTMRN AVE SniNO PARE NN 553*4 17 17-117-23 S3 O*** •3*** NORTHERN AVE GERALD ROLAND HANSEN GERALD R HANSEN BOX 152^INCPAREHN 55M4 REPMT no. PI4354*! PAGE 1417 17-117-23 3? **14•5*42 NORTMRN AVE E R YISCHLER S E J TXSCHLER ERIC R TXSCHLER 3*42 NMTMRN AVE SPRXNG PARE HH 55M417 17-117-23 S3 **2**M42 NORTHERN AVE JAN W STRUCE JAN H STRUCE M42 NMTMRN AVE SPRING PARE HN 553*417 17-117-23 S3 **3*•3*24 SHORELINE M CLARE R OLTHAN CLARE R OLTHAN 5*24 SHORELXM M SnXNG PARE HH 553*417 17-117-23 S3 *144*3*24 ML OTERO AVE CATHY JO TURNER CATHY JO TURMR 5537 BARTLETT OLVO HOUND HN 55344 17 17-117-23 S3 0*44 •3*14 NORTMRN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOCE ANTHONY POLLOCE 5*14 NMTMRN AVE SPRING PARE HN 553*4 17 17-117-23 S3 **47 •22M HAZELMLL AVE ROBIN L SMRHAN ■OBXN L SMRHAN 22M HAZELMLL AVE SniNG PARE HN 553*4 #* i...iJ I •*» iyf RUN MTE lim/99 BATCH BBSPROP AOOR ONNCR NAHCtanpaycrNAHE/AOORPROP AOOR OHNER NAHE taxpaVcrNAHC/AOORPROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAVCR NAHC/AOORPROP AOOR ONNCR NAHE taxpayer . NAHC/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAVCR NAHC/AOOR 17 17-117-2S S3 008AB225A LILAC ROT D A J L HASONYNOHAS D a JOLENC L HASON22M LILAC LASPRING PARK HM S538A17 17-117-2S SS AAYAA22AS HAZELOCLL AVC P A BARTON A H K •*«TOH p A BARTON A H K BARTON RRAB HAZELOCLL AVC SPRINB PARK HH 5538A17 17-117-23 S3 AISYflRAl HAZELOCLL AVC OOUBLAS J SIPPEL OOUBLAS J SZPPEL R2A1 HAZELOCLL *VC SPRINO PARK HN 5538A17 17-117-23 S3 flAAAS9U OEL OTCRO AVCiS^’Sg.5! SdSrS««. S91A OEL OTERO AVC SPRING PARK HM 55389 17 17-117-23 33 8197 0 A A V V KLITZKA S9A2 SHORELINE OR SPRING PARK HN 55389 PROP AOOR ONNCR NAHC TAXPAVCR NAHC/AOOR 17 17-117-23 39 8821 8SS88 NORTHERN AVE lOlS A TONNCR LOIS A TONNER SB88 NORTHERN AVC spring park HN 55389 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XHFOB^TIOH SYSTEM PROPERTY ONHERS LIST17 17-117-23 S3 888783872 NORTHERN AVE NOREEN F BENJE6ER0CS NORCEN F BEHJEGCROES 5872 NORTHERN AVC ,SPRING PARK MM 5538917 17-117-23 S3 813783822 NORTHERN AVE H A SCHHELING ET AL ELIZABETH H SCHHELING P 0 BOX 81 3822 NORTHERN AVC SPRING PARK HN 5538917 17-117-23 S3 819283918 OEL OTERO AVE RICHARD S LIBCRAHTC RICHARD S LIBCRAHTC 3918 OEL OTERO XVE SPRING PARK HM 5538917 17-117-23 33 819583918 OEL OTERO AVE GREGORY A OAVXS GREGORY A DAVIS 3918 DEL OTERO AVC SPRING PARK HN 55389 17 17-117-23 33 8198 83989 SHORELIIK OR VINCENT K BURMMART . VINCENT K BURNMART 958 MAPLE CREST DR HOUND MM 55399 38 17-117-23 S3 8882 83888 SHORELINE DR CO OF HENN HENNEPIN COUMTY ATTN HARCM HILDA H/C 988 917 STM ST N 8328 MPLS HM 55981 REPORT NO. PX935981 PAGE 1517 17-117-23 33 888883879 NORTHERN AVC ROGER DALE ROGER DALE 3879 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HM 5538917 17-117-25 33 813883832 NORTIffiRN AVE KEITH D TRASK KEITH D TRASK 3832 NORTHERN AVC SPRING PARK HM 5538917 17-117-23 S3 819383919 DEL OTERO AVE ZACHARY 3 SHANSON ZACHARY S SHAHSOM 3919 OEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK HN 5538917 17-117-23 33 819983988 SHORELINE DR S H 8 P K OSHCRA STEVEN H 8 PAMELA K OSHCRA 3988 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK HM 55389 17 17-117-23 33 8199 83989 SHORELINE DR DONALD L LANDON DONALD L LANOON 3989 SHORELINE OR SPRING PARK HN 55389 38 17-117-25 33 8883 83888 SHORELINE DR COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ORONO SHOP C/0 HENN CO - P.S. B80 328 HASMINOTON AVC S HOPKINS HH 55393 ..V.t1) HIM MTE 11/17/99 MTCN StS HENNEflN COUHTY P*OPE*TY INFORMATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST report no. PMSS901 PAGE 1* OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ABRR SR 17-117-2S IS t»9A •SG9t SHORELINE DR E J A N J HELD EDUARD J A HARSIU J HELD SA9A SHORELINE OR MAYZATA HN S5S91 Sa 17-117-23 33 AteS •3AA9 SHORELINE DR DAVID UHBEHOCKER DAVID UHDENOCKER SARA SHORELINE DR HAYZATA HN S5391 SA 17-117-23 33 AAA4 A3ASA SWWELINE DR JOHN C CNENONETH JR JOHN C CNENOHETN HAAS RINOSDOROUOH TR S COTTAGE GROVE HN S5A1A 10 PROP ADOR TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 30 17-117-23 33 AAA7 •soot SHORELINE DR JANET N OLSON JANET H OLSON SOSA SHORELINE OR MAYZATA NN SS391 30 17-117-23 34 AAA2 AS7AA NORTHERN AVE LEO J SLECNTA ETAL LEO J SLECNTA 37AA NORTHERN AVE HAYZATA NN S5391 SO 17-117-23 34 AAAS AS77A SHORELINE DR NARY SOHNS HATTIKH SOHNS 1401 AVOCET LA HOUND NN S5344 ID 1 PROP ADORmm TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 17-117-23 34 9994 95799 SHORELINE OR PAUL N LARSON PAUL LARSON S04S SHORELINE DR HAYZATA HN 55391 30 17-117-23 34 9995 93749 SHORELINE DR TONKA VENTURES LLC TONKA VENTURES LLC 7749 FRANCE AVE S 9779 EDINA HN 55435 50 17-117-23 34 9959 93709 NMTHERN AVE N T CARL t J K JANES N T CARL S J K JANES 3709 NORTHERN AVE HAYZATA HN 55391 OMNER NANE TAXPAYER 50 17-117-23 34 9951 9S749 NORTHERN AVE J R qUAN 0 J E qUAN JOHN R qUAN S749 NORTHERN AVE MAYZATA HN 55391 30 17-117-23 34 9952 99930 ADDRESS PENDING HCLEOO CNTY REG RR AUTHORITT DAKOTA RAIL INC 299 NORTH NILL ST FERGUS FALLS HN 54537 39 29-117-23 21 9910 92429 DUNHOOOY AVE CALVARY NENORIAL CHURCH CALVARY NENORIAL CHURCH 2429 DUHMOOOY AVf HAYZATA NN 55391 S: OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 30 29-117-23 22 9991 9S925 SHORELINE DR C H SNITN ISO SNITH CORTLAND SNITN t SUSAN SMITH 3925 SHORELINE OR SPRING PARK HN 55594 30 29-117-23 22 9992 93935 SHORELINE DR J I S OEOELL JANES DAVID DEDELL 3935 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARR NN 55304 30 29-117-23 22 9993 93995 SHORELINE OR RICHARD ADOLPH CARLSON RICHARD A CARLSON 5995 SHORELINE DR NAVARRE HH 55392 PROP AODR OMNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 39 29-117-23 22 9994 93095 SHORELINE OR R D JENSEN ETAL JOS RAUSCNENDORFER 3095 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA HN 55391 30 29-117-23 22 9995 93915 SNORELINE DR K t C KRUGER KONRAD CHRISTOPHER KRUGER 4031 NANZTOU RD TONKA DAY NN 55331 39 29-117-23 22 9994 93977 SHORELINE OR T H GREGORY 9 T A GREGORY T N GREGORY • T A GREGORY 3077 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA HN 55391 liDlkR J 9L ffMiililitrOM RUN DATE 11/17/99 •ATCN 59S HENNERIN COUNTY 7ROPERTV XNFORHATION SVSTEN rROPERTY OWNERS LIST ONNER NANE TAKPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 20-117-25 22 0007 OSOOf SHORELINE DR PAUL N LARSON PAUL N LARSON S077 SNORELXfK DR NAYZATA NN 5BS91 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAMPAYER NANE/ADDR TOTAL RATCH 505. 00057 ; • A ' ' Th A*"** * • va REPORT NO. PXAS5A01 PACE 17SO 20-117-2S 22 0000 02405 DUNHOOOY AVE •RENT D NALTON ET AL •RENT D S JULIE • WALTON 2405 DUNHOOOY AVE ORONO NN 55591 30 20-117-2S 22 0009 02425 DUNHOOOY AVE H P NXTHERS OLA SANHA HXLLXAN P HITflERS 2425 DUNHOODY AVE HAYZATA NN 55591 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DCPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE REST OF NY RNOHLEOCE AMI RELIEF. ^ DATE 10 10 IQ CQ *40.9 n 5 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 14,2000 SUBJECT:#2543 TedEdin 3025 Casco Point Road Variances -- Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 Acre) Lot Area:15,370 s.f. (.35 acres) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. To permit the deck to encroach 58' into the average lakeshore setback. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit a hardcover variance to allow 7,032 s.f (77.9%) where 6,960 s.f (77.11%) exists and 2,256.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C): In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. To permit 3,661 s.f. (23.8%) of lot coverage. Application Summary: The applicants proposal to replace an existing deck and adding a small bump out section, 8' x 12', was tabled at the November 15,1999 Planning Commission meeting. The applicants are proposing to replace the existing deck, add the bump out section, and remove 829 s.f of hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing second story deck on the lakeside of the house. The deck, floor boards and joists that were built into the house originally are rotting. The deck extends 4' from the house and is the full widtii of the house. In eiddition to replacing the existing deck the applicant is proposing to add a small section onto the deck. The section would be approximately 8' X 12' to allow a sitting area. The house was built in 1959 at its present location and has not been added onto. The driveway is shared with neighbors through an easement and the lot is undersized for its zoning district. H254i Ted Edin 3025 Casco Point Road Variance 1/N/OO Page / AkAiTia I, ANALYSIS Area: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f, (.5 acre)100' Actual 15,370 s.f. (.35 acre)50' Hardcover Calculations: Distance from Shore Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0’-75’6,344 s.f.0 s.f. (0%)628 s.f. (9.9%)628 s.f. - no change 75'-250'9,026 s.f.2,256.5 s.f. (25%) 6,960 s.f. (77.11%) 6,227 s.f. (68.9%) Structural Coverage : Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 15,370 s.f.Allowed: 2,305.5 s.f. (15%) Existing: 3,589 s.f (23.3%) Proposed: 3,685 s.f (23.9%)- (8’xl2' added area) Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. it25-t3 Ted Edin 3024 Casco Point Road Variances PC-l/14/00 Page~2 r f » Issues for Consideration : 1. The residence was built in 1957 in its current position. There have not been any additions or changes to the original residence. The lot and average lakeshore setback is unusual because of the lot configuration to the north. 2. The joists of the deck are rotting and were built into the house and need to be replaced. 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances to rebuild the deck the same dimensions as exists. Exhibits A Application B Letter fiom applicant C Site Plan/Survey D Plat Map E Location Map F Average Lakeshore Setback G Hardcover Worksheets H Property Owner's List I Permit Record U2543 TedEdin 3025 Casco Point Road Variances PC-l/14/00 page-3 A Applicatioii # Date Received __lQ_z2Sl3J1 Amount Paid cm* OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S50.G0 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confoiming structures $250.00 After>the*Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATICS ^ ^ t Sit«Add«« 3 OILS Property Identification Number (P.I.D.1 3-0 3S Attach legal description to application if not included on required Date Property Acquired_______________________________ survey. (month/year) Zoning District: L I C_ APPLICANT other (specify).' 3’ V’>. Name R> ------------ ------x .. Address: 3:>ZS' pr- __ City: ^t>-J ’2--^^ Phone (horne d ^ 7 (^ Phone (^oric) Zin: S-S-3^( "'S •K S * OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Address:,___________________City:. Phone (home). Phone (woric)_1 Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $. (attach additional sheets if necess^) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width y' Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify)•i HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code reqmrements:. (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to he considered complgtc: ) 1. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, l^ls and mag firom Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/S" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additior^ items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application b not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. L /?. Date Ij OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request '^Owner’s SignaHi?e-^._ Vi .CVriL lQ.Date ikr( ?? 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 mectin^ss of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a schr'lUed meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and ise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. A - - Theodore & Judidi Edin - 3025 Casco Point Road - Orono Description of Request - from page one A need to rebuild portions of the deck from second floor - home built in 1959 - Deck extends 4' from house, full width of house, with door leading directly from living room. As such it is the main and natural exit to the lawn and lake beyond the house. Several underlying supports show signs of rotting - a danger in the near future Surface of the deck was attached with regular nails, now some boards are rising at the end* point where they are attached and cannot be nailed flat any longer - nails do not hold down Some of the deck boards are showing cracks and curling on the outer edges Uur request is to: Strengthen the supports where they are showing rot Replace the deck with boards attached properly with screws, spaced to drain water below Replace the railings with horizontal “spacers ’ most likely • installed to current code for spacers between each post Add a small section, approximately 8 ’at the deepest point, and wide enough for a small table about 4* diameter and 4 small chairs. See two rough drawings as ideas for deck extension The entire roof overhang above the deck is very generous and collects the water from the roof which drains down on either side of the house, and into the ground/lawn beneath and either end of the deck. Our plans are to retain the lawn/grasscs beneath the deck extension, with no hardcover added. The only area we have changed, involving hardcover, is behind the garage. The replacement was frbric with “slots ’** draining the rain fall into the ground on purpose, to support the growth of large pine trees which grow along the north side, behind the garage. As a result, weeMs do grow in the summer, but the pine trees do flourish. All rainfall on the south side of the home drains from the roof, above and beyond the rocks and plastic in this area, onto the grassy areas beyond them and drains into the lawn below the house on the lake side. The two drain pipes which accomplish this are in place at all times but are removed during the winter months so ice does not back up into the gutters above them. Likewise, the rain from the entire north side of the house/garage drains into gutters and is carried into the ground frcrni two points at each end of the gutters. If necessary to make a trade-off we will remove the plastic from the area below the entire present deck and ackl a few plantings. 6 Cfe; 1 i I -\.<-:tifc^MP'«UJtj [ED EDINA & B. R.L.S. NO. 394 COUNTY. MINNESOTA rIs 394RV-^ E;rsoiuirrison :ArmBay zAj I 3i 30 MioI\iH_^ ShadJ^ood Point \V n DEERINO tivo3 -3 . Htlllit •VI* VMtIMf 17 Lake t-awTU ?^wmwgL HP ^6L|N0ALC MO 13Jl y. IND !l[f tnA IISUC ttTTt m Miimi 11 '23 lm«w» a M*MH» Crystal citiT*|L ftS^ iStOMlg iiw la Mi \ <\SHORCLiNC O fc\ o (O '/. Carman mmo hn Point y j&^OOOSEISLAND MLAWOVm MCAMTOMYND UflUKRD SPRAY ISU^ -c>r ^SHADY U\/.>. ISLAND • • TED EDIN•S A & B. R.L.S; NO. 394 IN COUNTY, MINNESOTA :.K SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE---- A. House X 11A1<X>CU \ LK Ul-. v i lU.N u ^JlvtvdllLL. 1 75-250' & Length X X X B. Garage X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____ + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______ X Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Potio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X •• \ O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____ - B 250-500' ^^sJ^lOOO* S.F. Width 1^5 4Z> 42Z X 100 Width 8 X 100 13 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.-COHCRETir S.F. S.F.-OECld S.F.-STOrtC W S F.-ROCK ^ S.F. S.F. 62g 1 S.F. A S.F. B «?.q ± % 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. % Mil A B i • • IIAICJJLUV LK i SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X ____ LengUi X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway » • * X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B ^S»250^ >un,iLi 250-500' W-1000* 350^ s.F. - ywSB Width 924 22 D s 1471 X 100 Width X 100 « s f,»cohcRF*i s.f! w/ s.f.-w0#o W/ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.- • S.F-Ro^Aft S.F. S.F. S.F. i S.F. qgZA 1 ~S.F. 77.11 1 ___% B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.- S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F B % MN DATE lt/19/99 MTCN S9« HENNEPIN COUNTY PBOPEHTV INFOPMATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI9SMR1 PAOE IS h ONNiR NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SR 2R-117-2S SR RRRl •SRS5 CASCO POINT RD T RERTNIAUNE/C RACHENNEISTER TNOHAS • KRTHIAUNE 5R55 CASCO POINT ROAD MAYZATA MN 55591 30 2R-117025 SR R9R2 •5925 CASCO POINT RO T R EDIN OJA EOIN TNEOOORE 0 JUDITN EOIN 3R2S CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55591 SO 2R-117-25 SR RRiS •SR15 CASCO POINT RO R 0 LAURIE ETAL R 0 LAURIE SR15 CASCO PT RD MAYZATA MN 55S91 r "i " ? S. PROP AOOR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 2R-117-2S SR R012 •SORS CASCO POINT RO R A KASTENS ROC KASTENS RICHARO A/OARBARA C KASTENS SRR5 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55S91 SO 2R-117-2S SR RRIO •3R55 CASCO POINT RO JOHN P OENNIS ETAL JOHN P 0 EVY C OENNIS SR5S CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA NN 55391 SO 20>117-2S SR 0R2R •SRRS CASCO POINT RD JANES R A CATHERINE HARTZELL J. JS R 8 CATHERINE NARTZELL 29b.' CASCO i T RD NAYZATA NN 55S91 PROP AOM ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TOTAL OATCH 59R RRRRR i CO f I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS OATE ON TNE RECOROS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE Bl*T OF NY KNONLEDCE AND BELIEF. DATE F. A />1 3css Cic'Lyjec fJ-f- i^ci PERMIT RECORD Permit Mo. S*l9 Date -7-7^____nit7/^'> - Ml *^r Y — 1 ^ A.SfzL.... .^ , .. ,. -^- . - J. - -u_. _ 4'/‘5'<?V V-3'<96, T Type of Peralt fkeUu^ H€e/tqp V \ C//- /^Ljld I “ Ic, 0 b >> L Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 120 Day Extension: 10-20-99 10-20-99 12-20-99 2-20-200( To;Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 12,2000 #2547 Kimberli & Willi Abbott 470 Big Island After-the-Fact Variances and CUP Exhibits:- 11/24/99 Notice of Tabling - Memo & Exhibits of 11/9/99 This item was tabled on November 15 because the applicants were not present. i -i i CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 612-249-4600 Fax 612-249-4616 ZONING FILE #2547 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 24,1999 TO: KimberU & WUU Abbott COPIES TO: Sam McCloud 5905 Ivy Lane 17495 Marystown Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 Shakopee, MN 55379 TYPE OF APPLICATION:X Variance X Conditional Use Permit Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 11-15-99 VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: ___Approval as submitted ___Approval subject to conditions noted below ___Denial for reasons noted below X Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicants were not present. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confumed as: Planning Commission: Wednesday, January 19,2000; meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. Applicaiit may wish to contact City staff to discuss certain issues addressed in the November 9 memo; specifically, to what extent applicant will agree to remove decking, and the provision of a formal plan for modification of the wall/stair/deck system. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available firom the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. 60-Day Review Waiver Because the Planning Commission docs not meet in December, Jeuiuary 19 is the earliest opportumty for review by the Platming Comi;J.ssion. The City is required by state statute to review and act on zoning applications within 60 days of receipt. Your 60-day review period would expire on December 20. Therefore, the City must extend the normal 60-day review period by an additio^ 60 days to February 20,2000. Please sign and return (by mail or fa.x) a signed copy of this Notice with your signature acknowledging acceptance of the 60-day extension. Absent such signature, the Council will be requested to formally deny the application on December 13. I HEREBY AGREE TO A 60.DAY EXTENSION OF THE REVIEW PERIOD FOR APPLICATION NO. 2547: Applicaot*t Slgoiturs /O AppUcatioo Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 10-20-99 lfr-20-99 12-20-99 To:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commii sion Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaf&on, Senior Planning CootdmzXov^f ’ November 9,1999 #2547 Kimberli & Willi Abbott 470 Big Island After-the-Fact Variances and CUP Zoning District: RS Seasonal Recreational District (5 acre) Lot Size: 43,726 s.f. (1.00 acre) Summary of Request: Applicants are purchasing this property from current owner Sam McCloud. Applicants request approval of the necessary variances to allow the continued existence of a lakeshore retaining wall and stairway system that was constructed without the proper permits sometime between 1987 and 1990. A primary issue for Planning Commission to consider is how much of the extensive decking associated with the walls and stairway should be allowed to remain in place. All of the construction in question is within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed. This would also be an appropriate opportunity to address the 1991 building additions and a lot area variance. Pertinent Code Sections: Section 10.55. Suhd. 8 - Prohibits grading, hardcover, and structures within 75' of shoreline. Section 10.31. Subd. 9 - In RS district, allows no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures within 75' of the shoreline. Section 10 03 Subd. 19 - Prohibits changes in grade or construction/alteration of retaining walls on a lakeshore property without a conditional use permit (CUP). Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (Adopted post-construction of this wall/deck/stair system) - Various Shoreland ordinances regulating topographic alterations and grading or filling within 75' of shoreline, allowing no hardcover within 75' of shoreline, and allowing no structures except stairway, lift, landing, or lockbox within 75' of shoreline. Ordinance 39.2nd Series - Waived fees and allowed staff to issue permits for reptur of lakeshore damage caused by the 1987 'superstonn', effective 7-27-87 thru 8-31-87. 'iTiTOiWlHiTii • WM • '.WiWt •HMU* n«^[i ;iinr«niT*^iikiiiiiH(%rsW%M%^ :umi«i •WmI« ■ •] p. I i\n •7.»T: I •[€>»' «1M r«T.irt • PUil r«r«mroii(»• )lT*^.«P ^TTTflMPI« mT-^iiIiXL M1 r« 1OE •] C • Vi L«lrtll *J ^llT^ifioviPirtiivvi WMlMl-TlItPUW ii •] civi'^i Eo m pi ^•KT.TiP FTmTTTpXVP ^2547 Kimberli & Willi Abbott470 Big IslandVariance/CUPNovember 9,1999Pages b) Modification of retaining walls to eliminate all portions in ex^ss of 3-4 hi^ applicant to submit revised plans for City Engineer and Planning Commission approval of additional walls to be constructed between remaining walls.c) Maximum allowed width of remaining walkways and stairs is 4’. Applicant to submit a planting schedule to provide for vegetative screening of the remaining retaining walls. Such schedule shaU detail toe type, lo^on, number and size of plantings. Upon approval by toe Planning Cominissioii, planting schedule shall be adher^ to with completion of plantings withm 12 months of completion of retaining wall modifications. Approval of a hardcover variance only for toe retaining walls and 4’ walkway/stair^y system (hardcover percentages to be determined when revised proposal is submitted/approved). Recommend Council adoption of ”automatic lot area variance" resolution in conjunction with resolution of after-the-fact variance application. Applicant to obtain necess^ after-the-fact building permit prior to modification of toe retaining walls and stairway system. 5. Deck by cabin shall be modified to eliminate encroachments into toe 0-75 ’ setback. 6. Recommend that McCloud finalize toe subdivision of toe adjacent lakeshore strip (this was later completed). Concurrently, toe Building Inspector wus working with McCloud regarding toe addition to toe cabm, for which no construction plans were available. Further activity on this application did not occur until Dec^ter 19W at which review of the -..alls was submitted by Liesch Engineering, followed Ijr a lands^ ViUage Craftsmen. On 1-19-93 Planning Commission again reviewed the apphcation and tabled it, directing McCloud to: 1. Provide registered professional engineer certification for the retaining walls (toe Liesch report was not signed by a PE). 2. Provide plans to modify walls such that terrace widths do not exceed 3'. 3. Provide plans for removal of retaining walls serving merely to support the deck. 4. 4.Bring this back to Planning Commission after ice-out so the site could be viewed. #2547 KimberliA Willi Abbott 470 Big Island Variance/CUP November 9, 1999 Page 4In spring 1993 staff met with McCloud’s representatives on site, but no further activity occurred. Staff letters to McCloud in 1994 and 1997 yielded no action. The pen^g sale of the property now provides the City with an opportunity to resolve this long-standing violation.Review of Current ApplicationThe Abbott application is simply a request for retention of the walls and stairway. Their request does not clearly specify whether they will accept removal of most of the decking, and the current application does not provide the plans that were required per the 1993 Planning Commission direction. It would be inappropriate to merely require removal of portions of the deck system without having information cemfirming that the deck removal will not have negative structural effects on the retaining wall system. The need for the retaining walls is apparent; the bank is steep, it eroded in 1987 ^d would likely continue to do so absent some form of retention system. The need for the stairway is also apparent; again, the bank is steep, and the City has long acknowledged that lakeshore properties with steep shorelines should be allowed a means of pedestrian access to the shoreline, subject to keeping such access stairs limited in width and visual impact. No need or hardship has been demonstrated for the extensive decking in the 0-75' zone, in staffs opinion. Hardcover Review The original surveys in 1991 indicated 0-75 ’ hardcover of 1,315 s.f. or 10.1%. Staffs 1991 review indicated it slightly higher at 1,408 s.f. or 10.9%. The structure reductions proposed in the City Engineer’s letter of 3-11-91 would result in a reduction to jqiproximately 419 s.f. or 3.2%. Recover in the 75-250 ’ zone is approximately 8%, well under the 25% limit for this zone. See Exhibit F4b. Cabin Addition The 20 ’x30’ cabin addition constructed without permits meets all required setbacks. Staffs recollection is that the foundation and underpinnings of this addition could not be suitably iMpected, and the addition permit was never issued. A Permit should be issued after the fact, with a disclaimer regarding the structural integrity unless suilable information can be supplied.. In 1983 each Big Island Record Lot was given the opportunity to be granted an ’Automatic Lot ^a Variance’. McCloud returned the paperwork for this in 1985 but it apparently wa^ never finalized. Staff reconunends that the lot area variance be granted for this one-acre lot. »2S47 KimberliA Willi Abbott 470 Big Island Variance/CUP November 9,1999 Pages Staff Recommendation Staff recommends as follows: 1.Approval of land alteration CUP and variance for retaining walls and stairway to remain, subject to: Removal of all decks except portions necessary as walkways between stairways. Also, removal of any retaining walls serving merely to support the deck. Modification of retaining walls to eliminate all portions in excess of 3-4 ’ high, and to result in terrace widths not exceeding 3'. The intent is to create terraces that can be suitably planted to screen the wall system. Applicant to submit revised plans for City Engineer and Planning Commission approval of additional walls to be constructed between remaining walls. Applicant to provide registered professional engineer certification for the retaining walls. c) d) Maximum allowed width of remaining walkways and stairs is 4'. Applicant to submit a planting schedule to provide for vegetative screening of the remaining retaining walls. Such schedule shall detail the type, location, number and size of plantings. Planting schedule shall be adhered to widi completion of plantings within 12 months of completion of retaining wall modifications. 2.Approval of a hardcover variance only for the retaining walls and 4* walkway/stairway system (final hardcover percentages to be determined when revised proposal is submitted/approved). 3.Applicant to obtain necessary after-the-fact building permit prior to modification of the retaining walls and stairway system. 4. Deck near the cabin shall be modified to eliminate encroachment into the 0-75’ setback zone. 5. Applicant to obtain after-the-fact permit for cabin additions constructed without permit. 6.Recommend Council adoption of ’’automatic lot area variance" resolution in conjunction with resolution of after-the-fact variance/CUP/building permit application. Options for Action P'.in»:?ing Commission may recommend approval subject to staff receipt and approval of design plans as specified in item 1 above prior to scheduling this for Council action; QE Planning Commission may table this item pending receipt of plans for Planning Commission review. Tabling will require an extension of the 60-dav review period because there is no December Planning Com mission meeting. L, Application # 2. ^*^7 Date Received T Amount Paid ^00 ^ 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 ^CC.CO ^Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^10 &l(s ________________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.1 * 1H ~ ^2. GO*? 2.Property Identification Number rpim >>z. w «^------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Progeity Acquired_____________________________________ I (do) ^'^n^ also own the adjacent pgcels of land. Present uscofproTCrty: X residentiad ‘^‘^^f^other (specify)________ listrict: _____________ -___________________— (month/year) -1 .1 Zoning District; APPLICANT . , , .. Name Willi AHCT Address: Phone (home)_fJ2!2l2i£i Phone (work)_£2£lii2l^ _ City : Mi/wriP^n f-) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name . \ Phone ^ome^ ^^ ,, Name (work ) Address: (Po.arA ci^ Qvih<jjpf€.— Zip: ^7g- i DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $_^--------4^, ^ Describe request in detail: \^9 j dypj hVit Hi/l ApC¥ W haHnW rh/U/'CUUI Yi[Y)Un Cv) '^'1^ alf9(^v Qt l^yiYY) Ui'IU' VARIANCES REQUIRED . , ^ — L0‘A~ _U,tWid* Setback: Ftoat __Side ___Rear ___ Average Lakeahore fit Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property coiditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: d ti d --------------------- (attach additional sheets if nec^3sar>) k REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to be gonsidcred gnmpletei 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).'3fe Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views provide one (1) copy 854" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons wilii an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not cunent owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied if true and correct lo the best of^s^er knowledge. Applicant's Signature tiuhck'Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date / ' Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is imable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 1008.67 — - 320.76 156. 3 .^' ^ o Bay \ 150 ST T5< 20 -o;!9 /\ \ Leo /5^ (3) aI' •>mv>%:>(317 (4) C27) 10±y'20) 4- 'W V <»A%J4\(19) \64), (62K08)\ ^ XL :l? V. ■> V4^XX. <<' \ \ 'I PiiiiiPi :v:; « • < siiPiSwiiiiS « • • • «^a:-.X:< K :•/:•>: t::*>:v•M «*.*•*.*« •»«.-- ——■ * •X. •.••• • •••x...- •«•,i(3)179.75 ^ »• J (11) 181. 1 »^ (10)6 u > (0 ,v \ l.\ \ \ ✓ (2)32 o a>l 203 215 4 \ 210, mtm4- 1 *>A •!>«>■ ■U • • 5|T^ V I I :;;.!Krr£« I .•*' ■IC isu% lv<oc^2J MIN DATE lt/lD/99 DATCN 5«S HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA5SAR1 PACE IS PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SS 22-117-2S lA OSSS •STAS DIO ISLAND HENN CTY PARK RES DIST HENN CO PARK RESERVE DIS P 0 SOX 2AS MAPLE PLAIN HN SSSBf SS 22-117*2S A1 SSS2 •SA7S BIG ISLAND SAMUEL A MCCLOUD SAMUEL A MCCLOUD P 0 BOX 21A SHAKOPEE MN 55S7S SS 22-117-2S A1 SSOS •SASS BIG ISLAND NANCY L FARNES NANCY L FARNES 271S FOXGATE DR MINNETONKA HN S5SS5 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SS 2S-117-2S S2 SSS2 SSAAS BIO ISLAND NANCY L FARNES NANCY L FARNES 271S FOXGATE OR MINNETONKA MN 5SSSS SS 2S-117-2S S2 SSIS SSAAS BIG ISLAND NANCY L FARNES NANCY L FARNES 271• FOXGATE OR MINNETONKA MN S5SS5 SS 2S-117-2S S2 SSll SSAAS BIG ISLAND NANCY L FARNES NANCY L FARNES 271S FOXGATE OR MINNETONKA MN 5SSSS i niOP AOM OMNeil NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR M 2S-117-23 32 EE12 •MAE ilG ISLAND NANCY L FARNES NANCY L FARNES 27it FOXGATE DR NINNETONKA HN SSStS 38 23-117-23 32 0818 •0400 RIG ISLAND T 8 F HANNA TED R HANNA 14115 XNOLLWAY DR S NINNETONKA HN 55305 38 23-117-23 32 0014 00500 816 ISLAND EUGENE A NELSON EUGENE A NELSON 4720 3RD ST N E OLAXNE HN 55434 n n f< di in OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 23-117-23 32 0020 00250 8X0 ISLAND FRED A 8RUNTJEN FRED A 8RUNTJEN 80X 584 EXCELSIOR NN 55331 38 23-117-23 32 0042 00480 816 ISLAND J 8 C PANOZZO CELIA PANOZZO 40214 EYOTNA NAY ONANIA NN 54354 38 23-117-23 32 0072 00470 JIG ISLAND SANUEL A NC CLOUD SANUEL A NC CLOUD P 0 80X 214 SHAKOPEE NN 55374 -•1 Ol OIRCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR TOTAL BATCH SSS SSS12 I • •• % M' vetw/c tiidT UMcMxaJb (AY\cUti'ffyis dUmcLnCl ifuf tayuMd Ct>djy 6fm/ntyK^Z /p/ fluy [yimA^ AX lijo i3lo lUdiALii. Oiw to St&iMS I/) th B^'s iM I'nU^Ld^ . of -Uxis jM>pcyh^ wad scamM-c^ XAodiM^, A) MT oi S>uU cuitL ■AaM'I mix MxnJ\jdniJ^Ay, Cu UiM tUvuLy ^ Aihoixiuif UjtU, UiOd rwded. io ACxp th£. JlXwyCeyo. fl^ey d£M^p/\ A the, IjjUO (MCMfAACdjJi AU AiTUAuJOA^ iOh/cA ly^ fwdxd’ dAAO k> Micj) hojU'. LA ^'^w^ldjMA'ihuA -tAXLji/hdA/ the heudexy^ Coie-Let ik/ mxhie>Xi^AL . JlMJpAU^ MUUOj (ajo/) Cimputi/. HiX to OiXufif tM, ^ructi^LL of tf\A r^Xtiinanc '.mU. cvh/ch -f&utui ct he Lb yoiLAd iiiAjubiwAif.. tPus cp%ciuk^ kas. hm\ un fiieue ^ !?- uears t/Mh m ^imUuxiiL fyboj)(Mne tU^eO Jxoaa Mq>pc<i- tl^ Mu/ mcL MU^ uito UU^ 'flic- jXifpcAh^ ih yiow p&n{tuiA saJjl eu\(L itM mte Aicd£ h bo m^A^, Xke, MAnuxonc:^ iawlL Ucj Jb fNL 9cUx ^ Uxo AiyKtr^ Ad Ut .notTUA-S H\0 cM. Aae\xi ;;^owi ^^uhXheA' diM^>xAXuxtvmb /nov/^ OUi^ h /Ke- caXMu . tt»i i \, •'w V-A F-l CITY OF OF?ONO 1 , CITY of ORONO P«Mt Office Bos 66*Crystal Bay. MianesoU S5323*Maaidpal OfBos On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January 23r 1991 h.f Sanual A* McCloud Law Office 5101 Highway 55 Minneapolisr MN 55422 Re: Big Island Record Lot #22 Dear Mr. McCloud: During the City ’s October 1990 inspection of the septic system serving your cabin on Big Islandf the fo xowi g observations were made: 1. A major addition to the cabin has been recently constructed. This addition did not exist «h«n«e inspected septic systems on Big Island in nm indicate no permit was issued for this addition. A platf deck adjacent to the cabin also appears to be new construction. 2. A massive deck/wall/stairway system has been constructed in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, a clear and direct violation of Orono's hardcover and ordinances which have been in effect since the • Again our files indicate no permits were ever applied for or issued for this construction. The work appears to have been recently completed, since this lakeshore construction was not there in 1985. You are hereby required to make the appropriate fact application for construction of the additions ^such as well as the platform deck system abutting the cabin. Such application must be received in this office by February 15, 1991. Further, you are hereby required deck/stairway/retaining wall structure if, ^^®^setback zom no later than February 22, 1991. Optionally, by noon on Februa^ 22, 1991, you must make application for an , variance for this structure. Failure to meet this deadline wixi result in issuance of violation citations. Both the building permit and variance applications will require submittal of a current Certificate of Survey verifying the location of structures within the property. BUILDING A ZONING • 473.7357 ASSESSING administration a R.NANCE - 473-73Si FAX-4734510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Sam McCloud Re: Record Lot #22, Big Island January 23, 1991 Page 2 of 2 An application is attached should you ® 473«-7357 if you wish to discuss this matter* Sincerely, . j/ Michael P. Gafftw, Asst Planning a loning Administrator MPG/tln Attachments: 1. Building Permit Application 2. Variance Application ... . 3. Zoning Code Section 10.31, Subd. 8 and 9 cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building a Zoning Administrator Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Tom Barrett, City Attorney CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION a Site Address Sia island Record Lot #22 _____________ ■' V •• / 23-117-23-01-0013 23-117-23-01-0015 Property Identification Number (P.I.D. )23-ll7-23-oi-0Qi4 22-117-23-41-0001 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. r rrvr.r r'-'V'iwill OiiuiVj iT Ty*.-^n'rir ~cr*"*rI t.M : .*^1. ^ w'w VVVWtf 01 5?/ l--£\ Pw =205720 cool hOl Til HI •t* /"•/Cf V 7 it ••r. mm» m m • i— 1 f # M * fc'V APPLICANT Phone (home) 533-9621 Name Samuel A. McCloud Phone (work) 542-9801 Address : 5101 Highway 55 city s Minneapolis Zip: 55440, OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Same as above.Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired April, 1985 (month/year) I $SICK) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Seasonal Recreational Present Use of Property SeasonaJ.Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQ Estimated Construction Cost $30.000.00 Describe request in detail: After-the-fact varlancft from 0-75* «afhac> zonefor retaining wall/deck/stairway structure (See attached statement). VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other Setback - lakeshore . I HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; steep slope on property suffered erosion damage; potential for further grosion damaa«» withoiih ant-ion t-ak«»n; app^^<^an♦ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS has expended considerable sum to protect hill Describe unusual property conditions pre^enring^coli^ilance with Zoning Code Requirements; see above and attached statement. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8Jj"xll" for reproduction). Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy Sh^xll"). S)cetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8Js"xll"). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 7/01 /Q1 OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acicowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date 0/01 /qi 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 malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ! i.« O W rW i CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Big island Record Lot 122____________________________ 23-117-23-01-0013 23-117-23-01-0015 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 23-li7-23-oi-ooi4 22-ii7-23-4l-oooi Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Samuel A. McCloud Phone (home) 533-9621 Phone (woric) 542-9801 Address; 5101 Highway 55 __________ OmnSR (if different than applicant) Name same as above. City ; Minneapolis Phone (home) Zip; 65440 Phone (wor)c) L t!■,y f ■> I «•. — N -rr-r-. . V '> ■X J J ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SAMUEL A. McCLQUD VARIANCE APPLICATION I am applying for an after-the-fact variance from the City of Orono with respect to a retaining wall/stairway/deck system that was built on my property in 1987. In particular« I am seeking a variance from the application of city ordinances that restrict structures and hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. I purchased this property in April, 1985. The property is located on Big Island and faces southwest. Most of the property is gently rolling and is situated on a hill above Lake Minnetonka. The portion of the property that is adjacent to Lake Minnetonka is very steep, with an angle of approximately 30 degrees. There are several large trees and other ground cover located on this steep slope. During the "storm of the century" in July, 1987, a massive portion of the hill adjacent to Lake Minnetonka washed out. taking with it the stairway which extended down towards the shoreline and two <2) large trees. The aftermath of the storm resulted in an extremely sharp incline down to the shoreline and a bowl shaped depression in the hill. Shortly thereafter, I hired a contractor from western Minnesota to build an addition to the existing cabin and to build a retaining wall/stairway/deck system to preserve and strengthen the eroded hillside, provide access to the shoreline and prevent further damage to the hill in the event of another heavy rainfall. The contractor provided me with a bid for the i T : . . .jr ». *• ■ Tt Ji. W-’ f ^ wall/stairway/deck system which, l was informed. > • •. * retaining • J ^ *•*? //* •! Kif included the cost of all permits to complete the construction. The contractor also told me that he would see to it that all of the proper permits were acquired prior to construction. Obviously, to my surprise, I have now learned that the necessary permits and variances were never obtained. I am requesting that the City of Orono issue a variance so that the present structures, as constructed, may remain in their current state. This includes the retaining wall/ stairway/deck system on the hill adjacent to the lake and the deck located next to the house, which barely encroaches into the 75 foot setback zone. The topography of the property, the washout of the steep slope, the destruction of the stairway and the loss of two large trees created a hardship situation that warrants the variance. Obviously, I was not responsible for creating the washout of the hill and the associated damage. I was faced with a situation whereby a heavy rainfall in the future could further erode my property and could ultimately place the home on the property in jeopardy. The structures, as built, serve several useful purposes that warrant your attention; 1.The retaining wall system is necessary to control soil erosion and water run off. The retaining wall system is more ®^^icient in this regard than other systems, such as those that use erosion blankets. With the use of erosion blankets, there is a greater chance of rainwater flowing directly into the lake 4 ■S '. ■ -.n .» • i* *V < K\J s and erosion of topsoil into the lake. u Furthermore^ erosion blankets tend to be temporary measures and their effectiveness is dependent upon the ability of ground foliage to ultimately adhere to the hillside. On the other hand, the retaining wall system creates pockets and terraces for the water to collect and percolate down through the soil and creates barriers to halt the erosion of the soil on the hillside. In addition. retaining walls are not temporary remedial measures but instead are permanent solutions to the particular landscape problem. 2. The retaining wall/deck system actually promotes the purposes of the hardcover ordinance by assisting the slow. methodical percolation of rainwater through the soil. The spirit and intent of Orono's hardcover ordinance, is to ensure that rainfall run off will be cleansed by filtering through grass or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. Without the retaining wall/deck system, rainfall would most certainly wash down the steep hill directly into Lake Minnetonka. On the other hand, the retaining wall/deck system impedes this direct flow into the lake by causing rainfall to hit the horizontal deck area, collect on the deck and then pass through the openings between the deck boards, much as if the deck were acting like a coffee filter in an automatic drip coffeemaker. This process decreases the amount of erosion and also allows the rainwater to seep more slowly into the ground. 3. The retaining wall/deck system provides protection to the trees on the hill by controlling erosion and the loss of soil around their root systems. It is important to note that j 4. no trees were removed from the hillside to accommodate the construction of the retaining wall/stairway/deck system. On the contrary, great care was taken to build the structure around existing trees to ensure their longevity. 4.The zig-zag" design of the stairway is necessary because of the extreme slope of the hill and provides a safer means of descent to the lakeshore. The drawings submitted along with this application show that the hill drops 17 feet over a 36 foot span. This creates an angle of 30 degrees. The zig-zag nature of the stairway and the landing room on the deck, afford more protection to an individual if he were to fall on the stairway. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, the retaining wall/stairway/deck system does not jeopardize the integrity of the locality. First, the entire structure is made of wood and has remained in a natural wood color. Second, during the seasons when Lake Minnetonka is most heavily used, the entire structure is not readily noticeable from the water because it is partially concealed foliage the hillside. Furthermore, the structure is not visible to a good portion of the main body of the lake since the property is tucked back into one of the bays that comprise Big Island. Finally, much of the horizontal decking material is not visible from the water since a good portion of the deck is located on top of the hill. For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that the City approve my request for a variance so that the retaining wall/stairway/deck system and the deck next to the house may remain in their present positions. eiiyi 1 1 r Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Ooo G. Sonegio a P£. Hoocrt W. iosene. PE. Joseph C. Andert*. P£ Mjfvm L SorvaU. PE lUhjid E. lUner. PE Gienn P. Coolc. PE. Thomas E. Noyei P£. Hoben G. Schunchc, PE Susan M. EfcefWi. CEA Engineers & Architects iCrth A Goidon. PE Pichaid W Poser. PE Donald C. Burg»dt PE. Jerry A tomdoa PE Mam A Hanson. PE 1M E F«kl PE. Michael T. Paucmann. PE IlDbert t. Pfleflierie. PE David Q Loskou. PE Thomas W Peterson. PE Michael C Lynch. PE James E Maiand PE Kervieth P Anderson. PE Mark E Mofl PE. RDOert C ffussek. AIA Thomas E Angus. PE. HoMraid A Sanlbid. PE. Darnel i Edgerton. PE. Mark A Seipi PE Ph«p i Casvief. PE Ismael Mamncc. PE Mark D UM. PE. Thomas E Ancenoa AIA Gary P Pyiandef. PE Mies a Jensea PC " L Phtftp Gravel E PE «ene C Pkjmart AJA Agnes M. Eng. Af C P Jerry D Permch. PE Ceoio OHvicr. PE Aooert E DifOiOMt PE. Gary W. Moncrt. PE Charles A Enckson Leo M. Pavvefsky Harran M. Olson March 11,1991 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Mike Gaffron Re: Me Cloud (Big Island) Our File No. 139-1627 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the deck construction in the 0-75 ’ lake shore area on the Me Cloud property @ Big Island. The deck was constructed over a series of retaining walls that protect the lake shore bank. The bank failed during the big storm of 1987. We would recommend that a majority of the deck be removed. The cross hatched area would indicate the stairway and deck that could remain in place. The retaining walls will have to be modified because they do not appear to be stable in all cases without the overling deck. The owner should be required to provide a new plan with the modified retaining walls and proposed deck and stairway area. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:dh 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 4 J \•• •I V4I , fhc \79>» 17B.3T oF tc» UEMAR8 • GABRIEL ND SURVEYORS. INC. MM H«f6or Itf*# No. Plymouth MN 89441 Pnono («i8)99t-090f I Htrtby Cf'tity that thil <t • Hut and coMtct rtpfcteniation ol a tuoty of tna bounjarici of tha above described land and of the location of ail buiidmot. ♦ •r'y, thereon, and til visible er>croachments. if any. from or on ia>d land. As su'v*\ed by rre /?h.. .... JL a», 01 ____t9fL M.Cl pm File No. (^(fSO" C. Book - Page /5^> -£0 ^a>e rr „ 1 i TO Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Frons Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Datex Subject: March 12, 1991 #1627 Samuel A. McCloud, Record Lot 22, Big Island After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - RS, Recreational Seasonal Application - After-the-fact request for hardcover and structure variances in the 0-75* zone. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M - ^plication Letter of Request Plat Map Property Owners List Request to Adopt "Automatic Lot Area Variance" Survey Deck Plans (as-built) City Engineer's Comments Hardcover Review by Staff Photos 8/90, 1/91 Letter to Sam McCloud 1/23/91 Letter to Carter Delaittre 2/19/91 Re: Application #889 "Automatic Lot Area Variance" Resolution Pertinent Code Sections - 1. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Prohibits grading, hardcover and structures within 75* of the shoreline. 2. Section 10.31, Subdivision 9 - In RS zone, allows no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures within 75* of the shoreline. Limits hardcover to 25% in the 75-250* zone. 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 - Prohibits changes in grade or construction or alteration of retaining walls, without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. 4. Ordinance 39, 2nd Series - Waived fees and allowed staff to issue permits for repair of the 1987 superstorm lakeshore damage, effective 7/27/87 through 8/31/87. • « ' •* r ^ f •p C- V- ih*' Zoning File #1627 March 12, 1991 Page 2 of 5 Smnnary - Applicant purchased the property in 1985. The 1987 Super Storm caused a slumping failure of the lakeshore bank. The applicant hired an unnamed contractor from "western Minnesota" to build an addition to the existing cabin and build the retaining wall/stairway/deck system. The contractor obtained no permits from the City. This construction work was found by the City during the 1990 septic system inspections of Big Island, and the property owner was duly notified of the violations. The Building Department is treating the after-the-fact permit application for the cabin additions as a separate application, not requiring a variance. The application before the Planning Commission is for after-the-fact variances and conditional use permit to allow the retaining wall/deck/stairway system to remain as-is. Pertinent Pacts - 1. Prior to construction of the existing deck/retaining wall/stairway system, a stairway approximately 4* wide and 40* long provided access from the lakeshore to the residence on the property. The steep bank merits some type of stairway system to provide access. Hardcover with this previous stairway is estimated at just over 1% of the 0-75* zone. 2. Exhibit I Indicates that existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone is approximately 10.9%, including all portions of the deck/retalnlng wal 1/stalrway system in the 0-75' zone and landward of the 929.4' elevation. A portion of the hinged deck extends lakeward of the 929.4' elevation. Such structure appears to be prohibited by LMCD regulations. Section 2.12, Subdivision 2 (B). 3. The applicant hired Edgework Builders to provide an after- the-fact plan of the retaining wall system, however Edgework Builders was not involved in the original design or construction of this wall system. Staff would request confirmation from Edgework Builders that all of the cribbing and deadman construction as shovm on the plan is in place. 4. City Engineer Glenn Cook has visited the site and viewed the structure, and has recommended the following: A. The majority of the deck should be removed. B. Portions of stairway and deck walkway could remain in place to provide access from the shore to the cabin . Zoning File #1627 March 12$ 1991 Page 3 of 5 C. The retaining walls will need to be modified because they are already showing signs of instability» and because in some locations the overlying deck structure to be removed does enhance the stability of the walls because they are so high. In discussions with the Engineer, staff determined that one optional solution would be to lower the portions of retaining walls exceeding 3-4' in height, and add additional walls between the remaining walls. This would likely provide the necessary stability while allowing spaces for additional plantings to help screen the walls. Additionally, this would eliminate the need for railings extending upward from deck sections. The storage area adjacent to the main stairway would be eliminated. The final hardcover in the 0-75' after these reductions is estimated at less than 4%. Discussion - Please review the applicant's letter of request. Applicant points out five specific useful purposes for the structure as built, and indicates that the topography and obvious potential for bank erosion create a hardship situation that warrants the variance. While a number of trees tend to somewhat soften the visual appearance of this structure as viewed from the Lake, there is no question that this type of deck structure is in total non­ conformity with the letter and Intent of the zoning code, and further, does not conform with various land use policies contained in the City of Orono Community Management Plan. The City of Orono has a track record of requiring pre-existing non- conforming lakeshore structures to "de-intensify" or disappear as they fall into disrepair, and approval of new construction and hardcover of the magnitude of this structure would be unusual in the 0-75' zone. Additional Issues - In 1983, Orono rezoned Big Island and defined "Record Lots" which recognized historic patterns of use and ownership, intending to keep substandard, commonly owned lots permanently in common ownership. Record lot property owners were offered the opportunity to be granted an "automatic lot area variance , generally allowing them specific continued rights to use their properties for standard single family seasonal recreational uses. Zoning File #1627 March 12, 1991 Page 4 of 5 The McCloud property time, and common operty was owned by Eugene Nelson at that ownerships Involving Nelson's relatives ultimately resulted In the current Record Lot designations. The automatic lot area variance documents were never finalized by Nelson, however, during his sale to McCloud in 1985, it was determined that a lot line rearrangement subdivision was necessary to properly allocate the lakeshore between Nelson's property and Record Lot 16 to the south (please see the 2/19/91 letter to Carter Delalttre). The 2/19/91 letter summarizes the history of Subdivision application #889 which was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in 1985 but got stalled out at the Council level due to the neighboring property owner's objections and lack of followup. The City would have granted the automatic lot area variance as part of the subdivision approval had that subdivision been finalized. In the meantime, the City technically cannot issue any building permits to McCloud until the automatic lot area variance has been granted. It is staff's position that, while the defined time period for "automatic" lot area variances has past, the City has been fairly lenient in holding to the time limitation for other Big Island properties as long as other issues are resolved in a timely manner. Approximately half of the property owners executed their automatic variances in 1984. The rest have been dribbling in over the years as properties are sold or as property improvements occur. Staff Re dation - Staff recommends as follows: 1. Approval of land alteration conditional use permit and variance for retaining walls subject to: a) Removal of all decks except portions necessary as walkways between stairways. b) Modification of retaining walls to eliminate all portions in excess of 3-4' high, applicant to submit revised plans for City Engineer and Planning Commission approval of additional walls to be constructed between remaining walls. c) Maximum allowed width of remaining walkways and stairs is 4'. Zoning File #1627 March 12, 1991 Page 5 of 5 d) Applicant to submit a planting schedule to provide for vegetative screening of the remaining retaining walls. Such schedule shall detail the type, location, number and size of plantings. Upon approval by the Planning Commission and Council, such planting schedule shall be adhered to with completion of plantings within 12 months of completion of retaining wall modifications. 2. Approval of a hardcover variance only for the retaining walls and 4' walkway/stairway system (hardcover percentage to be determined when revised proposal is submitted/approved). 3. Recommend Council adoption of "automatic lot area variance" resolution in conjunction with resolution of after-the-fact variance application. 4. Applicant to obtain necessary after-the-fact building permit prior to modification of the retaining walls and stairway system. 5. Deck near the house shall be modified to eliminate all portions encroaching into the 0-75* zone. 6. Recommend that Mr. McCloud and the owner of Record Lot 16 jointly request (in writing) reopening of subdivision application #889 at the City Council level to resolve the issue of the strip of shoreline in front of Record Lot 16 for which McCloud is still fee owner and tax payer. 7. Table application pending receipt of revised plan for walls and stairs/walkways and receipt of a planting schedule. The above recommendations constitute a partial approval/partial denial of the requested variances. If Planning Commission feels that special circumstances justify granting of additional deck areas or walkway widths, please give applicant specific direction as to those parameters. 1 1 .. SAMUEL A. McCloud variance application 1 I £y/S>77MC» 0~ls' lz,<\uo) L^r *#22. ^o&not^ op Pee.!^ /ueAs- HO‘^s€ ’Oeruy^A'i.L. s. vsre^ A-'’~ Ho c/, /& && i £ /V<9a s.'^./^),i /< 7S-2SO' CA^M /^ ^ art»C». 0^£^^-»ffW AtbVT?or^20 ylo 6(90 5.1x/V«2-//6 }(*s •4*^”7 i ysd^ - Vo //oe. K 2-ST3iCo S":f. “ S.2^ X f^gt;u.c.Tr?o^^ /N> 0**7Z Pir<^ ^\ty £//-^eyrd? 4i— AO) M La rf' A J - > ' f i »r*’!5" x/<?s 5TA1 ' 32- */ >‘12,- v& q>“)*■ 26 L.OvVKtoj6,y qy.n - 65 Zl^ i-C . /AJ 4^A»peie. ot'c^qo_ zn CAlft^TOf- i CV:r'//j;rr ^ ClVrf^Sf''* Pe(^ ^d'/L I>ri6t/CClO/‘0) Eoo 3,|£) J^ioo t I'lfCf ' r. Mfco “ 3>. 2.(ec<i«ii«J IS. t i city of ORONO P«^%l \ ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. APPROVING A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR RECORD LOT NO 22 PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 246, MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.31 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1.That Samuel A. McCloud is {kkk) the owner(s')/tax ­ payer (^) of record of the following described property located within the RS Seasonal Recreational Zoning District of the City: Exhibit "A” attached hereto. 2.That in adoption of Ordinance No. 246, the City Council reviewed ownership, development and use patterns on the islands and has deter­ mined that all the above described property combined is and shall hereinafter and henceforth be one "RECORD LOT" as defined in Section 10.31 of said ordinance. 3.That all the above described property when combined as one RECORD LOT is still less than the minimum lot size required for new lots in the RS District, but that this RECORD LOT is being used and/or may be used in the future for any permitted use in the RS District without adverse affect upon public health, safety, or welfare. CONCLUSION The City Council of Orono hereby grants a lot area variance to the above described RECORD LOT based on the above findings and subject to the following conditions: 1.This RECORD LOT including all the above described property combined shall henceforth be continued in common ownership by the same person or persons even if recorded as separate lots or tax parcels, and it shall not be subdivided, sold in parts, reduced in area or otherwise separated without application for and approval of a subdivision by the City. This condition shall not preclude future sale or transfer of the complete "RECORD LOT" as a single unit. 2.Granting this variance means this RECORD LOT may be used tor one- family seasonal recreational use without a structure; or a single new seasonal dwelling may be built; or an existing seasonal dwelling may be used, improved, added-onto or replaced; all without requiring further City Council review of lot size, but subject to strict com ­ pliance with all building permit, setback, hardcover, on-site sewage treatment and other performance standards for development in the RS District. City of ORONO QRQNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ 2; RECORD LOT NO. 22 : RESOLUTION NO. 3.Gran^tng this variance shall not vest any rights in the property other than as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 246, and shall not preclude a future City Council from amending, modifying or otherwise limiting development rights and/or performance standards in the RS District. 4.The undersigned has read and understood the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, agrees that the above described property constitutes a single RECORD LOT; agrees that the RECORD LOT use may be so limited by the City; and agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the day of ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk^-Mary C. Butler, Mayor (1) Property Owner(s)(2) STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) within and fojl. s'aid Coun , 1985, before me, a Notary Public personally appeared )cnown to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instru­ ment, and aclcnowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. i BARRY L. HOQEN lUtA NOTMYniSUC-MINN HENNEPIN COUN My CommlMion bp<rM Jtn. 13. iMt .......................................................... MY COMMISSION EXPIRES This document is being recorded for the benefit of the City of Orono per Minnesota Statutes 386.77. State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exempt This instrument was drafted by: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ! EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. i m Lots 9, 10, and 11, Morse Island Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Property Identification Numbers 23-117-23 32 0013, 23-117-23 32 0014, and 23-117-23 32 0015 respectively); and a parcel described as That part of Government Lot 3, Section 22, Tovmship 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 9, Morse Island Park, according to the recorded plat thereof and southerly of a line described as beginning at a point on the east line of said Government Lot 3, distant 260.00 feet south of the East 1/4 corner of said Section 22, thence southwesterly deflecting to the right 60 degrees to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and said line there terminating, which parcel is also described generally as the portion of Property Identification Number 22-117-23 41 0001 lying northerly of the westerly extention of the south line of Lot 9, Morse Island Park. 'i P i • • • * .*• ♦ • H-.'S- ’.. * *.•• .. V *. : .V • • \ . •4-; J 1: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 13, 1991 (#8)ZONING FILE S1626-TRAFF CONTINUED questioned what made his aoplicatior. unique. Kellev resoonded that the Pla.tr.ino Commission looks at each v^polication in a unique light, and that each must have a proven hardship. Ke said, "We are already granting you the lot area ana lot width Variances. If yo-r lot was undeveloped and had no. received municioal sewer, it would probably have to remain tnat wav. From tnv point of view, this is a buildaole lot, and you will either add on to the existing house, or start over. That is why I am indifferent. I nave no problem with the Variance for that matter. I do not want to see you compare the way in which we address your application with wnat v;e have aone in o.h cases." Traff asked Hanson if his opposition stems from the concerns raised by the Mitchells. Hanson replied, "No. I have done enough building to know that something can be constructed on this lot without requiring a Variance." Kelley reminded Traff that in the event the Planning Commission does recommend denial, he cou‘.d still tafce the application to Council for thair deciding vote. Bellov/s suggested that Mr. Traff bring back a schematic of the floor plan to give the Planning Commission a better understanding of his hardship. The Public Hearing was continued. (#9)ZONING FILE 11627-SAMUEL A. MCCLOUD RECORD LOT #22, BIG ISLAND AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING Samuel MuCloud, and his Attorney, present for this matter. Carter DeLaittre, were Kelley opened the Public Hearing at S:42 Gaffron to present his opening comments. p.ra., and asked Gaffron summarized the issues involved with Mr. McCloud s application, as outlined in his March 12, 1991, memo. He displayed a sketch and photo of the retaining wall/stairway/deck system that had been constructed on this property without proper permits. He added that the retaining walls were installed to restore damage to the bank that resulted fr.^m tjie 1987 superstorm. Gaffron said, "The City Engineer has examined the structure in terms of the necessity of the retaining walls. He determined that the width of the bank does need some kind of a - -D - 'f ^• ' ' fcA»' 'fi>: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 13, 1991 (#9)ZONING FILS S1627-MCCLOUD CONTINUED suooort svste.T.. He is s-igcssting what ine wslls v;i-r. a height exceeding * three or four feet he lowered and that scr.e interior v;alls be added. Tne City Engineer has indicated that the stability of the existing wails is questionable. Ke also stated that the lo\/er walls ivould be easier to screen irot\ tne xa.<e. Df“Laittre stated that there is a protected wetland that exists” from the Minnetonka Power Squadron property to Mr. McClouds. Ke said, ’'The 1937 storm washed out the existing « ft • « ^stairway and took out two trees. A major portion of the hill washed away, leaving a bowl shaped depression. Following that, Mr. McCloud hired a contractor to build an aadition on the cabin, and the contractor succestad that the bank should be restored with a retaining wall system. Ke informer. Mr. McCloud that he would obtain all the necessary permits. We found out, after-the-fact, that he had not obtain the permits. Tne structure is presentlv in place, and we believe it does controx the erosion on the property. This structure does meet the intent of the City'.‘5 Hardcover Ordinance, in that it allows^ water to percolate into the ground. Tne horizontal members o: decking do have spaces in between them, which allows the rain to xilter through. Tine stairway wns constructed in a zig-zag manner to limit the distance one would fall if that \/ere to occur. There i? quite a bit of vegetation that v/ould screen the structure from the lake in the Summer. The structure has a natural wood color.^ mm % m ^ ^ Because of the sharp drop on the hill and the terracing retaining walls, the railings on the top anc second level serve a safety purpose. W:lthout zho railiriCSf soneone could fal^ ofx. the edge and fall quite a distance. There were no complaints the neighboring oroperty owners about this structure, and I do not believe there have* been any since then. Mr. McCloud does have a fairly significant financial stake in this structure, and would like to receive approval for it to remain." Hanson questioned whether McCloud wouid have any recourse, financially, through the contractor. DeLaittre replied, "Mr. McCloud has tried to contcCt the builder, but has been unable to locate him." Bellows stated that she could not possibly approve such a structure in this location. She said, 'I am sorry, but I believe it is an owiier's responsibility to make sure that a contractor has in fact obtained the necessary permits. The City requires permits to be posted on the construction site. I believe this sttucture is extremely over-built and appropriate. It should be cut back to provide a minimum stairway access and whatever retaining walls are necessary to support the bank." Hanson stated that he totally agreed with Bellows. - 16 - ■] m.' •< PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD :iARCH 18, 1991 (?9)ZONING FILE 627-MCCLOUD CONTINUED . . . . . McCloud nsked f ;r z'\e onoortiunivy to n'..ike szr.e accitionax points. Ke stated that the fioorin: ct the decks are at crcunc level, and, therefore, are invisible frox the lake, ana chat the onlv portion of the structure that is visible. the retaining walls. He said. ”Th« City Engineer has recommencec tnat i Keep onlv the retaining v;alls. which are definitely recuirea to prevent the bank fror; further erosion. Tne design or the floo^ decking is such that it traps small quantities watar in betv/een each plank, which prevents water trom ^ust running down the bank. It promot.ts percolation of rainwater throughout the whole svsten. Tne City Engineer also recommended leaving at least a ‘oortion of the steps. T.ne only other aspect of this tha. may be disturbing to view is the storage area. The r.-jtaining wall d'oes e.-.teud behind the storage area. I woulc be happy to remove the front wall of that area, but there will still be wall behind it." Hanson interjected. "I would just like to say that I am not concerned about the visual impact of this structure. McCloud explained further. "The railings, or some other form regardless of whether or not the floor decking remains. I guess my question then is v;hat would you want me to remove?" Kelley explained that the City's Hardcover Ordinance does view decking as hardcover. Bellows reminded .McCloud that the City Engineer has stated that the retaining wal.'.s are failing. McCloud said, "Neither myself, nor my engineer, could find signs of the retaining walls failing. I would have to respectfully disagree with the City Engineer's opinion in that regard. I v/ould also note that the City Engineer states that the floor decking enhances the stability of the walls. If in fact, the walls are failing, I will of course repair them." _ • Kelley s.iid. "In ay opinion, some h.irdcover can remain, including acce.ss to the lake. You are entitled uo have access. The decking however should be removed." McCloud asked Kelley to address the railings. Kelley replied, "The railings are needed in accordance with the retaining walls exceeding a certain height. Mabusth stated that railings are needed when the wall height exceeds JO inches. - 17 - 4 p:.b: • ' wr^A-r^ -I • \.* • :i »*. «• .<•. f • • ■ H .* , . 't !*T • ,*r .* V •• .’ ^ '1/ mm tiS4l ?L *J p;-" :■ '. ^j■•. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#9)ZONING FILE #1627-MCCLOUD CONTINUED Kelley seated f'lat there are s;»verai e.<istinc retaining ^;alls within the City or Orono rhat v;ouic provide examples of how issues of safety a-'.d crzsion control can be addressed. Kelley explained the options available to Mr. MrClond for proceeding or tabling his application. McCloud asked the Planning Commission if they concurred v/ith the Staff recommendatidns prese.tted in Gaffron's memo. Gaffron reviewed the recommendations included in his memo. McCloud stated that hfi wccld work fiarther with Staff to prepare a revised plan, and recuestr-d that the Planning Commission make a notion at their re-convened meeting to table this application. The Public Hearing v/as continued. (#10) ZONING FILE #1628-MARX & SA.RA FINNEY 4195 HIGHWOOD ROAD VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Kelley opened the Public Hearing at Sara Finney was present. 9:05 p.m.. noting that Mabusth showed the p.lan for the replacement foundation and the proposed addition, stating tr.at an average lakeshore setback Variance would bo r.-icuired.' Snc s.^id, "I v/as advised this evening by Jim Hanson, v/ho d„c go beyond the fenced area, that there is structure within the lakeshore yard." Hanson said. "The'ce i:'. a complete stairv/oy v/ith bench seating, and intermediate storage area, not entirely dissimilar i:o what we saw in the McCloud application. I v/ould approximate that there is 1,300 s.f. of ground cover in the 0-75' area. I discussed the structure v/ith Ms. Finney who informed me th^t the structure was installed t./o c ;ners ago. Permits v/nre not obtained, nor were any Variances granted for that structure. In this case, I whole-heartedly support the addition plans the Finneys are proposing, but I would ask for trade-offs." Kelley asked Finney to state her hardship for the reauested Variance. Finney replied. "The house has one bedroom and is one and a half stories. The basement is functional as a sv/im.ming pool at best. We have the s.vme circum.stance discussed in an earlier application this evening, with our driveway being above the level of the house. When it rains, the w^ter comes down the back sidewalk into our basement. We are hoping to put in a solid v/all foundation. The square footage cf aouse nov/ is 900 s.f. The - )6 - •*v i ' l^LANNlfl.; CC.MMISLUON MKiiTTNC. (PJXrONVENK) UKI.D MARCH 20. 1091'’ iJ<n ZONING FILE a626-TKAFK CONTINUEU • nooJ’Jsle tA ci^;c tie 5'.'r .v.v.Mn^aq® ot tae_ ricr-j 1 • onal, acst^iatic and rncnetary vaije j-, clio j'.o.r.e. ^attro.”.^ vlS^•^c .ae Co.*nnission 1.r* t.hoy would resonnenc auorovaA O” a »ot widrh a.»d area Variance, il all or.n^r requirements are r.^t. Ee’;,iows stated that she \;juld recommend approval of a *ot w;dtl« ana area Variance oecause the hardsnip runs with the lan>: ’oecause the C'jLtr recognitec the I**t a* bjildabie, anc it i.-^ sjwerea. lians^Ti icrecd. **otim» Ayes-3. •'•iley, Nv^y. .'lotion cari.ec. (#9)ZONING FILE U627-SAM MCCLOUD RECORD LOT 122, BIG ISLAND AbTER-TUE-FACT VAR IANCES-CONTINUATION OK PUBLIC^ HEARING t-t . w.»s moved by noplication « 1627, as Aycs-4, Nays-0. M.'tion Hrnson, seconded by 3eIiov#s, 1‘tjoIIo-c * •*** ti*)o wi»'p. w*• • o table y.it ion. <f 10) ZONING FILE ^IbZS-SARA MARK KINNEY 4195 HIGHWOOO ROAD VARIANCE-CONTINUATION OK PUUl.iC HEAR INC*. Sara Finney was vv-'sont. Kelley ro-convonod the ruoLic Hear in' it p.."'.. a .d reviewed tho Platminc Cer.imiss« on' s v;e.-s re Tarci*..: t.his appllcatien ana the intent of the avernoe lakeshoro sotbaoN. Hanson as’<ed :iabus-.h 1: 6t i. r : Loon able to ‘ ’ iKosnoro structure comprised wall.^ and a stairway. M.nbustii reel led, "We were utiacie to meet s»ara on-jite^ but viici have an cpoorv.unitv to discuss the structure i/ich her. T lere I ; a do.:.< which woi: id .ipoe.ir tc n.-t moat the City's safety landinc standards. Tie structure is appro.\imately eight to ten yCw’r.J old. It t;ay be aprropr la to icr t!iPiannin; Ccm.misstcn to .r elude in their recommendation a statement pertaining to suruetu -o being rc:egn;c*d as i non-confor.mi u; structure. ^hc Oit\ c.inn s.u\»acee t.h.it the iuplieants uilL bo aiiowod to re'au-.ii tl.e de.:k .»t sue:: .i.-.e t;n*. it deterlorates. anc. any structural repairs that a-.' Joemoa necessary will have to be approved by t!io City." fJunson w"i5 •Cv*neerned .idout t. t'acino tins ncn-cont ctming structure in 1 manner diiioront thin the way suwh structure arc .-"•iMv .iddrossiid. th.ou'th he fully urulerstooc the Z ill *. -------------- ---------- . ^ ^ ^ ^ norm.illv addrcssijd. th.ough he fully uruierstooc the innou*. . »- the Finney's lad the ouneis a: tno property prior to tho.m Pel lews a ;*;cJ \b m Msures t’l thit tne linney's .l lwi a:y other '.in.'.*': •...le r-'*;;*.i 1 •1 1 'M.s .eiar.Un.: y.ieu.••vat.e.i •- \: !•:tne i I CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN ZONING FILE NO. 1627 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION F-^ 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 3/22/91 TO:Samuel A. McCloud COPIES TO: Carter DeLaittre 5101 Highway 55 % Lambert 6 Boeder Minneapolis, MM 55422 1000 Superior Blvd Wayzata, MM 55391 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 3-18/20-91 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Coonnission recoomends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AMD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled pending receipt of a plan for modification of deck/stairway/wal 1 system in keeping with the provisions of the staff recommendation in the memo of 3/12/91. Planning Commission generally indicated agreement with the staff recommendation, and advised applicant to work with staff in formulating acceptable revisions to the structure. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional Information. Deadline for the April 15 meeting is April 5; or May 10 for the May 20 meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. f CITY CITY of ORONO Post Offico Box 66*CrysUl Bay, Minanota 55323•Municipal Offices Of JORONO On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka April 9, 1991 James Bruce Homes 539 East Lake Street Wayzatar HN 55391 Re: Big Island Recorded Lot 22, Orono MN Dear Mr. Bruce: The Building & Zoning Department is in receipt of your application for a building permit, which was received by this office on February 14, 1991. A review of the application finds that the following information needed for review is missing: 1.Specific Building Plans - Details and sections of roof structure - Beam? Collar ties? 2. Specifications ~ Engineering required on foundation. Review of your application will not continue until the noted items are received. Failure to submit required items immediately may result in delays in issuance of permits. Please contact the Building & Zoning Department at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official cc:Sam McCloud 5101 Highway 55 Minneapolis, MN 55422 Carter DeLaittre % Lambert & Boeder 1000 Superior Blvd. vrayzata, MN 55391 LO/lsv Bl ILDING 4 ZONING - 47>7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION 4 FINANCE - 473.735# FAX >4734510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-'359 idlMlillMSillSaii I -~1 p-s i .* V\o o • i w ■•U >. /•*T1 m: I • .1^A*'' CITY of ORONO Munkipol OfSocft PdfCO0oKBox66 Coital Bay. >Ilmw€a 5S323^ June 19» 1992 Samuel A. McCloud 5101 Highway 55 Minneapolis, MN 55440 RE: Legal Combination, Big Island Parcels Dear Mr. McCloud: In order for the City to complete the filing of your which was approved in February, you were required to legally comSinrLots 9, 10, and 11, Morse Island Park, with the portion of ut^.fcrnment Lot 3 abutting the lakeshore. then I'-jrward it to the Hennepin County Tax Records Depa and proc«-^-i with filing of the subdivision. Mr. Bruntjen as a result of the subdivision. Reaatdinq the deck revisions and the building addition, John Martin ha’s contacted me and notes that he David Anderson be working toward submission of a plan which the 0 Com^issiSn will find acceptable. Once the City Council agrees to such plan, the deck revisions can be completed. Because the subdivision approval forin’^**Pleasethe essence in returning the legal combination form. Pleas return it in the enclosed envelope. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 473 7357. Sincerely Michael P. Gaffron ^ Assistant Planning S Zoning Administrator Enclosures: Legal Combination Request Return Envelope MPG/Isv TOJEPHONE-W3.T357 • FAX-47M510 LIESCH ENGINEERING CORPO^TION 13400 15th Avenue No.* Plymouth, MN 55441 • 612-559-1423* FAX No: 559-2202 December 30, 1992 (jEC 3 1 1092 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay Orono, MN 55323 RE: Timber Retaining Wall Review for Samuel A. McCloud, Big Island, Lake Minnetonka, Orono, Minnesota Dear Mr. Gaffron: Liesch Engineering Corporation was retained by Samuel A. McCloud to review the structural integrity of the timber retaining walls located on his Property on Big Island - Lake Minnetonka per the City of Orono ’s request. Ba.sed upon review of the attached drawings, sheet 1 and 2 dated February 19, 1990 by Edgework Builders, it is Liesch Engineering Corporation ’s opinion that the retaining walls design appears to be structurally sufficient for the intended function of resisting the present lateral earth pressure. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 559-1423. Sincerely, LIESCH ENGINEERING CORPORATION Galen A. Peterson Structural Engineer cc: Mr. Samuel A. McCloud Mr. David Anderson Attachments maw:lirl22S92c/GO I • r. 3 12:26 B.fi.LIESCH fiSSOC.P.2/3 BRUCE A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. XSNO ! I I i I I ■ I i *----! ' ! *--------L_I ^AG£ » »u«ufCT .^sriuhitKir* ^/±u gg^/au/ feg. ^AM . atlaKin^ ,^V. taco tarn#»tftu>M»Mnn»apotitN#«5»4l oa>msna9/iASLwn\L^CMfCKEDOy QATE ArrtcAE!> ^kWiKir MO. *z_ ^SSt-noM") Potz -TWS. K^TJ-KihxCr WA6C wAitk ^✓sevii, -me oestCri^. ^ KlL v VA-U s 5AMff Qvjik»>ir/ry i 0iMe>a^oK6 tf»P me DeADMAN5“ li COsfPKIOOOS AMCiioftS. A j«Cp TTseArep TiM6e2S-*r/P ^5V2y6'/2 Actuac^ X5SdM& “0CADM4M5 . . I Afies K^6Q*MLy CoM'ME cTVO.'TO AMQ^Pj2S AKCAO^^ AZC coM-nMJeoS A>iO AeS COCATEO B£A»MO TAE fAitugfi , TMeRSRje-: mev appsae -rti ise «4PA6C£ OP D^v£4.opM{^ Toll pAi^ivE . ^ wrrvoxrr ic:Ma»-/»KCr t7»£ of 5Ac«:r'U axioms -nic foUJO^tKlCr PEUATiygt^Y COKilffev^/ATyS- VA«.JES; s!x I / a.? So ■ ^ 3CoO pi^ iT 1^.\M \' i f 1 II ! ♦I 13 '93 12527 B.fl.LIESCH fiSSOC. BRUCE A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. *:t • VIC.if. r: • lei^i vt 1340015m ApMnut M • Mnn«oeo^ SSMI • 612>tt»'t423 P.3^3 JOS NO.I i SUSj ICT -i?g*OiKliXl/T XAKC.LOijO » w<vj comrtowt^S^otaziLfzi one Wf. r* c r > li ' Po » ^/ZiOS. ^ s Y2 “ k svi' actvalN T7^A66|^ R£TA/M/M(Sr W^L S*k ^AS3 €Otn. AmA«40(S __ r4fu>« .V ' *^P ^ ^ ^ < ‘ - ' .W0O4fC.................. R?oM 4nOTC5> Bc?OlU&;ilOM^ - Z M U5£ A fACT«2 oF cA vc Z P^IZ CfVOO fih4£f»dM^paCr .. . pdhCTlceL. 2 • 1 pp^- »i,o.bMVf+ * l-1^+ ^ 6,+5S^r+y^.^^„ « l?6 Pj,^- 2>G q < 2.2 k c?.^5S = 3(ffh its/jpi w*\\ Pp = ii,o M 1.1 K 0.4-5.S « S’s^ lUi/rj. P(> +Pp+Pp a 1 06? |t>i/f(-oX.a.V\ 'F02.C£^ .• = 545 ii,/*,iW A rie-n S4o ibyt-^ o*rwo*\V :^»tsnNi^ WAi.es .4?Rsa12 oA?AB(_e: supfoRr/wO* t5;£ cAT£gAe £A(2T ia PRsssues. % TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning fie Zoning Administrator DATE:January 11, 1993 SUBJECT: #1627 Samuel A. McCloud - Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing List o£ Exhibits A - Plans submitted for structure revisions B - Letter and calculations from applicant's Engineer C - Planning Commission Minutes 3/18-20/91 D - Planning Commission Action Notice 3/22/91 E - Memo and Exhibits of 3/12/91 Summary of Request Please review the memo and exhibits of 3/12/91. A deck/retaining wall/stairway system was constructed at the lakeshore of this Big Island property some time between the 1987 super storm and the 1990 septic system inspection. Applicant subsequently made an after-the-fact variance application, requesting approval to keep the structure, which was before Planning Commission in March 1991. After discussion. Planning Commission tabled the variance request, directing applicant to provide a suitable plan for modifying the structure per the City Engineer's comments, i.e.: A. The majority of the deck should be removed. B. Portions of stairway and deck could remain to provide access. C. Retaining walls to be modified as necessary. Applicant completed the required subdivision/combination for this lakeshore strip in February 1992, and his agent, David Anderson of the Village Craftsmen, has submitted c proposal for modification of the structure. Discussion Applicant has submitted a letter from Galen A. Peterson of Liesch Engineering Corporation indicating that the design "appears to be structurally sufficient for the intended function of resisting the present lateral earth pressure". Clearly the applicant would prefer to not modify any of the walls. The City Engineer was not willing to confirm the adequacy of the design given that so many assumptions were (necessarily) made as to soil types, connection methods, etc. Staff would also note that Mr. Peterson did not sign his work as a registered engineer. Given the Zoning File #1627 January 11, 1993 Page 2 above, Planning Commission should consider Peterson's letter as merely an opinion that the wall is structurally sound, but certainly it's no guarantee that it is adequately designed and constructed. Similar to the recent Koehnen application in the Minnetonka Bluffs area, note that the building department normally requires an engineered design for any walls or wall system in excess of 4' in height. Aside from the issue of structural stability, the two issues of safety and visual aesthetics remain. From a safety standpoint, staff has requested that the stairway be generally enclosed with railings so that there is no direct walkway access to the terrace areas above the walls. Then, we would suggest that plantings be of a density along the upper edge of each wall to discourage foot traffic on the retaining wall system. The visual aesthetic issue is primarily a matter of screening. We have asked for a planting schedule showing type, height and placement of plantings to help screen the face of the walls (not received as of this writing). With wall heights ranging from 3 1/2' to 5', prior discussion has suggested that adding intermediate walls may allow for greater wall coverage by plantings, although it can certainly be argued that plantings can be chosen that will provide screening. The visual impact was not apparently as great a concern as the hardcover issue with the Planning Commission in March 1991 (see Minutes). Hardcover Please review the hardcover facts in Exhibit I of the 3/12/91 memo. 0-75' hardcover as built is 10.9%, but would reduce to 3.2% under the current proposal. This includes 40 s.f. (0.3%) which is part of the deck attached to the house, which encroaches about 4' into the 0-75' zone at one corner. Staff Recommendation Given that the City Engineer cannot confirm the adequacy of the existing wall system, if it is to remain and City is to issue a building permit, the applicant must agree tc. hold the City liable if the walls should fail. Under the assumption that a proposed planting schedule will be available for review at the Planning Commission meeting, you should determine whether the proposed plantings are aesthetically adecjuate so as to screen the wall system as it currently exists, or whether modifications should be required. Zoning File #1627 January 11, 1993 Page 3 Planning Commission's optional courses of action include the following: 1. Approve wall system as is, with the removal of decks but retaining the stairways as proposed. Require modification of the walls for aesthetic purposes to allow better screening. 3.Require removal of the walls and deck in their entirety, leaving merely the stairway, applicant to find some other method of bank stabilization besides retaining walls. 4.Other. Approval of the request as proposed (with no modification of the walls, decks to be removed, stairs to remain) should be subject to the following conditions; 1.Planting schedule shall be adhered to and completed within 12 months of completion of the retaining wall modifications. 2.Hardcover variance granted only for the retaining walls and the walkway/stairway system, as well as the 40 s.f. of deck near the house. (Option: require that deck near the house be modified to eliminate all portions encroaching in the 0-75' zone). 3.Recommend Council adoption of "automatic lot area variance" resolution (see 3/12/91 memo). 4.Applicant to obtain necessary after-the-fact building permit prior to modification of the retaining walls and stairway system. Further, applicant shall obtain the necessary after-the-fact building permits for the additions to the residence (which the Building & Zoning Department has determined meets all pertinent zoning standards). 5.Applicant shall agree to hold the City harmless from any liability if the retaining wall fails at some time in the future. Note that applicant did pay the after-the-fact fee for this variance request. % THE VILLA Minnesota L EH INC.F-/I- Dear Mr. Gaffron.i ^ Jan. 18,1993. Subject #1627 Samuel A. McCloud After having read Mr. Peterson’s letter regarding the structural integrity of the retaining walls "as built", the letter that* I've recieved did not go as far as I had hoped it would in description of structural on the walls. At this time it is after business hours and I am unable to get a better clarification on this matter. However, Mr. McCloud has agreed verbally to sign any disclaimer regarding the retaining walls in "as built" condition. Regarding Planting schedule. Our proposed plantings will be; 1) At lowest level,(closest to lake). Evergreen trees,of a type that will grow to a height of at least 6 feet# and will become full,and "bushy" 2) on all subsequent levels, hedge type bushes, that will grow to a minixim height of 4’-6" and will be full during the normal growing season.(to be of a hearty variety,so that they will continue to come back each season with little or no maintenance. 3) Top level; Flowering wild rose bushes. Will grow to a min­ imum height of 3" and have sufficient"stickers" to keep any one from getting close enough to the edge of the retaining wall to fall off of the retaining wall. I apologize for not having gotten to this any sooner,but the package regarding this matter arrived in our office while I was out on a long weekend. Sincerely David T. Anderson V.P. The Village Craftsmen Inc. 701 W. Highway?, Excelsior, MN 55331 • Phone: (612) 474-0981 L.mmi THE V illage C raftsmen , Inc . Minnesota Liscense 0005766 f- II- '2- Mr. Mike Gaffron Re: Mr. Sam McCloud Additional information on Plantings for Bottom Tier: Globe,or Juniper Arborvitae,Fir tree that grows to approximatly 6' in height and is very thick and bushy.lt will be ideally suited for blocking from view the first tier on the timberwall. Second Tier: Gold Flame,or Anthony Water Spirea. A very full bush that will grow to 3'or3'-6" in height. When in season, it will do a very good job of hiding the timberwall,and will also act as a barrier to prevent anyone from falling over the edge of the wall. Third Tier: Same as Second Tier. Fourth Tier: Japanese Red Barbary,or Emerald Mountain Honey­ suckle. Once again,a very full bush during the growing season but with the addition of very nasty “stickers" to prevent anyone from getting to close to the edge of the retaining wall. Grows to approximatly 3' in height. We feel that these selections will be more than adequate to screen the tlmberwalls from view,as well as provide enough of a “safety barrier" on top of the higher tlmberwalls to prevent anyone from getting injured. Sincer David T. Anderson V.P. The Village Craftsmen Inc. 701 W. Highway 7. Excelsior, MN 55331 • Phone: (612) 474-0981 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING held JANUARY 19, 1993 Ith th©The Orono Planning Commission met on the following members present: Acting Planning Johnson Maureen Bel lows, Charles Schroeder, Candace Rowieiie, , |,o„mg Chair Bellows called the meeting xo orue /JB4 \ fi9T -SAMUEL Ae MCCLOUD, RTG ISLAND RECORD LOT 22 VARIANCE CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:25 P.M. David Anderson was present for the application. Mabusth reviewed the former *PP''iggi"* and**an aftei—?S^t invotvid a lot 'ro-rrang.m.nt^ln March^^991 the-fact variance dealing wit g* ^^y|ted some time after theextensive stairways, which were eonstru j^e existing ^987 stcriii. She noted 40 s.f. of the decK a rMId.nce and all decking near the laxe^ ProDCsed hardcover within tne .ooMcant proposes to minimize %?Slntng walls remain, wh I .h the a"ppl leant proposes the 3.2 to 5 visual Impao'^tP^jyj existing. 3.2* hardcover In the 0-0 zon . rf the types of plantings he proposes for Anderson reviewed the yp property. . - +H« 3 2X hardcover proposed.Cohen asked what comprises th • ^ 4.H- 1987 storm, the property had Mabusth 75^** hardcover which 3^ 2X^*ProposodftDoroxImately 1* 0-76 oarauw -*eeD slopes. The 3.ZX ;,:l^Sco^^^*^*nc^'udtrthr40^.f. of deck attached to the dwel Chair Bellows expressed concern »®°“*.bones'"for th7*decM be"d w^JfiJvH;t^r Ireas. She ,l?ng a“ong the retaining wal Is. .. . . . . . . . . . , , „ ,,en have been approved before In other Mabusth stated plantings as IocatIons. 1 minutes of the^obo^^ planning co^ission meeting I • ZONING FILE #1627 - CONT. Bowutte re.t th.y -hou.d be Given tr,. opportunity to review property prior to maklns a decision. rr.l .*e5 ‘Jrthi:‘tb.T-'7V rne.“SS5\7re^ wlTh‘^«Vw?eVt. rb;t'?bey iSoSTi be ".Mowed to Inspect the property. -?iU-'n'o7% 's"fJn%»d-r-ec^n:.S5t??£' b^aV^ ^ She felt If this were approved cwe felt the deck attached rtSrrlsM.n:e"s''iior:SuraJd^ehe-telt that should be reduced to meet the 75’ setback. Anderson stated his client would not object to reducing of the attached deck. Chair Bel lows ‘fol low?ng^'^'lVthV engineering to be aopl leant t,lme to complete ^ Q-f ^^e retaining walls; 2) «'. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* to support decks to be removed. Johnson asked how mJeh^waV buTu *to"Vup^ 5tck7nrVVupp*o^%%7hV “rderof retaining the slopes that TeM In from the storm. i?S2V tor Samuel A. McCloud. Big is^^^ additional applicant time to ® «« o.rapulred documents. Ayes 5 y ?T:l%rr7rpSg"collss*lon to visit the property. F' m CITY OF ORONO NOTICE COMMISSION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 DATE^OP NOTICE: 1/21 473-7357 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . ... . . . . . roPTES TO: David T. Anderson •TO: Sam McCloud The Village Craftsman, Inc. ssJSff* . date op MEETING: 1/19/93 Planning Conmiission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below JJOTBS MID SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant to do the following: 1 Provide registered professional engineer certi ica for the retaining walls. . , . ^ walls such that terrace widths do 2. 'Provide plans to modify walls su not exceed 3' . retaining -ais serving merely to supper. Portions of retainmy deck must be removed. ^ • ISS^t t"hrUe° //X-lnrco-f ss?on“ meVtillgT. Applicant > s rtrJunril "me"et?nr?s of additional information. June 1, 1993- official Planning X, you. desire -rti^^^^^ Commission minutes, Planning Commission, review and approval by the t'l^ Isv m.CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 September 27, 1994 Mr. Samuel McCloud 5101 Highway 55 #1000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 Re: 470 Big Island Dear Mr. McCloud: I am advised that you have applied for the homestead tax credit for your property on Big Isl;^. ^ L per the municipal code sections attached, a conditional use penmt is required for RS District occupancy exceeding 180 days in one year, or regardless o e ura of use where a homestead credit is claimed. I am enclosing the conditional use permit application form for your use. AdditioiuUy I stUl have an open file on yout Ulegal lakeshore deck. This application was tabW hf?he Panning Commission in January 1993 pending your revised proposal, which teen submitted (see Planning Commission action notice dated 1/27/93). It is tmpetauve that this matter be resolved as soon as possible. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have questions on any of the above. Sincerely, Mich el P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator Rolf Erickson, City Assessor Tehphone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 6'^ C8»^ GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Strett Address: 2750 Kelley Parinmy Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 August 15,1997 Samuel A. McCloud P.O. Box 216 Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: 470 Big Island Dear Mr. McCloud: I am receiving inquiries from parties interested in purchasing your property on Big Island. Ple^e be aware that I still have an open file on your illegal lakeshore deck. I thought we were making progress on this in 1993 but the matter is yet unresolved. Please contact me at 473-7357 to discuss what steps are needed to put this to rest. Oillvvidjf f Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator cc: Lyle Oman, Building Official Tdepbone (612) 473-7357 • FAX47M510 oVM-S TO;Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 12,2000 SUBJECT: #2551 Thomas Randgaard 2765 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Permit to permit extension to a permanent dock Zoning District: Lbt of Exhibits LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) A Application B Plat Map C LMCD Permit Letter (Dated 6/22/99) D LMCD Letter (Dated 10/23/99) E Site Plan F Property Owners List Summary of Request: Mr. Randgaard has submitted an application for a conditional use permit, per Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 9(B) to permit a 14 foot extension to an existing dock. The dock is located in Lake Minnetonka and is under the jurisdiction of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). Mr. Randgaard’s permit was approved by the LMCD in June, 1999 (Please refer to attached letters from the LMCD). The LMCD has reviewed the permit request with the Hennepin County Sheriff s Water Patrol and has determined the permit issued for the dock will not create navigational problems in the cove. In reviewing our files the City and DNR had issued permits to relocate the existing dock to its present location, but no permits were issued for the dock prior to 1983. It is believed the dock had existed as a permanent dock prior to 1983. The LMCD permit indicates there is 120 feet between the permanent dock and the opposite shore. ! n255l Thomas Randgaard 2765 Shady wood Road Conditional Use Permit January 19, 2000 Page \ f Application #255" I Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION , , Site Address 50(oS* ^V xacjuwco^ Q<Louo r\.0 SSW ( Type of Application to be Filed ^ ^ocJc- TyvloiA^c-tO ._____ •. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3 lV~ 1 V*\-—0<PG>0________!___ APPLICANT^ (home)______________i__ . Name \______________ Phone (work). Address <V>ftA^iuoo A City _OeoK>o Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________________ Phone (home). Phone (workX Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired (month^ear) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _ $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _ $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _ $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _ $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more . Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of takeshore n '■i PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change fi'om original application) Afler-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee i .* ... • OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 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) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bart Fostar Vice Chair, Daaphaven Eugene Partyka Secratary. Minnetrista Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzat^ Kent Oahlen Minnelcrka Beach Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Oilman Excelsior Greg Kitchak Minnetonka Uli McMillan Orono Robert Rascop Shorew>ood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood 5C*e^f€y5*i<CCMf#^ >0% ^ Wiiff 't" LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVO. • 3:=PHAVSN. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 • FAX 612/745-30S5 Gregory S. Nyb€ck. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR June 22, 1999 Mr. Thomas Rangard 2765 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Subj: 99-67-9 I>ar Mr. Rangard: The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has approved your permanent dock license application for your proposed permanent dock on Carmans Bay. Additionally, your permanent dock has been approved in accordance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098. When construction has been completed, please contact this office to schedule a dock inspection. If the size, location, or configuration of the dock is changed in the future, a new permanent dock license application would be required. A new permanent dock license is not required for repair or replacement if it does not alter the size, type, location, or configuration of the dock. If you choose to deice around the dock, a separate deicing permit is required annually. Feel free to call me if you have questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ter L.Roger L. Winberg __ Administrative Tecnnician # / end: site plan JL ■ y A cc: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Ceil Strauss, MN DNR V/9b Page Address: http;//www.wintemel.com/-lmcd/ E-mail Address: lmcdOwinterne5.com >1 ^ \0 ‘ ^ ^ J-Cf ^4> ■'^~ .s’if \ r" <iQ t> ' ■ \• roc'‘= v; / , qC^^ $ / . ^ *• • • • ^ X • #• _ • itiTEV^ii JUN 11 1999 ►». --•;/ 4, V...% r .* i M BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Beit Foster Vice Chair, Deephaven Eugene Paityka Secretary, Mlnnetrista Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Andrea Ahrens tvlcund Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Oilman Excelsior Greg Kitchak Minnetonka Uli McMillan Orono Robert Rascop Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood D LAKE MINNETONKA CONSEaVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVO • DEEPHAVEN. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 • FAX 612/745-9085 October 13, 1999 Gregory S. Nybeck. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR '■ " I Mr. Thomas Rangard 2765 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Rangard: Late last week, we discussed the permanent dock permit application that was approved for yo*ir residence on 6/22/99 (Permit 99-67-9). Specifically, we di.scussed whether boat storage on the north side of the dock would create navigational problems for other docks in the area. On the morning of 10/12/99,1 met with Lt. Ken Schilling of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol to further investigate this issue. Based on our review, we have determined that the permit issued on 6/22/99 does not create a navigational problem and that it is still valid. Despite this interpretation, I believe it is to your benefit to beware of the Code that prohibits structures r.^i oj obstruct navigation. LMCD Code Section 2.12, subd. 10 states “No dock, mooring, or other structure shall be so located as to obstruct a navigable channel, or as to obstruct reasonable to any other dock, mooring area or similar structure authorized under this Code". Although your permit still is valid, I am still concerned that boats being stored on the north side of the dock could obstruct reasonable access to other docks on the east-end of the Cove. It is your responsibility to ensure that boat storage on the nortli side of the dock does not cause a navigational problem to other docks in the area. Feel free to call me if you have any questions relating to this matter! Sincerely, LAKE MINNET(3NJCA. CONSERVATION DISTRICT Gregory ST Nybeck Executive Director 20S PM Contym#r Enel: Code excerpt CC: Lt. Ken Schilling, Henn. Co. Sheriffs Water Patrol Mr. Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Ms. Ceil Strauss, MN DNR V/eb Page Address: hRp://www.winlemel.coiT\/-lmcd/ £>mail Address: lmcdOwinternet.com V** 6.^ PfOf^ Vi » . 0 rL^<yV w j \ 0 M, N N 0TON 1^ ’‘V ■'V Pti *0 J »^o w^ '-" ' r:^ .(>/ h •.-.- 'u- iti'' )0C' CiS' y‘'nf^ J- • 'T.-o'^ jg " - ”•<•2- -V ■# •••»' I • . • I per.* ■^5 1^; Q.'{? 2f • Q.Q >?-‘x^r C V ■ ''Ms .< i£> .!" ' 'k?'?’ / . > .-v ’^ sO’ zs r.' ^ C&V «( ^'?’ c.^- •./' k; • tf \(iTiiV^^^ JUN 11 1999 eVlt-TCtt OF ^ a la' 1®- J .»*'•: .:- ■,-f ^ • • • r RUN DATE ll/RA/99 BATCH 505 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 58 21-117-25 25 OOM 00050 ADDRESS UHASSIGNED PHEASANT LAWN HOHEOWNERS PHEASANT LAWN HOHEOWNERS 2700 PLEASANT RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 50 21-117-25 2<i 0005 02705 SIIADYWOOO RD 6 0 t J H FOX GAYLORD 0 0 JON HARIE FOX 2705 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR m 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 50 21-117-25 20 0005 02755 SHADYWOOD RD R G GAY A S L GAY RICHARD GAY 0 SUE GAY 2755 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 50 21-117-25 20 0009 02775 SHADYWOOD RD B K OLSON TRUSTEE BONNIE K OLSON 2775 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR »m 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 5B 21-117-23 20 0020 0005B ADDRESS UNASSICNED THONAS J CASEY ETAL THOHAS J CASEY 2785 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 38 21-117-23 20 0021 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED B K OLSON TRUSTEE BONNIE K OLSON 2775 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 58 21-117-23 20 0029 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BEATRICE G CARLSON RICHARD G GAY 8 SUE L GAY 2735 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 38 21-117-25 20 0032 02720 SHADYWOOD RD B A KVAN 8 J C KVAH TRUSTEES JOHN C 8 BEVERLEE A KVAH 2720 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 58 21-117-25 20 0001 02780 SHADYWOOD RD W R WITTHER 8 S K WITTHER W R WITTHER 8 S K WITTHER 2780 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 38 21-117-23 20 0050 02785 SHADYWOOD RD T J CASEY 8 S D CASEY THOHAS J CASEY 2785 SHADY WOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 58 21-117-25 20 0060 02765 SHADYWOOD RD THOHAS H RAN06AARD THOHAS H RANDGAARO 2765 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR m 55331 38 21-117-23 20 0061 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN P THIHHESH THOHAS P HUBER 2615 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 REPORT NO. PI035001 PAGE 26 J1 ■k 38 21-117-25 20 0000 02725 SHADYWOOD RD H D 8 R A HEEK HICHAEL D 8 ROBERTA A HEEK 2725 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55531 38 21-117-23 20 0016 00038 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED DAVID C COOK DAVID C COOK 680 W HILLSIDE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 58 21-117-23 20 0020 90038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JANES 0 GINTHER ET AL JANES 0 GINTHER UNDIVIDED 38 21-117-23 20 0000 02760 SHADYWOOD RD C S LINOLEY 8 J D LINDLEY C S LINOLEY 8 J D LINOLEY 2760 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 38 21-117-23 20 0059 02771 SHADYWOOD RD R 6 8 H J OGLE RICHARD G 8 HARLYS J OGLE 2771 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR m 55531 38 21-117-23 20 0062 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED BOYD WITTHAN BOYD WITTHAN 5055 TEAL CXR SHOREWOOD HN 55331 * % * .9 \• • i f. • i?* -^i I "n RUN DA1E BATCH 5*5 lirNNEPIN COUHfV PROPCRIV INFORHAIION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI<|35')01 PACE Z7 PROP AOOR OMNCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAMC/ADOR SB 21-117-2S 2A 0RA3 OBRM ADDRESS UNASSI6NED D HXECEL t J HIE6EL DONALD R S JUDITH D HIEGEL 683 SULLIVAN DR COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HN 55A21 38 21-117-23 24 88'>6 82738 SHAOYWOOP RD JOHN L FIEBELKORN JOHN L FIEBELKORN 2738 SHADYMOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 8845 82748 SHADYWOOD RD ELAINE T PAGONIS ELAINE T PAGONIS 2748 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 21-117-23 31 8882 8274» SHADYWOOD RO S R A P A BECK STEVEN R 8 PEGGY A BECK 2745 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 36 21-117-23 31 8083 82745 SHADYWOOD RO JANES E ZINHERHAN JANES E ZINNERNAN 2745 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 38 21-117-23 32 8884 02888 PHEASANT RD RALPH D BURGESS JR RALPH D BURGESS JR, CEO FOOD ENGINEERING CORPORATION 2745 NIAGARA LAN PLYMOUTH MN 55447 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOt TOTAL BATCH 585 88024 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF IMFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE F. 4/ e ,v' i.f* li Frorr.: DICK OGLE PHONE No. : 619 593 1229 Jan.142000 1:54PM P01 ^(ichard G Ogle 2771 Shadywood Road Excelsior MN 55331-9580 Phone: (612) 471-8635 Fax (612) 471-8635 January 14,2000 Orono PlonninA Commission 2780 Kelley Parkway CryMAl Bay, MN 55.^23 a«: //2.SS1 Thomas Michael Rmidgoord, 2765 Shodywood Rood. Conditionol Use Permit Dear Planning Commission: Wa will not ba available to ottend the scheduled meeting to discusc the obove referenood topic. However, wo hove asked our neighbor Jim 2immcrmon to convey to you our concern** regarding this dock modificBiion. 1 ho nolghborhood residents have had some problems with the owner's use of the property. This property la used as a party house and is not a normal lived in l esldenoe. It has a histoi y of loud disturbing parties until the early hours of the morning. Uaaed on our previous exporlonco we feel the dock extension will bring in larger oebln cruisers which will jusi be on extension of the porly house. Wc olw have another concern with this modification. Quito often tl»c owner has visitors wiili large boats that arc tied to the dock. Dccausc the dock is located along a run luvtr vhuriricl Utal i^ used by several neighboring boats it is necessary Uiul tlic ciiamicl is not Intel fened with for free passage. Our concern is that If visiting boats arc tied out to the extension they will interlere with the clear channel. ITio properly lias also had a dock added on llic Cnrnimt's Day side. I tin of (he uiidcralanding Utat this dock IS III VKilation of the Oi oi)o City Code wliich states Uial only one dock is ptrinlued j'ci residential property. I he above list of concerns leads us to re<)uest Uial it’ the dock exteniion •$ granted it would only be given with the following restrictions: 1. bouts while moored or lied on (he extended or permunciil dock urc not to be used for puilies or cnterlainmant. 2. Boats over 26 feet long x 10 foet wide are not perotlticd to be tied on the channel side oflhe permanent dock. 3. llic second portable dock on Caiman's B.sy must be icniovcd as along os tlic channel or permanent dock exists. Wc arc of the belief that these rc^ocsts arc not in anyway rcsUictiiig this piopnty beyond that whicii is e.vpcs.icd and is abided to by oUici city i csldenis living In lliks cotninunily. Thank you for your consideration of this request. ? TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 14, 2000 SUBJECT: #2552 Steven and Sheila Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:22,010 square feet (.51 acre) This application requires the following variance: Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. To permit a variance to encroach 78' into the average lakeshore setback. Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to convert part of an existing deck on the second level and third level on the lakeside of their residence into a three season porch and a master bedroom addition. The proposed area is approximately 180 s.f. on each level, for a total of 360 s.f. The applicants are not increasing structure but changing its use. The hardcover amount in the 75' • 250' setback area is not increasing, it will remain at 30.08%. The applicants seek approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. #2552 Sieve/Sheila Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variance 1/14/00 Page I Area Lot: ANALYSIS LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Required 43,560 s.f.140’158'10' Proposed 22,010 s.f.79'80*12' Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 22.010 s.f.Allowed: 3,302 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,895 s.f. (13.2%) Proposed: 2,895 s.f. (13.2%) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from Shoreline Total area in setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover O' - 75'5,655 s.f.0 s.f.0 s.f.Os.f. 75' - 250'13,925 s.f.4,188 s.f. (30.08%) 3,481.25 s.f. (25 %) 4,188 s.f. (30.08%) 250* - 500’2,430 s.f.727 s.f. (29.9%)729 s.f.(30%)727 s.f. (29.9%) Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. U2552 Sinven'Sheila Sigel 1399 Park Drive yariance 1/14.00 Page 2 I • Issues for Concern: 1. The existing house was approved and rebuilt in 1988 in its original location. At that time, it was located closer to the lakeshore than the adjacent neighboring properties. 2. In 1997, the applicants were approved to allow 30.08% hardcover in the 75' - 250' setback area when they constructed a new garage. 3. Other issues the Planning Commission may have. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. Exhibits A Application B Letter from applicant Site Plan/Survey ElevationsA^iews Floor Plan Plat Map Location Map Hardcover Calculations Topography Map J Property Owner’s List K Permit Record C D E F G H I U2552 Sicven'Sheila Sigel 1)99 Park Drive I 'ariance 1/14/00 Page ) A CITY OF ORONO - VARLANCE ^PLICATION ^;^nitial Application Fee S250.QQ^]^ (55U.U0 per each additional ^variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change firom original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORiNDVTION Site Address_________ Application # Q- Date Received Amount Paid _____ Cotnp. Property Identification Number (P l.D.> DH-I iH -<^3~ ¥-3. -OOfe^i-r-} * ' 'ai Att:.ch legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_______________________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residentid ___other (specify). Zoning District:_____________________________________ APPLICANT M, SKS'LA Name Address: '~i>'X\4£.______ 0\^'NER (if different than applicant) Name ___________________________ City:__C^;Of;^ Phone (home") Phone (work ) 11 Zip:_f/V^r i • 1 ) Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:.n c Estiinated Construction Cost $ _____ ail: - Ac. -K-A DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Hardcover ____ Rear 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: t-Lx^A^ Of^ (attach additional sheets if necessary)^^^^^]^^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALSAll pf thC-follovviTlg Infornintlon must be submitted bv the application deadline dafp order.for, votir application to be considered complete;1- ___ Completed Application Form---- Certified Property Ov,Tiers List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map fi'om Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). ---- Certificate of Survey (jigned by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854” x 11" for reproduction. ---- Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11” for reproduction. ---- Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854" x 11"). ---- List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ---- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 4. The^ Applicant and Property Owner must sign this applicatioiL Please remember that vour yan9DCe.-aDDllcatlQn is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) wd/or consultant expenses yincurred in re^w^of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true/and correct to die best of his/her knowledge. Date IJApplicant's Signature ■1 1 OWNER'S SIGNAT The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staj^consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes oT investi^mion and yerification of this request. DateOwner'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 to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. TfimTIfTiTTE wrnniicrtMillalt•lOtiMiU rail mum rtliU*Aa o SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE V. • K I ARCA SUMMARY (COMPUTER CCNERATEO) mwm M lAt MU UXII fxoxx «x« 0-n* tOM CMUnxil 0 n-m *xt» 1*1 m nam ku m lacost 0mm xoo fJI Xft «t oxu X t«} on» oxooon OM m OMMI MX MOOXi X IXX IM» XXo MXX OMO •axo • m Mxaeoxo x m •MUi 0x1 X IIIHXU flUXXt X IXX • t MO X U* Mto ) w fit • mm ww m rmcv im mw9 ti • 9nm »««•#» ICaU DATL august 8 1997«cv OATt s£f»niiecii Jiw? nv OATt ocanstfi 72.1999 Aooco NiiCMeoKiNC Mouses JOe NO 97R-243 irCAL OCSCRIPTIOM lal tik. rnmm • tmmt »m 0, »m mm 0mi mmmt tm ttm m 00 •m0m4 » ■« 00 mm 0ip0»m 00 •00m m mm *m 00m f**v« 00 0000000 00m m0rn t»mm0mt •I —MX Ox Mm «mxx *mm00 000mm 00m m *0000 txx m0 X X 00000000 m mm 000 0 m mm mmmt |«X iX 10. OMI •, 0k r* rr^iiirix k^x—xTcxT Tjssm^ M—L*tooL«M—*^^**** Xf^xo X m X XM • •0000 0 t0% 000. mm *000 Ox 000 ^mm* •* oxx «»• m 000000 m mmrn *0 mm X 00 0000000 *0000 0mmm0 mmmm 1»iXixHi«t Mxx m00 Wxxxax tm0 00 mm mm 000 ixXMXMa xixa— 00 m0 00m0m 000 0* 0mm m00000 *mm00 *xx«zvs ox X x« xox x« 00 *mm00 lx« M Xf rnmmm 00m mrnm ox x xa oxOxoXMX M 00 x« Wxaxxof Ox M IM •& Xxxi •••X «xo XX ixro ........ ■ iMox M MX xxf xa fc ix Max mmmmkH 00mm M axa ix X. laiO ixxoa txxaxMxH ox x xixixi Xxf . toaxxaix, tax la« X X Xa oxx M Om XCPARIO rOR: STEVE SIGEL u/io/n PRCPARtO Bt HEDLUND PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING 7009 PM OA« 0I9VI tACAX. MMNtSOlA. 99172 PHONC (917) 0O9-MO0 I Oxx* 00/000 M OX MX OX) X m m «a Max m onxaaM XX >f 0 i—oxw ■— Xa MJH PXooxf 1399 Park Drive - Variance Request 12/16/99 Legal Names of the Owners Steven aiul Sheila Sieel - 1399 Park Dri\e Description of Request: W’e request a Variance from the Average Lakeshore Setback reculation to allow the enclosure of part of two decks into a Three-Season Porch and Master Bedroom expansion. The upper le\ el deck is located abo\e the ceiling of the master bedroom. The proposed addition would be built on the left side of the house as \ iewed trom the lake. 'W9T T anre*7 f •: ' 'Asa • V or* V WJIpl m » .il / -4 •y.« • » 4 h' 3*^ Mi Decks to be Enclosed . . •. • • ’ •* •.. •■ r •• .V' ■ r' • S’-!' '1 I ♦ U jj .cxTj4 . J;-----------1 • I l>.. 11 u\ ? .V .* / t) ('|6) >1 I — 1 a -«r - wi w ^-)i m DfflWffll 1111 111 1111 •IVMI ’l^;ii i t i =•’I' liisiiliilBUi V\c05^ l) ■'1 / \ I t{ jjQ '^P. ffiiffiiiiM I^CAHT \i\m,u «>.■ n. •H'P,1 .PiiH fi iiip'"'IP Pi * •pSI ?'S1 h)" Pj, 'v"0PM6^ IRiSDilPfi-'i j :i‘«fliyiiS —^ •* """""""""^^^""■"^^^^SS^SSSSBSSSSrySSBBSBBEBBBBBSBrrBBBBSTiMSBBSg H!l,'!'i'(' I'W'i < ir; iM ’ rRiii’‘■■■BiS^r Wf-iS'S' ! liiiui ]H mn litflfi. 1 . nJiHUH ri UMnb-M' ]. —tr? »3SBl ril <']' nu iA'._^ fhr?.i7’/:UTA I (r's^ulooi:^ T -,.y_\ o occ> \j. e>oy c-o -G\£'IA ioA tt'\y* vif'VK 'J9iiS9MH (UH'iaiii K13 »n:wffl:i¥ tif ili?»1F1flil!liaWi I tiiiiS^ riuimiiiiii <^"hbei^i4TAu l_AP*biOi^^ . i2.CAKT. Pt^ r^fU -%>"l4|6*i-l* H a )^ P7"0PNC a fllUillllll «w ■) if,I (T Ou. UJ Oz Ui O (7) Uioc .V»;* * .» V #» 0 Oi-\6) L£5^v (SV^v/^v-'vCir^ Ii-0 OOKTiMuol)*^ P-ilX' *'t* -• • • •— — . ' :.....[ .Y. ~i ^ '"‘'i" ^ ■-]— _ w 1^^-j—^ L 3® itSSlffiBIffl DE^l*i^R.AlL_ C^>G l*l.p ‘5T^pT<in'^ Afc R.E(rpD. • ‘ UgFT EL&VATIC»" >0>n./? n if /; p>s • ■*it m ••'- / , . ♦ V •c • ■ Ji-M «aa *■■ miiMi vu ._r. o'o 1^1 ^(p - , I ="rr —L ^ ^ i©«iVE:y e>>-o* n^wSo ''^9Ki: q*-2fi> ■r 9 2: ^hgr-tS « “f 'MSi— Vi \(Jd' / ^kAjorJC^ PlCn Q ^ ^*03WC. 3 U\?.nxr^\ <pruj_ U^^O" IUt?,rurK~ \ ^'I'bTwt/o.t.. / -9 •iVVimTE' TiAsk n v "; \ r ^^^t^ 'lyuh^OCrAi/ox^-------^ /^’|^>I1“' tr> ' CCUf.f 16^ / -----------)(.^ft’O ,.N / vJui't^ '/IfctuR-n rnptT —m% (J\d i>\d«>ia*eLcc»^ ^^>C>Co*Jc- r"“» nn.«tC ^ -.0 t^'<^I'VNoikJA. jj -jy] III ^ '-'U'3c- r t(# o* _ JSI f ) 9 7T USf- rjTLM^flS>C V i-con, *' ^ItMTuicou.. 9)Nd/< abca*-<’A r, r^T II ,---------4 iiMxnoofc ilo<ye>K£*c iMTurt: t>T*^Ar/C- t^ifji i i' I' ' ffj 1 kL'l I b)fc h -i------^ -) 1 vr* c^>uv\coo rr>T > kJ/COKC.P*felL <D FT*> (TY p ) t -----------------------------.^5c- x.e'u'^icr'v^ v4<:-^>*p'ctuc. VO”r ► I vTJt/l» PMOiM';duA*^i^ IV I-........... -->c. 4-cvl>iLr ^f»'/L^ll *f u»Ai«'''»i ot' • l-lAnXllLAIO^ rii?NAcC/Fu)G. lA u MOK At?tA M <r> - p r-t^c- iZo'K^ f^MC n<>* iMOtCAIt-V 'OUlCl!*-Ar-‘*'f^ A riU^'^TUf** A-- FLOD lyl- AUU n««^ To Rfe. e-LiO>l n?.r> jT mi n/^cMV' t ('t'MIC/VTtx: ^OV^.t:lf t Au.ecAcjMu ccHJcmioMs _______jc 9d J'' TT6^ --------------------- TtpUNP^fnoKJ rtAN '. AO^ '^. I'o" rO Sa) * * A A d d (■ !?iel----- * l^'o* * ^1-CUUHh‘^ .■ ^■vutirf Acu cntit mmok I> •» -UMlfrU 14A14, c>&lHCTV 1*4 iU-(c He>1 rt>3onFiT» ■■■'.u> <r%\ ‘ ■::• '■! VAC OOC NO 6435^:2 «« n CHIPprff A u • ^ • 9 • • BAnOC QPOBI gg 0 ° ORONC THAIS EMO CM ^ 'f' S» ^ V •' i -t •!, '*J"5. ;.r.-*,* ./'.;\ o t • 1--1- '• - % \ • in HEO OAX 31 t Re4 -1^.Oat-: V Goir- tSC bourse jr^CpIf % • :• Course'iy^N . I * <• ^ ^ ^ I ** ’ MtfAnrw an * '•.•• • 'WIST IlUXOf HO 8C0 A J’~'^ V •♦• I U.,;- OA \0AHLR0’ * *.• ^ *.• •% §®RAilOVlEw'„,l^ ^ • • * «1*- . rV SkogsbtrgFdni CTtlMjr^ .. • • • * 2 /. ElUIN ST HI6H 5CHHSTIHE on I-/ “<? ;v^». R/^' ': ‘ V • ^ ^ *«« ' •. •.'*•• • . V' '- V * \^.^y,..;-^/^v;7 Wor/1 \-V;^ MX Mdxwi • . ^ »%■ >> XwOAr/^ ORONO Arm . Shad^ood Point '.May , ,;.. ^DEERINO ••■ . ^^SO'ness Point 4 • I- twofgulf n. >>oaeruam Crystal • •• * •Bayh • • • *•• SHOO ?c « ' VilCKS0N\ V'*-*-*' AVI \ \* . • *’ • / . 0 V . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500'500-1000' FYTSTlNa HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House_________X Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X rs ss TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____B 5* ^ 1^ “* PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X_____________* Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F, Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -i- B ^ ■er S.F. S:F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ;S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S... S.F. S.F. S.F. A B X 100 S.F. A S.F. B % HARDCOVER CALCULATI SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ ORKSHEET 250-500’500-1000 ’ KXTSTING HARDCOVER IN 7.0NF A. House ______________ Length ^ - ! ijb^ s.F. Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other yvJrnrl \'e t. vv^v i I ^ X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ^ A 4/i f - B / 3^S>6 xlOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X _____________ Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape ______________ Underlain ______________ By Plastic ______________ Or Fabric G. Otncr X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONL TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ^ A ____ - B X 100 = nz liA 3tlfL 45^ % S.F. S.F. S.F. SN=. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 30.0? % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ;s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. m_____S.F, S.F. % A B A B B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE , - A 7.0.7 ^ B ^5Cl 72.7 X100 = PPOPnSFIV HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other S:f. ’IJL 7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ___S.F. S.F.y % 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. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE , - A nog -5- B -0,4-FiD A B X 100 7-07 S.F. A 4^0 S.F. B % V! RUN MTE 12/15/9f HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S54R1 PAGE IS SATCH BS7 PROP AOIIR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANi/AOOR SS ST-llT-ES 41 •14tt PARK DR RICNARD 0 NORUH RICHARD 0 NORUH 14SS PARK DR HOUND HN 55344 §074 35 07-117-23 41 0079 01375 PARK DR KATHLEEN A HURPHY KATHLEEN A*HURPHY 1375 PARK DR HOUND HN 55344 38 07-117-23 42 0012 01399 PARK DR $ N SIOEL 8 S E SI6EL STEVEN N 8 SHEILA E SIOEL 1399 PARK DR HOUND HN 55344 PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 42 0013 01422 PARK DR R 0 8 H L STAFFAI60N RANDALL 8 HARIE STAFFANSON 1422 PARK DR HOUND HN 55344 38 07-117-23 42 0014 01405 PARK DR FOR SHEARER FREDERICK J SHEARER 1405 PARK DR m 55344 38 07-117-23 42 0017 01415 PARK DR J D SILLERUD 8 N A SILLERUD JONATHAN D 8 NORA A SILLERUD 1415 PARK DR HOUND HN 55344 PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 35 07-117-23 42 0015 01415 PARK DR J D SILLERUD 8 N A SILLERUD JONATHAN D 8 NORA A SILLERUD 1415 PARK DR HN 55344 38 07-117-23 42 01379 PARK DR UTA OTTE UTA OTTE 1379 PARK DR HOUND HN 55344 0035 TOTAL 5ATCH 507 00005 . •• L * y X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REFRESEHTEO ARE AH ACCURATE AM) TRUE REFRESEMTATION OF INFORHATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE REST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE ■ (A PERMIT RECORD /5 99 P oaJ< Qa . Permit No.Date Type of Permit 1 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planncr DATE:January 14,2000 SUBJECT: #2553 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3745 Shoreline Drive Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District This application requires the following variance: Section 10.61, Subd. 2 (A) (3): Allows one sign for each use allowed by conditional use permit- up to 12 square feet per surface. To allow a 4' x 10' (per side) for a two sided cabinet sign to replace a smaller existing V-board sign. Application Summary: The applicants are requesting a variance for signage square footage to construct and replace an existing, deteriorating sign on the property. The existing sign was constructed in 1956. The proposed sign is 4’ x 10' per side. The sign is smaller than the existing sign, but 28 square feet larger per side than the allowed 12 square feet per side. The proposed sign is not illuminated and will be located in the same location as the existing sign. The sign will sit on a brick base approximately one foot in height and will be at least 5 feet from the property line. The proposed sign is intended to advertise the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, a use of the property approved via a conditional use permit adopted by the Orono City Council in the mid 1950's. The applicant seeks approval of a variance for signage square footage to construct a new sign on the property. Statement of Hardship : The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. ^255} Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 37-f5 Shoreline Dr he Variance 1/14/00 Page I Issues for Concern: 1. Issues the Planning Commission may have. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance for signage square footage. Exhibits A Application Site Plan/Survey Drawing-Proposed Sign Plat Map Location Map Property Owner’s List Permit Record .1 B C D E F G 1 U2353 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3745 Shoreline Drive Variance I/I 4/00 Page 2 Application U 2 ^ Date Received /2/2o7^ f Amount Paid 7-SO^ 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)O’) PROPERTY INFORMATION . Site Address ^ PkjW-e 1/ \h€.l\)? \la ^ \\ vS Property Identi^cation Number (P.I.D.) 2 0 - 2 “Z./ 0 01. S Attach legal description to a^licAtion if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ^ ___________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ___residential o ther (specify) urc^^ Zoning District: ______________________ (month/year) ^ \t.. . APPLICANT Phone (home)01 Name Goo^ ij'an ^ ifh Phone (work )~407^ - ^j- tL Address! itf, City: AJ/7 /c? Zip: 5^ 7^'/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (\vork)_ Address:Ciiv:Zip:. UPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ' _____ ribe request in detail: /Hi /)? f'l] (( p f- /j ri ■ 111I cl.|.3dto if* c VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot W'idth Hardcover Lot Coverage HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirement^:____________ . , 1 {_____■ >_____ , , j p)-->r ^-j ’ i V- ^ ^ V-^ P^yy't A It 1 iT^-p ii*^iJ ^U'v |A ^ V in*----------.--------------------------1----------, ) . (attach additional sheets If necessary) ... ✓ ! SO'^i hfr Oi^4^ 'c''* r^ec*j C)t o • ‘ ^ '0 id^A-h t ^ se r r'S • ^ .! REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application dea dline date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. 2- 3. 4. nIA 5. 6. 7 i 8. Completed Application Form Certified Properly Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you ^ must obtain this list, labels and mao from Hennepin County Department of'^ Finance, A-603, Go\i Center,(p48-5910^ 3^45^ l>y. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVz" .x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy iVz" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. ly The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that ygMC variance application is not complete if the above information has not been incliided. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to pro\ide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ~_______ Date / 2'''/^ ' 9^^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the propert> by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council------------- -------- g-----g-------^ ^ members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature ^hi' X Dale 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, ple^e make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. E^TOFE^TTE W & For; Good Sheperd Lutheran Church 3749 Shoreline Drive (Co. Rd. #15) ir^ Wayzata, Minnesota, 55391 . ^ /Vv/ CO.JtO»D“/S K Surveyor; Gilbert J. Beseke 4401 Crawford Road Hopkins, Minnesota, Phone; 938-208? Description; Lot 5» Block 7 Townsite of Langdon Park, Scale; 1”=100' o Denotes I.F, I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super­ vision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Date; November 26, 1986, Registration Number 13793 OX rlXXlI16SO ucL • Jl ^r-.ts-' VI > / V .1 j •o eVV? / It 1«^ 8:00 AND 10:30 /1 t'\\ b*'' EDISON SIGNS 510BRIMHALLAVE. LONG LAKE, MN 55356 (612) 473-7'’49 4tU>:TBEF # c c » WORSHIP WwwM 1 Sheperd 8:00 AND 10:30 SUN SCHL 9:20 ‘ kUCUVa MU Church 1-800-SHEPERD g;p-:. - ...-...as-, -..iJ! ^•f'? mJ. mim^ FDsr msmBiAN WORSHIP a GO &H0I0 30 SUN SCHL 0 20 479 2150 / .’ *»«**••«» A rOMT \U 1 % •* #•••*•** . • *■ .X. ** "■*•....f DRONOfs Arm ND Fagerness Point B OV 9. . • . V • ‘*.. 7 -o . ORONOA/A * J * • ••. 1.• • . *% • */ •»«!: CrystalBqy '^ . \ •• • * • • .• j • • ..• ••• • • . .** • ••• •• ,•* • • j* nV.-^ - ■■■■ ® ' ;•• UfayetM ^ ■ • . %.1 ':. . ♦.'. ’ . T^. I * * •• - •I--.; * ;•'.. • • ^ • Lafayett; pounlry C ub •.' ;.;y (UOO ^00. ,;...• .• * 1* no«iM ft IICIUON TOi^ % >>oa«nMiai i£ !£■*« *s7r—« q Tolo AVI ^ * •• • . \ • r : X ^i OmULL ntJC0»wTt otrnAL n iM »tsroa ime Spring Park ift£llllC o o <o CO MINNETONKA 4^:. ’V .^tOIAll l|9Uy»' ‘ ' Carman Pel yaim n Point GOOSE ='->ISLAND 4-^^' !L- • •• .•• •/**.*• . ?» ^ « . • A. 'n %• • • I ' • ‘• i * ^ t' • ^ ^ I • * - ^ ^ . * . .• . .• • ;. •. * ^ *** * • ;/ • • *'*•*• * *• * ■; • ' V Foirtf- ./lr ••.. \ • •: • y<1 ,a.^. aORO ? / - •• i m SPRAY CV5. •C<''' •• r “ • « .’•• •-^ • i . •< • ^2800 • •. DY . , Cf A^rrs * • -> nrllcC 'W iMl •••*. *T/*» MllCtUT OA \ y\ RUN DATE 12/lfc/»» BATCH 5*1 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE S PROP AODR OHHER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP Al OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP Al OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SB 17-117-25 SA 0003 •577R SHORELINE DR HARY SOHNS HATTNEW SOHNS IMl AVOCET LA hound HN 553M 38 17-117-23 3A 000<k 03798 SHORELINE DR PAUL W LARSON PAUL LARSON 3885 SHORELINE OR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 39 0085 83788 SHORELINE DR TONKA VENTURES LLC TONKA VENTURES LLC 7788 FRANCE AVE S H778 EDINA HN 55435 38 17-117-23 34 8888 83748 SHORELINE DR TONKA VENTURES LLC TONKA VENTURES LLC 7788 FRANCE AVE S 8778 EDINA HN 55435 38 17-117-23 34 8007 8883B ADDRESS UNASSI^D TONKA VENTURES LLC TONKA VENTURES LLC 7788 FRANCE AVE S R778 EDINA HN 55435 38 28-117-23 21 0881 02484 OUNWOOOY AVE LAWRENCE T HENDERSON LAWRENCE T HENDERSON 2484 OUNWOOOY AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8885 82478 OUNWOOOY AVE HARIA LUISA LUECK HARIA LUISA LUECK 2478 OUNWOOOY AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8888 82488 DUNWOOOY AVE H J ZACHHAN 8 P R PALESCH H J ZACHHAN APR PALESCH 2488 OUNWOOOY AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8887 88838 ADDRESS UNASSI6NED LAWRENCE T HENDERSON LAWRENCE T HENDERSON 2484 DUNWOOOY AV WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8888 88838 ADDRESS UNASSICNED LAWRENCE T HENDERSON LAWRENCE T HENDERSON 2484 OUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8818 82588 • CASCO POINT RO IRJA F PAURUS IRJA F PAURUS 2588 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8814 82538 CASCO POINT RD T CHALUPSKY t D Y CHALUPSKY T CHALUPSKY A D Y CHALUPSKY 2538 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8815 82528 CASCO POINT RO NARIE A SVAN6 HARIE a SVAN6 2528 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8814 82518 CASCO POINT RO BEVERLY ANN NORRIS BEVERLY ANN NORRIS 2518 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8817 82528 CASCO POINT RO R 0 ROCCA A H $ ROCCA RONALD D A HOLLY S ROCCA 2528 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8818 82488 DUNWOOOY AVE CALVARY NEHORIAL CHURCH CALVARY NEHORIAL CHURCH 2428 OUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 28-117-23 21 8822 88838 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED VIL OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAi BAY HN 55323 38 28-117-23 21 8825 83745 SHORELINE OR NW ENG LUTH SYNOD GOOD SHEPHERD LUTH CHURCH 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE WAYZATA HN 55391 dl lU J.' RUN DATE 12/16/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI635901 PAGE 6 BATCH 5il u. I PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR Sa 20-117-23 21 0033 03701 SHORELINE DR CASCO RUN LTD PTNRSHP CASCO RUN LTD PTNRSHP P 0 SOX 163 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 3B 20-117-23 21 0036 02490 CASCO POINT RD H H t C G CL^trriER JR HEATHER/CORTLEN CLOUTIER JR 2490 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA NN 55391 3B 20-117-23 21 0037 024B0 CASCO POINT RD DAVID A CANNISTRACI ET AL DAVID A CANNISTRACI MEGAN SMITH-CANNISTRACI 303B CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 501 00021 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION# TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE r r /•*o \1 t r i 1 ^ •■U'. .5^ Address: PERMIT RECORD “27^ Stia/ie/f G Permit No 3VV6 Soieg__ ^li>^ JnjiA Date thta • ^ 5 / - /*a -7o i/-P^-70 /P- g.7 > ^3sG7S 3l=&-:13. _7>/ > 5? - ^ Type of Permit -/2jUi^stot=f^ L /f / / —4 ^ c-'^-rG_ 'y72cc/C 9! TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 14,2000 SUBJECT: #2554 Ann and Gil Anderson 845 Willow Drive South Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area:Approximately 740,000 s.f. (17 acres) This application requires the following variance: Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): Front Yard Setback: The minimum requirement shall be observed for front yard setback: 50 feet. To permit a residential addition to be 36.5' from the front property line where 50' is required. Application: The applicants are proposing to construct a 18' x 1 O' master bedroom addition to their residence. The addition is to the side of their residence which is currently located 36.5' from the front property line. The septic site is located 59' to the south of the residence. Structural coverage is not a concern in this application. The applicants seek approval of a front yard setback variance. •. \ it2554 Ann/Gil Anderson 845 Willow Drive South Variance 1/14/00 Page I Application #25Si Date Recehed A ? Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Aiter-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY nVFORMATION \ Site Address Ijgtv/tr 5-'A .?« .i Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) /d- HI- 2.Z "Z2. 00<^'Z. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired f']A V (month/year) I (do) (do not) also onmi the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V resident!^ ___^other (specify). Zoning District: R- \ R__________________________ - ; i \ : , : •• APPLICANT C A f\ ~4ir>iA 4 Cukil. MName Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_V. •' ri\i^Address: P4-C VJ > if differ^ than applicant) Name LiPi^n ^AlrtcL / Address: C ity :__jQxta£i£i Zip: ^^3Si Phone (^bb) ---- phone itv: _____Zip: . t DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S_^______________ Describe request in detail: /o‘-0 v IP>* ro “rine---- (\pAyCrtf} _________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width Y Setback: Front __Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) H.ARDSHIP/DESCR1PTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions ;.ievcnting compliance with Zoiung Code requirements: IIap n I ^ vtAPpl *yL. iryTHL u.cn* Cr)G-i-D VaJQjui _________5---------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) -1-!^A d f;!'Q\r, -iX ^ »• - New living space NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING & REMODELING 10024 MTKA. BLVD. MTKA.. MN. 55305 Denis Ostroot #3096 .* If C '•-v-r' HJ t :• ■ !/■'/ • f •*•• # r laLUI I a 5^ 6 g • • . »% r.* * t •v.\ - ■ • • . ^ •; ^ i-.l,- i ' •Oo,— ak^ . ':': ■':■ *i.'*‘'• K. VATIATA WIM CM ^ WATlATOim ATS SQMCASIT BCRO ^SOl^ 2 • •* daxwelij^Gardca ‘:{ LAKE no ANIEIS ^ WOOOH YEN 7^ AiXXniCTG —CS351 ACHAAO^o corM»- fC«0«2 g MAP «AMO AW Itl^ AW / 100 C(7- "0 0 TH0ACU6H IBCO OEVINU 013 lOi 0^ . ^ ^ ••• -a»J^ —\\ ♦^ •rr^’-rr CO UN LONGVIEW cot 2 ....... NfOCf ’h. Orono. f. cou '.: I Course :i T'-r-^' Vv is• * >:.‘ 'i :-: -. Woedbti i - • /• r . • • * • r line •••••••* wuni \ 400 ABM600N VAT ORON g A. >/4^* C lu 2 i^/ *<UJ 10 gj < Si « 5 d ^ 2 ^ ^ BCIfISOI S MaiNuisi rex ui o 800 FRENCH LAXE French ; V Lake Tdnaieir \ .;Xole • • • %•- fvr^/<vf::sBravv/i5:. :y.. ;•..'♦»• • ■^- - •' ..- •%• ♦• •. • •- .V • «V,- ■ :. ; •>*.V .;••;•••-• • , e • Address: 1) /yt ^ PERMIT RECORD H Permit No. /<r/V X^OTiQj 0.h3.±.. Date 9-^V &-'S fo /9-A-- 9S S£U lo - J7-9 ~? Type of Permit ^COoJLp yiu; o/, ~Ty<jt~CLtfucf /Q ' /I __M=.4^is=L __ // TO:Chair Havm and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 7,2000 SUBJECT:#2556 Barbara and Collins Cavender 1395/1405 Rest Point Road Variances-Public Hearing________ Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:13,238 combined square feet (.30 acre) List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I. Application Statement of Hardship Plat Map Existing Site Plan/Survey Proposed Site Plan/Survey Lakeside Elevation View Streetside Elevation View Floor Plan Property Owners List Application: The applicants have proposed to remove an existing residence from a property located at 1405 Rest Point Road and combine the lot with a vacant lot located at 1395 Rest Point Road. Combined the two lots are 13,238 square feet (.30 acre) in the LR-IB (1 acre zoning district). The applicants have requested variances to permit construction of a single family home on the property. Lot History: The previous property owner of the vacant parcel had requested variances to permit new construction which included lakeshore setback, lot area, lot width, hardcover and structure the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission in January, 1998 and recommended for denial based on the size of the lot and lack of a sewer stub. The application was withdrawn by the applicant and was not reviewed by the City Council. "'This was only for the vacant parcel not the developed parcel. t^2556 Barbara and Collins Caxender 1295 1405 Rest Point Road Variances I 19 00 Page I This application requires the following variances: 1.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) and O) to permit strr''' ”e ithin 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The applicants have proposed to construct a new residence 30’ from the lakeshore where 75 ’ is required. 2. 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit structure and hardcover within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) to permit 2,406 s.f (25.3%) hardcover in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback where 1,546 s.f. (13.6%) exists and no hardcover is allowed. 4.Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit a new residence to be constructed within the 35' street setback. The proposed residence encroaches 13.63’ into the setback. To permit a new residence to be constructed on a lot less than 1 acre in size in the LR-IB zoning district. 5.Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C) to permit 2,298 square feet (17.4%) structure where 1,171 square feet (8.8%) exists and 1,985.7 square feet (15%) is allowed. ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Lakeshore Side Yard Street Yard Required 43,560 s.f 140'75’10 ’35’ Existing 13,238 s.f 124 ’41’3.5’0 ’ Proposed 13,238 s.f 124 ’31’10'21.37 ’ The subject lot is 0.3 acre where 1.0 acre is required for new construction. Variances are required for lakeshore setback, front yard setback and lot area to permit new construction. •2556 Barbara a* * Coiltnj C ij\ender 1595 1405 Ris. - it Road yanancits 1/19 00 Page 2 Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 13,238 s.f.Existing: 1,171 s.f. Proposed: 2,298 s.f. 8.8% 17.4% The applicants request the amount of structural coverage be granted a variance to include the amount of existing structural coverage on the developed lot (1405 Rest Point Road) and 15% of the undeveloped lot (1395 Rest Point Road). The coverage results in structure of 2,298 s.f. (17.4%). Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75'9,507 s.f.1,546 s.f. (16.3%) none (0%) 2,406 s.f. (25.3%) To permit new construction 75'-250'3,731 s.f.507 s.f. (13.6%) 126.75 s.f. (25%) 716 s.f. (19.1%) none The property has been previously developed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance and by reviewing existing and proposed site plans it is clear there is only a small legal building pad on the property. Most of the lot exists within 75' of Lake Minnetonka so it should be assumed to develop the lot some structure and hardcover would be located within 75' of the lakeshore. The hardcover calculation does not include hardcover that is located on the property for a lift station. The lot has been credited for the 41 square feet of hardcover. "'No utility easement has been granted for the lift station installed on the property. f^2556 Barbara and Collins Cm ender 1395/1 W3 Rest Point Road Variances I 19 00 Fjge3 Variance STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Applicant’s hardship is included with Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variances for lot area to create a buildable lot. Staff is concerned about the total structure on the property as the City of Orono has been consistent in requiring lots not to exceed 15% coverage. The total proposed coverage by the applicant is 17.4%. The rational for the coverage to exceed the Code requirement is replacement of existing coverage on the developed lot and 15% of the vacant lot. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances it should be a condition of approval the lots be combined into one tax parcel prior to recording thf* variance on the chain of title. i^2556 Barbara and Collins Cavtnder 1395/1405 Rest Point Road Variances I 19.00 Page 4 A Application # Date Received zssto “IPS CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Amount Paid ^ *^00 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /?e-s.h'ios Property Identification Number (P.I.D.l 07-//7-Z3 33 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property A.cquired /(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert>“ ___presidential ___pother (specify) _________________ Zoning District: ________________________________________________— APPLICANT^ /n ^ ^ ^ phone (home ) 60 -«Sas.7 Namer _______<k\Jetyo-ex’ ________________ Phone (work! ' cz.tf Address: Lh,tde^ir^ C 0\VNERf(tf^ifferent th WWvV City: aW Zip:_^s±d. licant)Phone (home) Phone (work). 1"T- 7 Address: i<fio T?tr^7^o»City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $.m (attach additional sheets if necessary)a fxn VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area ___Lot Width X Setback: X Front __Side ____Other (specify)___________________ X Hardcover X Rear V Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_____S'-r .7-------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) statement of Hardship Addendum A. Lot Area: The legal combination of Lots 24 and 25 will provide 13,238 sq. ft. (1/3 acre) of property. This does not meet the 1-acre minimum for this particular area B. Lot Width: Unclear as to whether or not this ordinance applies to the property. C. Hardcover: 1. The lift station located on Lot 24 consumes 41 sq. ft. of hardcover. W • are asking for a credit of equal amount to compensate for this shared use on the property, reducing the proposed hardcover to 25.4%. 2. Due to the need for a wide radius where the drive meets the unusually narrow street, the hardcover calculations exceed the maximum 25% allowed. We are asking for a credit of 42 sq. ft. (the total amount necessary to accommodate the radii). Assuming the credit of 83 sq. ft. of hardcover, the proposed new residence will meet the 25% maximum hardcover regulations. Cl 1*2. . ‘ C • « D. Lot Coverage: We are requesting the amount of structure coverage be modified to include both the existing 1225 sq. ft. of Lot 25, plus 15% of the total area of Lot 24. This total, combining the existing structure on Lot 25, and 15% of Lot 24, equals 17.5% lot coverage. We are asking that 17.5% lot coverage be approved by the council, which will accommodate the proposed structure. E. Setback: The legal setback restrictions allow for 0 sq. ft. of buildable area on Lot 25, and 411 sq. ft. of buildable area on Lot 24. 1. We are requesting to encroach on the Lake side setback of 75 ’-0". However, the forward most portion of the proposed structure is set back 4’-0 ” further from the lake than the average lakeshore line created by the forward most corners of the adjacent structures. We are lequesting to encroach on the Street side setback of 35’-0". The forward most portion of the proposed structure encroaches of the setback line by 15'-6". Please note the existing structure on Lot 25 does exceed the street side property line at three different locations. These three portions of the existing structure extend into the Rest Point Road right-of- way. 2. 3. We believe this is the best placement of the proposed house given the shape and size of Lot 24 and Lot 25 for three reasons: ■ To preserve our view, as well as that of our neighbors. ■ To allow a reasonable distance away from the sewer lift station. ■ To set back from the street and utility lines as much as possible. r-C ? ••• 7Nn ? • * • \ :* .• • V • » *•',%. i 0 »• «J ^ i 1 V4»> WA * •••'. '■ ' 'A }) lasi r .*# j • * fi : t 'J, r^m ,? . v«i . .*1 I / .■rt-rr- UJ);^ |■*il5il| .SillV:'.<1| mg IfBlI iS"■■ w.;u I ■V ■ ‘ — 'tx .' W?1 w| m •ij yxi ‘•5l r;9 mm^ lilt 'r: VI tf; ' - - - :.. .?>utr*> ^ WJ ■■ !Th 1 (BS - ^ ^ A ’iVfkftivU ' I II > # « *.*n v« \ .V •• « ‘'I .. /.I :;.r»; i>K®-'Tl ».tm* • /— * T' n —.’V, ■m. %>»»r ■ ■I ■■ CP II t^n II Kr'! ra !13 |tl' »W ••. tJ «M a«' iMS STfc'iii'ti Bf - yv ;.i-vj: t»/ .a 11 iU‘- ■' •.- •»> ..vv, ..■'■^.■v ..-A ^ ^ ■" - Ji.. • - i /»r ':: * - ... -■ -“ .'*' 'rp“y ■» *1^* ■ ^ »r>^ r^^- ^ — ‘i^f'A&e-r W£^y'AT\Ot^o j ^ O RUN DATE 12/RR/99 ■ATCH S92 HErmEPlN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXA35A01 PACE 5 ( t PROP ADOR OWNER NANS TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR OWNER NANR TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR St 97-117-23 32 ••37 •1S7S REST POINT RO N B t L K GERLXCHER HXCHAEL B A LYNNE GERLXCHER XS75 REST POXNT RO HOUND NN 55SM 38 07-XX7-2S 32 0039 •1350 REST POINT RO LIS CRABXLL LARRY I SHARON CRABXLL XSSO REST POXNT RL' NOUNO NN 55369 38 87-XX7-23 33 OtOX 0X9X0 REST POXNT RO ROBERT C BREOESON ROBERT C BREOESON IS E ST ALBANS RO HOPKINS NN 55305 38 tT-nT-XS S3 0002 8X908 REST POINT RO OAVIO A WXLLXANS ElAL OAVXO A WXLLXANS 1900 REST POXNT RO NOUM) NN 55369 SO 07-XX7-2S S3 0003 01906 REST POINT RO L R HORN I N HORN LESTER R I NYRTLE HORN 1906 REST POXNT RO NOUNO NN 55369 SO 07-1X7-23 S3 0009 81398 REST POINT RO L K JOHNSON I C B JOH LYLE K JOHNSON 2737 XRVXNO AVE SO HPLS NN 55908 SO 07-117-23 S3 999S •1396 REST POINT RO PIN WALSH PATRICK J WALSH 1390 REST POXNT RO NOUNO NN 55369 38 OT-UT-XS S3 •••6 •1386 REST POXNT RO J T NYCARO I K N NYCARO J T NYCARO I K N NYCARO 1306 REST POINT RO NOUNO NN 55369 SO OT-IXT-XS S3 •••7 •1388 REST POXNT RO OAVIO K BLOOCETT OAVXO K BLOOCETT 1380 REST POXNT RO HOUND HN 55369 SO 87-117-23 S3 •••• •1395 REST POINT RO ROBERT 0 BREOESON ROBERT 8 BREOESON IS E ST ALBANS RO HOPKINS NN 55305 38 •7-117-23 S3 ••!• •1905 REST POINT RO C CAVENOER I B CAVENDER COLLINS CAVENOER I BARBARA CAVENOER X905 REST POINT RO NOUNO HN 55369 38 RT-IXT-XS S3 ••11 •1385 REST POINT RO 0 W I J L RAHN OAVXO W I JOOX L RAHN 1385 REST POXNT RO NOUNO NN 55369 TOTAL BATCH 502 •••12 J J i*to f :J K ^:v f.-fyr .4 Db Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 January 6,2000 Dear Planning Commission members: Collins and Barbara Cavender have shown us their proposed plans for a house on the combined properties, 1395 and 1405 Rest Point Road. We will not be able to come to the Planning Commission meeting on January 19, but we want you to know that we support their plans and encourage you to approve their variance application. Sincerely, 1 Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 January 6,2000 Dear Planning Commission members: Collins and Barbara Cavender have shown us their proposed plans for a house on the combined properties, 1395 and 1405 Rest Point Road. We will not be able to come to the Planning Commission meeting on January 19, but we want you to know that we support their plans and encourage you to approve their variance application. Planning Conunission City ofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 January 6,2000 Dear Planning Commission members: Collins and Barbara Cavender have shown us their proposed plans for a house on the combined properties, 1395 and 1405 Rest Point Road. We will not be able to come to the Planning Commission meeting on January 19, but we want you to know that we support their plg]^ and encourage you to approve their variance application. ^^96 'PT ^ Planning Commission Chy ofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 January 6,2000 Dear Planning Commission members: Collins and Barbara Cavender have shown us their proposed plans for a house on the combined properties, 1395 and 1405 Rest Point Road. We will not be able to come to the Planning Commission meeting on January 19, but we want you to know that we support their and encourage you to approve their variance application. ffJh H TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 14,2000 SUBJECT:#2557 Dan and Judith McAthie 1449 Bay Ridge Road Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:42,784 s.f. (.98 acre) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B): Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements: Side yard: The minimum requirement shall be observed for side yard setback: 30 feet. To permit a 10.62' setback to the north property line and a 9.93' setback to the south propt rty line where 30' setback is required. Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. To permit a variance for the second story addition to encroach 20' into the average lakeshore setback. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit a hardcover variance to allow 5,745.5 s.f. (28.27%) where 6,241 s.f (30.7%) exists and 5,081 s.f.(25%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicants have applied for variances to permit the addition of a garage and living space to the existing residence. They are proposing to raise the roof of the existing residence for additional living space on the second story. They are also proposing to enlarge the garage approximately 350 s.f. and reducing the size of the turn around in the driveway. The amount of hardcover in the 75- 250’ setback will be reduced by 495.5 s.f (2.43%). The residence was built at its present location in 1967 and now requi res variances for side yard setback and average lakeshore setback. The applicants seek approval of variances for side yard setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. #7357 Daniel/Judith McAthie 1449 Bay Ridge Road Variances 1/14/00 Page I 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area: LR-IA Lot Area Side Yard Setback Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres)30 ’ Actual 42,784 s.f. (.98 acre)9.93* (south) 10.62' (north) Structural Coverage : Hardcover Calculations : Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. U2557 Daniel/Judith McAihie 1449 Bay Ridge Road Variances 1/14/00 Page 2 Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 42,784 s.f.Allowed: 6,417.6 s.f. (15%) Existing: 3,738 s.f. (8.7%) Proposed: 4,088 s.f. (9.5%) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 01i__1,648 s.f.0%98 s.f (5.9%)98 s.f (5.9%) 75* - 250'20,324 s.f 5,081 s.f (25%) 6,241 s.f (30.7%) 5,745.5 s.f (28.27%) 250 ’ - 500 ’20,812 s.f 6,243.6 s.f (30%) 4,142 s.f (20%) 3,708 s.f (17.8%) < ij Issues of Concern: 1 . The residence was constructed in 1967 and at that time it was located closer to the lakeshore than the adjacent neighboring properties. 2. The amount of hardcover in the 75' - 250' setback area is being reduced. 3. Other issues the Planning Commission may have. Staff Recommendation: Staff reconunends approval of variances for side yard setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 75' - 250' setback area. J* \ Exhibits A Application B Site Plan/Survey C Floor Plans D ElevationsA^iews E Hardcover Calculations F Average Lakeshore Setback G Topographic Map H Plat Map I Location Map J Property Owner’s List K Permit Record U2557 Daniel/Judith McAthie 1449 B(Qf Ridge Road Variances 1/14/00 Page 3 Application # ^^55*7 Date Received / ^ -.'^0 ^ Amount Paid 3 - y\JL'^^ i.Q.cc 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) ([cvx.f>- il^loO PROPERTY INFORMATION _ ^ Site Address \A^ Property Identification Number ws^f rm rpmnrpfl 5;urve^Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date ProggHxAcquired ______1_________________________ |/(^ojio^^so own the adjacent parcels of land. _(month/year) Preseiit usTof property: residential Zoning District: 1—\ ^ other (specify). APPLICANT ^ ^ ^ Name v j~- jf^)^ Address:. / 9 Phone (home ) ^/2.>-9 7</^ Phone (woiic)^/Z.- Z^C> ,_____Zip:. OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) % ryi^A-hkte, Phone (work)_Js2ca^ J^Ly CWT. ---------Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in det^l: ^\Aa t _________-• 0(!^‘ ) (attai:h a^lional sheets if necessar>) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front ^Sid( 23?^ Hardcover ___^Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of unusual PROPERTY CONDITIONS Oi^TAf (attach additional sheets if necessar>) ^ ^ M O tf ‘ ^^ 1 1 6 REQUIRED SUB^^TTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 2. ^ 3. X 4. iilt 5. ^ 6. 7. X, 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property OvvTiers List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x U" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. . The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your ■ variance application is not complete if the above information has Jipt been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to ihe best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature y /I Date / Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plaoning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. L i’ . M Cfcia) ♦ •• o i V •s '•V » \ T----pi' J4.0 ' ") r.-- V. i U t •O. u V 4 l^allk ■ *^.-« ■•■--- - ■ - -- M r • • • • * I *4 • ••• •! I • I i*--M I H 4 L.t> 1 2'^7490 1 8 P. 02 HARDCOVER CA l5j1ATION WORKSHEET HRCLEONE)75^9*SOO-IOOQ' £2|S|igfiJS^BQ£fi^ERJElZQ2i£ A. Houn .1 —. > ss. twg» X X X B. Otnie C Drfvtwiy -r • * • /«r f X Curoj D* SldswiOc X X c. PitlQ/DKkr/znJb^r /?e,WftfrfBM/ X X r. UadtrUk By PtaHte % % X i. Oilm Pofct total hardcover w zone AR^ IN ZO^K too CTnpft*»a HAanrovrR in ZONE Nio A. Houn — • ‘ U WMft X X X B. C m|* C Drtvtwiy X X • • D. SMfwaB X X e. Piilo^Dck X X F. Un<Hf«p« Uodtriab By Fttftfe X X X C. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZOKS TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ♦ B ____ S^. SI* SI* ss* SI* — SJ. SJ. SJ. SI* SI. SI* SI* SI* L SI* %2i 1 7>0(g2 'J,bV» 0-7> 8<F> SI* SI. SI* 81* 81* SI* _IF. SI* SI* SI* SI* SI. SI* A SI* B rfj w // - 1?' e • •• I.;.•.Ml ••II 1'lc.iH rH I ££ 1 29T490 18 P.03 HAKOCOVER ^LCoi*.TION WORKSHEET e(jl5) V • ' SETBACK ZONSt (CIRCLE ONE) 0.75*75-150'150400*500-11 rVTCTINK HAttPCQVER IN ZONE A. Hottsa __ ■Witt X X X B. Otflft C DHvtwty X X D. Bidcwtik X X E. Pido/Dtek X X P. landicipt Undtrlifai By Fliitk X X X O. OOier oyer sej total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY A*EA IN ZONE (Ib «♦ B ^rdcover in zone WVtt X X X IF. m m SJ. m SF. HSH_ _SF. SFm m HUl A 4 B o«* • SF. ^ Vm m S6^ ■ SF. X-F.m m w«« • SF. m SF. e Vm m SL^: ifci lA 1 1ft m vxV/ 7i0 .S.F. SF. X 100 H m -J^Q SF. m SF. B. Omit C. Drtvtwiy X X B. Pado/Dcck ______ A-. 1. rTOo^ X X % % F. Ltn0*ap« Underbia By PlisOe X X X 0. 0**r mr>L x TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE SJ. to44p.^ 3J. 8J. 40 IF. S.F. 5/Z-S.F. $J. SJ. IP. SJ; A 57*/S-5«^ 11 ; :• : H 7 :i *} . > - . - .-i / >• • • # 7 1 y •i**!* I •• ll I i i-:K • U-» t '-f HARDCOVER CALCtn^ATlO^TWoB^^ 7s-2ao- (^S00>)* SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0>7r ^(31^0 soo-iooo* Ift hardcover in zone A. Koum ---- W1«A B. Qins« c Driv*wiy D. E Pilio/Dcck P. 1 Mirtinpt Undvlaki By PlMdc Q. Odwr X X s^. SJ. SJ. SI. SI. X X X X X X X X X ____. SJ. IF. SI. SI. SI. SI. Isi. _SI. 0 fttotal hardcover in zone total PROPCRtY AREA m ZONE * B Zig. Bit. - X 100 • I raOPO^ lARDCQVm iN.Z B. Can|e C. Driviwiy I D. SIdewilk E. P»do/0«ck F. UndKBpe Uodxrl^ By PlMdc 0. Odbtr X x X __SI. __SI. ^SI. X X X X X X S.F. S.P. X ___ X ^ X __ SJ. 8.P. S.P. SJ. SI. SI. __SI. TRHT P ncl’ mcluJc4 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 11 ** ^ ;Vj ca Iculfiirt oilSj:z;:^ f ■' ' \ • *• .1 'w • 1 --------- J J ^ 'iHOto »RF. A --------- -n-.- ■ / ■ >) a (5 » {35);;’o« M a i t)- CRYSTAL AVE I f^V ! i i r»1221 90 1 »8 5(13) - ?(17) !(16)® s 72 sa 90 PROSPECr ;\ S (15)S7«=yOr/ / AVE 57)«frO V. ' V« (51) ^ ---1 R .'7 173 1 8 8 (52) 8 175 Mm 1 ®n 21 1 1 (54)8 vj I« 8(53);!/55) 8,N 8 ## \—1 > 07.3 CO 07.5 07.5 091—H 8^8 y... (K)8 67.5 60 07.5 07.3 .N 1 S ;•(101) s' 9 1 ®(49);(43) S(50)^/ 95.3 FAPT cc IDT 5 (7)‘^0 '!• v';, •% ^ z. ^ 54t.24 Mk i %■ (7) V^^v'WA V s'.%;.;./ 4'.CS' / (24 V« CF vA ca 'e: RCSAf«£*^S 5c ::^€R CF VACiTPD i*,cca^ >\ o A*'»- ' A/tf-h IZf 1 M (16)tel (14)£- / r / b «;>Uj $ /H: : ^ , • vv . ■ • • *•* • F(I • • ' • • •; • • ■*••••% • • *. •• Peavey' *. .• • • / : ':•. '■ Bracketts Point •.•• •• •_* .• • ■.V* \ - Lookout, : - .• .• Point •. • . \ . * • -:vv . • •.*»* #•• - • • • • f ...• ••* • . '•.*..•• •• •• , • •. •.:. i%'.;. • -••: V •-i— f • ,^ ___•• • t./ NKA - ' ‘ V- . S. ;,;. | •;V:;:vC-iVv^ ..tllkV^xV •• * •* ••'•. • V ‘ 1 • . • • *-• M .► V.* • '. 'r *. IU ■S^/tl\t ’*• ••' * **• *• *v •• ' * *‘ Ml - '•‘M*. .••*-'•..»•• •l-\' .1 }/i •UN BATl 12/lB/M •ATOf SIS HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPMT NO. PMSS4I1 PAGE 2 PROP AMM OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SR 1R>117-2S 11 GGIE GtGSA ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NCLEOO CNTY RED RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC 2f AOANS ST N HUTCHINSON HN SSSSG 38 1G-117-2S S3 GIG2 •2265 NORTH SHORE OR KINGSLEY H NURPHV JR KINGSLEY H HURPHY JR 2265 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 1I-117-2S 36 •••3 •1669 DAY RIDGE RO G 0 • D D WESTDY GERALD D • DIANE D WESTDY 1669 DAY RIDGE RD ORONO HN 55391 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANi/MKNI 38 18-117-23 36 •016 •1661 BAY RIDGE RD N J JOHNSON BSP JOHNSON NICNAEL J B SUSAN F JOHNSON 1661 DAY RIDGE RO NAYZATA HN 55391 38 1B-117-2S 36 IBBS 01673 BAY RIDGE RD T R I H H HCCUNE THONAS R HCCUNE 1673 BAY RIDGE RO WAYZATA NN 55391 38 10-117-23 36 ••17 •1625 BAY RIDGE RD SUSAN S TENNEY SUSAN S TEENEY/AC21RB6B2 C/0 NORNEST-H STUKEL-PCS 6TH • NAROUETTE HAC N93B51G5 HPLS HN 55679 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 513 ••••• 38 10 117 23 34 ADDRESS PENDING ROY E AHERN COUNTY OF HENNEPIN PUBLIC SERVICE R/W 320 WASHINGTON AVE HOPKINS MN 55343 0011 mmf UNASSIGNEo““'^ ROY E AHERN ROY E AHERN ^ 1120 FRONT ST HUDSON WI 54016 I. i ^•4 y, 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AH ACCtMATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 1/ 44-^ K K:'7Tr - • ‘ V- . 0 M' Hii^. ■gjojA'Z jLAc^ l< PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date Type of Permit 3-67 IcQAi Ai ,T.rC' _J:/ifZ. - .5-/7 (/7n bjTV11-^75 5-67f 1.5-67 <r:^ — ^11 ^t5ca____S -7/. ”+b( r W \^5SI 6-^5'SI 7?d iilm f Po/ni 0 J 6317 7- (-7 -R) no A 9X' //0 30 /?-A fg' I «iii L TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 14,2000 SUBJECT:#2558 Anthony and Linda Patterson 1780 Shady wood Road Variance — Public Hearing Zoning Dutrict: LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) Lot Area*.12,627 s.f. (.29 acre) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot coverage: In .'*H zoning district, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all prit:';ij and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. To permit a variance to allow lot coverage to be 2,441 s.f (19.3%) where 2,299 s.f (18.2%) exists and 1,894.1 (15%) is allowed. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l): Hardcover in 0-75' setback area: To allow 45 s.f (.85%) of hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback, where 65 s.f (1.2%) exists, and 0 s.f (0%) is allowed, and to allow removal and replacement of an existing deck on the lakeside of the residence to encroach 5' into the 0-75' setback area. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250' setback area: To allow 3,308 s.f (45.1%) of hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, where 3,204 s.f (43.7%) exists, and 1,834 s.f (25%) is allowed. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements: Side yard: The minimum requirements shall be observed for side yard setback: 10 feet. To permit a 6.7' setback where 10’ is required. The existing residence is located 6.7' from the side yard. The applicants seek approval of variances for lot coverage, hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250' setback area, lakeshore setback, and side yard setback. U2558 Anthony/Linda Patterson / 780 Shadywood Road Variances 1/14^00 Page / i Application Summary: The applicants have applied for variances to permit additional living space to the existing residence, replacing an existing deck, and replacing an existing side entrance with a slightly larger entrance. Presently, the house is a 1 Vi story structure that, as proposed, would be expanded to a full 2 story house. The applicants seek approval of variances for lot coverage, hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250’ setback areas, lakeshore setback, and side yard setback. Lot Area: ANALYSIS LR-IC Lot Area Side Yard Setback Required 21,780 s.f.10' Actual 12,627 s.f.6.7' Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 12,627 s.f.Allowed: 1,894.1 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,299 s.f. (18.2%) Proposed: 2,441 s.f. (19.3%) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'5,291 s.f.0 s.f. (0%)65 s.f. (1.2%)45 s.f. (.85%) 75-250'7,336 s.f.1,834 s.f. (25%)3,204 s.f. (43.7%) 3,308 s.f. (45.1%) #2555 Anthony/Linda Paterson / 780 Shadywood Road Variances l/UOO Page 2 f Statement of Hardship : The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues of Concern: 1. The existing residence was built in the I960's creating the existing side yard setbacks. 2. The proposed lakeside deck encroaches into the 0-75' setback area and hardcover in the 0-75' setback a.'*ea. 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff has the following recommendations: 1. Reconfigure the lakeside deck and keep it at the present size of 285 feet will eliminate the hardcover variance and encroachment into the 0-75' setback area.■1 2. Leave the sidewalk and driveway as is. The property needs a sidewalk to access the garage and the driveway size is needed for off street parking and as a turn around. 3. The proposed side entrance is reasonable in size, not excessive for the lot or house size. 4. The second story walls should meet the 10' setback from the north lot line, however, looking at the plans this creates odd shaped rooms fouling up the interior layout of the second story. Exhibits A Application B Applicant ’s letter C Site Plan/Survey D ElevationsA^iews E Hardcover Calculations F Floor Plan G Plat Map H Location Map I Property Owner’s List J Permit Record #2558 Anthony/Linda Patterson 1780 ShadywooJ Road f'ariance 1/14/00 Page 3 I f /) Applkatioii #25S& 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) Date Received Amount Paid '1 PROPERTY INFORMATION /) s - Site Address ^S3^j Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) \ A ^ f 1____ 1 1 • . 1* cV* • I fl « • . .) Attach legal description to applic^ion if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired Ocrbie/^ I (do) (^o not)) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^^residentid ___pother (specify) Zoning District: Ll^^\(^._________________________ (month/ycar) APPLICANT Name ^i/2. Addres^ /*?So Phone (home) /Phone (work) 3 Citv:~OA>/)c 7,h -’y})-tSTl X. Zip:_XOa£|~t- OWNE Name R (if^^^t^an applicant)Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUE Describe request, in det S^.Co'^d 5Tor^ Oo S (attach additional sheets if necessaiy) VARICES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Coverage Setback: ___Lot Width Hardcover _ Front ^ Side ___Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult' or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: c^/r c^c Ac^ __________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. 2. >e: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). CertificaU of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11" for reproduction. XTopographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8’/2" x II" for reproduction. ^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true andiCotKct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE The ovsner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes (^nv^timtion and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. HARDSHIP/DECSCRITION OF UNUSUAL POPERTY CONDITIONS: i 780 SHADYWOOD RD....TONY AND LINDA PA TTERSON A. SECOND STORY ADDITION -The North wall of the second one-half stoiy of our existing residence falls within the lOfl setback of our nei^ibors property line (7ft). We are applying for a variance based on the practical difficulty of replying the dormer existing second story with a full second stor>- but not being able to extend the addition the entire length of the original foundation without conforming to the lOft setback ordinance. B. REPLACE EXISTING FRONT DECK -We would like to replace the e.xisting deck utilizing the same basic square footage. Existing dock meets lake setback , however, the staircase protrudes into the 73ft setback but will be re-located to conform in new desiga C. RE-BUILD SIDE ENTRANCE/MUD-ROOM -We are proposing to replace the e.xisting side entrance with new construction and a slightly larger tbundation that is suitable for our famiUes active lifestyle. Total property hardcover will remain the same with proposed elimination of a portion of the e.xisting driveway and stone walking path on Southeast comer of structure. ' J .r . / ... o^ o 3 •i W»y7/n7g^ATTCRSONJJI^ ADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonki, MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 TONY PATTERSONSURVEY FOR; SURVEYED: OctoberJ999 DRAFTED: November 1.1999 •v.»h k LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 19, Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Showing the length and directioii of bound|ury lines of the above Ic^l description. The scope of our services does ^ include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal descriptioii widi your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that k is comet, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown 2. Showing the locatiooofexistingimprovemenu we deemed important 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark t^ comers of the property. 4. Showing and tabulating hard cover and area ofthe lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over hard cover requirements. STANDARD SYMBOLS A CONVENTIONS: V Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing^e Lkmsc Number set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: 1 beichy certify that this survey wu prepared by me or under my direct supervision and thatl an a Profestfioiial Engineer and a Professional Surveyor under the Uiws of the Stale of Minnmota. H. Parker P.E. ft P.S. No. 9235 v\ 4n;auMUKnMc>--->.N NtHTOOr E —181 Jt—A \ \ sifBnrnuiMK«two 4 ft i FVk STMT SI,-' oumtjc fiCQK/STMU ie K mvo vBt&t r AW HOC wot too nL A \ \—181.M"N towoor c V ..31 \ A \ GRAPHIC SCALE tt ■ JOB NO. 991599 j-rrminm JTrBfRfrrYfl p ■ 50tfH rO V' r. " *■ ooto llllll■lll■l■l■l■l■llllll■f■l■l■llIl■ im ELEVATION (O 1TT 5l1$EfEl.EVAllON HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET :iRCLEONE) ’5-250’ 250-500* 500-1000* F.XTSTTNC hardcover IN ZONE A. House _____________ ^ Length Width B. Garage C Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAtreoreRTY AR^ IN 20^^ ^ ^ ^ D.n»n!tfn nAPnrnvM m ZONE A. House ---------------- * Length Width B. Garage C Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X X X X X E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total P^PERTY AR^ IN e I S.F. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. S.F. S.F.A B » .T—H S.F.t { S.F.V. SI. S.F.V; S.F. 1: S.F. SI.1 % i 1 m SI.*• •. m S.F. -_-4S^s.F. -A- S.F. ■SJ.tJc-i.■ - . •>■». • •SI. •SI. S.F. 4*^ sj.A ; 47^9 1 S.F.B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ' 0-T5*75-250’ FYTSTTNn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________ Len|th Width X X X B. Cange C Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. (Mier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZO^ .q4 + B 1 Vo- panposEn hardco ver in ZONE A. House ------------- * X___________ B. Garage C. Driveway x \oi X ______________ D. ‘'4-Jswalk X X E. Patio/Deck ______________ * -s • k^gL; dg-clpu- F. Landscape Underlain By Plasnc X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZC^ ' 0,0^ Qft, * B 'T ^^Cr> X 100 - L 250-500’500-1000’ \ r> 1 S.F. • SI. f 9 SI. s SI. m ss. -2,1^ S.F. SI. SI. SI. \ _ S.F. «2_rLQ S.F.(T37S.F. S.F. SJ. «• .1 t 'S.F. m m Td T-O*^ . S.F. SJ. A'h.iy* 4*e , > • . • A B . s SI.-7) — 'in S.F. *^- \ A S S.F. *SJ. *. nr*'^ m S.F. S.F. SJ. - 'IZkQ- SF- i S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. A n LT S.F. B A^.\ % i_______ p" Ci^ \ricor Plcin (oi (t^ HEO OMS tRcd'.S t.:Oai£V v: C5ol£i <SC bou r se SEE MAP 61 «aswi«^ "J , >s^$s WEST 8RAMCH ItO •'’ >•* ' ''' \ X-^-•l• .* .•• * •8C0 Jennings' Bay RWfawi /Mar 1600.) w»r It •\* i^«iu > x;^ Harrison -: North 1/?ori»>v^ < C--iV^5?V*!^ *• • X. I 1 ••• •. #««. 1 Forest ___• BJUUOWEW '1 Skogsberg Point ■ i 3 'u 5 ■fa ^1 9 »A»/w00O ■ S ., -• -f<r. V J600 "'“' orono/4 ®l ’ Arm : J K •* • Shad ood Point DEERJNO • • ^ t •# #• ^ • •• • • ^' : v^/w- ISLAND ^ • < Fagernas Point MAm I.- ILT @ safey 00 002400§ caaait toss Crystal •0HN$ _ fOMf - * VU j o./o Z . , V"i!i • V •• • • I m • * \r * • • • ••: ** * ' V - • . :*y •.•*J cr 5 •m • U Spring GSCZXQliCX Ul>»T M iJ 1 ime Iw am"\ 'F Lfi - |"*B-a p Man “*X \ V vlVOUM X*«ii/ I V-Pih MM MTI ■ATCN MS TAKTAVIR NMI/AOM S« 17-117-2S 21 •••« •••U AOMtSS UNASSIGNEO MOMimi rORFIlTfO LAM» cm or OMMO P 0 iOM M COYSTAL lAV HN SSS2S tKMMPlN COUNTY PROPCItTY XNPMHATiaN SYSTEM PIWfCIITY 0UNE2S LIST SO 17-117-2S 21 tit7 •••SO AIXMESS UNASSXCt NEMNEPIN roOPEITEO UNO CITY OP OMMO P 0 ION «4 COYSTAL OAY HN 55525 Eswor NO.. piaMmi PA«E !• M 17-117-2S 21 tatO «179it 5!IOOYNOOO OB Lit .TILOOAM LCOOY • 06LPH1C PILOOAN •OX 01 NAVAOOE NN 55SA2 % I..V TAXPAYtO NAHi/AOOO TAXPAYEO NMC/AMW TAXPAYEO SO X7-117-2S 21 0021 •1750 SNAOVMOOO 00 OOETCNEN S SNAN OOETCMEN S SHAH 1750 SNADYNOOO 00 MAYZATA NN SSSn SO 17-117*2S 21 0024 •1700 SNAOYHOOO 00 ANTHONY L PATTEOSON ET AL ALOIS PATTEOSON 1700 SNAOYHOOO 00 HAYZATA NN 55591 SO 17-117-25 21 0027 •1010 SNAOYHOOO 00 OOOEOT C ALBOECHT OOBEOT C ALBOECHT 1010 SNAOYHOOO 00 HAYZATA NN 55S91 SO 17-117-2S 21 0022 •170B SNAOYHOOO 00 BAIL S BOINEO OAIL S BOINEO 174A SNAOYHOOO 00 HAYZATA HN 55S91 SO 17-117-2S 21 ••25 •1795 SNAOYHOOO 00 OONALO J UOBAN OONALD J UOBAN 179B SNAOYHOOO 00 HAYZATA NN 55S91 SO 17-117-25 29 •••! •1025 SNAOYHOOO 00 OIANE LEE OUUD OIANE LEE OUUO 1025 SNAOYHOOO 00 HAYZATA NN 55591 SO 17-117-2S 21 0025 •1770 SNAOYHOOO 00 SUE ANN HENOEOSON SUE ANN HENOEOSON 1770 SNAOYHOOO 00 HAYZATA NN B5S91 SO 17-117-2S 21 ••20 •!••• SHABYHOOO 00 OOUBLAS 0 SEABQLT OOUOLAS 0 SEABOLT !••• SNAOYHOOO 00 HAYZATA Ml 55S91 TOTAL BATCH BBS •••!! I 5^'«s-| cO ■ l I CEOTIPY THAT THE FACTS OEPOESENTEO AOE AN ACCUOATE ANO TOUE OEPOCSENTATION OF INFOOHATION AS IT APPEAOS THIS DATE ON THE OECOOOS OF THE HEfOMPlN COUNTY BEPAOTMENT OF POOPEOTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF NY KNQHLEOeC ANO BELIEF DATE .“7*jj >1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 15,1999 ROLL: The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Daniel Kluth, and Jay Nygard. Commissioner William Stoddard arrived at 8:08 p.m. The following represented City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weiriberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Bob Sansevere was present. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2525 LARRY JACOBSON AND VICKIE O'NEILL, 635 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - VARIANCE, 6:32 p.m. • 6:36 p.m. Larry Jacobson, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant was proposing to construct a detached garage on the north side of the residence, which was tabled at the October 18,1999 Planniiig Commission meeting to allow him time to submit a revised plan. The Applicant is now proposing to construct an attached garage •'n the north side of his home consisting of 612 square feet and located 13.9 feet from the side property line, with the garage door facing to the east. Bottenberg stated a variance is needed for a side yard setback for the garage to be located 13.9 feet from the side yard where 30 feet is required. Jacobson stated in an attempt to reduce the variance, he has downsized the garage and relocated it somewhat. Jacobson stated this is probably the best location for the garage. Havm noted that the old proposal v/as for 569 square feet, with the new proposal being 612 square feet. Hawn inquired why the size of the garage was Increased. Jacobson stated he incorrectly stated the size of the garage in the old proposal. Jacobson stated garage will have a 16 foot garage door, with two feet on either side. Sipith Gomnliented that the size of the garage was fairly standard. « • Bottenberg this is not an oversized garage. The\^ were no public comments. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2525, Larry Jacobson and Vjtkie O'NeJJIi, 635 Famdaie Road North, to permit a variance to side yard setback to allow the constfMction of an attached garage located 13.9 feet from the side yard where 3d feet is itsuulred. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 1 L, ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2) #2530 WILLIAM WEAR, 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - VARIANCES Troy Ramhill, Conoco Owner, and Duane Downy. Suburban Lighting, were present. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission at its last meeting tabled the request by William Wear to locate new signage on the property not in conformance with Resolution 2073 approving a sign plan in 1986. The Applicant had originally proposed a 59 square foot pylon sign and two Conoco, canopy signs. The monument sign had been reduced from 89 square feet. The Planning Commission tabled the application due to a substantial amount of signage not being in conformance with the requirements of Resolution 2073. and recommended that the signage be reduced to 380 square feet, which would be allowed if the zoning matched the use of the property. Weinberger stated currently the property is zoned 6-1, with the current use of the property being more in conformance with that listed in the B-3 Shopping Center District. Under the B-3 zoning standards, the property would be allowed 380 square feet of signage. The Applicant is proposing to erect a sign that is 10' 6" in height, which can be compared to the Super America sign at 13' 10". The proposed sign consists of 59 square feet. Currently the property is allowed total building signage of 288 square feet, with each individual sign permitted to be 2' by 12', for a total of 24 square feet. The west pylon sign, which is still existing, consists of 112.5 square feet. The east pylon sign, which has been removed except for the pylons, consisted of 112.5 square feet. The total signage permitted on site per Resolution No. 2073 is 573 square feet. Weinberger stated the request by the Applicant is to allow a sign plan that would permit the property 180 square feet of building sign space. Included in the building sign space would be 40 square feet of signage on the canopy for two 2.5' by 8' Conoco signs. Tenants would be allowed one building sign above each entrance to each business, except businesses which are in the center of the mall or located on the south end of the mall. Each building sign would not be allowed to exceed 30 feet in height. Weinberger pointed out that the west pylon was approved five feet off the west property line and ten feet from the front property line. The east pylon sign was approved 27 feet from the front property line. The east pylon sign was located within the front yard setback. The Planning Commission will need to consider the future of the pylon signs that are not in conformance or allowed by variance as well as whether signs should be allowed to be replaced once removed. City Staff could recommend approval of variances based on the fact that the signage proposed would be allowed under the existing Ordinance if the property would be zoned B-3. Staff recommends the property owner show on a site plan the location of the proposed monument sign, and to design a sign and base that conforms to a smaller scale arterial street and utilizes materials used for the base of other monument signs in the locality. Weinberqer noted that the approvals granted in 1986 assumed the current location of Highway 12. Relocation of Highway 12 would reduce the existing Highway 12 from a major highway route to a local arterial. Ramhill commented that they have removed some of the e^. r- 'iq signs from the building to reduce the total amount of signage on the property, and is attemptir y- u; * „ rove the appearance of the property by the installation of a canopy and a nice monume'!' tyo? .ign. Nygard inquired how many square feet of signage remain on the building Downy stated that there currently exists 124 square feet of signage on the building Page 2 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2530 William Wear, Continued) Nygard pointed out that some of the existing signs are oversized. Downy stated to their knowledge they have removed all the signs that were non-conforming. Smith commented if the 288 is reduced to 124, the total is 309 square feet. Smith inquired whether that number would be accurate for the total signage. Downy stated there is 180 square feet allowed on the building, with 141 square feet of signage on the west pylon sign, and the proposed 59 square feet of signage would bring it to a total of 380 square feet. Lindquist noted that the Planning Commission is probably only going to approve up to 380 square feet of signage. Downy acknowledged that this sign plan does not allow for much additional signage for any new tenants. Weinberger pointed out that the 180 square feet and the 124 square feet that currently is on the building would also consist of 40 square feet on the canopy. Lindquist inquired whether the west pylon sign would be relocated. Downy stated the west pylon sign currently has signs in it. Weinberger stated that the sign located under the power poles is being replaced with the Conoco sign. Staff does have a concern if the total number of tenants drops below six, the west pylon sign would contain less signs that what is currently allowed. The owner has indicated that the west pylon sign would remain as it currently exists. However, the west pylon sign is a non-conforming structure and would require that any proposed changes to the sign would require Council review. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith commented that a site plan is also requested as part of this application Weinberger stated that the new sign would be required to meet the ten foot front yard setback and 15 foot side yard setback, and City Staff would like to have a site plan submitted showing the proposed location of the sign. Chair Hawn noted that William Wear. Applicant, is now present. Weinberger commented that Items A. B, and C were what was previously approved per Resolution No. 2073. The Applicant is now requesting 180 square feet of building signage, 59 square feet for the new Conoco sign, and 141 square feet for the existing pylon sign, for a total of 380 square feet. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Applicant #2530, William Wear, 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, granting of variances based on the signage proposed, with a maximum of 380 square feet of signage being allowed for this property, with the understanding that the Applicant will submit a site plan illustrating the location of the proposed monument sign, and with the further understanding that the east pylon sign will be removed. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 VARIANCE RENEWAL (#3) #2546 CHRISTINE WOOD, 4005 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - RENEWAL VARIANCES, 6:55 p.m. - 7:02 p.m. Christine Wood, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a renewal of variances on this property which were originally granted on November 12,1991, to construct a detached garage and storage addition of 834 square feet to be located three feet from a street rear lot instead of the required 10 feet and 10 feet from the side or rear lot line instead of the required 15 feet for a structure over 750 square feet. In addition, a variance to hardcover within the 75-250 foot setback is required. The property was recently purchased by the owner who would like to have the variances renewed. Bottenberg noted that the lot is unusually shaped and does not have a functional garage currently on the property. The Applicant has indicated that a new foundation will be built and the old cinder blocks put in by the previous owner will be removed. Smith inquired whether she was the original applicant. Wood stated she was not the original applicant for the variances, noting that she has recently purchased the property approximately two months ago. Smith commented to her understanding the zoning codes have not changed since the original variances were granted. Chair Hawn inquired whether the existing driveway would remain. Wood stated the present driveway would remain. Chair Hawn questioned whether the garage vrauld be oriented in the same location as depicted in the old site plan and whether the shed would be removed. Wood stated she was informed the shed would need to be removed, but that she is planning to leave the garage as depicted, noting that she may reduce the size of the garage somewhat by eliminating the workshop. Chair Hawn pointed out that the Applicant is allowed to reduce the size of the garage but cannot enlargen the garage without a new application be submitted. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2546, Christine Wood, 4005 North Shore Drive, granting of a renewal of variances to permit the construction of a detached garage and storage addition. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. The Scheduled Public Hearings were held after Item #6. r- .•t Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 NEW BUSINESS (#6) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE, 7:03 p.m. - 7:58 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Richard Sheridan. Attomey-at-Law, and William Skolnick, Attomey-at-Law. were present. Bradley Hoyt, Applicant, was not present. Weinberger stated the Applicant has filed a general land use application for an after-the-fact conditional use permit, iwhich also requires variances for hardcover. The application is a result of a request by the City of Orono to allow the property to comply vrith Code requirements and have the necessary permits Issued. The application deals with the construction of boulder retaining walls within the 0-75* lakeshore setback but not with any lakeshore land alteration that may have occurred on the property. City Staff has indicated to the Applicant that the property can be restored or an application for after-the-fact permits can be filed with the City. The Applicant has chosen to apply for the necessary permits for any work that has been completed on the property. The Applicant has indicated he is unaware of any lakeshore land alteration that may have occurred on the property. However, it is the belief of Staff that some land alteration may have occurred with the construction of the retaining walls. The Applicant has stated he did construct a retaining wall in a letter dated October 29,1999, which is attached to this report, but denies doing any land alteration work within the 75 foot lakeshore setback. The property surveys Indicate that substantial regarding has occurred on the property within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Typically this would be considered extensive grading within the 0-75‘ setback since it Is Staffs belief that more than 10 cubic yards of fill have l^en moved in this area. Weinberger noted that the only application that has been filed by the Applicant is for the retaining walls. The land alteration work is not a part of this application. Mr. Hoyt acquired this property in approximately 1996 or 1997. Weinberger stated that it is City Staffs position that Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, has been violated, which states that It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the Council; C. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property, which would require the issuance of a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit can be granted in this case if the proposal meets all the other sections of the zoning code. Weinberger stated, however, this proposal would not meet the other sections of the zoning code since the retaining walls would constitute hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. If the retaining wall had been constructed outside the 0-75' setback, a conditional use permit may not be required and would be subject to other restrictions. Weinberger stated a variance would be required under Section 10.55, Subdivision 8. which states that no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinancy highwater elevation of any lake shoreline. In order to grant a variance, a definite hardship must be demonstrated by the Applicant. In addition, variances to permit the construction of the retaining wall would also fall under Section 10 22. Subdivision 2. and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L), for a total of three variances being Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) required for the construction of the retaining wall. Weinberger noted that regardless of the conditions that existed for the regrading of the property demonstrated by the two property surveys, after-the-fact permits are still required on the property to bring the property into conformance with the City's Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. City Staff is recommending the application for a conditional use permit be denied based on the adverse impacts of hardcover within the shoreland area as well as the lack of an application by the Applicant for variances. However, in discussions held with legal counsel for the Applicant today, Mr. Sheridan has indicated that they would be willing to apply for variances, but based upon the application before the Planning Commission tonight. City Staff is recommending denial of the application. A recommendation of denial is also based upon the findings within the Comprehensive Plan and the fact that variances are required in this case, noting that the conditional use permit cannot be granted since it is in violation of the regulations governing this application. Weinberger stated a second alternative available to the Applicant would be to request that this application be tabled to enable City Staff to meet with the Applicant's representatives and to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised and complete application. Weinberger reiterated that this application deals only with the construction of the retaining wall. Richard Sheridan, Attomey-at-Law, commented that the language included in the Planners Repon stating that the Applicant was informed by City Staff that the property can be restored or he can file an after-the-fact permit is the first time they have seen anything in writing by City Staff that the Applicant is able to restore the property. Sheridan remarked that restoration of the property was raised in connection with some litigation regarding this matter. Sheridan stated a conclusion is being drawn by City Staff that substantial grading has occurred on the property based on a 1990 survey and a 1999 survey. Sheridan stated to his knowledge Staff has not viewed the property to make that determination. The property was acquired by Mr. Hoyt in late 1996 or early 1997, with the residence being constructed in 1990 or thereabouts. The most recent jurvey indicates the slope has been regraded creating a flat area on the lakeside of the boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately five to ten feet into the lake. An issue of contention in this matter is whether Mr. Hoyt actually placed the rip rap into the lake, which is being adamantly denied by the Applicant during his ownership of the property. Sheridan commented that these changes to the shoreline could have been undertaken prior to his purchase of the property, and the Applicant is objecting to any conclusion that grading work has occurred within 75 feet of the lakeshore during his ownership of the property. Sheridan stated that some of the ordinances that City Staff is contending the Applicant has violated did not become effective or were not modified until the late or mid 90s, and that the conclusion being drawn by City Staff is.incorrect as it relates to Mr. Hoyt undertaking the grading work. As it relates to the three variances that City Staff has indicated are required. Sheridan stated in his view only one variance is actually required since they all deal with the 75' setback. Sheridan stated that the first time they were informed of the need for a variance is when they received the legal notice from the City that their application was for a conditional use permit and variances Sheridan indicated that the Applicant is willing to apply for after-the-fact variances at this time, noting that Weinberger indicated tiiat he did have sufficient information to file an application in their discussion earlier today. Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Sheridan requested that the Planning Commission consider the application before them tonight. Skolnick commented that the Applicant has found himself involved m litigation with the City and being threatened with criminal action concerning this boulder retaining wall when there is no basis in fact for it, with a potential sale of the residence being lost. Skolnick stated that most of the information is Inaccurate; such as. placement of rip rap in the lake. The Applicant denies placing any rip rap in the lake. Chair Hawn remarked that the rip rap is not an issue before the Planning Commission tonight. Skolnick stated the Applicant is also denying doing any grading in the 0-75' setback. Due to the windstorms approximately a year and a half ago, some trees were blown down and removed, with some boulders being placed in the area to prevent erosion. Skolnick commented that that 1990 survey does not depict the concrete wall which has been in existence for 30 or 40 years on the property. Skolnick commented a survey should be obtained showing the topography of the land just prior to Hoyt's purchase of the property. Skolnick stated the Applicant is attempting to work with the City by filing an application for a variance. Skolnick noted that the Applicant was not informed that the application is incomplete until recently. The matter before the Planning Commission tonight deals with an after-the-fact variance for the boulder retaining wall. In regards to the Comprehensive Plan as the basis for denial, Skolnick remarked that the Applicant has complied with the Comprehensive Plan. An expert hired by the Applicant has found that the retaining wall has been constructed to industry standards and does not present any issues relating to water drainage or runoff into the lake. Skolnick indicated that the Applicant is willing to continue to work with the City on this matter, noting that they are willing to submit additional paperwork if needed, but that they are objecting to any decision that is made on inaccurate information. Skolnick stated he has not heard anything tonight which would prevent the Planning Commission from granting the after-the-fact variance except for the lack of some forms being submitted by the Applicant. Sheridan expressed a concern with the 1990 survey being the recorded topography of the property, noting that he is unsure what that means, and would not like the decision of the Planning Commission to be based solely on that survey. Sheridan commented regarding the hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback, a stairway previously existed in that area, which are allowed in the area. Sheridan stated that the amount of hardcover in this area has not changed significantly and questioned vrtiether rocks should be counted as hardcover. Skolnick stated as it relates to an adverse impact on the shoreline or hardcover, the boulder retaining wall does not present an adverse on the shoreline, the water, or the hardcover. With the removal of the stairway, the hardcover in this area has been diminished. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth inquired about the nature of the litigation that relates to this property. Skolnick stated that there is presently a lawsuit filed in federal court relating to defammation of the Applicant as well as the loss of the sale of the residence. The parties are currently in the process of discovery in that lawsuit. Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Kluth inquired what the defammation lawsuit resulted from. Skolniok stated that it is alleged In the complaint that Mr. Vang made some untrue statements to a realtor representing a buyer and as a result of those statements, the buyer cancelled the purchase agreement with the Applicant. Kluth inquired whether the statements made by Mr. Vang related to the retaining wall. Skolnick stated they related to the retaining wall as well as the rip rap. Skolnick remarked that a statement was made that the Applicant has altered the rip rap, which caused a problem for the City, and that the rip rap will need to be removed as well as the retaining wall. The buyer decided at that point to cancel the sale. Skolnick stated in his opinion there is no issue relating to the rip rap and there should be no issue regarding the boulder wall. Kluth commented that the matter before the Planning Commission tonight relates to the boulder wall, which the Applicant has admitted to constructing. Skolnick stated Applicant is not denying that he had the retaining wall constructed after the windstorms. .Kluth questioned whether the Applicant and the contractor hired on his behalf were unaware that they were violating policies of the City at the time this retaining wail was constructed. Skolnick stated he cannot comment on what the Applicant or his contractor knew. Sheridan stated the Applicant is not present tonight due to the legal action that has been threatened against him by the City. Kluth stated in his view the two matters are interrelated and impact one another. Skoirv<* stated they were told by the City Attorney that the two matters would not impact one 8''4'iher. Skolnick commented they are appearing tonight before the Planning Commission in good faith and that the permit should be granted. Kluth inquired what impact a decision would have on the litigation. Skolnick stated the claims alleged in the lawsuit would not be settled tonight. Kluth inquired whether this matter should be tabled to allow the other items to be resolved. Skolnick remarked this application should not be tabled because they were promised by the City of Orono that this would be a fair process. Kluth cc-mmented he was merely asking if the Applicant ’s representatives thought it would be a good idea to table the application tonight. Skolnick stated they are in favor of obtaining the permit, and if there are still some unanswered questions, they are willing to address those, but they would like to avoid thi.' tiecoming a lony>drawn out affair. Lindquist inquired when the retaining wall was constructed. Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Skolnick stated to his understanding it was constructed in 1998, with the issue being raised in April of 1999 relating to the boulder wall. Lindquist inquired how the City became aware of this matter. Skolnick stated the house was listed for sale, a buyer was interested in acquiring the f"operty, an agreement was signed, and the realtor checked with the City on some items, with Mr. Vang making some statements that resulted in the buyer cancelling the sale. An effort at that time was made to try to resolve this matter with the City, with Mr. Hoyt then being threatened with legal action, which has led to the application tonight. Lindquist stated If this matter appeared before the Planning Commission in June of 1998, he probably would have voted against the retaining wall a? that time and would have liked to see other options pursue in an attempt to lessen the impact on the 0*75' setback. Lindquist commented he Is familiar with the area and that there have been a tremendous amount of changes made to the shoreline over the years. Chair Hawn commented in her view the Planning Commission Is looking at a conditional use permit application after-the-fact, and the issues relating to the rip rap and land alteration is not before them tonight since the Applicant has not filed that application with the City. Hawn stated it is unclear whether the retaining wall was truly needed after the windstorm, noting that the Planning Commission has lost the opportunity to review the situation at the time the wall was constructed due to the lack of an application being filed by the Applicant. Hawn stated due to the loss of that opportunity, under Orono ’s ordinances, the Applicant needs to demonstrate the need for the retaining wall, which will be difficult at this time. Hawn stated absent a showing of need by the Applicant for the retaining wall, given Orono's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, she would not have voted in favor of the retaining wall at the time It was constructed and is not in a position at this time to vote in favor of the after-the-fact. Kluth stated he was in agreement with Lindquist and Hawn regarding this issue, noting that a hardship has not been demonstrated by the Applicant. Kluth noted that in general the Planning Commission does not look on this type of application favorably when it relates to land alteration within the 0-75' setback. Chair Hawn stated the Planning Commission will approve after-the-fact permits if they would have approved them in the first instance. Hawn commented there appears to be consensus among the Planning Commission that absent a showing of hardship, it is unlikely that the retaining wall would have been approved at the time it was constructed. Hawn stated as a matter of public policy, the City should not give a benefit to a property owner who does not comply with the City's ordinances in the first place and then later approaches the City requesting after-the-fact variances. Hawn commented it is doubtful that this application would have been granted in the first instance. Berg commented that every community has ordinances regulating shorelines, noting that it has been well published in this area that Orono takes a very proactive approach to protecting the lakeshore. Berg Inquired why the Applicant chose not to ask the City what steps need to be taken to address this Issue before any work was commenced in the 0-75' setback, noting that an answer to this question has not been given tonight. Smith commented that some of the Issues relate to work that has apparently occurred between the time of the two surveys. Smith inquired whether there were any neighbors or witnesses or tests Page 9 ORONO PLAxNNiNG COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt. Continued} that could verify when the work was completed. Weinberger st*»'.ed the City has not heard anything from any of the adjoining property owners. Nygard inquired whether there were any other surveys previous to 1990. Weinberger stated the City is in possession of a topographic map taken from some 1990 aerial photographs, noting that the map does depict a rather significant drop to the lakeshore. Weinberger stated the City does not have any other surveys on file subsequent to 1990. Smith inquired whether the Applicant and City Staff could work together on restoring the property should this application be denied tonight. Weinberger stated City Staff is willing to work with the Applicant, noting that it is unlikely that City Council and the Plannig Commission would recommend approval of any after-the-fact permits if the property remains in the same condition that exists today. Weinberger remarked it is possible due to the nature of the lakeshore that a retaining wall may be necessary due to erosion concerns, but the Applicant will need to be willing to make those changes to the property and obtain the necessary permits for that work. Nygard inquired what will happen with the rest of the property. Weinberger stated the Applicant will need to obtain the three variances discussed earlier before any other work can be commenced on the property. Weinberger stated this application only deals with the retaining wall. Nygard commented that photographs showing the condition of the property prior to the retaining wall would be helpful in considering this application, and encouraged the Applicant to obtain some photnqraphs which might assist in this matter. Skolnick inquired whether a permit would be necessary if the retaining wall were rert;oved. Nygard stated that a permit would need to be issued to remove the retaining wall. Skolnick questioned what would happen if the City denied issuance of a permit to remove the retaining wall. Skolnick inquired what action the Applicant should take in this matter. Smith stated that City Staff would be willing to work with the Applicant on this matter to address the concerns regarding erosion and water runoff. Sheridan commented that there has been a lack of cooperation on the part of the City in this regard. Sheridan stated as it relates to hardcover, it was his understanding that hardship applies to variances and not to conditional use permits, and that perhaps the appropriate standard should be defined. Sheridan remarked as it relates to denial of the retaining wall in the first instance, he has not heard one single reason for the denial and what adverse impact the retaining wall has on the 0-75 ’ setback. Chair Hawn stated it has been determined thai hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback, which is a public policy in Orono, does have a more severe impact on the drainage issue. Hawn commented she is hopeful that this situation can be resolved amicably. Hawn indicated she would like to deal strictly with the conditional use permit after-the-fact application tonight. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) K.u:;i commented in his view, due to the litigation, the parties have taken more of an adversarial role versus that of attempting to assist the Planning Commission in resolving this issue. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2540, Bradley Hoyt, 2623 Kelly Avenue, based on the adverse impacts that the hardcover would have in the 0-76' setback and the incomplete application that has been submitted by the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#4) #2522 THE BANCOR GROUP, INC., SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND NORTH WILLOW DRIVE - SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 8:00 p.m.-9:13 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. David Newmann and Marty Campion, The Bancor Group, were present. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has received a new Preliminary Plat application for a 25 lot development on 58 acres for property located at the southwest comer of County Road 6 and Willow Drive North. Previously the Planning Commission had reviewed a proposal for a 49 unit development at this site. The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed this development as part of an application for rezoning. The proposed rezoning was denied by the City Council. This application also includes a continuation of the conditional use permit for a PRD. The purpose of a Planned Residential Development is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urtin congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid In improving the welfare in general of City residents. Weinberger stated the City has changed its Comprehensive Plan to reflect medium density residential for the property located directly south of the proposed development. Medium density residential will likely be townhomes. It is the intention to extend Kelley Parkway to Willow from Old Crystal Bay Road. Properties located to the south of Kelley Parkway and north of Highway 12 are guided for offices uses. The lots located to the east of the subdivision, on average, are smaller than those lots to the south and west. The PRD would allow the lots to be developed at the sizes shown on the site plan, with the overall density of the subdivision not exceeding one unit per two acres dry buildable. The City has approved PRD's in the past with an allowance of property being dedicated for other purposes such as roadways and ponding to count towards the lot area with the idea that the PRD would meet all the other criteria listed in the City Code. The roads are proposed to be developed to City standards and dedicated as public streets. No lot within this proposed development would have direct access to Willow Drive or County Road 6. All lots would be required to access a newly platted street. The Applicant in their original application had proposed a trail along Willow Drive and along the south side of County Road 6. The intent of the trail is to connect to the larger regional system towards the school property and eventually west to Baker Park. This trail would provide future access to the middle school property. This latest Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) plan does not address the need for trails. Weinberger stated the site plan proposes three stormwater treatment ponds. The ponds would treat the runoff for approximately two-thirds of the development. The Applicant has indicated that most of the runoff from the southern one-third of the development can be treated by a fourth pond being located within the conservation easement of Lot 2, Block 1. The Applicant is also proposing private wells for this division rather than City water. This proposed development is located within the MUSA boundary allowing for sanitary sewer connection. The developer will be responsible for providing sewer to the property. Weinberger stated the proposed access to this development has been relocated further to the south, with the access point being made as a general intersection with Shadywood Drive to allow for a safer intersection. The Director of Public Services has reviewed this plan and has indicated he does not have any concerns with the proposed access. The Applicant would be required to pay a park dedication fee equivalent to eight percent of the lot with a maximum of $4,900 per lot or a minimum of $2,900 per lot. The Code does allow land dedication for park space rather than a cash contribution. The Planning Commission will need to determine whether a Conditional Use Permit is appropriate for the site. City Code and Comprehensive Plan allow a PRD to be approved as a land conservation tool and to improve the appearance of neighborhoods. Only one space outlet is being created, with the purpose of the outlet for wetland and ponding. Each lot would have a conservation easement over it with ownership to be held by the individual property owner. City Staff would be inclined to recommend that the conservation easement be platted as a conservation outlet, as Outlet B, with the road being platted as Outlet A. to protect drainage and wetlands in the area. The conservation outlet would not allow the property owner to remove or alter any vegetation to the rear of the house. City Staff is recommending approval subject to the six conditions outlined in the Planner's Report of November 15.1999. David Newmann, Bancor Group, stated they have attempted to incorporate the comments of the City Council, Planning Commission, and adjoining neighbors into account when revising the site plan for this development. Newmann noted he has met with Steve Johnston, one of the residents in the area, who suggested that he go with private wells. City sewer and larger lots. Newmann stated a PRD for this development would beneht the City by minimizing the impact to the wetlands. Newmann commented in his view this plan addresses the concerns raised in the past regarding this property. Marty Campion. Bancor Group, had no comment. • Chair Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments concerning this application. Steve Johnston, 2335 Shadowood Drive, commented in his view the developer has done a nice Job of addressing the issues in this matter, noting he personally does not have any concerns with tt. : proposed density for this development. Johnston raised a concern regarding the connection of the road opposite of Shadowood Drive and the negative impact it would have on the traffic in that area. Johnston suggested that the entrance could be relocated approximately 750 feet further south opposite Cox's property to avoid this traffic congestion and provide for more continuity. Johnston Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) stated he would also like to see trails, a preservation of trees in the area, and vegetation along Willow and County Road 6 to act as a buffer. Bill Leskinen, 1125 Willow Drive, stated he agrees with the concerns regarding traffic in the area, which in his view will add to the congestion and increase the accident rate, as well as the need for providing a trail in this area. Steve Luther, Jim Cox, Matt Sampress. and Lance Everson expressed concerns regarding the proposed density, drainage, and traffic. Kathy Johnston, 2335 Shadywood Drive, expressed concerns regarding traffic, noting that the young children in the area are required to wait for the bus in this area, which will create a hazard if additional traffic is added. Jim Cox commented with the relocation of the access, consideration will need to be given to the impact of headlights on the houses in that area. Newmann, Banco** Group, commented that the purpose of a PRD is to allow for some flexibility In the density for a development. Bancor noted that City sewer Is being provided for this development, which increases the costs, and to keep the project economically feasible, they need to be able to develope a minimum number of lots. Newmann stated that they will be providing more detailed plans in the future to address the concerns raised relating to landscaping, drainage and traffic. Newmann indicated he is still willing to continue to work with the neighbors in the area to help address some of their concerns as well as provide copies of the plan for their review. Chair hiiwn suggested that the people in the audience who would like to talk to The Bancor Group further provide their names and addresses to Mr. Newmann. Newmann stated that the City Council had directed them at their last meeting to locate the access across from Shadowood Drive. Smith commented that the problem with headlights will need to be addressed. Weinberger stated he is unsure at this time about the possibility of a stoplight for that area. Gaffron commented that the City does not intend to install a stoplight at Willow and County Poad 6. Lindquist inquired whether the drainage plan will be adequate for this area. Campion stated the runoff will be diverted to some holding ponds in the area and discharged south across the proposed road and into a series of wetlands. An effort is being made not to divert the runoff to the east, with the majority of the drainage being diverted to the west and south. Campion noted that this drainage plan will need to be reviewed and approved by the Lake Minnetonka Watershed District. Matt Sampress commented that the water table in the area is rising, and inquired how the drainage situation will be monitored by the City. Newmann staled they are attempting to reduce the water runoff to the east and that they vnll need to comply with whatever requirements the City Engineer determines are appropriate for this Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) development. Cox commented that there is a tremendous water problem in this area, which will need to be addressed carefully. Stoddard noted the drainage plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer, with certain issues needing to be addressed prior to the time of final plat approval. Stoddard commented that the traffic situation and water runoff will need to be reviewed further, but that the main issue before the Planning Commission at this time is whether this development should be PRD'd, which allows some flexibility in the density for the area. Stoddard stated that the Planning Commission will need to determine whether the number of units being proposed for this development are appropriate, with the rest of the issues being addressed at a later stage. Newmann commented that the outside area of the development will also be treated as a conservation outlot. Kluth commented that this is a unique piece of land with a large number of wetlands and that the developer has done a good job of addressing the concerns relating to density by reducing the overall density to 25 units. Kluth stated that the other issues will need to be further defined before final approval. Lindquist stated he understands the concerns of the residents, especially as it relates to traffic in the area. Lindquist stated in his view this property should be developed as a PRD, noting that he is in favor of the proposed plan. Hawn commented that the developer has done a good job of addressing the concerns raised at the previous meetings. Hawn raised a concern regarding the use of private wells in this area due to the high water table, and encouraged The Bancor Group to re-examine the possibility of utilizing City water for this development. Hawn stated the City of Orono needs to agree on the best way to develop this property, and in her view, a PRD is the best way to go for this parcel. Hawn encouraged City Staff to continue to work on this application to address the concerns relating to traffic and drainage. V^'einberger stated one of the concerns regarding use of Kelly Parkway is it is intended for office/commercial use and multi-family in the future. Weinberger pointed out the Comprehensive Plan does not identify residential traffic utilizing Kelly Parkway. Chair Hawn pointed out with approximately 51 acres of dry buildable, under a PRD the developer has meet ihe density requirements for this area. Smith commented there are a number of issues that still need to be addressed further, but the Planning Comori^ssion needs to determine whether a PRD is appropriate for this area. Smith expressed a concern that the wetlands may not be sufficient to handle the runoff, which will need to be reviewed furtt-er. Smith commented that this parcel does lend itself to a PRD due to the r*her developments in the area. N«'3^id commented in his view The Bancor Group has done a good job of developing an acceptable plan for this area. Stoddard commented he is in favor of residential for this area Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) Smith stated It Is her desire that the developer and residents In this area continue to maintain the natural looking ponds and not utilize them for recreational purposes. Lindquist moved, Kiuth seconded, to recommend approvai of Appiication #2522, The Bancor Group, inc.. Southwest Comer of County Road 6 and North Wiiiow Drive, granting of a Preiiminary Plat approval subject to City Staff's recommendations and conditions outlined in the November 15,1999 Planner's Report. The developer is strongly encouraged to pursue city water for this development as well as continue to work with the adjoining property owners to address their concerns regarding this development. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Newmann commented he will continue to work with the neighbor, on this development and will attempt to hold an informal neighborhood meeting. Newmann stated they are attempting to get this on the next City Council agenda set for December 13.1999. (Recess taken from 9:13 p.m. - 9:25 p.m. (#9) #2645 LOU AND MARILYN FEGERS, 3590 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES, 9:25 p.m. - 9:33 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Lou and Marilyn Fegers, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct an attached garage to the west side of their residence consisting of three floors. An upstairs and a lower walkout will be for storage, with the middle floor being for parking. The property owners have purchased the lot to the west and arc •• the process of legally combining the lots. The property currently does not have a garage ser. - .ng it. Hardcover will be Increaesd In the 75-250' setback to 38.9 percent where 25 percent is allowed. The Applicants are proposing to revert a portion of the current driveway into grass as well as remove an existing deck. Lou Fegers submitted pictures of his property for review by the Planning Commission. Chair Hawn commented that a majority of the Commissioners have reviewed the site. Fegers stated one mistake on the survey is the size of the screen porch should be approximately half the size depicted. There were no public comments. Smith inquired whether the garage being proposed was slightly larger than normal. Bottenberg stated it is a slightly larger garage. Fegers stated part of the reason for the larger garage is the need for a stairway to access the upper and lower floor of the garage. 6muh commented she would like to see the hardcover in this area minimized if possible. Page 15 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2545 Lou and Marilyn Fegers, Continued) Kluth inquired whether the shed still exists on the property. Fegers stated the wind has blown the shed down. Stoddard stated with the acquisition of the adjoining piece of land, he would tend to look favorably on this application. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to lecommend approval of Application #2545, Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a hardcover variance to permit construction of an attached 24* by 30‘ gai'age to the west side of their residence subject to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and further subject to removal of the shed at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9:35 p.m. • 10:30 p.m. The Certiricate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has received a Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. The RR-1B zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRO as a conditional use. Under a PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of t.he lots. The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which would gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac. The development would also include thiee larger lots. Lots 5,6, and 7. This property is located immediately north of the Luce Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRD would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes. This application would require a road width variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40 feet wide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road. The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the seven lots being proposed as part of this development, which requires a road width of 28 feet. The subdivision is located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the 100 floodplain. This subdivision would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 feel of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD will need to approve any wetland alteration on site. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of 'he MUSA area, however, this area is proposed to be serviced by City sewer in the future. It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the number of wetlands and high water table in the area. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work with the DNR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenance issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City's Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G. which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by tne City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, with a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows; A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval; B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a ten percent slope; C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka; D. City Staff, the applicant, and the DNR shall determine if a permit can be issued to cros!> the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox Ridge. If it is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition. Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons; one. since the access Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) corridor will not front any building sites, no parking is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result In the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhoi** -equested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditior s outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the DNR issues resolved as well prior to approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant cn h>:w to proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somevrhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a PRD, noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line In this '«'ea is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to preserve the wooded area ?s much as possible. Lindquist concurred that some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRD the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated th Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would noi be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 <#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg slated the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented that it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated in order for a PRD to be approved, the benefits to the City must be shown, and that clustering is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlets for tt?- $ development. Stoddard stated he would be in favor of a PRD if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlets. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these Issues. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies it, at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there Is insufficient information available to the Planning Commission in order to make a responsible decision on the application at this time. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS. CONTINUED (#7) #2542 BRUCE HEDBLOM AND CAROL CLINE>HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. • 10:40 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Page 19 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER IS, 1999 (#2542 Bruce Hedblom, Continued) Bruce Hedblom, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to remove an existing second story deck and replace it with a 10.6' by 23.4' three season porch and 10.6' by 9' wood deck. This proposal would not increase the size of the space but would change the use. The space will consist primarily of the three season porch and a small portion on the end will be deck. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area will remain the same. Hedblom stated at the time the house was originally constructed in 1972/1973, it met all the required building codes at that time. Hedblom noted the footprint of the house will not change with this proposal. Hedblom stated he are interested in making the deck more usable by converting it to a three season porch. Hedblom stated his adjoining neighbors do not object to this project. There were no public comments. Lindquist inquired why City Staff was recommending denial on this application. Bottenberg stated Staff was recommending denial of this application due to the excessive hardcover that currently exists on the property. Hedblom noted that the hardcover will remain the same. Lindquist commented that there is some plastic underlayment that could be removed. Hedblom stated the plastic underlayment adjacent to the house is there for drainage purposes, but he would be willing to remove it if requested to do so. Lindquist stated he would like to see the plastic underlayment removed. Lindquist noted he does not have a problem with the hardcover Hedblom noted that the residence is under the structural coverage limits. Kluth stated he does not have a probiem with the application. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2542, Bruce Hedblom and Carol Cline-Hedblom, 2601 Casco Point Road, granting of a variance to lakeshore hardcover and granting of a variance to average lakeshore setback to permit construction of a three season porch and deck to replace an existing deck, subject to the removal of the plastic and permeable underlayment and rock. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1. Stoddard stated he voted against this application due to the increased structure in the average lakeshore setback. , (#8) #2543 TED EOIN, 3025 CASCO POINT ROAD • VARIANCES, 10:41 p.m. -10:52 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Ted Edin, Applicant, was present. Page 20 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2543 Ted Edin, Continued) Brttenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to replace an existing second story deck on the beck on the house due to the deteriorating condition of the deck, floor boards and joists. In addition to replacing the existing deck, the Applicant is proposing to add a small section onto the deck. The section would be approximately 6' by 12 ’ to allow for a sitting area. Bottenberg stated the driveway is shared with neighbors through an easement and the lot is undersized Jpr this zoning district. Hardcover would be increased from 77.1 1 percent to 77.9 percent. •' /a-*' Vo Chair Hawn noted that the Applicants are replacing an existing deck. Edin commented that due to the shared driveway being located on their property, the hardcover for the lot is high. Edin stated they would be willing to remove some plastic underlayment and rock In an effort to reduce the hardcover on the property. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see less hardcover on this property. Smith commented the reason for less hardcover is to reduce the runoff into the lakes and streams^ There were no public comments. jf Bottenberg stated there is not a lot of area where hardcover could be reduced. Stoddard stated the issue before the Planning Commission tonight is whether they should be allowed to build over an existing structure. Chair Hawn stated she has a hard time allowing additional hardcover on this property. Edin stated he would be willing to reduce the hardcover if possible. Smith suggested the application be tabled to allow the Applicant time to reduce the hardcover on theproperty. Lindquist commented that plastic underlayment and rock are generally not counted as hardcover. I. s Nygard stated the plastic underlayment will still need to be removed by the Applicant. Chair Hawn stated the Applicant has a right to have his application heard within 60 days, and inquired whether he would be willing to waive the 60 days. Edin stated he wc^ld be willing to waive the 60 days. Berg moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2543, 3025 Casco Point Road, to allow the Applicant time to reduce hardcover on the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Item #10 was heard after Item #11 Page 21 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999 (#11) #2549 DAVID LOVELACE. 220 BIG ISLAND, DOCK PERMIT, 10:50 p.m. - 11:28 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. David Lovelace, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a dock permit to access an inland lot without lake access. City Ordinance allows installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way when such dock has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council. Not more than one season dock will be approved for access to any one property. In reviewing and approving this permit, the City Council shall consider the width and topography of the right-of-way. the number of property owners requesting dockage at that location, the plan of the proposed dock, and conformance with City and LMCD dock regulations. The City Council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit. Weinberger stated the City Council has preliminarily reviewed this application and recommended one area on the east side of Big Island that could potentially serve as access to the inland landlocked properties. This particular location has been established as an area for potential dock permits to be granted for inland property owners simply because no other access exists elsewhere. Currently there are two inland properties that currently have dock access to Lake Minnetonka: with the dock being located in the right-of-way and having been in use since 1986. Weinberger stated permits are on.ly required for the docking and not for any other public acc<-js. For example, walking along the public right-of-ways is allowed without a permit. City Code states permits issued are valid for one year and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the Council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the City to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. Any formal requests for permits on Big Island require a public heahng with the Planning Commission. Weinberger noted this is the public hearing for this dock request, with ail property owners having been notified of the hearing within 350 feet of the access. Weinberger stated the City has expanded the 350 foot requirement and have notified all inland property owners of the status of this application and the public hearing being held tonight. Weinberger stated there are approximaleiy four or five separate record iots, which could consist of several PID's, that are actually inland on Big Island. Not all of the lots on Big Island are buildable lots. Only a few actually are developed with a dwelling on the property. The total number docks potentially, including the one that currently exist, would not exceed four or five individuals who could potentially request dock access The property in this case is flat enough and could sustain the type of access being requested in this case. The dock access would be located in an area approximately 90 feet wide, which is probably the only area on the island which will be able to sustain future dock access and allow for access by the other inland property owners. Weinberger stated the City Council has previously granted a lot area variance for this property to permit the Applicant to construct a seasonal dwelling on the property. The property consists of 4.3 acres in size and is landlocked Weinberger noted there is a platted right-of-way that goes directly from the access and is recognized as a road Some minor grading and maintenance of this road has occurred in the past The City has not performed any of the maintenance in the past and does not have an interest in assuming that responsibility at the present time. Page 22 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#11) #2649 DAVID LOVELACE, 220 BIG ISLAND. DOCK PERMIT. 10:50 p.m. -11:28 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Pubiication were noted. David Lovelace, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a dock permit to access an inland lot without lake access. City Ordinance allows installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any piatted public right-of-way when such dock has been specificaily authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council. Not more than one season dock will be approved for access to any one property. In reviewing and approving this permit, the City Council shall consider the width and topography of the right-of-way, the number of property owners requesting dockage at that location, the plan of the proposed dock, and conformance with City and LMCD dock regulations. The City Council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit. Weinberger stated the City Council has preliminarily reviewed this application and recommended one area on the east side of Big Island that could potentially serve as access to the inland landlocked properties. This particular location has been established as an area for potential dock permits to be granted for inland property owners simply because no other access exists elsewhere. Currently there are two inland properties that currently have dock access to Lake Minnetonka; with the dock being located in the right-of-way and having been in use since 1986. Weinberger stated permits are only required for the docking and not for any other public accv^is. For example, walking along the public right-of-ways is allowed without a permit. City Code states permits issued are valid for one year and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the Councii at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the City to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. Any formal requests for permits on Big Island require a public hearing with the Planning Commission. Weinberger noted this is the public hearing for this dock request, with all property owners having been notified of the hearing within 350 feet of the access. Weinberger stated the City has expanded the 350 foot requirement and have notified all inland property owners of the status of this application and the public hearing being held tonight. Weinberger stated there are approximately four or five separate record lots, which could consist of several PID's, that are actually inland on Big Island. Not all of the lots on Big Island are buildable lots. Only a few actually are developed with a dwelling on the property. The total number docks potentially, including the one that currently exist, would not exceed four or five individuals who could potentially request dock access The property in this case is flat enough and could sustain the type of access being requested in this case. The dock access would be located in an area approximately 90 feet wide, which is probably the only area on the island which will be able to sustain future dock access and allow for access by the other inland property owners. Weinberger stated the City Council has previously granted a lot area variance for this property to permit the Applicant to construct a seasonal dwelling on the property. The property consists of 4.3 acres in size and is landlocked Weinberger noted there is a platted right-of-way that goes directly from the access and is recognized as a road. Some minor grading and maintenance of this road has occurred in the past. The City has not performed any of the maintenance in the past and does not have an interest in assuming that responsibility at the present time. Page 22 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2549 David Lovelace, Continued) City Staff understands the need to provide access to the inland landlocked properties on Big Isiand, and recommend approval of the dock access, with the permit being subject to renewal on an annual basis. Weinberger stated issues for consideration by the Planning Commission include the following: 1. Should the dock rights be for property owners without any other access? 2. Many of the lots are commonly owned but have not been combined into a larger tax parcel. Potentially the individual lots could be sold to several owners that may request access in the future. 3. The permit approved by the City Council permitted a dock in favor of property located at 230 Big Island. A condition of approval was any other requests for docking at the Bay Place site would cause the permit to be immediately revoked. 4. The City Council has reviewed this item with Mr. Lovelace and has provided direction for the Applicant and Staff. 5. The following are uses permitted on Big Island: Seasonal dwellings, with some accessory structures being permitted on the land vrithout a principal structure. Weinberger stated he would be available for questions by the Planning Commission. Lovelace stated he does not have any additional comments. John Uran, 160 Big Island, expressed concerns regarding the swampy nature of the land in the area proposed for the dock access. Uran stated he is not in favor of this dock access, particularly when the location of the road and swamp have not been property identified. Lovelace indicated the dock access being proposed is a substantial distance from his property, but his main concern is obtaining access to his property and not necessarily the location of the dock. Chair Hawn commented that unfortunately due to the location of Big Island, it is difficult for the Planning Commission members to view the site. Lovelace stated the other landlocked property owners have the right to request dock access and the City Council is attempting to accommodate those possible future requests as well with this proposed dock location. Lindquist commented he would like to have a survey done of this area to determine the exact location of the road and the property lines. Uran stated City Staff needs to review the site during the spring and summer months to determine the location of the wetland. Tom Egan stated there presently are posted signs saying no vehicular traffic on the inland roads. Gaffron commented that the City is aware that there is vehicular traffic on those inland platted roads, but that the City is faced vrith the situation of having to provide access to the landlocked properties. Gaffron stated the City is assuming when these roads were platted approximately 120 years ago, they were intended to be used to gain access to the inland properties. Gaffron inquired whether another area is available for dock access should this proposed 90 foot area not be suitable. Gaffron suggested that the Big Island property owners arrive at a workable solution amongst Page 23 L. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2549 David Lovelace, Continued) themselves or the City will be faced with deciding where the dock access will be located. Mrs. Uran suggested that perhaps Mayor Jabbour has a conflict of interest in this matter since he is a property owner on Big Island. Chair Hawn pointed out that Mayor Jabbour is not present tonight. Kluth stated if Mayor Jabbour feels there is a conflict of interest that exists in this matter, he can excuse himself. Chair Hawn stated the City would like the property owners on Big Island to come to a solution that the parties can live with. Hawn pointed out the members of the Planning Commission have a difficult time gaining access to this area and are unfamiliar with the layout of the land. Kluth stated he was in agreement with Hawn, and urged the local residents on Big Island to reach an amicable solution among themselves. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the property owners on Big Island reach an amicable solution among themselves regarding dock access for the inland landlocked property owners. Egan stated the landlocked property owners purchased the property on Big Island knowing it was landlocked at the time. Lovelace remarked he is entitled under City Ordinance to apply for dock access, and indicated he would be willing to sit down with the other residents of Big Island in an attempt to reach a workable solution. Egan inquired whether the land needs to be developed prior to dock access being granted. Gaffron stated City Code allows property owners on Big Island to have dock access to their property even if it is undeveloped. Gaffron stated the City of Orono is required under Ordinance to provide dock access to the landlocked parcels. Gaffron indicated he would be willing to work with the property owners on Big Island in an effort to resolve this matter and is in support of providing one dock access for the inland property owners. Chair Hawn stated due to the suggestion by City Staff to have the property owners arrive at a workable solution among themselves, Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to have this application tabled and to waive the 60 days. Lovelace stated he would be willing to have his application tabled and to waive the 60 days. Lcvelace requested that a deadline be set in which ttiis matter should be resolved. Egan stated since theV boats are in storage for the winter and it would be difficult to access Big island at this time, he suggested they be given until late spring to resolve this. Egan noted that some of the property owners are only available during the summertime. Lovelace pointed out that the residents will still need to follow the rules set by the governing body of the lake. Smith commented that City Staff could assist the property owners in that regard. Page 24 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2549 David Lovelace, Continued) Gaffron indicated he would be willing to work with the Big Island property owners on this matter and to obtain the necessary information from the LMCD. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2549, David Lovelace, 220 Big Island, until April to allow the Big Island property owners time to resolve this matter. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #2547 KIMBERLI AND WILLIAM ABBOTT, 470 BIG ISLAND, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES, 11:29 p.m. • 11:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were not present. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2547, Kimberli and William Abbott, 470 Big Island, due to the absence of the Applicants. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#12) MIKE HILBELINK/JOHN VOGT, 3850 WATERTOWN ROAD, CLASS III SUBDIVISION Mike Hilbelink, Applicant, and John Vogt, Applicant, were present. Weinberger this is a sketch plan review with the Applicant proposing to subdivide a 21 acre parcel into a three lot rural residential development. The proposal would require, one, approval of a private driveway for a property to serve a three lot development where a road would typically be required for a three lot subdivision: two. variances to approve a subdivision resulting in a bam to te located within a required side yard adjacent to street setback; three, septic sites to be revievtred and approved by City Staff; and four, approval of a subdivision with an outlot dedicated to a riding ring in favor of proposed Lot 2. Weinberger stated the property lies within the RR-1A zoning district, which has a five acre minimum lot size. The major Issue in this subdivision relates to a platted driveway and the location of an oversized accessory structure. Lot 3 has the required frontage along Watertown Road, with Watertown Road having been defined as a collector street. Staff has concerns regarding direct access to Watertown Road. If a private road is constructed within Outlot A, the lot would Income a comer lot and the lot width would be measured along the private road. If the private road is constructed, the lot would not meet the minimum lot width required for this zoning district. The Public Services Director has reviewed this lot layout and has recommended that Lot 3 not be granted direct access to Watertown Road. Weinberger stated some of these issues relating to road access can be resolved with City Staff. In addition, the bam, if developed with an access outlot or a private road, would require a variance to remain on the property. The bam would be located on Lot 2 and would be located entirely within the 100 feet side yard adjacent to street setback as proposed for an outlot. Bams are required to meet a minimum 75 foot setback to the lot line. Weinberger noted the bam encroaches into the 75 foot required setback. Weinberger stated the standard requirements would need to be complied with as they relate to Page 25 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (Mikt Hilbelink/John Vogt, Continued) septic, park, and lot sizes. Hilbelink stated as it relates to access, he is unsure whether an easement or an outiot would be better in this situation due to the topography of the land. Hilbelink stated the bam is an existing structure and would be a nice asset to the property. Hawn inquired whether the bam could be relocated. Hilbelink stated that is a possibility which they have not considered. Weinberger commented the bam has been moved once before. Lindquist commented the Applicants will need to find a place for the bam where it will meet all the required setbacks, noting he does have a problem with the bam in its present location. Stoddard commented that the City prefers outlets to private driveways to avoid any possible conflicts that may arise between the property owners. Hawn stated that the Applicants will need to address the issue with the bam further to try to avoid the need for a variance. Lindquist suggested the Applicants pursue an outiot rather than a shared driveway. Weinberger stated the bam would be considered an oversized accessory building. Hawn commented that it appears some members of the Planning Commission would not be opposed to the bam as long as it meets the setbacks. Smith inquired whether the bam will continue to be used for horses. Hilbelink stated that seems to be the appeal of the bam and probably will continue to be used for that purpose. Weinberger stated it may be possible to place a curb cut on Watertown Road but would be subject to approval by the City. Hawn suggested the Applicants continue to work with City Staff to resolve any disputed issues. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would prefer to meet on Wednesday In January and February. Lindquist stated he would be able to meet on Wednesday if there is not a quorum available on Monday. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to schedule the January and February meetings on the third Wednesday of the month for January and February. Page 26 J ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (Other Issues, Continued) City Coundi Representative Sansevere stated he would be In favor of scheduling a workshop to discuss the possibility of adopting some type of administrative approval for some of the applications that appear before the Planning Commission. Stoddard Indicated he would like to discuss the concept of a consent agenda for the Planning Commission. (»15) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 18,1999, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#13) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON OCTOBER 25,1999 AND NOVEMBER 8.1999 Smith stated she attended the October 25,1999 City Council meeting, noting she had nothing to report. Kluth stated he attended the November 8,1999 City Council meeting, noting that the Council did adopt the Adult Use Ordinance. The City Council commended the Planning Commission on their fine efforts regarding this ordinance. («18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON NOVEMBER 22,1999 AND DECEMBER 13,1999 November 22,1999 • Stoddard December 13,1999 - Havm (#17) SELECTION OF WORK SESSION DATES IN DECEMBER TO DISCUSS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SION ORDINANCE Gaffron noted a work session has been scheduled for December 22,1999, to discuss an amendment to the sign ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Berg moved. Smith seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 12:02 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn, Chair Page 27 ii iiiwiiilii III dk. 1 MOMiMuiibwaMiiiaMai