The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-23-2000 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 23,2000—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 March 13,2000, City Council meeting unless otherwbe noted by the Chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. OLD BUSINESS 1. #2513 Connie Piepho, 540 North Arm Lane, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). ■ VA Thomas Michael Randgaard, 2765 Shadywood Road, Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 3. #2556 Barbara and Collins Cavender, having an interest in 1405/1395 Rest Point Road, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 4. #2558 Anthony Patterson, 1780 Shad}*wood Road, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenbcrg). NEW BUSINESS 5.#2486 Elaine Erickson, 1270 Spruce Place, Variances and Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). 6. #2559 7. #256t Gilbert Gehle, 1392 Baldur Park Road, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). Frank and Barbara Peterson, 1261 Arbor Street, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) PLANNING COMMISSION CO^LMENTS 1 8. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on January 24, 2000 and February 14,2000. 9. Other issues for discussion. 10. Planning Commission approval of minutes for November 22,1999 and January 1 9,2000.i 11 . Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on February 28,2000 and March 13,2000. ADJOURNMENT |<-JM." MifrM Public Attendance Meeting D ate 9^ 3- 0 O □ C ouncil ca^^ANNiNG C ommission Park C ommission □ Other IPUEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION i-V’’';^v:REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. •••••• ; . , / ■y>v.Z. wy NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER x./J/>l(p /t yc./■ P,/ f3f2 ^(.e^Pr Jhf< iur,‘\ 4 r«t- a4 ________Ol __________ 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15._ 1111114 L...... ........ /{j/ /i ^"wi A P il / TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner February 23,2000 #2513 Connie Piepho 540 North Arm Drive Variance Zoning: LR-1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acres Applit. jtion: To permit construction of an inground swimming pool within the average lakeshore setback. Exhibits: A Revised Proposal B Planning Commission Minutes (August 9,1999) C Staff Report (August 9,1999) Application Summary: The Planning Commission reviewed this application at the August 16,1999 Public Hearing and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0 to approve an average lakeshore setback variance on the property subject to the property owner identifying a secondary septic site on the property. The previous proposal had placed the swimming pool in an area designated as the secondary septic site on the property. Since the Public Hearing no testing has been completed on the property to attempt to identify new sites. Rather the property owner has submitted a new site plan that relocates the pool to the north property line. Staff s position is the site plan hw been altered therefore it is appropriate the application should return to the Planning Commission for review prior to moving the request forward to the City Council. This ^plication is for an average lakeshore setback to permit construction of an inground pool at 540 North Arm Drive. For swimming pools, the setback is measured from the water basin to the projierty line. The size of the setback is set by the size of the basin, which in this case is less th^ 750 sq. ft. requiring a 10 foot setback to the property line. The pool itself (the water area) is currently proposed at 15' from the side property line, where 10' is required. The area surrounding the pool is allowed to encroach into the sideyard setback provided it is not at a height greater than that of the main floor of the home. No part of the pool would be allowed to encroach into the 5' Drainage and Utility Easement which runs along the side property line. B25I3 Coruiit Piipho. 540 Sotth Arm Drtvf yananctM Febmary23. 2000 pagt-l £■ The previous proposal discovered that the secondary septic site is located between the home and the secondary septic site. The Septic Code requires all structures to be located at least 20’ from the absorption area of the mound. Therefore, the pool could not be located as it was proposed without identifying another site. Pertinent Ordinances: 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 1, (B) No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. 2.Please see the section from the Septic Ordinance defining setback requirements in the exhibits. Please note that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to grants variances to the Septic Code, only the Septic Inspector may approve the request. ANALYSIS Staff has concerns with the proposed new location for the pool. On the site plan the 929.4' contour shows views to the lake are ^st to the south for the adjacent property and most impacted by the new location. The intent of the average lakeshore setback is to protect views for adjacent property owners and to promote consistent development along the lakeshore. The previous proposal located the pool on a low part of the property 150 feet from the closest adjacent residence. Several mature trees and the topography of the site minimized the negative impacts of structures on lakeshore views from adjacent property owners. It is still possible, with soil testing, to relocate the secondary septic site if the setback is measured to the absorption area of the future mound. An obstacle in relocating the septic site further to the north is the well for the adjacent property owner is located 16 feet off the applicant’s property line. The Municipal Septic Code requires a minimum 75 foot setback between a septic system and an active well. If the applicant wants to proceed with the application as is, it requires approval fiom Chris Pence, City of Orono Septic Inspector. Mr. Pence would not approve a variance to the septic code to permit a site to be located closer than 75 feet to the neighboring well. Staff is concerned about placing a potential health risk to an adjacent property owner’s water supply to accommodate a property owner to relocate a septic, site. Staff has issued variances to the septic codes in the past, but traditionally the requirements were varied to allow one replacement site on the property when no other alternative is available. This has occurred primarily for replacement of non-conforming systems. Connti Ptepho, 540 Sorth 4rm Dnvi yananas Ftbntary 23. 2000 pap-2 Lot Area and Yards LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width 1 Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard Required 2 Acres 200 ’75’30’50’ Proposed 2.7 Acres 245’167’ (from pool to OHWL) 15’NA Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’27,612 s.f 0 s.f. (0%) none (0%) 0 s.f. (0%) 75-250’54,334 s.f.8,995 s.f. (16.6%) 13,583.5 s.f. (25%) 10,643 s.f. (19.6%) 250-500’38,349 s.f.3,606 s.f. (9.4%) 11,504.7 s.f. (30%) 3,606 s.f (9.4%) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the application be denied to permit a new location for the pool based on the negative impacts to the adjacent property and locating the pool on the lakeside yard within the average lakeshore setback. Staff recommends the applicant complete additional testing or redesign the pool to be located as previously proposed. ^2513 Connie Ptepho. 540 North Arm Drm yariancts February 23. 2000 pagt-3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16,1999 (#2509 Andrew Ronningen, Continued) Lindguist inquired whether 320 square feet of hardcover could be removed outside of the plastic undertayment. Ronningen commented the driveway is gravel with grass down the middle, Smith stated that the entire gravel driveway would count as hardcover. Smith inquired if the plastic undertayment is removed, what the hardcover would be reduced to. Jenson stated there is approximately 436 square feet of landscaping with plastic undertayment currently, and the size of the addition is 520 square feet, which would result in a hardcover figure under 25 percent. Jenson noted that removal of the patio blocks Is already calculated into the hardcover figures. Stoddard inquired whether the neighbors have expressed any concerns regarding this application. Jenson stated the property is heavily wooded and would not Impact the neighbors’ property. There were no public comments. Smith stated in her view the plastic undertayment will need to be removed as a condition of approval. Jenson stated If all the plastic undertayment is removed, hardcover would be approximately 24.5 percent. Jenson stated a minimum of 350 square feet of hardcover would need to be removed in order to meet the 25 percent hardcover limit. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2509, 3030 Casco Point Road, for a variance to the average lakeshore setback to construct a two story, 22 ’ by 24 ’ addition to their existing home, subject to the rentoval of approximately 436 square feet of landscaping/plastic underlayment within the 75-250 ’ zone. Smith Inquired whether this would be another property that should be notified that no new applications for hardcover will be looked upon favorably by the Planning Commission. Stoddard stated that with removal of the plastic underlayment and landscaping, the hardcover would be under the 25 percent limit, so in his view that stipulation is not warranted on this property at this time. Stoddard commented his motion will remain as originally stated. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2513 CONNIE PIEPHO, 540 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES, 7:57 p.m. - 8:01 pjn. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Connie Piepho, Applicant, was present. Jenson stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to the average lakeshore setback to construction of an inground pool, which is 830 square feet. The pool is large enough to be classmed as an oversized structure, which requires 15 feet from the property line. The pool itself is proposed at 13 feet from the side property line. Staff is recommending that the pool be relocated Pages 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16,1999 (#2512 Alan Richie, Continued) City Engineer as well as obtain a permit from Hennepin County Department of Transportation for the new curb cut and access to Lots 1,2, and 3. The Applicant is further required to submit plans for extension of the sanitary sewer service for review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Erotas stated they have the understanding that this property was previously approved for a three lot subdivision before the original residence was constructed. Weinberger stated it was originally subdivided into three lots and then combined Into one lot for tax purposes. There were no public comments. Smith inquired whether the applicants have any concerns regarding the conditions outlined in the Planner's Report. Erotas stated they are In the process of complying with the conditions. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2512, 905 Tonkawa Road, for a three lot lakeshore residential subdivision of a 6.3 acre lot, with the understanding that the Applicants must comply with all the conditions outlined in the August 9,1999 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CONTINUED NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#7) #2509 ANDREW RONNINGEN, 3030 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCE, 7:30 p.m. - 7:56 p.m. The Certiflcate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Andrew Ronningen, Applicant, was present. Jenson stated the Applicant is requesting variances to construct a two story. 22* by 24* addition to the existing home. Variances are required to the average lakeshore setback, as well as hardcover within the 75-250* zone. The Applicant has proposed to remove 18 patio blocks as part of this project; however, Staff feels that In there is a targe amount of landscaping with plastic underlayment that could be removed in order to i How for the addition and stay under the 25 percent hardcover allowed. Structural coverage limits will not be exceeded with this addition. With the reduction of 320 square feet of landscaping, the hardcover would be reduced to 24.2 percent. Ronningen stated they would like to construct the addition onto their house to accommodate their growing family. Lindquist stated that the Planning Commission does not count plastic as hardcover anymore, but that removal of the plastic will be a condition of approval. Lindquist inquired whether removal of the patio blocks would be sufficient to bring the hardcover under the 25 percent limit. Jenson stated removal of the patio blocks would account for approximately 180 square feet, but would need to remove approximately 320 square feet of hardcover elsewhere in order to bring the hardcover below the 25 percent limit. Page? ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16,1999(#2513 Connie Piepho, Continued)two feet over to comply with the 15 foot setback.Jenson etated upon turlher review of this application. Staff •;« Applicants identifying a secondary septic site that meets the required setbacks else lot. Piepho stated they are attempting to comply with the City Codes as much as possible. Kluth Inquired whether an alternate septic site could be located on the property. Piepho stated that there is a possible area In the front and that they would be willing to relocate the pool two feet further from the property line. Jenson suggested that approval be subject to submittal of documentation verifying an alternative septic site. Lindquist stated he would be willing to approve the average lakeshore setback but no other variances. There were no public comments. Smith commented that the pool should not encroach on any easements or secondary septic site. Piepho stated that a fence will not be constructed. Stoddard noted that Orono does not require fences to be erected around pools. Kluth moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of 540 North Arm Drive, for an average lakeshore setback . suitable Inground pool subject to submittal of documenution verifying the location of a su^^^^ secondary septic site, with the understanding that no other variances should be required on this application. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2515 TOM AND MAUREEN PALM, 1685 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES, 8:02 pjn. 8:12 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Tom Palm, Applicant, was present. Jenson stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a new 30 ’ by 30 ‘ location than the existing 24 ‘ by 26 ‘ garage, as it is located partially over easement. The existing garage is located 98 feet from the rear property line, with the proposed Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMNDSSION NfiNUTES FOR AUGUST 16,1999(#2515 Tom and Maureen Palm, Continued)garage being located 48 feet from the same property line. Because the structure is considered to be oversized, the sideyard setbacks are required to be 15 feet rather than the district 10 foot standard. Staff is recommending that the garage be reduced by five feet in depth, which would allow the Applicants to maintain a three car garage and still meet the 10 foot setback requirements. Jenson stated a 750 square foot garage would reduce the existing hardcover to 28.9 percent in the 75-250' setback, with the current hardcover being calculated at 34 percent. Palm indicated he would be in favor of reducing the size of the garage to 25’ by 30*. Palm noted the City has received two letters from his adjoining neighbors indicating support of this project. Jenson staled the letters are included in the Planning Commission's packet. Palm commented in his opinion this situation benefits everyone by reducing the existing hardcover on the property and relocating the garage off the sewer easement. Tom Trainor, 1675 Concordia Street, indicated that he was in support of the project. John Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street, commented he also was in favor of the project. Palm indicated he would be willing to reduce the size of the garage to 750 square leet. Lindquist moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2515, 1685 Concordia Street, to permit construction of a 750 square foot garage and driveway as depicted on the survey, with the understanding that the existing garage will be removed. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Item No. 10 follows Item 15 (#11) #2517 SCOTT AND LISA BITTMAN, 25 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCES, 8:15 p.m. - 8:22 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Scott Bittman, Applicant, was present. Jenson stated the Applicants are requesting a front yard variance to add a second story to the existing home, which was constructed 42.7 feet from the right-of-way to Brown Road South. Jenson commented the lot is heavily wooded and the house is not visible from the road. Jenson stated the addition was started without a building permit, with the roof having been removed by the time Staff had discovered the work. Staff allowed the work to continue with the understanding that the variance would be applied for to make the addition legal. Bittman had no comment. There were no public comments. Stoddard inquired why the work was commenced without a building permit. Page 10 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Kris Jenson, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner August 9,1999 #2513 Connie Piepho, 540 North Arm Drive Variances-Public Hearing Zoning:LR-1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acres Application: To permit construction of an inground swimming pool. STAFF SUMMARY This application is for an average lakeshore setback to permit construction of an inground pool at 540 North Arm Drive. For swimming pools, the setback is measured from the water basin to the property line. The size of the setback is set by the size of the basin, which in this case is 830 sq. ft., large enough to classify it as an oversized structure, requiring 15' from the property line. The pool itself (the water area) is currently proposed at 13* from the side property line, where 15' is required. Staff does not support a variance for the side yard setback. The area surrounding the pool is allowed to encroach into the sideyard setback provid^ it is not at a height greater than that of the main floor of the home. No part of the pool would be allowed to encroach into the 5* Drainage and Utility Easement which runs along the side property line. The survey shows boulders to be located within the easement, which is not permitted. As Staff was researching information for this variance, it discovered that the secondary septic site is located between the home and the current septic system site. The Septic Code requires all structures to be located at least 20* from the septic site. Therefore, the pool cannot be located in the proposed area. If the applicant wants to proceed with the application as is, it will require approval from Chris Pence, City of Orono Septic Inspector. Staff would not be in favor of a reduced setback and feels it is highly unlikely that it would be granted. However, there is another option. Staff suggests that the applicant contact S-P Testing Inc., who did the original septic work on the site. If they could identify an acceptable secondary septic site that meets the required setbacks elsewhere on the lot, then an area would be cleared for the pool. A sketch of the drainfleld sites has been included with this report. The outline of the house is slightly different, as it's labeled "proposed house", but the scale is the same as the survey included with this memo. By comparing this to the included survey, it shows the edge of the proposed pool area in the same area as the comer of the drainfield, and that is before the pool is shifted to meet the side yard setbacks. 1125 1 3 Conni€ Piepho, 540 Sorth Arm Drive Variances August?. 1999 pagt-l 2. There are several options with this application. They are as follows; 1. Planning Commission votes on the application as submitted, with variances for average lakeshore setback and side yard setback, subject to the applicant receiving approval from the Septic Inspector for encroachment into the secondary drainfield site. Staff does not recommend approval of the variances. The applicant moves the pool out of the sideyard setback, still requiring a variance for average lakeshore setback. This would also require approval of the Septic Inspector. Staff is willing to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance, however, they still feel that the Septic Inspector would not allow the structure within the secondary drainfield. The applicant requests the matter be tabled, to allow them the opportunity to work with the original septic designers to find an alternative secondary site. If this is successful and receives approval from the septic inspector, then the matter could come back to the Planning Commission, with Staff recommending approval of the average lakeshore setback to place the pool (Staff would not recommend approval of the side yard setback variance). 3. 2. Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. I, (B) No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. Section 10.03, Subd. 9, (E) Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square feet footprint shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. Please see the section from the Septic Ordinance defining setback requirements in the exhibits. Please note that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to grants variances to the Septic Code, only the Septic Inspector may approve the request. 3. ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard Required 2 Acres 200 ’75'30'50' Proposed 2.7 Acres 245'78' (from pool to OHWL) 29.9', 13'252' to shed, 282.1'to house •25/J Connit Piepho. 540 Sorth Arm Drivt yarUuKts August 9, 1999 pagt-2 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75'27,612 s.f.0s.f. (0%) none (0%) 0 s.f. (0%) 75-250*54,334 s.f.8,995 s.f. (16.6%) 13,583.5 s.f. (25%) 10,819 s.f. (19.9%) 250-500’38,349 s.f.3,606 s.f. (9.4%) 11,504.7 s.f. (30%) 3,606 s.f. (9.4%) STAFF RECOMMENDATION ► Staff recommends the matter be tabled to allow the applicant to have another secondary drainfield site identified in order to place the pool between the house and the lake. Eihibits: A B C D E F O H Application Location Map Plat Map Survey Septic Ordinance Requirements Site Plan with drainfield sites identified Hardcover Calculations Neighboring Property Owners List §2513 Comk Fkpho. 540 Sorth Am Drt»* Varianets August 9,1999 pagt-3 h Application # Date RecehredJ^/i^ Amount Paid ^ cm OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 . ($50.00 per each additional variance) • Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 ‘ (no change from ori^nal application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees O^ouble application fee) • . .• Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ ^ A A ^ A m X^iUp^ijr AUWUliWOUWU ^ ■■ ----- Attach 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. V reridential ___other (specify) Zoning District:____I At_________________________- APPLICANT NameleTnye c Address: Sf~~ City:. /3 Cq ie(work). -Zip;. Phone rhomel 4CZ3. ^9</0OWNER (if different.tha n appl icant) --—- Name ^4^ a -^A^______ Phone (work) iSh(b .—^^ Addxt^^^ZrUO a JP A/l^ 'D/L^ City:^/^^.g —Zip:jSL DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estim^fid Construq - • Describe request in detail: / J7^Kd2. ^£>£xeifO ■\fi) K (attach additional sheets if necessary) o VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setbadc ___Lot Width Front ___ Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage k Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDHIONS Describe undue hardship or cqippliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) 07/20/1999 10:02 T0*d TblOi 6125468756 FOX COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 03 REQUl SUBMITTALS AH of the foUowiay informaHon muit be iubmltted hr the applleatlon ^ladMilt date in order for your applIeaHoa to he gon«td«rt<l *ompUtti 1. 2. ^ 3. X 5. 6. ^7. S. Completed Application Fonn Property Owners list of owners within ISO", labels aoH plat (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Count) Dqrartment of rtnance. A-603, Govt Center, >4> igW). ^•irS-S'y/a Certificate of Survey (sign^ by t licensed surveyor) and in dude hardeevtf calculations u required. In ad(Stiot4 provide one (1) copy 8V4* x ll* fi>r reproduetion. Topographic survey (existing and proposed Hevations) if Muy chuiges In eBditfflg grade are proposed. In edifition. provide one (1) copy 8V&* x 11* for reproductioa. Sketdtes or plans of floor & devadon views ^ovide one (1) c spy tH* x 11*). List of the legal names Cmchide marital status) of an petMos w th an ioterM in the propet^y. This would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not ament ownd<s). As an addendum to this applicafioa please atueh e separate f st of any other pcrioni you wish notified of tins ap^cafion. Additional items as axy be requested by City itafil The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this applicatioa Please renjeniber that juic variance epnHeatten li oot eempiete if the eheve irfoimatioa bu not b^ induded. APPLICANrS SIGNATUBE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or request^ by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (atalF fime net covered by origj nil fee payment) and/or consuhant expenses incurred in review of this appUeadoo^ and oidfiea that the information supplied is true a^ correct to the best of his/her knowledge. AppUeanTs Signature I ^ OWNBR*S SIGNATURE . The owner herdiy acimowledges and agrees to this application and further autlaorixes reasonable entry onto the property by City staOC consultants, agents, Commisaion memVera, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request _________Date ^ j)Owner's Signature ____________________ __ -------- j the PUaning Commission Meeting. Planning Comxmsrion Meetiflgs are held on tlte third Monday of eaeh month. Applicants must be present at an scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and CouncU. If an applieant is. unable to attend a schedulei meetmg. please make arrangeroeots to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to a4vise the Buikfing & Zoning Ofiice of tlus change prior to the meeting. 10 d &SZZ1C6ZT9 :St 666t-6t-Tnf r 07/20/1999 10:02 tO*^ *W10i 0125468756 FOX COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02 Adjtccat Proptrty Ownen* Ae1newledj«in«at Form I (we) i^d^ciLw. llV\<v^^»^ of Afv (print ntnK(s)](print tddress] tVMiAr..OrOK. ved the pUttS for t ptop«r^ loctted I (wi) undcrsund that in executing tUi acknowledgement, I (we) am (m) not adted to declare iqpproval or dii^proval of the property or use but mer^y to ootonn for (he Oty C oubc Q tt^ I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and thm the prised ndghbor*i projec^r use requires Council approval. Cm 11/in Property Owner Date 2,^ Property Owner Date i(w«) _Lj VtMtiIk tpdmname(a)](print address] have reviewed die dans for the proposed irapfoivement or proposed use of the alM rcfeiied toat-TVO as Land Use Application Ho. property loeated I (we) understand that fai executing this acknowledgemeot, 1 (we) am (m) net adked to declare approval or disqiproval of the property or use but mer^ to couBim for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the prcposed n^i^t's project or use requires Coundl approval. Ifl. mli'mT' Psoperty Owqg/Date' ' •7- Cl -99 Date ^ If you have any infonnatioo that nuty astist the City in the review oc tUs t-aiiit Use AppUcation, please submit your comments to the Budding dc Zoning Office ^ laast 10 dsys prior to the scheduled meeting date. tO'd 6S?^E£e^l9 SI 666T-6T-TW I 1. Setbacks. The minimum setback distance requirfements are as follows: Feature Sewage Tank aud Soil Treatment Area Water Supply Well Wetland .lake s «General Development Recreational Development Natural Environment Tributaries, Streams /Driveways, Sidewalks, Decks, J and other Hardcover ^ Property Lines, Buildings ( and Buried Pipes ^Tiawn Sprinkler Systems 75* 75’ 75* 75' 150* 75 ‘ 20*^ 20lJ 10' 2. Sewage Tanks requirements are as follows: The minimum sewage tank size No. of Bedrooms 4 or less 5 or 6 7, 8 or 9 10 or more Tank Liquid Capacitiest. (Gal. > lOOO't‘1000 Regardless of garbage disposal use 1250+1000 1500+1500 Sewage tanks shall be sized as "other" establishment' per Subp. 3 Sec. B in MPCA Regulations Chapter 7080.0130 3. Pumping Stations. In order to standardize Regulations Chapter 7080: locxable electrical box must be mounted on a 4x4 inch treated redwoo or cedar post. electrical connections be made within the box. Pump connection roust direct line (plug in only). Wire entry to the electrical box sha be sealed with putty. be on separate electrical circuits. ORONO CC 496-1 (2-10-92) I i ip5Vsi| In Wo s f! * £<5ltTlwir VlLk . i J^V/BLL apTBUK. UW5 _ . JP* f «I6 -- lO^.j/ /if TtAfti ftg I«i>f rttfi^M I..—_»*JK!Z2fL.iA2lkk£i • 0 • SRwdofion Ttttf Scd1i»./" *y^L f £-• l/»f» <> KSoil BorinQf «B««h Mark mjHonv 0F< e> Ma»Tt4 ___lliwti rXowO ix<w», li^uW- ^O NoMi IhaMnMMta MkdiM CwM A^ney Chapter 7080 8 Xioeal Ordinance Note t Check all underground utilitlea /^s> (fO^ S-PTESmeiNC OidgredBr*.^’^ ^ 8H.«-4f7>S9M \ \ *' t: T\ V • I •• • . . HAKDCOVER C/ULCULATIQCLSVpRKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ ^’^5-250’ ^ 250-500’ 500-1000* TnciSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ suev tONC- LtofA Widdi X X X B. (}«n2t C. i^riveway I. .*X X D. SidewsDc X X E. Pado/Deck X X F. Landscqie Undedain By Plastic Or Fd>dc X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL Pl^EgryREA IN ZONE ^ xlOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lcogch WMch X X X B. Gaoge C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/DMk X X F. Landscape Uuderiain By Plastic Or Fabric X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROP^^AB^A IN ZONE^ ^ l(fiO iiii. 3ES I >f74l IbC jma /D8KJ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B 1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A 6 c £T3ACXZ0MS: (CIRCLE OMH iiabdcovsr calculation worksheet --------------- 75-250' f 2SQ-500 ’0-7S*SOO-IOOO' TTTgnNG house __ Lsapi tV S. C-arase C. Driveway 0. Sidewaik X E. ?atio/D<cJc X X F. Laodscsp* Underiaia By Plastic X X G. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in ZCNE A ---------------------- * ® • A. House Length X X B. Oange C. Driveway X X X D. Sidewalk X X E. ?atio/Deck X X F. Landscape Uaderlatc By Plasuc X X X G. Odier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone A ______________-i- B S.r. S.r. S.r. ^ • A S.r. g 0^.S ® S.r. S.r. S.r. S.r. S.r. S.r. S c S.r. i.F. X ICO S.r. S n s.r. WicOl S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.r. S.F. S.F. S.r. S.F. S.r. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 % i A B <1 ! ■ t- > • RUN DATE l7/19/9f MTCH SI9 PROP ADOR ONNiR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AIHMI TAXPAYER HANE/AODR OMMR tUM TAXPAYER NMR/AMM HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATXON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S549& PACE 39 SO 00-117-25 51 tots •0520 NORTH ARN DR TXHOTHY PELLXZXER TXHOTHY PELLXZXER 520 NORTH ARN OR HOUND HN 55504 50 00-117-25 51 0009 OOiOO NORTH AMt M N ■ t H J HOY HATTNEN 0 0 HEXOX J HOY 500 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55504 TOTAL BATCH B09 00000 50 00-117-25 51 0000 00540 NORTH ARH DR CONNIE K PXEPHO CONNIE K PXEPHO 540 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55504 SO 00-117-25 51 0007 . 00500 NORTH ARH OR T t S HAZER THOHAS D • SUSAN S HAOR 500 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55504 50 00-117-2S 52 0005 00405 NORTH ARH DR LAKEVIEN OOLP op NTXA INC LAKEVXEN OOLP OF NTKA INC •55 RED OAK LA HOUND HN 55504 . 50 00-117-25 42 000« 00050 ADDRESS UNASSXONED VXCTORIA ESTATES IWNOHNERl VXCTORXA ESTATES HOHEONNEI» C/0 THOHAS HAZER 500 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55504 . • • • « X CERHFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ^ M ACHATE AW REPRESENTATXON OF XNFORHATXON AS XT J*!* OF THE HENNEPXN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATXON* TO THE BEST OF NY .EOOE AND BELXEP. DATE ScLtZjj*^ D OJ ’.k.' » - 5 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:February 23,2000 SUBJECT:#2551 Thomas Randgaard 2765 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Permit to permit extension to a permanent dock Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E F Application Plat Map LMCD Permit Letter (Dated 6/22/99) LMCD Letter (Dated 10/23/99) Site Plan 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 SherifFs 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. •2SSI Thomas Randgaard 2765 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Permit February 23. 2000 Pe^l j 1 % LMCD Permit Greg Nybeck, Executive Director of the LMCD, has stated the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol has reviewed the matter of the proposed dock extension and concluded the actual dock structure does not create a navigational problem in the channel. The primary concern with the dock extension at the previous Planning Commission meeting is distance across the channel. In the permit approved originally by the LMCD the distance measured from shoreline to shoreline was listed at approximately 120'. Staff has concluded the actual distance between the proposed dock extension to the opposite shoreline is approximately 75'. There is no change to the status of the LMCD permit. Mr. Nybeck did agree parking of boats on the north side of the dock could obstruct access to other docks in the channel. In his letter, dated October 13,1999, he states it is the responsibility to ensure that boat storage on the north side of the dock does not cause a navigational problem to other docks in the area. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit to permit a permanent dock extension of 14', subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. The applicant maintains active licenses with the LMCD and DNR. The dock does not cause navigational problems or obstruct access within the channel per LMCD requirements. 3.Future replacement or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit from the City of Orono. 4.The Planning Commission discusses with the applicant the issue of boat storage on the north side of the dock. »255! Thomas Randgaard 276S Shadyy»ood Road Conditional Use Permit February 2 J. 2000 Page! Application #255" I Date Received il fit Amount Paid /76^-5^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION , . t>x x . Site Address Snto? Qg^uo HO SS2Tl> j Type of Application to be Filed ^ CuV ~?V<Lv»v* ^ocJc_ T?vA^iA*af->*a . Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) I V~l-"-Q<DC d O ijX * (home) ______________ Phone (work) wC*V ji-City Qgg»>o Zi p OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address City Zip Date Property Acquired _ (month/year) 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application X!^ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Conunercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more . ____ Grading, seawall, retuning wails within 75' of lakeshore ------- mU. — PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change fi-om ori^nal application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee * •••* y ^ OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Conunercial 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 )-- • Q/ BOARD MEMBERS OougiM E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bart Foster Vice Chair, Daephaven Eugene Partyka Secretary, Minnethsta Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kant Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Oilman Excelsior QregKitchak Minnetonka Ull McMillan Orono Robert Rascop Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood o 50% Pfcyd#d Ccrtr^ 20% Pott Contwmtf Wattf 't" LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. • 3EHPHAVSN. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 • FAX 612/745-9085 June 22, 1999 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Thomas Rangard 276S Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Subj: 99-67-9 Dear 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 inspecdon. 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 Rog^r L. Winberg^ Administrative TeCnnician end: site plan cc: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Ceil Strauss, MN DNR V/5b Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-lmcd/ t-mail Address: Imed®wintemet.com 1 \ ^ 7 * J-*H’ \^.-.-r J- . . 4? V • v-'r --v^ • ''-. ’ *5 'C’>, r ^ 8> Q.Q t7 i .#• • I. c.pf.RC / .« •« • # • itE©'(I'll ^ JUN 11 1999 rr •u. ;. •‘i'’ ;.! -^-1 i V-r^-' •%* ;■» » V. BOARD MEMBERS OougiM E. Babcock Cbair, Tonka Bay Bart Fdtttf Vica Cbair, Oaapbavan EuganaPart)^ Sacratary. Mnnetrista Craig Nalaon Traasurar, Spring Park Andraa Ahrana Mound BobAmbroaa Wayzata KantOaMan Mkinatonka Baacb Craig Eggara Victoria TomOlman • QragNlcbak Minnatonka UliMcMMan Orono Robert Rascop Sborawood HarbJ.Suarlh Woodland ShaidonWart Oraanwood D LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT B 18336 MINNETONKA BLVO. • DEEPHAVEN. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 • FAX 612/745-9085 Octo^ 13, 1999 Gragory S. Nyback. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Thomas Rangard 2765 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Rangard: • »^ SO%riieya«^Cof«am 10% Foil CmMiiiiMMiiii 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 discussed whether boat storage on the north side of the dock would create navigational problems for other docks in die 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 not to 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 north 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 matterl Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Gregory Z. Nybeck Executive Director Enel: Code excerpt CC: Lt. Ken Schilling, Henn. Co. Sheriffs Water Patrol Mr. Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Ms. Ceil Strauss, MN DNR Web Page Address: http:/ANww.wintemet.cofn/-lmcd/ kHTiail Address: imed Owintemet.com Line, I ih• Ml. 'v^ ^Kv«‘^'''\' '^A> iMinn /II.•:?v; iti'> 'CJ92 )0C ^ ***>,^»*^ * edof '- ^.. •r'-Xi ■ -P ■''/ i • *. ^ I'S f .j," L ?>'' vva V.. V X^ •. / yr^ QOC ‘' & • - / \ •• # \(i"®iiV^'ii JUN 11 1999 ^V^tTCrt OF ^ ^ r*^* "7^^.•3>fr I: I V t:sLSkm MiM w RUN DATE 11/M/T9 ■ATCN S«5 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 21-117-2S 2S 0010 OOOSO ADDRESS UflASSlONED PHEASANT UWN NONEOWNERS PHEASANT LAWN NONEOWNERS 2700 PLEASANT RD EXCELSIOR NN 55S51 SO 21-117-2S 20 OOOS 0270S SHADVWOOD RD 0 O I J H FOX GAYLORD 0 t JON HARIE FOX 2705 SHADYNOOO RD EXCELSIOR NN 55SS1 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 21-117-2S 20 0005 027SS SHADVWOOD RD R 0 OAV t S L OAV RICHARD CAY t SUE GAY 27SS SHAOVWOOO RD EXCELSIOR HN S53S1 SO 21-117-2S 20 0000 02775 SHAOVWOOO RD D K OLSON TRUSTEE DONNIE K OLSON 2775 SHADVWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 5SSS1 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 21-117-2S 20 0020 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSXGNED THOHAS J CASEY ETAL TNONAS J CASEY 2705 SHADVWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN S5SS1 SO 21-117-2S 20 0021 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSXGNED D K OLSON TRUSTEE OONNXE K OLSON 2775 SHAOVWOOO RD EXCELSIOR HN 5S3S1 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 21-117-2S 20 0020 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSXOaO OEATRXCE 0 CARLSON RICHARD 0 OAV A SUE L GAY 27SS SHAOYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR HN 55SS1 SO 21-117-25 20 00S2 02720 SHAOVWOOO RO 0 A KVAN • J C KVAH TRUSTEES JOHN C S OEVERLEE A KVAN 2720 SHAOVWOOO RO EXCELSIOR HN 5SS31 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 21-117-2S 20 0001 02700 SHAOVWOOO RO W R NITTNER ASK WXTTNER W R WXTTNER ASK HXTTIttR 2700 SNAOVWOOO RD EXCELSIOR NN SSSSl SO 21-117-2S 20 0050 02705 SHAOVWOOO RO T J CASEV A S 0 CASEY THONAS J CASEV 2705 SHADY HOOD RO EXCELSIOR m S55S1 PROP ADOR TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 21-117-2S 20 0000 02705 SNAOVWOOO RO TNONAS N RANOGAARO THONAS N RANOGAARO 2705 SNAOVWOOO RO EXCELSIOR NN SSSSl SO 21-117-2S 20 0001 •OOSD AOORESS UNASSICNEO JOHN P THXHNESN THOTiAS P HUOER 2015 SHADVWOOD RO EXCELSIOR HN SSSSl REPORT NO. PXOS5O01 PAGE 20 30 21-117-2S 20 OOOO 02725 SNAOVWOOO RD N D A R A HEEK NICHAEL D A ROOERTA A HEEK 2725 SHADVWOOD RD EXCELSIOR NN SSSSl SO 21-117-2S 20 0010 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSXGNED DAVID C COOK DAVID C COOK OAO W HILLSIDE DR WAVZATA NN 55S91 i SS 21-117-2S 20 0020 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIGtSD JANES 0 OXNTHER ET AL JANES O OINTHER UNDIVIDED 4 SO 21-117-2S 20 0000 02700 SNAOVWOOO RO C S LXNOLEV A J D LXHOLEV C S LINDLEV A J D LINOLEV 2700 SNAOVWOOO RO EXCELSIOR HN SSSSl SO 21-117-2S 20 0059 02771 SNAOVWOOO RO R 0 A N J OGLE RXCNARO G A NARLVS J OGLE 2771 SNAOVWOOO RO EXCELSIOR NN SSSSl SO 21-117-2S 20 0002 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSICNEO OOVD WITTNAN OOVO WITTNAN 5055 TEAL CXR ■u 100 NN B5SSI I* % • o mi I:* jJ miL RUN OATt ll/M/99 tATCH SRS IIFtMEPlN COOMrV PROPCRTV IMFORHATIOH SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PlASSARl PACE 27 PROP AODA ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR U 21-117-2S 2A RtAS •RRM ADDRESS UNASSICNED D mECEL S J NIEOEL OONALO R S JUDITH 0 NIEOEL ASS SULLIVAN OR COLUNSIA HEIOHTS MN 5SA21 DHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 21-II7-2S 31 RStS S27VS SHAOVHOOO RO S R S P A RECK STEVEN R t PEOOY A RECK 27VS SHAOVHOOO RO EXCELSIOR NN S5SSI TAXPAYER TOTAL RATCH NAHE/AOOR S«5 Stt2A r-. I1 jl SS 21-117-23 2A RtAA •27SS SHAOVHOOO RO JOHN L PlERELKOm JOHN L FIERELKORN 27SS SHAOVHOOO RO EXCELSIOR HN 55331 SS 21-117-23 2A AIAS •27AS SHAOVHOOO RO ELAINE T PAGONIS ELAINE T PAOONIS 27AS SHAOVHOOO RO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SO 21-117-23 31 CRRS •2745 SNAOYHOOO RO JANES E ZINHERNAN JANES E ZIHHERHAN 2745 SNADVHOOO RO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SS 21-117-23 32 OttS •2SRS PHEASANT RO RALPH 0 RUROESS JR RALPH 0 RUROESS JR, CEO FOOD ENOINEERINO CORPORAHON 2745 NIAGARA LAN PLYMOUTH MN 55447 t ■r 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRIK REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE REST OF NY KNOHLEOCE AND RELIEF. DATE t4 f T> M ♦ 3 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:February 23,2000 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 Revised Site Plan Submittal #1 'ii^^ittal #2 Draft Planning Commission Minutes (January 19,2000) St<ijft”Rrport (January 19,2000) PlanningC^mission Recommendation and Application Summary: The Planning voted 5 to o to table the application for variances for property located at 1395/1405 Rest Point Koan. The applicants have proposed to remove an existing residence from the 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-1B (1 acre zoning district). The applicants have requested variances to permit construction of a single family home on the property. The proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission was to permit 2,298 square feet (17.4%) of structure for a new residence where 1,171 square feet (8.8%) exists and 1,985.7 square feet (15%) is allowed. The applicants were advised to reduce the total structural coverage to 15% on the lot. The new site plan (Exhibit A) is attached. The Planning Commission tabled the application at the request of the applicants. The applicants have revised the plans addressing the following concerns: 1.They have reduced the total structural coverage on the lot to 15%. The total proposed square feet of structure is 1,985.4 square feet where 1,985.7 square feet is allowed. Applicants have removed 312 square feet from the footprint. f$2556 Barbara and Coiling Cavender 1295* 1405 Rest Point Road Vortances 2/21W Page 1 2.The previous proposal indicated a 30 foot setback to the OH WL of Lake Minnetonka. Some members of the Planning Commission were concerned about the distance from the lake. Reducing the total lot coverage to 15% has removed a portion of the house on the lakeside. The proposed setback is now 34 feet from the OHWL. Please refer to the enclosed site plan, revised 2/1/00 attached as Exhibit A. As the survey shows there is a small break in the shoreline directly in front of the proposed residence. The house would be located further from the lake if the shoreline where consistent across the full width of the property. The City of Orono owns and maintains a lift station on the property. The property owners have located the house to create the greatest distance possible on the lot from the lift station. Many other primary residences along Rest Point Road are located at a distance comparable to the 34 foot setback proposed. The house to the north was approved two years ago to be replaced 32 feet from the lakeshore, and the house to the south, across Rest Point Road is located at a 35 foot setback from the lakeshore. 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, ^dcover 2uid 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. This application requires the following variances: 1.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) and (B) to permit structure within 75' of the lakeshore. The applicants have proposed to construct a new residence 34' from the lakeshore where 75' is required. 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit structure and hardcover within 75' of the lakeshore. 3. 4. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) to permit 2,129 s.f (22.4%) hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 1,546 s.f. (13.6%) exists and no hardcover is allowed. The previous proposal was to permit 2,406 s.f. of hardcover in the 0- 75' lakeshore setback. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit a new residence to be constructed within the 35' street setback. The proposed residence encroaches 13.67' 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. The proposed setback from the front property line has not changed, and to permit n'ew construction on a lot less than one acre in the LR-IB zoning district. *2556 Barbara and ColIms Cavender t595fl405 Rist Point Road Var tanas 2 2100 Page! No variance for lot coverage is required because the structural coverage has been reduced to 15%. ANALYSIS T ot 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 ’35’10’21.33’ 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. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 13,238 s.f.Existing: 1,171 s.f. Proposed; 1,985 s.f. 8.8% 15% 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.none 2,129 s.f.To permit •(16.3%)(0%)(22.4%)new construction 75’-250’3,731 s.f.507 s.f. (13.6%) 126.75 s.f. (25%) 701 s.f (18.8%) none 1^2556 Barbara and Collins Cayftndtr 1395/1405 Rtst Point Road Vartancts 2/23m Page 3 i 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. Variance STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Applicant's hardship is included with Exhibit C. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variances for the revised application based on the following: A.The property has been developed and used as a residential property for many years. To complete the application it is a requirement the lots be combined to permit the construction. B.Most of the property is located within 75 feet of the lakeshore. It is nearly impossible to locate a house outside of the 75 foot setback requirement without building on the street right-of-way line. Other houses in the locality are located at comparable setbacks from the lakeshore. C.The City of Orono owns and maintains a lift station located on the property. The City has a regular weekly inspection schedule for lift stations. It is reasonable to expect a “buffer” between the house and the station based on regular inspections. The City of Orono is also communicating with the applicants about obtaining an easement for the lift station. It is not known why an easement was not recorded with the project in the early 1970 ’s, but an easement should be recorded in favor of the City. Lift stations tend to emit odors on occasion. The property owners need to construct the house as far as reasonably possible from the street is to distance themselves from the structure. i^2556 Barbara and Collins Cavindet 1395/1405 Rest Point Road yariances 2/23m Page^ • w D.The lot has a very limited building pad. Any new construction on the property would recjuire setback variances. Because Rest Point Road is narrow it is not possible to paric cars on the street without causing a public safety issue. Each lot along Rest Point Road will require off street parking areas to accommodate quests. The City Code requires all garages with doors facing a street to be located 30 feet from the property line to allow off street parking, thus requiring the house to be located further from the property line. 02556 Barbara ami Collins Cavtndtr 1395/1405 Resi Point Road Varianas inim PagiS *1 i Submittal #1 January 19, 2000 Collins and Barbara Cavender 1405/1395 Rest Point Road Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) fj -------------- ( Statemtnt of Hardship Addsndum n 'TyOoO / A. Lot Area: The legal combination of Lots 24 and 25 win provide 13,238 sq. It (1/3 acre) .of property. This does rKJl meet the 1*acre minimum for this particular area. B. Lot Width: Undear as to whether or rK)t Wiis ordinance applies to the property. C. Hardcover 1 . The lift |dation located on Lot 24 consumes 41 sq. ft of hardcover. We are asking for a credit of equal amount to compensate for this shared use on the property, redudng 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% ailowed. 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. 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*. Hov^ver. the fon^/ard 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 comers of the adjacent structures. 2. We are requesting to encroach on the Street side setback of 35*-0“. The fonvard 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. Jam. ^ooo W^bttovo this it ttie best pteoement of th«propOMd house given the shape and size of Lot 24 and Lot 25 for llwee reasons: • To preserve our visMf, as wsR as that of our naighbors. • To allow a reasonable distanoe away from the sewer lilt station. ■ To set back from the street and utility Hnes as much as possible. 1 Jan.gi/cfemiihxl #^| CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY BOOR ft BACC t •KOXCf M> *-*“____ SHiri «t • • , .%• mts **>«#%• % •••••*».«• •• •• • • • :% • ••• * *.%*• * w '' /n " / "L/ Ml! /,LU/----.VC r--[j| r J MAIN FLOOR PL/W - PROPOSED 1 n«M FLOOR »u aan. QAR/i6£, 4»8aFT. • «• \ Submittal #2 February 23, 2000 Collins and Barbara Cavender 1405/1395 Rest Point Road Variances (Staff; Paul Weinberger) statement of Hardship Addendum #2 This addendum is a follow up to the planning commission meeting held on Wednesday. January 19**’, 2000. 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: The proposed hardcover for the two combined lots is 3,112 sq. ft. (23.5%). This amount is 284 sq. ft. less than the previous submittal. In addition, we want to remind you that the city had previously recommended a 41 sq. ft credit to compensate for the lift station located on Lot 24 (the new calculations do not include this credit). D. Lot Coverage: The structure has been reduced to meet the 15% structural coverage requirements. 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 8-0" further from the lake than the average lakeshore line created by the forward most comers of the adjacent structures. This Is 4’-0" further from the lake than the previous submittal. 2. We are requesting to encroach on the Street side setback of 35 ’-0*. The forward most portion of the proposed structure encroaches of the setback line by 13’-8". Please note the existing structure on Lot 25 does exceed the street side property line at three different locations. These thr^ porl jns of the existing structure extend into the Rest Point Road right-of- way. 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. SURVEY PACE 7 • 1 .» » ••. •» •»••’* * i»\f». %• . !».• ■¥' •‘*i»*<*i* *M '•r 1 PROJCCT NO _______ SM£CT • f «. '»•.*! »%? *\ %\f* •tt\ % • % »l i!H li»r* ! Wi. • • *1. » • • \ 1» 'HI ? REVISIONS Af t «« •♦•'11 * •«#•••*« .• •- ••• • ^ .• .. • ;v*:. T *vv**^.* .’•f*'*r;^ ^ ** • *. ••* 1 •• . .• , .V. •* • ’’ ^» •• •.-.•<n,^V~a'/• V ) :' ■ / ■f I H..^i . ■■-y) ■.. JAMES MeNIAL a»ssso2 0^0 0 aviliica V '^i u MAIN FLOOR PLAN • PROPOSED 1/8" « l'-0" SCALE: 1/8“ = r-0" FEBRUARY 2, 2i % • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR (#11) #2S56 BARBARA AND COLLINS CAVENDER. 1405/1395 REST POINT ROAD • VARIANCES, 11:00 pm -11:49 p.m. Bartara and Collins Cavender. Applicants, were present Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing 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, or .30 acre, with the lots being located in the LR-lB District, which has a minimum of one acre zoning. The Applicants have requested various variances to permit construction of a single family home on the property. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to permit a structure within 75* of the lakeshore. The Applicants have proposed to construct a new residence 30* from the lakeshore where 75* is required. Variances to hardcover are also required in the 0*75* setback and the 75*250* setback. The proposed residence also encroaches 13.63 feet into the front street setback. The Applicants are also requesting a variance to structural ooverage. Weinberger noted the Applicants have been working v^th City Staff in an attempt to arrive at the best building pad for the proposed residence. Weinberger stated in order for the Applicants to comply with as many of the City requirements as possible, the proposed residence is situated in the best building site available for this lot. Weinberger stated the house will need to be raised one foot in order to be above the high water level. Most of the lot exists within 75* of Lake Minnetonka, so it should be assumed with development of this lot that some structure and hardcover will be located within 75* of the lakeshore. The Applicants are requesting a variance to the amount of structural, coverage normally allowed so they may include the aount of existing structural coverage on the developed lot located at 1405 Rest Point Road and 15 percent of the undeveloped lot at 1395 Rest Point Page 36 \ mt ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOI Road. The total structural coverage results in 17.4 percent, which Is slightly above the 15 percent limit Weinberger stated the property contains a lift station owned by the City of Orono. The property owners are being credited for 41 square feet of hardcover. Weinberger noted no utility easement has been granted for the lift station installed on the property. Weinberger indicated the City would like to work with the proper^ owners to obtain a utility easement. Weinberger indicated the previous owner of this vacant parcel had requested variances to permit new conslrucUon which included a number of variances. That application was reviewed in January, 1998, with the Planning Commission recommending denial based ori the size of the lot and lack of a sewer stub. The application was subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant and was not reviewed by the City Council. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances for lot area to create a buildable lot. Staff has concerns regarding the amount of total structural coverage on the property as the City of Orono has been consistent in requiring lots not to exceed 15 percent coverage. The total proposed coverage by the Applicant is 17.4 percent. The Applicant's rational for the coverage to exceed the Code requirement is replacement of existing coverage on the developed lot and 15 percent of the vacant lot. Weinberger stated if the application is approved, a condition of approval would be to have the lots combined into one tax parcel prior to recording the variance on the chain of title. Mr. Cavender indicated they are attempting to construct a new house on the combined lots which will fit In with the neighborhood and add value to the neighborhood. Cavender noted the new residence will be located out of the right-of-way for Rest Point Road. Cavender stated the hardship they are experiencing with this property is the small lot size, which Is limiting the number of options available for placement and size of the structure. Cavender stated the setback from the lake is consistent with the other structures located in this area. Page 37 t ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR Havm commented the size of the lot really Is not considered a hardship. Kluth stated the Applicants are dose to the 15 percent structural coverage standard, and inquired whether the house could be downsized somewhat to meet the Cit/s limit Mrs. Cavender stated they have been wortdng with their architect in an attempt to downsbe the house. Bob Boyer. Building Contractor, stated an additional hardship for the Planning Commission to consider is the fact that the original structures in this area were built as cabins and not as year*round residences. Due to subsequent changes in the ordinances, hardships were created. Boyer stated the lots in this area will never be able to meet the setback requirements. Boyer stated they have attempted to limit the amount of structural coverage as well as the hardcover. Robert Bredeson, 1410 Rest Point Road, stated he has lived in this area for over 80 years. and all the homes in this area are all located within 25 to 30 feet of the lake and all have similar hardcover to what is being proposed teHijhU Bredeson commented the new r«>.‘.idence will be constructed out of the r1ght*of*way and will complement the neighbomood. Bredeson noted the existing residence has not been well maintained. Bredeson stated he is in support of this project. Mrs. Cavender presented pictures to the Planning Commission of the existing residence. There were no further comments regarding this application. Havm commented in her view the proposed residence is an improvement over what currently exists. Hawn i..ted the City historically adheres to its 15 percent structural coverage limit as well as the 25 percent hardcover limit. Hawn stated due to the size of the lot. the proposed residence will not be able to meet the iakeshore setback. Hawn stated she would be reluctant to approve struaura! coverage over 15 percent Smith commented tho Applicants cieaiy will not be able to comply with all of the City’s requirements due to the bize of the lot Sm^rh inquired whether the house could be Page 38 j a ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR< downsized somewhat in an effort to meet the 15 percent stnictural coverage limit Smith stated she prefers to see new constnictlon at 15 percent or lower. Stoddard stated he Is in agreement with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Stoddard inquired what the total square footage of the house is. Becca Hein, Architect, noted the second floor of the house has not been designed at this time, but will be approximately the same as the first floor. Mrs. Cavender commented the second floor will not extend over the entire first floor. Stoddard noted the footprint of the proposed residence is 2,300 square feet Smith inquired how dose to the lake the residence to proposed to be located. Mr. Cavender stated they would like to construct the house approximately 30 feet from lake. Smith questioned whether the location of the residence could be moved further back from the lake Kluth commented he personally does not have a problem with the setback, but noted he does have a concern regarding the total structural coverage being proposed for this lot Nygard commented he would like to see the hardcover within the 0-75’ setback minimized as much as possible. Hawn noted this lot Is relatively flat and would not require a stainway down to the lake. Hawn noted for the record that a letter of support has been received by the City from David Williams. 1400 Rest Point Road; Clarisse Johnson, 1398 Rest Point Road; and Pat Walsh. 1390 Rest Point Road. Mr. Cavender stated the City will receive a benefit by having the new residence being located out of the City’s right-of-way. Mrs. Cavender stated their purchase agreement to contingent upon approval of their application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants would be able to downsize the structure. Pane 39 1 VI r; ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOI Mfs. Cavender commented If they are required to redesign their plan, it would require a significant amount of work. Cavender noted the proposed garage for the residence is not oversized. Hawn inquired whether the house could be located closer to the road. Mrs. Cavender stated they will not be able to meet the setback requirements. Cavender indicated there are utility poles and a lift station located in the front yard, which necessitates the house being located a little further back. Boyer stated due to the narrowness of Rest Point Road and the lack of parking available on the street, the house and garage need to be located further back to accommodate a car in the driveway. Stoddard commented he would be willing to approve a variance to the front yard setback. but that the Applicants need to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit Stoddard suggested this application be tabled to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. Stoddard stated the Applicant probably will not be allowed to construct a patio or walkway to the lake. Mrs. Cavender stated the patio is located off to the side. Nygard noted the paUo is still located within the 0-75' setback. Smith recommended the Applicants attempt to adhere to the 15 pe^nt structural coverage limn and relocate the house closer to the road. Kluth indicated the number one issue is the structural coverage, with the 15 percent needing to be complied with. Kluth stated he would like to see the hardcover under the 25 percent limit as well due to environmental concerns. Wuth noted the 0-75* setback Is the most critical as H relates to hardcover due to the impact to the lake. Hawn stated H appears the Planning Commission would like the Applicants to adhere to the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Hawn inquired whether the Applicants would be wilting to extend the 60 day review period should the Planning Commission table this application. Page 40 • i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR Weinberger indicated City Staff v^ll continue to woffc with the Applicants. Stoddard commented the front yard setback should be compatible with the other houses in the neighborhood, and suggested the Applicants consider locating the house 35 feet from the lake. Smith commented she would like to see the house 35 to 40 feet from the lake. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicants would like the Planning Commission to table their application. Mr. Cavender requested their application be tabled. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2556, Barbara and Collins Cavender, 1405/1395 Rest Point Road, Variances, to allow the Applicants time to revise their plans, and to extend the 60 day review period. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #2657 JUDITH AND DANIEL MCATHIE, 1449 BAY RIDGE ROAD - VARIANCES, 11:50 p.m. -11:56 p.m. Judith and Daniel McAthie, Applicants, were present Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting 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 structure for additional living space on the second story. The Applicants are also proposing to enlarge the garage by approximately 350 square feet and reducing the size of the turn-around in the driveway. Bottenberg noted the amount of hardcover in the 75-250* setback will be reduced by 495.5 square feet, or 2.43 percent, for a total hardcover in the amount of 5.745.5 square feet or 25.27 percent. Bottenberg stated the amount of structural coverage is below the allowable limit. Bottenberg stated the residence was constructed at its present location in 1967. and now requires variances for side yard setback and average lakeshore setback. The Applicants Page 41 1 J L_. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR^MMMUMIta are requesting a variance for the second story addition to encroach 20 feet into the average lakeshore setback and a variance to permit a 10.62* setback to the north property line and a 9.93' setback to the south property line where 30* setback is required. City Staff is recommending approval of variances for side yard setbadt. average lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 75*250* setback area. Hawn inquired whether a variance to height is required on this application. Bottenberg stated the height of the proposed structure is not an issue. Mr. McAthie stated they are looking to update their residence. McAthie stated their neighbors are in support of this project. Bottenberg commented City Staff has received a phone from Michael Johnson. 1461 Bay Ridge Road and Kent Whitworth. 1425 Bay Ridge Road, indicating their support of this project. There were no public comments. Kluth inquired where the hardcover was being reduced. Mr. McAthie stated they removing some decking and a sidewalk located in the front. Kluth moved. Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2557, Judith and Daniel McAthie, 1449 Bay Ridge Road, granting of variances to side yard setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover in the 75*250* setback area to permit the addition of a garage and living space to the existing residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (513) #2558 ANTHONY PATTERSON. 1780 SHAOYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES, 11:57 p.m. • 12:23 p.m. Anthony Patterson. Applicant, was present, along with David Betkman, Property Manager. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct 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 one and a half story residence that will Page 42 ■ ia>t.neitaaeiea^^aaa finr *n aiS 1.1. L TO:Chair Hawn 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 21oiiing Dbtrict: 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 sqiplicant and was not reviewed by the City Council. *This was orily for the vacant parcel not the developed parcel. 02336 Barbara and Collins Cavsnder 1393/1403 Rill Potnt Road yariancis 1/19/00 Page I 4 Mi This applicatioB requires the following variances: 1.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) and (B) to permit structure within 75' of the lakeshore. The applicants have proposed to construct a new residence 30' from the lakeshore where 75' is required. 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit structure and hardcover within 75' of the lakeshore. 3. 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’O' 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. 9^2556 Barbara <md Collins Cavtnder 1395/1405 Bast Point Road yariancas 1/I9m Pagil I 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 of2,298 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 propcscci 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 lakcshore. The hardcover calculation docs 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. »2SS6 Barbara attd Colliits Cavtndtr 1395^1405 Rest Point Road Variattets 1/19/00 Page 3 \ 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 the variance on the chain of title. B25S6 Barham and Collins Cavsnder 1395/1405 Rist FoOU Road yariancos 1/19/00 Pa^4 \ i A Application #Z5S(* CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION 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 ^ ^00 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^s- Property Identification Number (P.l.D.’l 07-//7»Z? 33 OOQ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired / ^53_______________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: IK _____________________ APPLICANTS C.a.venc/£^ Phone (home ) 6/::^ - JVC.-<83-3.7 Namex_______C^OLsIenJ-er_________________ Phone (work ) Co - ca,//_ Address: City: /»W Zip: OWNER Name licant)Phone (home). Phone (work)_ # Ts ] Address: t^/e> ?%/City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area Lot Width Setback: Front ___Other (specify)_____ Side 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:_____5«~r ______ (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. We 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. 0. 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 comers of the adjacent structures. 2. We are requesting to encroach on the Street side setback of 35’-0". The forward most portion of the proposed structure encroaches cf 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 thrw portions of the existing structure extend into the Rest Point Road right-of- way. C'3 d C ;/ .€ i 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: 66.'^>^76^ 'T" %\X -c'V^ \ .•*1 •••*, ' or* • • • op CP\\\ ^%\ ‘^\\V N^'*(2) \\\,,^'v • 1 ss^^A«''xVirJ\'V« ' 'J>^ 'oo\v\<£> • \ 1 ' • • • • • (11) \17 's^o' (3§^ 16 ... 15 ^ MVa ( IM Co^'^X 4'^J^(6) 3 " (4) \ >4. \ •••- l( A® # O) rr o ft iZs j 'O » gl^VAflg'^~n H I* * io :i !'.:: y 9 :/ f t I • ^\ x -r- '.'W.’V^*>***v Vi» U\ ‘■"s2Si23SSfBS^;.’’r '^iV-VA-{.'; Wiia gLg-v»rig>M CT^ __ E: ir*% w if r; SiJ. •>?(■ [.?.fe fl 0 "^'p^ F==----il foI • ^ BA«u a1------------------- 1 BMUm 1 1 1 J i|o H J^ZZZZZ 1 V I OtM I r ^I i 1_________1 >—c=L r 1 '• j IAMB MaflAL BMMMB MAIM FLOOR PLM - PROPOSED MAN FLOOR: 22A2 da FT. GAR46E: 4»6aFT. • • ^ M RUN DATE lE/IR/9*HENNERXN COUNTV PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PMS5AR1 PACE S •ATCN ERE OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NME/AOOR OMNER WINE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 10 07-117-XS 12 0017 ■1170 REST POINT lO N 0 t L K OERiXCNER NXCHAEL 0 t LVW« OERLXCNER 1170 REST POXNT RO MOUND MN SSIM SO 07-117-2S 12 0019 OISSO REST POXNT RO L t S CRAOXLL LARRY I SHARON 6RABXLL 1150 REST POXNT RO MOUND NN 55504 SO 07>117-2S IS 0001 01410 REST POXNT RO ROOERT 0 OREOESON ROBERT 0 OREOESON IS E ST ALOANS RO HOPKXNS NN 55105 SO 07-117-21 11 0002 01400 REST POXNT RO OAVXD A MXLLXANS ETAL OAVXD A MXLLXANS 1400 REST POXNT RO NOUNO NN 55504 SO 07-117-21 11 0001 01400 REST POXNT RO L R HORN I N HORN LESTER R I NYRTLE HMM 1400 REST POXNT RO HOUND NN 55104 50 07-117-21 51 0004 01190 REST POINT RO L X JOHNSON 5 C B JOHNSON LYLE K JOHNSON 2757 XRVXNO AVE SO NPLS NN 55400 10 07-117-21 IS 0005 01190 REST POXNT RD PIN MALSN PATRICK J MALSN 1190 REST POXNT RO m BBS04 50 07-117-21 IS 0000 01100 REST POXNT RD J T NYOARO 1 K N NYOARD J T NYOARO t X N NYOARO 1100 REST POXNT RO NN 55504 30 07-117-21 11 0007 01500 REST POXNT RD OAVXO K RLOOOETT DAVID K DLODOETT 1500 REST POXNT IW HOUND MN 55104 SO 07-117-21 11 0009 01195 REST POINT RD ROOERT 0 OREOESON ROOERT 0 OREOESON 15 R ST ALBANS RO NOPKINS NN 55105 50 07-117-25 35 0010 01405 REST POINT RO C CAVENOER I 0 CAVENOER COLLINS CAVENOER 0 BARBARA CAVENOER 1405 REST POXNT RO HOUND MN 55304 50 07-117-21 11 0011 01105 REST POINT RO 0 M t J L RAHN OAVXO M 0 JOOX L RAHN 1105 REST POXNT RO HOUND NN 55104 TOTAL BATCH in 00012 Ti O K ' •) (V’ W '‘TV !? V•• ULfO-' b i H TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner February 14,2000 SUBJECT:#2558 Anthony and Linda Patterson 1780 Shady wood Road Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR> 1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) Lot Area:12,627 s.f. (.29 acre) Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 J Application Applicants Letter Revised views plan Elevations Revised Hardcover calculations Second Story Plan Location Map Planning Commission Minutes (January 19,2000) Resolution #3974 (Adjacent property variances-10/97) Staff Report (January 14,2000) including application, survey, etc. Summary: This application was tabled at the January 19,2000 Planning Commission meeting so the applicant could redesign the deck and side entry to conform more with Orono ’s zoning code. The applicants have applied for variances to permit additional living space to the existing residence, replace an existing lakeside deck, and replace an existing side entrance on the south side of the residence with a larger entrance. Presently, the house is a 1 V% story structure that, as proposed, would be expanded to a full 2 story house. The applicant was issued a permit for construction on the second story as long as construction did not occur with the 1 O' side yard setback. The Building Official advised the applicants of the potential for variance denial; he could not deny that permit based on unrelated variance matters. Anthony/Linda Patterson / 780 Shadywood Road Variances 2/14/00 Page I e t jI t .4 f i i- Neighborhood History: The applicant has obtained a copy of the survey, hardcover calculations and resolution for the adjacent property - 1770 Shady wood Road. In October 1997, the Planning Commission and City Council approved variances for an after the fact deck. See attached Resolution #3974 as Exhibit K. Brief Summary of proposed changes: The 0-75' setback area: The existing deck has 65 s.f. located in the setback area. The deck has been redesigned to eliminate it from protruding into the setback area, lowering the hardcover calculations in this setback area to 0%. No variance needed. The 75-250' setback area: The existing deck has 220 s.f. in the 75-250' setback area, the first proposal was for 291 s.f. to be located in this area. The redesigned deck proposes 235 s.f. to be located in this setback area. In the combined setback areas, total deck square footage is reduced from 285 s.f. existing to 220 s.f. proposed. The side entry as exists is 37 s.f. The first proposal was for 165 s.f The redesigned side entry is for 80 s.f The applicant ’s are still proposing to remove 95 s.f of driveway and 128 s.f of sidewalk.. The deck, side entry, reduction of driveway and sidewalk reduce the hardcover calculations for this area firom 3,204 s.f (43.7%) existing to 3,039 s.f (41.4%) proposed. A variance is still required for hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Structural Coverage: The existing structural coverage for the lot is 1,977 s.f or 15.7%. The new proposal because of the side entry being larger than what exists is 2,020 s.f or 15.9%. The applicant understands that the zoning code only allows 15% structural coverage, but wishes to keep the side entry at 8’ x 1 O' (80 s.f instead of the 165 s.f first proposed). The first staff report has larger numbers for structural coverage because the deck was included in this calculation, however, it has been determined that the deck is under 6' in height and is not included in structural coverage calculations. A variance is still needed for structural coverage. This application requires the following variances: Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot coverage: In all zoning district, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. To permit a variance to allow lot coverage to be 2,020 s.f (15.9%) where 1,977 s.f (15.7%) exists and 1,894.1 (15%) is allowed. #2558 Anthony/Linda Patterson / 780 Shadywood Road Variances 2/14/00 Page 2 i i Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250' setback area: To allow 3,039 s.f. (41.4%) 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. ANALYSIS Lot Area: LR-IC Lot Area Side Yard Setback Required 21,780 s.f.10' Actual 12,627 s.f.6.7' Structural Coverage : Hardcover Calculations : U2SS8 Anthony/Linda Patterson 1780 Shadywood Road Variances 2/14/00 Page i Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 12,627 s.f.Allowed: 1,894.1 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,977 s.f. (15.7%) Proposed: 2,020 s.f. (15.9%) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'5,291 s.r.0 s.f. (0%)65 s.f. (1.2%)Os.f. (0%) 75-250'7,336 s.f.1,834 s.f. (25%)3,204 s.f. (43.7%) 3,039 s.f. (41.4%) 1 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 1960 ‘s creating the existing side yard setbacks. 2. The proposal to remove part of the driveway and sidewalk. Planning Commission should discuss whether it may be prudent to 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 to enter Shadywood Road. This will increase the hardcover coverage in the 75-250' setback area to 3,262 s.f (44.4%). 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation : Staff makes the following recommendations: 1 . Approve the variances for lot coverage, and side yard setback. 2. Approve the variance for hardcover in the 75-250' setback area including the sidewalk and full driveway. The hardcover calculation would be 3,262 s.f. (44.4%). 3. A new survey to show revisions be submitted to City staff for approval before building permit will be issued. U2558 Anthony/Linda Patterson / 780 Shadywood Road Variance 1/14/00 Paged Pt Application # ^SS S Date Received Amount Paid SZSO ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMAT^^ RuiiLter/to'iT&c'fe/' "'5\r Site Address ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) j’^// 7"^3 « . • • t • • • I j___1_____Attach legal description to appUc^ion if n9Mnc^ded on required survey. Date Property Acquired Ocr^S mi (month/year): I (do) (^o not))also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present me of property: _-^residentid ___pother (specify). Zoning District: Ll? - 1^^.__________________________ • • \ i APPLICANT Name _ Address OWNER (if Name Address: if differenrent^an applicant) Phone (home) /lifO/n yPhone (work)_ City: p/)Q iipl" Ab 'J7/-jJ37 % I zip:_xoi£:'h Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARICES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front >V^Side Hardcover ___^Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unmual property conditions pieventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^./r____________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) tai, HARDSHIP/DECSCRITION OF UNUSUAL POPERTY CONDITIONS: 1780 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 10ft setback of our nei^Uwfs property line (7ft). We are applying for a variance based on the practical difficulty of replacing the don^ existing second story with a fidl second story but not being able to extend the addition the entire length of the otiginal foundation without conforming to the 10ft sefoack ordinance. B. REPLACE EXISTING FRONT DECK •We would like to replace the existing deck utilizing the same basic sqi^ footage. Existing dedc meets lake setbadc, however, the staircase protrudes into the 75ft setback but will be re-located to conform in new design C. RE-BUILD SIDE ENTRANCE/MUD-ROOM -We are prtqxising to replace the existing side entrancr with new construction and a slightly larger foundation that is suitable for our families active lifestyle. Total property hardcover will remain the same with pet^msed elimination of a portion of the existing driveway and stone walking path on Southeast cemer of structure. '.6 'J J V O ................. 50m EieVAllON D '•V ^ 1 00in1 i mill111-II I ■5 '5 M. ELEVA110N • i (0 TTT Q lll■lllli■lllll■ll III HIT I HITrmC bo <3.- % •k' % 5l^Ef ELEVATION MiUI V •HARDCOVERpM'CULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONIQ 75-250’ 250-500’ f.yi5fITNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ LeogA WUih X X X B. Gaxage ‘ • C. Driveway .• • • • ^ •X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pacio/Deck F. Laadseipe Uudeciain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ A + B ^3fiL xlOO PROPOSED HARDCOViro IN ZONE A. House Lcofch Wlddi X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dwk 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 gag/xlOO 500-1000’ (j>^ 65 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^S.F. X-^/7 ZS.F. A .* •hardcover calcula tion worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 250-500’ F.MST1NG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________• X LtofA Wlddi B. Garase ' • C. Driveway D. Sidewalic E. Patio/Deck X X X .• • • • side cn-lTjj • F. Lindsey __ Uaderiain _ By Plastic _ Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X O. 0±er TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •_______ + B • 7 3369 xlOO PROPOSED HARDCOVra IN ZONE A. House _____________ * Leagih WUlh SiVic B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patlo/D^k F. Landscape Uaderiain By Plastic Or Fri)ric X X X • • X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ 500-1000’ ^ <3t" I.S.F. • S.F. • S.F. S.F. ■ C-3^ -S.F. • ST'^r'S.F. S.F. us ■ • S.F. -S.F. S.F. S.F. 57 S.F. S.F. S J. __S.F. S.F. S.F. % 130 1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.P. 1%^S.Fw S.F. •■ S.F. • ••S.F* -235 • • S.F. S.F. S.P. --------------------S.P. ____S.F. • S.F. S.F. T-^r^Lr S.F. % Secor^ l-lcor Pldi^ (T} WIST B^CH HO 6C0 *______ RED OJUC t.Red;. t.Oafc’i i-Goir* SEEMAP^4^^ L-Kt^y . w« I—/ X . Iraa If • F “ *"• v^;Jennings' Bay Rr^ t 5- r^Z -.. >! *>;'A Slu <^v'oJi\oAHL*0 V*t,L^ 1600? Mjir ^UUUIMBU t Harrison • II Mtff K Ifwi^Kvo* f B: -srxrlS.;^# f - ■< Skogsbtrg Point • * • to •W'«r •• t \n. |i-^>iv o ,.. - * , . ORONO/'s Arm J -'.i *A • - . ‘r: -•• « • •% • • • 'yBay : ■ I M • • • Shadteood Point • ffl DEERJNQ ..V «* • ■ '.* ISLAND ^ Fagernw Point llttOWUll ^ ' \ f m •OHN^ fOiNf \U j O r« 0 Crystal J »• • "‘3^1 livo-fl®5 »o«^^=«ri —ir1 T 5 3 »tt«floo BO2400S 1!.«| fE^iSS‘TOK ■5£22££i*i --------- on __ A4II ^ ^ I I V;Spring Ca^^IdKCK ^^iHOMumc o ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19.1999 ^ccc are requesting a variance for the second story addition to encroach 20 feet into the avera^ lakeshore setback and a variance to permit a 10.62* setback to the north property tine and a 9.93* setback to the south property line where 30* setback is required. City Staff Is recommending approval of variances for side yard setbackj^erage lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 75>250* setback area. Hawn inquired whether a variance to height is required on this4pplication. Bottenberg stated the height of the proposed structure i^ot an issue. Mr. McAthle stated they are looking to update theici^sidence. McAthie stated their neighbors are in support of this project. Bottenberg commented City Staff has lived a phone from Michael Johnson, 1461 Bay Ridge Road and Kent Whitworth, 1425 Bay Ridge Road, indicating their support of this project. There were no public commems. Kluth inquired where th^nardcover was being reduced. Mr. McAthie state;d^ey removing some decking and a sidewalk located in the front. Kluth moved; Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2557, Judith And Daniel McAthie, 1449 Bay Ridge Road, granting of variances to side y^d setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover in the 75-250* setback area to permit the addition of a garage and living space to the existing residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#13) #2558 ANTHONY PATTERSON. 1780 SHAOYWOOO ROAD - VARIANCES. 11:57 p.m. -12:23 p.m. Anthony Patterson. Applicant, was present, along with David Berkman, Property Manager. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct 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 one and a half story residence that will Page 42 H 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JUliAr 19, IMS- _________________JAtvJ _ be expanded to a full two story house under this proposal. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting approval of variances for lot coverage, hardcover in the 0-75 and 75-250 ’ setback area, lakeshore setback, and side yard setback. The Applicants are proposing to decrease hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback to 45 square feet, and increasing the amount of hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback to 45.1 percent Bottenberg noted the overali structurai coverage on this lot with this proposai wili be 19.3 percent. Bottenberg stated the existing residence was buiit in the 1960s, creating the existing side yard setbacks. City Staff is recommending reconfiguring the lakeside deck and keeping it at Hs present size of 285 square feet, which wiil eliminate the hardcover variance and encroachment into the 0-75 ’ setback area. Staff also recommends leaving the sidewalk and driveway as is to allow for off street parking and a turn-around. Bottenberg stated the proposed side entrance is reasonabie in size and is not excessive for the lot or size house. Bottenberg stated if the second story walls were to meet the 10 foot setback from the north lot line, this would create odd shaped rooms and cause problems with the iayout of the second sto.'y. There were no public comments regarding this appiication. Hawn commented when she visited the site, the residence was already under construction and she was puzzled by what was new construction and what was existing. Hawn inquired why construction had commenced prior to the application being heard by the Planning Commission. Berkman stated he has spoken with the City’s building inspector regarding this proposal. The construction that is presently underway Is outside the sideyard setback and a building permit was issued to allow commencement of that work. Berkman stated the property owners would like to have the work completed by April. Berkman stated the new construction is over the existing foundation, and the work requiring variances has not been Page 43 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR 19,199» OAiL cJcc:o commenced at this time. Hawn inquired whether the new enclosed porch is entirely out of the 0>75* setback. Berkman stated the enclosed porch is outside the 0>75* setback, with the existing deck encroaching into the 0-75 ’ setback. Kluth noted the Applicants are proposing to increase the structural coverage on this property. Berkman stated they are looking at expanding the entryway. Kluth inquired whether the size of the deck could be reduced slightly to lower the amount of structural coverage. Berkman commented tonight was the first time they heard there was a different between hardcover and structural coverage. Kluth stated the deck would be considered structural. Hawn commented the Planning Commission is reluctant to approve structural coverage which exceeds the allowable IS percent. Kluth stated he does not have a problem with the proposed setbacks. Kluth stated the concrete sidewalk would be considered hardcover. Kluth stated if the decK is reduced by ten square feet, structural coverage would be reduced to 18.2 percent, which is the existing amount of structural coverage on the property. Smith suggested the Applicants keep the structural coverage at the existing limit, noting the code allows up to 15 percent structural coverage. Hawn suggested the Applicants revise their plan in an effort to reduce the overall structural coverage on the property. Smith noted City Staff is recommending reconfiguration of the lakeside deck and keeping it at its present size, which will eliminate the need for a hardcover variance and encroachment into the 0-75' setback area. Berkman inquired whether patio stones are considered hardcover. Smith stated they would be counted as hardcover. Smith inquired whether the Applicants Page 44 -i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR 19, would like their application tabled to allow them time to revise their plan. Kluth noted the sideyard is grandfathered In. Kluth recommended this application be tabled. Patterson Inquired whether the application could proceed forward if they keep the hardcover and structural coverage at the existing limits. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to review the revised plan before approving it. Hawn stated she would not be comfortable approving this application prior to seeing a revised plan. Smith indicated she was in agreement with Hawn and that the Planning Commission really needs to review the revised plan to see exactly what Is being proposed before approval is given. Hawn advised the Applicant to have the application tabled. Patterson requested the application be tabled. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2558, Anthony Patterson, 1780 Shadywood Road, to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan. VOTE: Ayes 5. Nays 0. INING COMMISSION COMMENTS («14) REPORTOF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ONI^GVEMBER 22,1999 AND DECEMBER 13,1999, AND JANUARY 10,2000 This item was not discui (815) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSiOl Mayor Jabbour suggested City Staff discuss the applicbtiq^js directly with the AppliMnts prior to their appearance at the Planning Commission meetihgjo^oid any confusion regarding hardcover and structural coverage limits. Jabbour stalbrMjiMtic is considered hardcover, noting that the City Council also requests that the resIdenwTttnove the plastic underlayment whenever possible. Kluth commented the Planning Commission needs to have as much information as __ Page 45 .u .’-re GlTYof ORONO !5'4?SHO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5^9 74 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUED. 1 AND 2 AND SECTION 10.25, SUBD. 6(B) FILE NO. 2287 WHEREAS, Bradley and Traci Peterson (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1770 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 18, Shady-Wood (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subd.l and 2 and Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B) to permit the replacement of a previously existing 490.2 s.f. deck. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2287. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The property consists of 12,047.9 s.f. or .28 acic«. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 15, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following Tradings: 1. The zoning lot does not meet area or width requirements. 2. The deck is a replacement for a previously existing one. Page 1 of 6 GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. a 9 74 - 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Subdivision 2 and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the replacement of a previously existing deck that requires hardcover variances of 21.6% in the O' to 75' lakeshore zone and 36.4% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore zone where 21.6% and 63.6% is existing and none and 25% is allowed, respectively, a side setback variance of 5.9' to allow the deck to be located 4.1' from the side lot line where 10' is required and .9 ’ is existing and a lakeshore setback variance of 8' to allow the deck to be located 67' from the ordinary high water mark where 75' is required. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. Landscaping underlain with plastic must be removed in the amount of 490.2 s.f., the same area as the deck as shown on Exhibit A. Exhibit B is the applicant's explanation of the proposal, which estimates the removal of even more hardcover than is required by Planning Commission Recommendation. 1. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by applicadon for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 13, 1998). 2. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this Page 2 of 6 GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 9 74 teraiinate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of October, 1997. ATrCir: GabrieISJabbour, N^ay Property Owner (s) \sta:^;E' of Minnesota ) ) ss. COUNTY of HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of October, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. mseetsk . / • * HENNEPIN COUMPf Mv Commission &pt«'»'• 3’. _ IM .............. . < ' " ' / J■ Notary Public Page 3 of 6 GlTYofORONO mitK RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R974 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ([ /■'i-ry /?«rV , 1997 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared T>\n\ h /v »; e <>. />} ii known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. LINDA S.VEE N0TWYPUeUC4iNNES0TA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Conunisslon bplni Jv. 31,2000 -/ ■ • / //. NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 4 of 6 riiiiiiil Pptersjon Pontiac GMC TEL••612-8S8-S075 $ep 2:.’9"9:13 No.009 P.02 E»Ut.iV / 8974 1^ Peterson Pontiac «3MC TEL :6i2-33$-3075 Sep 23 ’*:-'7 C'l: 13 No..OOS P .01 / ^ September 23,1997 S974 City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Boy, MN 55323 Attn: Liz Van Zomeren Zoning fae: #2287 As per the planning commission meeting on September 15,19971 am submitting a proposed hardcover removal for your consideration. I v/ouid propose to remove all of the plastic ground covering on the north side of the property along the chain link fence for approx. 53’. I believe that this would remove approx. 318 sq. ft. of ground cover in the 0-7S’ zone. I would olso propose to remove a 10 X 20' section of plastic ground covering on the west side of the property next to the timber retaining wall. This should remove 200 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 75-250’ zone. Please inform me as to your acceptance or rejection of this proposal by Thursday September 25.1997. I would like to have this completed by the September 26,1997 deadline for the city council. Thanks, Brad Peterson 1770 Shadywood Road Orono. MN 55391 i /3 rf 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 District: 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 all zoning district, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. To permit 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. #2558 Anthony/Linda Patterson 1780 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 14 story structure that, as proposed, would be expanded to a full 2 story housw*. 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. ANALYSIS Lot Area: LR-IC Lot Area Side Yard Setback Required 21,780 s.f.10' Actual 12,627 s.f.6.T 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%) j [ <.308 s.f , }5.1%) it2558 Anthony/Linda Patterson 1 780 Shadywood Road Variances 1/14/00 Page 2 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 1960'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 area. 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 vaiiance and encroachment into the 0-75' setback area. 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 ti2558 Anlhony/Linda Patterson 1 780 Shadywood Road Variance 1/14/00 Pages * •Pi Applkatioii #'556 Date Received Amount Paid ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 6ui Icier i'ciffT&cfc/- He 1' %•« • • ■ :f Site Address | D PROPERTY mber (l“ (^ppUcy Date Property Acquired Property Identification Number f<P. uro^o. (PAm I • . • . • t t J •Attach legal description to appUcation if not included on required survey. also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) *. Presenrusc of property: _^^residential Zoning District: other (specify). APPLICANT Name _ Address Phone (home) City: p/1 <3 _____4*hone(work) J 3y/-3j3/-\) Zip: C.r~7S f* OWNER Name rent Jhan applicant)Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEI Describe request. ^ S'T't F REQUE^ . Estimated Construction Q)st % JJTOOO . ^ in det^: K<^Ac*^ ~, , /dcc.f<JL)>4A /)€ui 4bScr-co^A % oo 3 9^5?(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARI^CES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: Front .A^Side Hardcover ___Lot Coverage 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: ^/7 c.c/.c i>___________________ i (attach additional sheets if necessary) r 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.i: 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). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVi" 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 SYi* 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 owneifs). 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 jcc^ct to the 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 (^nv^tigption 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. ■ i I HARDSHIP/DECSCRITION OF UNUSUAL POPERTY CONDITIONS: 1 780 SHADYWOOD RD..... TONY AND LINDA PA TTERSON A. SECOND STORY ADDITION •The North wall of the second one-4ialf stoiy of our existing residence falls within the 10ft setback of our nei^dwrs property line (7ft). We are applying for a variance based on the practical difiiculty of replacing the dormer existing second story with a full second story but not being able to extend the addition the entiie length of the original fouiulation without conforming to the 10ft setback ordii B. REPLACE EXISTING FRONT DECK •We would like to replace the e.xisting deck utilizing the same basic square footage. Existing deck meets lake setback, however, the staircase protrudes into the 75ft setbadr but will be re-located to conform in new desiga 3 991S09 17/117/23 PATTFRSONJTONY ADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING CO. S300S.Hwy.No. 101 Minnetonka. MN SS34S Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 SURVEY FOR: TONY PATTERSON SURVEYED: October. 1999 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 19, Shadywood. Hennepin County, Minnesou. SCOPE OF WORK: DRAFTED: November 1,1999 f 'U. \ \(''(i k 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal desenption. The •cope of our aervioes does ^ include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Pleaae check the legal deicription with your record! or consult with competent legal counsel, if neoeanwy, to make fure thrl it is oorrect, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown 2. Showing the loceikNi of existing iinpioveiiients we deemed irnportant 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing and tahuhUing hard cover and area of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over hard cover requirements. STANDARD SYMBOLS A CONVL>mONS: V Denotes 1/2 ” ID pipe with plastic plug Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: '............. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by roe or under my direct supervision and lhall am a Profbasioiial Engines and a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the StmeofMImieaoia. FOR NO. 991SR9 p ‘xm msihwn • ^ A I/O lO j 1 wmvmllllllilll: im titymm I (0 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET riRCLEONE) (o^ 75-250* 250-500* 500-1000* rYTCTTNf: HAPnrOVER in ZO^fE A. House _____________ * Length Width X X X B. Garage c Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pxtio/Deck X X F. Landscape Undertain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT^^reRTY IN ZONE^ ^ ^ ^ .pnpnstD HARnroVRR IN MHE A. House --------------- Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio^Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasdc X X X O. Other TOTAL RA.RDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL^P■^PERTYAR^mZO^^^^, ^ ‘J‘5 \b03 S.F. SJ. SJ. SJ. SI. SI. SI. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SI. SI. joSsP-5T_s^. A B \ v'i—% S.F. SI. S.F. SI. CD V, • S.F. S.F. SI. SJ. S.F. —-4S S.F. A- S.F. f=>: f .t SI. SI. SI.• 5 S.F. 4-S • SI. A .3-1- S.F. % B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ’ 0-7S'75-250’250-500' gyiSTTNC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House _____________ Length Width X X X B. Cange C Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio^eck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Otlier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZO^ r2^n ,0 4 + B n'h'hL^ X 100 f nnpospn hardcover in zone A. House _____________ * iAA.dV e.v\4yxv\ — B. Garage C. Driveway x ^*^**^^, X ___________— D. Sidewalk X X R.evwo'^<i C»c, E. Patio/Deck ______________ , * -s • ^ A A- k^gL 7 dtcAx- F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X ^^\‘500<c. ' b' 500-1000 ’ G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZO^ 0,0, Oft. B n _ X 100 (j9- 1 ^ Q..L s-F- SJ. SI. SI. SI. 832.S.F. SI. SI. SI. 12Si_si. 'in^o S.F. 31 SI. S.F. SI. Cf' S.F.li ■ .V 'hT-O^ S.F. S.F.B ^ . •> f }'■c.. .:.y S.F. — SI. -14, s : S.F. S.F. S.F. ■<U.^ a n^S-S.F. SJ. SJ. S.F. —_22s:Q_S.F. j±_2^lL-.si. SI. SI. S.F. S.F. •SJ. SI. A<3.I % A B 79*-O" I -n«I L£L f yztommQ in* ^' 4 infj PECK C ii, ca.toto mf umoBi^ ftfMOII ca»o»o •/ 7<MKXn4 LIVING m. to*-ft rti (filfsrm mmi /I 9)MVi EI5fFlC?C«aAN-EX15fll^ F Cls^) •. .V •v \ •.* t « • • 9 0 'V.~' >•:.«• ■* 0 ^ % 10 ( 17) 195. I N o UD Yn- - 185. 25 ^ CO (18) '- \2 o CO Acp l\ \i 175.4Av^ 13(19) S r^\165. 5 *«o\uA 14 6 m i!.- t if\o ; // .' 25 (16) 294.4 s\ 26 ( 17) . 288.7 r §\ \.■ \ 27 \rJ 282.8 N o\ RED OM west (iuuicH M icoiri SEE MAP 61 lacvEir^x^ } ,^7—I Jennings' Bay tsi wo* 0 VaoiUmil fpiM Gsursfr • T. cv £*— *• • •• •? •• .'U'-'t'! M OAHLRO* -.VForest >7 OM^OVICWu .• ( I 2\ tr*. !11 cmiMr^ Maxweii'-^ri l(^ West •• •ORONO/s Arm • , ■■A 5 hadjMood Point DEERINO 1=3 i: MaivD^ HA7W 00 002400^0 mnamiT ^-^UND—O • • J s; R f # ■Z «* « :-»D5 V Crystal ' l“ - • J Fagernax Point SBRJNGi f o 9 ■ruT Mr *3 * • •■ .t V «moi«lm w. »eaoriMiui TOkJ Off *V/ ■ "A CaCUQtKK «\SN0MII«| o•4.x O Spring Park \ V \ RUN DATE WU/99 MTCN MS OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMR/ARM OMNER NANI TAXPAYER U 17-117-E5 21 RIM •••SR AOORESS UNASSX6NEO HENNEPIN rORFEXTED LAND CXTY OF ORONO P 0 RON 44 CRYSTAL RAY NN SSS2S U 17-117-25 21 ••21 •17SR SNAOYMOOD RR ORETCNEN S SHAN ORETCNEN S SNAN 17SR SNARYHOOO RD MAYZATA NN SSSn HEIMEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORNATXON SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST SO 17-117-25 21 •••7 •••SO AOORESS UNASSXOCO NENNEPXN FORFEXTEO LANO CXTY OF ORONO P 0 ROX 44 CRYSTAL RAY NN SBS2S SO 17-117-2S 21 ••22 •174R SHAOYMOOO RO OAXL S RRXNER OAXL S RRXNER 174R SNAOYNOOO RO MAYZATA MM 5SSY1 REPORT NO. PX4SS4R1 PACE !• SO 17-117-2S 21 •••0 •170S SNAOYNOOO RO L t 0 PXLORAH LEROY 1 OELPHXE PXLORAN ROX 01 NAVARRE NN SSS02 SO 17-117-2S 21 002S •1770 SNAOYNOOO RO SUE ANN NENOERSON SUE ANN NENOERSON 1770 SNAOYNOOO RO MAYZATA NN SSS91 pt OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AODR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AROR SO 17-117-2S 21 ••24 •1702 SNAOYNOOO RO ANTHONY L PATTERSON ET AL A L 0 L S PATTERSON 170S SNAOYNOOO RO MAYZATA NN SSSfl SO 17-117-25 21 ••27 •1012 SNAOYNOOO RO RORERT C ALRRECNT ROOERT C ALRRECNT lOlR SNARYNOOO RO MAYZATA NN 55591 SO 17-117-2S 21 ORIS •179* SNAOYNOOO RO OONALO J URRAN OONALO J URRAN 1799 SNAOYNOOO RO MAYZATA NN 55S91 SO 17-117-25 24 •••! •1025 SNAOYNOOO RO OXANE LEE RUUD DXANE LEE RUUD 1025 SNAOYNOOO RO MAYZATA NN 55591 SO 17-117-25 21 OOIA •lOOO SNAOYNOOO RD OOUCLAS R SEAROLT DOUOLAS R SEAROLT IROO SNAOYNOOO RD MAYZATA NN 55591 TOTAL RATCN 505 •••11 X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF XNFORNATXON AS XT APPEARS TMXS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE NENNEPXN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATXON« TO TNE REST OF NY KNONLEOOE AND RELXEF DATE,a/7-^ I 1 H s TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Adminislrator/PIanner DATE:February 14,2000 SUBJECT: #2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variance/Conditional Use Permit — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR> 1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:9,850 s.f. (.23 acre) List of Exhibits A B C C(') D E F G H I J K Variance/CUP Applications Applicant's letter Existing Site Plan/Survey Proposed Site Plan/Survey Site Plan ElevationsZ/Floor Plan Hardcover Calculations Inspector ’s Memo Photos of Bulge Plat Map Location Map Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C)-Lot Coverage-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 but no less than 1,500 square feet if aiea is less than 10,000 s.f.. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(1): Hardcover in the 0-75 ’ Setback Area: Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250* Setback Area: Within 75-250’ of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. H2486 Elaine Enckson 1270 Spruce Place Variance/Conditional Use Permit 2/14/00 Page / 4. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(J)(2): Topographic Alteration/Grading and Filling: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Section 7 of this section. Grading, filling, or excavating of 10 cubic yards or less shall require City staff review and permit and be subject to other pertinent sections of the Zoning Code. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances to tear down an existing residence and build a new residence further back on the same lot. Also, the applicant is applying for a conditional use permit to permit grading within 75' of the lakeshore. The scope of the project involves moving the new residence back out of the 0-75' setback area and to be more in alignment with adjacent properties. The conditional use permit is to remove a “bulge” in the topography to bring the lakeside of the lot more natural in flow with adjacent properties. Stafl/Applicant Discussions: Plan #1: The process began in April of 1999 when the applicant brought in the first set of house plans. From the onset, the applicant wished to conform with zoning codes as best as possible. The first set of plans had many difficult issues dealing with the lot, elevations, setbacks, and hardcover coverage. The applicant decided to take the plans and redesign them. Plan #2: In October of 1999, the applicant came forward with a second set of house plans. This set of house plans needed three variances (lot coverage, side yard setback and hardcover in 75-250' setback area) and a CUP was needed. The applicant decided they could make some changes to conform better with Orono ’s zoning code. Plan #3: In January of 2000, the applicant came forward with a third set of house plans. This third set is the latest set of plans. The redesign eliminated the side yard setback, however, lot coverage, and hardcover coverage variances in the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas and a CUP are still needed. The “bulge” occurred in 1975 when the owner of 1270 Spruce Place was issued a permit to raise the house and build a basement under the existing residence. The owners apparently were not asked to regrade or replace any of the dirt removed, i.e. they were by default allowed to turn their lot into a “walkout” lot. Since then, the City has denied a number of requests for similar grading to create walkout situations when they involved excavating in the 0-75' zone. Attached as Exhibit F is a memo from 1975 discussing the situation. Note: During the summer of 1999 while out on inspections for the neighboring property, Orono's building official was asked his opinion on what should and could be done to eliminate the “bulge.” advised that one way to correct the “bad grading” would be to remove the trees and level it out to flow more with the other properties. However, this would be inconsistent with the zoning code viewpoint on the matter and with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. »2486 Elaine Erickson 1 270 Spruce Place Variance/Conditional Use Permit 2/14/00 Page 2 The applicant is aware that the existing well will need to be relocated. If it is kept in its current placement it will be underneath the new residence. ANALYSIS The “existing” in these tables is the residence currently on the property. “Proposed” is the new residence the applicant is requesting variances to build. Lot Area and Yards: LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Lakeshore yard Side yard Street yard Required 43,560 s.f.140’75’10 ’30’ Existing 9,850 s.f.50’50’8.7’ (north) 9’ (south) 80 ’ Proposed 9,850 s.f.50’50’11.45’60’ Structural Coverage : Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 9,850 s.f.Allowed: 1,477.5 s.f. (15%) or 1,500 s.f. Existing: 1,150 s.f. (11.7%) Proposed: 1,584 s.f. (16%) The house and garage square footage is 1,500 square feet. The portico (8.5* x 5') does not have a roof over it. The second story deck (6* x 14’) brings the total to 1,584 square feet. ft2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Yariances/Condilional Use Permit 2/14/00 Page 3 h Hardcover Calculations: Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75'3,750 s.f.533.2 s.f. (14.21%) 0 s.f (0%) 219 s.f (5.84%) 75-250'6,100 s.f.1,682 s.f (27.58%) 1,525 s.f (25%) 2,965 s.f (48.6%) The hardcover coverage in the 0-75' setback area will be reduced to 0% if grading is permitted and the proposed residence and deck are moved back on the lot out of the 0-75' setback area. If grading is permitted, the sidewalk and steps will no longer be needed. However, the sidewalk and steps will remain if the grading is not allowed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS The Planning commission may recommend approval of a conditional use permit amendment if the application meets the following standards: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan; 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Statement of Hardship; The applicant has included the statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. U2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variances/Conditional Use Permit 2/1 4/00 Page 4 i t L lasucg for Consideration: 1. The applicant is aware that the well will have to be moved. If it is kept in its current place, it will be underneath the new residence. The existing well is located 5' away from the west side of the residence. The proposed house location is directly over the well and city policy requires a well to be 3' from the residence. Therefore it needs to be moved to another location and 3' from the proposed residence. 2. The two sheds on the property should be removed. The sheds are currently used for storage. Construction of a garage will eliminate the need for the storage space and should be removed. 3. The residence should be shifted back 6' to keep it out of the 0-75 ’ setback area. Moving the residence back 6' will keep it out of the 0-75 ’ zone. City zoning code states no principal building shall be located closer than 75 ’ to the natural ordinary high water mark of a lake abutting the property. New construction is an opportune time to adhere to zoning code regulations. 4. Newer residences constructed in the neighborhood have attached garages, even though the adjacent properties have detached garages. Garages: detached versus attached. Typically detached garages require less driveway thus less hardcover. Attached garages require longer driveways therefore more hardcover. 5. Grading within the 0-75 ’ setback area and the concurrent removal of mature trees would seem to be in conflict with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. See attached excerpts from die Comprehensive Plan regarding city policies and views on altering shoreline areas. 6. The grading and drainage appears inadequate and applicant should work further with staff to bring it to a suitable and workable design. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. U2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variances/Conditional Use Permit 2/14/00 Pages Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of a conditional use permit to permit grading, or excavating within 75' of the lakeshore. Review the applicant ’s stated hardships and determine whether justification exists to grant the requested variances. >■ u H2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variances/Conditional Use Permit 2/14/00 Paged pfaVTRQNMENT JUNE, 1980 6. m THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALL. PRACTICAL METHOD OP FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza Study, the 208 Hater Quality Management Study, and Orono's Surface Hater 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 program. It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Hater Management Plan. 7.PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Hherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. 8.PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND 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 regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitiv bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachmen ^9? ULAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation ( Yin shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable I in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize I excess nutrients. Clearcuttiug will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. 10. LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new channels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian access where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the ^ control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner's desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds. L CMP 3-20 ENVIRONMENTAL JUNE, 198C 15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL LAND ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each contractor will be required to minimize the probability of soil erosion on site and/or siltation damage downstream. The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways. Fill must be compacted and stabilized for permanence. URBAN AREA POLICIES EOR NATURAI RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. 4. 5. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot widths will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage RETENTION OP NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will be established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover in proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover will be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline pursuant to Mn. DNR recommended shoreline practices. I I Ic«P»city of the urban marshes to assimilate all nutrients, .^!l v*^*-!***?^^^®"*^ pollution hazards would be created if any wetlands Additional steps to improve nutrient assimilation . . zetention on all new developments and storm water I recycling through the existing marshes. I nnar PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER use for winter street treatment will be minimized. will not- pzactices will locate temporary stofage sites where they • snaei.ii ^^J”?*** 5?* natural drainage system or where foreign matter, nSIni^ directly enter a marsh or lake. Spring danasA A#.#. pzomptly remove road sands and salts before environmental aAmagt occurs. I CMP 3-22 a U i 1 I 1 j ] I I I I AND USE JUNE, 1980 3. 4. 5. © DEVELOPMENT TENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Drbanixatlon incrcaaes the speed end quantity of surface runoff while 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 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, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DMR 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 be 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 rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 I IftND USE JUNE, 1980 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OP NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will apace out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _s RETENTION OP NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. PlIRAl LAND USE POLICIES 1.ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR PERMANENT WW-DBISITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's rolling rural area is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs marshland assimilative capacity preclude expansion of the urban service area without major environmental problems for Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the ideal land use for that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the planned low-density rural residential land use. Commercial and industrial uses will not be permitted in the rural area. ■ CMP 4-19 f\ 01-^) Application # ^ Date Receive^ V// f / f ^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial ^plication Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address S^r^/ctr P/^ c. C' Property Identification Number (P.I.D.I ^ il ^ 3Ji CCIs Attach 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: X residential ___pother (specify). Zoiung IXstrict: L/2-in ________________________ APPLICANT Phonefhome) .^3 — Name /?J Cl 6 ns>T Phonc(work)----------^ Address: ^ ^ ^ ^_____________- City: /o n/j—pi'k ^ Zip: ^ OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home).w Name Kt^*\ Address: i y\ ^itr can Phone (work). City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S ---------- Describe request in detail: -f/ g /W — /Tw >. k—u/Jhi Th J^a. a hunc r> n 'jXii'C ^Je c- c P ' ^ . (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ /go vy VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Lot Coverage Setback: Front / Side y Hardcover ___ Rear S7 * Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual proper^ conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^u-o 'Ti —C/rnAiT7t n ^ rki' /7 hn.U nj<rytt Tl fhetr^ <\ctcft]Fr 7/)^ dct\\.rt uj c* ^ lA Tr n — (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ <®/n ^ r J /llrxAt'ir Cjtfy . GlTYof ORONO Munkipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 1999 APPLICATION DEADLINES MiniRf Address: P.O. Ba 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Application Deadline Wednesday at NOON on: Planning Commission: City Council Changers 6:30 p. 'm. City Council: (regular) Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. December 16, 1998 Tuesday, January 19, 1999 February 8, 1999 January 20, 1999 Tuesday, February 16, 1999 March 8, 1999 February 17, 1999 Monday, March IS, 1999 April 12, 1999 March 17, 1999 Monday, April 19, 1999 May 10, 1999 April 21, 1999 Monday, May 17, 1999 June 14, 1999 May 19, 1999 Monday, June 21, 1999 July 12, 1999 June 23, 1999 Monday, July 19, 1999 August 9, 1999 July 21, 1999 Monday, August 16, 1999 September 13, 1999 August 18, 1999 Monday, Sept. 20, 1999 October 11, 1999 September 22, 1999 Monday, October 18, 1999 November 8, 1999 October 20, 1999 Monday, Nov. IS, 1999 December 13, 1999 No Meeting in December December 22, 1999 Tuesday, January 18, 2000 January 24, 2000 Telephone «U) 47^-7917 • FAX 47341510 F> i • « Application # Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ Site Address__________/ ^~70 in^ Type of Application to be Filed_____CQ P Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OS APPLICANT Nam e Q^LCK<:nlO AddresT"^77 ^ C City C iLjiA<^1#VTrv Phone (home). Phone (work)_ 4^1 Tefz- Zip_ss2i3i OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired ^(mondi/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use X $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more CO • •• Sy .• .• ^ r> 's- '.vy• f.*' ^ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee r,. h • 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 CQ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ____Completed Application Form. ____Describe request in detail. ____Certified Property Owners List of owners within(35o0 labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3»). 5'^/0 ____ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ____Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ____Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). ____List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ____ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ____As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (II" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Imowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and >^eriflcation of this request. Owner’s signature . ' ^ C. 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 aiid advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. jl'JO Jl/JbCo^ /^^Ufvoo S<jyna^jjihsL. A (^MJLCjVJ^aS OJ- USO (joCcd AM<jt -iS-o-&-y <puds6i'i'^ JLdM^s. A^cSU. dUA^ Q-^JUL (jf~ (x>i(-f tua-^"V ~iUe (y^L»-[If' ^~fl^ h-&2^ (/yxt~loCj (jlc;1aXI^^ lioo sfi^Jluz^ ^(S4W^C. ^-fiut- ^Ul/U (o6j^ ~fO~u^ (TI^ yL^CaJjrttnS. vUv\C^ ost I, Nancy Anderson, am writing on behalf of my mother, Elaine Erickson. My parents have been residents of Orono for over 35 years. In 1979, in anticipation of my father ’s retirement, they purchased a small old home (1270 Spruce Place) next door to me. Their pian was to rent it until the day came when they felt they could not handle the upkeep of their big home and then to build a new, easy to maintain, home on this property. They began the process of building in early 1998 by contacting a buiider who had just finished building a “retirement ” home on Spruce Place. Their directive was to design a small home with all needs for an older couple on one floor with an additional bedroom and family space in the lower, walkout, level. When the plan was finished they approached Orono and began the process of securing the permission to build. There were many problems with the lot and the plan....size, elevation, set backs. They, with the help of their builder, redid plans and surveys and consulted several times with Orono employees. By the fall of 1998 they had committed to full speed ahead to build in the summer of 1999. My Dad died, unexpectedly, in the Spring of 1999. The new, small house is an absolute necessity now. From the first meetings with various Orono employees, we have made it our goal to comply with the rules and regulations as best we can. There are several overriding problems with the lot that make this application for the aitering of the land a necessity. The first and foremost problem is the unnatural contour of the lakeside as it compares to the neighboring properties. A second issue is one of drainage and placement of the house in relation to the street. We are requesting the removal of the “bulge" (dirt) in the topography and removal of one tree on the lake side. This will bring the lot in fiow with the lots on the north and south and will allow the house to walk out on the northeast corner. It will allow the lower level to have a family space and a bedroom. This change will also allow the level of the garage to stay at an acceptable level to the street for drainage reasons. The final consideration is that this seems to realiy be the oniv solution to providing for acceptable drainage for the neighboring properties. Please be advised that there is nfl question about replacing trees and planting lots of bushes and shrubs. My mother is a hardy gardener and a nature lover (other than geese!). We have already discussed, at length, what pines spruce etc can be planted to recreate a “woodsy" feel to the lot. We have had discussions with all of our neighbors and without an exception they are supportive of our plans. We are including the signatures of the near north and south neighbors who have reviewed our plans. tj. '-'A .-..* '. •!«. Vi I We are including photos for your information. « ! • ^ .c Vi. ^ r LLCSL i 1 p/. K £xr/sriPfe (1 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY 10 /i4£i Hi 3 i /fr.3^ jO^ :./ »V^/f^ y[A ei4Z.^ '^4t.4 IQ 7r^ Bli>ck: A7 S/U5/^ f/Ul B£‘ir/S^D a \T<iZ^ ^suKcC r <94ff □ > WOOD STAKE PLACED B.M. - BEARINGS ON ASSUMED DATUM o • IRON MON. SET PROPOSED INFORMATION ________ 1st FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. • IRON MON. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. • DRAINAGE 000.0 ■ EXIST. ELEV. (oOO.o)* PROPOSED ELEV. qqJ J SCHOBORG ND SURVEYING INC. I htrtby csrtlly m«l this plan, aurvay or raport was prtpartd by m# or undar my diract suparvision and that I am a duly Ragistarad Land Survayor undar lha laws of tha Stata ol Minnasor fftSf- exist. & PROP. ELEV. JOBi trs<asst MSP Op. R119 SI Ragistration No. 14700 Boolt-P*0*v: Ilz^Scaia ~ /"jrja ifiXB 9Z9.4 I liffty iurtWy mm ttita plan, survay or ,rapen was aparad ma or unoar my dirsm tuoanriaien and that I am iidy MaQiaMiad iMd SmWyM undar tna lawa of ttta Suit ner\ 2.B./999 Aapiswation No. isTQO Book • Pag# 49- ?5 a > IRON MON. i.'.Ti^CSD • WOOD STAKE PLACED O • IRON MON. SET . . ......... a.M..7>/' ^r- '•AV J-O/. 4*r'Z, BEARINGS ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM ________i st FLOOR ELEV, GARAGi FLOOR ELSV. y BASEMENT ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. DRAINAGE 000.0 » EXIST ELEV. (ooo.oj* PROPOSED ELEV. JLSf* EXIST. 4 PROP. ELEV.000.0 £ec'd l((q(CO _ — —--------------------------- 1 ■ Q ■I ■1 • 0 I N la ms b-/\r I-- * -»• t ■ \ \ \ • \ 'V i _.e-4>51-^ B:>ctco fblVtitt ___SC'VgVMfTY MAstce. aeDBooH U-io «mcK. W/P t V/.I.C.' ^.GARACiE • 1 1 ^icrrcrtEK c.-Tcr P»WM PM * 1 1 1 1 ! UJ • 1 BOOH l|-(»ir ll-O PI44CK. Mt & VUVIN< eooH H*<»« D'lO -s \ \ . \ oectc .4^ 'I <4 0—m .•H • •• . HARDCOVER CALCULA'nON WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 250-500’ HARDCOVER Pf ZONE /*§■ (\icU‘^(iKczl\sa Ltotth iC % X X Wildt /O Lp’ S B. Garage C. Driveway Xi X X f •• • D. Sidewalk Si X X E. BadoODeck Steep X X F. Landsc^e Uadedain By Plastic Or Fabric 37 X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE , A ■ / t--Va ♦. B UiOO *100 PROPOSED HABDCOVm gt ZONE ' A. House Irl_______ x pC t-ilCC Ltoftfl X X X JSL- B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk 4a X X 3 7 E. Patlomeck X X F. Landscape Underialn By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A Icz^ *•* ® lP f'^'O xWO - 1 500-1000’r # ,5S/a-.S S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. • •S.F. ■ • S.F. S.F.m • S.F. HC. __S.F.m IJl S.F. S.F. __74 _S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. /,Lrt9..)i S.Y. . /pJCC S.F. -J'7. >^9 _% S.F. '=^CC.S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. •“ S.F.0•1S.F. • ' •*S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. .55 i TO: HanV '^l!nchin»rM; **Uc <^clicllcr .'XYIT: 25, 1975 BE: rmil Schuller - prn'linn _ /-aSo rmil Schuller on Snnicc Place was iscueJ a *" th^Sria^r' rent iii.ler his existlnp house. Ifhen aroioKi his house, he did exc.avatc I" * '®. ‘ «„,,'nn the nrea It is nc«v sodded. Thev clam thev could not""^n hefore due to tlie steenness of the erade. -So wiiat the\ did is slotted up the nin-off so thev could V.ccp it in lavm. It 1»c!k>ovcs us to he \Trv» careful viicn the shore nropert''. 1 Fade an insncction of the property before issmne t perrrit and did not asl: for final Ill**tb^7V ietbaeV area,aware that there could not be anv alteration, in t Should T nj;k then to clear the work done "j}' restoration vould denrive t‘icn of the use of the callout area as r.nuc would be biebor than tbe walkout door.* , ' V-. r -S ^ ♦ 1, '’O*- -:v£ ii ^ ' '■rr-I iep-l.ili.!St'.VH <x * r . • ' ^ • Av?V.. * vvE^^pyuiiin I EUkA«U^'\ ji’ (^ u^ ^ ^ * j :(54) - _-U J - - J8 (67) -IJpIt I 114 - -y - ^oV % sartHMs-w1W»7 i(«) m i«(10) 147.3 M 2(6) 214 8 (27) 8 • ^ <\ /n 7 7; \ 173 1\ r lis rr»-^ ■1 I ■ \» • * * r : (87) • ■ :. \- ’fnM7 l l® *1 [*• las _.- ’ 1 1 IfTV ^iM__aJ 1 ^. '114S1 i^ ry I -T7^ \®3)/ *S?5v N& A ’ ,pX ^ ?W(76)- -or™ 1 7TH (8)^ r4»'^ ,„atfS==^^ NOFnn ARM 1 '^(84) <> 4®' <5^ 7 ^ X. ^ ;• Jl* / «5 / " « --> <f (77) ^ ■*. ■?<, , , .. . . *S/ r »/ /■* V / "^/ «> (89)/ W Af 12 s! "//■'*' (51) Itxs 1018 a • (18)(17) * (66)7 (55)/(54)7 * ^ „^y !?oa?o ap /Vo 75' (53) ao W 11 j (6«*/^‘1 .1 (64)i(63) !) , § 229 '••4r90f--1 2i ; » \ - (^ 4 • •• i I" " OM MA V“*1 J9.V9 ! RLS . LAKE MINNETONKA r' -Iennings\ Bay"A ■■■ '>6' AVE 5h200I /•) f ^ ■ «? _v l 0RANDVIEWV\AVE ^ .♦V. ^'.I ;‘^ll Bf 'JSf^2 crnnuBH UaHLLSH Nammi u ^ Harrison \ Lake # 5 kogsberg Point % •* •• • . « #1 % • ^ 't •.. . I .*.West is V ja /woooI". ORONO Arm \ n •OHMS.rowr: «u |,^Aa</W^ Point BI PEERING S ^ SS- MAVW 0OIIO24O0S MSS. ISNND - ^orr “‘e«'* 1-nraru >4!HAIIIIft Wft. 3>fillMDAU RO ft oa OTEM A« -1 / /“ 3 Crystal Pay : (O otST^ V SHORCLMC line VIMJCmR Spring C«WTA)l w>^ •CSTM ^ks Bay MOUND ■i’m m •am till w\ *—■ ^A/lf OROh - GOOSF 5^RUN DATE 12/f7/W HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATXON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4SSA0I PACE lY •ATCH BIZ OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR SO I7-1I7-ZS A1 1151 •1S7I NORTH ARN DR C N DANXCX A K L X DANXCK KARX A CNRXSTOfNER BANXCK XS7I NORTH ARN OR HOUND HN SBSM M I7-117-2S 41 MSI •ISIS SPRUCE PL CLAYTON R FUCHS CLAYTON R FUCHS ISIS SPRUCE PL HOUND HN SSS44 SO 17‘117-ZS 41 IISZ •1S74 NORTH ARN DR WXLLXAH E BOWEN WXLLXAN E BOWEN 41 PARK LANE NPLS HN SS41A TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR SB 17'117-ZS 41 1174 •1ZS4 LONA LINDA AVE X L HOFFNANN A L S HOFFHANN KENNETH L A LINDA S HOFFNANN 1ZS4 LONA LINDA AVE NN SSS44 SA IT-llT-ZS 41 1177 •12S4 LONA LINDA AVE X L HOFFNANN A L S HOFFNANN KENNETH L A LXNDA S HOFFHANN 1ZS4 LONA LXNDA AVE HOUND HN SSS44 SB I7-117-2S 41 II7B •129B SPRUCE PL HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY NN SSS2S TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR SB I7-117-2S 41 IIBT •1211 LONA LXNDA AVE DONALD R UDELL ET AL DONALD R A CAROLYN UDELL 1211 LONA LXNDA AVE HOUND NN SSS44 SB I7-117-2S 41 MAY •12YI LONA LXNDA AVE J N CARY A D L CABLE JOEL N CARY A DXXXE L CABLE 12YI LONA LXNDA AVE HOUND NN SSS44 SB IB-117-2S S2 llir •1241 SPRUCE PL D A WALLNER A L J WALLNER DAVXD A WALLNER 1241 SPRUCE PL HOUND NN SSS44 TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR SB IB-117-2S S2 IIIB •12SI SPRUCE PL WALTER H WOLFE ET AL PNVLLXS J WOLF 12SI SPRUCE PL HOUND HN SSS44 SB IB-117-2S S2 1112 •1241 SPRUCE PL E A ANDERSON ET AL TRUSTEES EVAN A ANDERSON 1241 SPRUCE PL HOUND HN SSS44 SB IB-llT'ZS S2 IMS •1271 SPRUCE PL X N A E E ERXCXSON KENNETH A ELAXNE ERXCXSON 277S CASCO POXNT RO WAYZATA HN SSSYl TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB IB-117-2S S2 1114 •12t^ SPRUCE PL P J A B J SCNUELLER PAUL J A SUSAN J SCNUELLER 12BB SPRUCE PL NN SSS44 SB IB-117-2S S2 Ills •12YI SPRUCE PL WXLLXAH A ELXZABETH AHERN WXLLXAH A ELXZABETH AHEIM ISII SPRUCE PLACE ORONO NN SSS44 SB IB-117<2S S2 1114 IISII SPRUCE PL RXCNARO F KYLE RXCHARD F A KATHLEEN A KYLE ISII SPRUCE PL HOUND HN SSS44 SB IB*117-2S S2 1117 BISIB SPRUCE PL JOHN N HAUER JOIM H HAUER ISII SPRUCE PLACE NN BBS44 SB M-117-2S S2 IIIB •ISIB SPRUCE PL PATRXCXA A 6R0ETXEN PATRXCXA A 6R0ETKEN ISlB SPRUCE PLACE HOUND NN S5S44 TOTAL BATCH SI2 III17 n RUN DATE 12/R7/99 MTCM f ta HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY IHFORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4SSA0I PACE 2« 38 07 117 23 41 0091 1220 LOMA LINDA AVE M WYATT & NANCY S MOE W WYATT MOE 825 8TH ST S MPLS MN 55404 J3 38 07 117 23 41 0092 1230 SPRUCE PL W WYATT & NANCY S MOE W WYATT MOE 825 8TH ST S MPLS MN 55404 J5 CITY OF ORONO^^ CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 -J-S <\0 OF NY RN0NLE06E AND DELIEF. DATE IQ.'ia K PERMIT RECORD Permit Mo Date Type of Permit if‘6 i^OO JTlCt*J -32Sl C,s 7 a g;^gA;OU4>fT^ ■ e-in. TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner February 18,2000 #2559 Gilbert Gehle 1392 Baldur Park Road Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District QA Acre) Lot Area:31,760 square feet (0.73 ac.) 960 square feet - traveled portion of Baldur Park Road 30,800 square feet - lot size (0.71 ac.) Application Request for hardcc ver variances to permit greater than 25% hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback and to permit hardcover within 75' of the south lakeshore. A variance is required to permit a small amount of regrading within the south 0-75' lakeshore setback for a driveway. 4 List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K Application Hardship Statement Proposed Site Plan Lakeside Elevation Approved Site Plan (April 26,1999) Approved Site Plan (August 24,1998) Resolution No. 4273 Resolution No. 4143 Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Property Owners List Plat Map »2559 Gilbert GtMe 1392 Baldur Park Road Vartancts 2/23/00 Page I Pertinent Facts Lot area excl. traveled road = 30,800 s.f. = 0.71 ac. (Exceeds 0.50 ac. min. requirement) Lot width = 97.5' at shoreline, 113' at 75' setback (Exceeds 80% of 100' min. requirement) Section 10.03. Subdivision (6) (A^ In "R" Districts of One Acre or Less and With Public Sanitary Sewer a lot of record existing upon the effective date of the Zoning Chapter in any "R" District up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. The proposed development does not include the existing garage and driveway as shown on the survey/site plan attached to this report as Exhibit C The proposed development meets all setback requirements: Required Proposed Lake setback 75'80' Street setback 30'84' W. side setback 10'17.5' E. side setback 10'20' Hardcover Calculation Lake Setback Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75' (North)7,830 s.f.0 s.f.none (0%) 0 s.f.none 0'-75' (South)7,780 s.f.1,170 s.f. (15.0%) none (0%) 540 s.f. (6.9%) 540 s.f 75'-250'15,190 s.f.4,420 s.f. (29.1%) 3,797.5 s.f. (25%) 5,198 s.f. (34.2%) 1,400.5 s.f Proposed Lot Coverage by Structures = 3,428 / 30,800 =11.1% (Meets 15% limit) *2559 Gilbert Cthk 1392 Baidur Park Road Vanancts 2/2300 Page! Background The existing house was built in 1910 according to tax records. The detached garage was built in 1973. A variance was granted in 1975 for an addition to the house and basement replacement. In 1989 a variance was granted for 4,940 s.f. hardcover in the 75-250' zone and 1,893 s.f. in the south 0-75’ zone (totaling 6,833 s.f.) for replacement with a new residence. The City Council has approved two land use applications on this property to permit removal of the existing structures and new construction on the property. Zoning Application #2370 Gary O’Keefe - Resolution No. 4143 (August 24,1998) approved the following: 5,725 s.f. hardcover in the South 0-75' setback and the 75-250' setback. The rational was the property is located on a peninsula and has two 0-75' setbacks. Since the south 0-75' setback is required for access to the property and is separated from the lake by Baldur Park Road it was included for the calculation of hardcover on the property. Zoning Application #2457 David and Paula Lindberg --Resolution No. 4273 (April 26, 1999) approved the following: 5,606 s.f. hardcover in the South 0-75' setback and the 75-250' setback. The total was 1 19 s.f. less than the approval for the O’Keefe’s the previous year. ANALYSIS The property contains an existing residence and detached garage. That residence could potentially be expanded without variances. Any change in access to the property would require variances due to the access to the property being located within southerly 0-75’ zone. Staff would agree with the £q)plicant this does place an undue hardship on the property as the only driveway access is within 75' of the lakeshore. Hardcover variances are related to the size of the proposed house. A smaller house and garage could result in a reduction in the magnitude of the hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone. The southerly 0-75’ hardcover variance as proposed is the minimum necessary to permit a driveway, and this is a factor unique to the property. Staff’s primary concern is the preservation of mature trees within both 0-75' lakeshore setbacl^. It is the Staffs position that no mature trees shall be removed within 75' of the lakeshore. The proposed driveway location may require some loss of natural vegetation. »2J59Cilb*riCehU i392 Baldur Park Road yartancts 2/2100 Pag)t3 Past approvals have considered the overall hardcover on this lot assuming the southerly 0-75' setback, excluding the traveled area of Baldur Park Road, is added to the total area of the 75-250' setback. If the Planning Commission feels the same conditions apply to this latest variance request it could be assumed the same consideration may be requested on lots similar in character throughout the City. Although this condition only applies to a small percentage of lots in Orono. Surroundin2 Properties Applicant's lot is larger than most other lots in the neighborhood. It also is the highest lot in the neighborhood. The character of this neighborhood has evolved over the last 15 years as small summer cabins have been replaced by year round homes. None of this upgrade has occuned by combining two properties, so the applicant's existing double lot is somewhat unique. The proposed house would not be substantially greater in footprint area than other homes in the area. The house is similar in height to other homes along Baldur Park Road. The lake elevation (Exhibit D) shows a two story building with the lowest story being part of a walkout. It is the understanding that no grading within 75' of the north lakeshore has be applied for. Both recent applications have not allowed any grading within the lake setback. Grading within 75' of the north l^eshore would not preserve the existing natural appearance of the lot. The Comprehensive Plan discourages any changes to the natural grade along the lakeshore. Walkout entrances toward the lakeshore also expose more of the structure to lake users and thus promotes an unnatural appearance. Issues for Consideration 1.The applicants hardship statements are attached as Exhibit B. The amount of hardcover requested with this latest proposal is slightly greater than the two most recent approvals. However, this application has the least amount of driveway hardcover in the 75' lake setback. The hardcover has been replaced with a larger house than the most recent proposal. 2.The plan appears to not direct new stormwater flows toward the neighboring properties. It would also be helpful to know whether the grading plan requires any importation or exportation of fill, or if it's balanced between cuts and fills. Any approval should require the standard erosion control requirements. The intent of the property owner is to lower the house slightly which will soften the view of the house from the lake. 3.The proposed hardcover on the property is slightly greater than the two most recent approvals. The total hardcover proposed on the property 5,738 s.f. is 25% of the total land area within the southern 0-75' setback added to the 75-250' setback. »2S59GtlbertGthU 1392 Baldur Park Road Variances 2 2100 Page 4 *■ Staff Recommendation 1.Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance for the southerly 0-75' zone to accommodate a driveway. The variance to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone for a complete rebuild is not necessarily in keeping with the City's normal practice of holding new construction to a higher hardcover standard. The primary factor that supports some degree of hardcover variance is that the 75-250' zone is reduced in size by having lake on both ends of the lot. The fact that so much hardcover will be required to accommodate a side loading garage suggests that hardcover might be reduced by having an end-load garage, but due to topography it would have to be at a lower level to end up with a reasonably sloped driveway. It is possible to construct a reasonable sized house on the property without requiring the amount of hardcover proposed. The lot is a standard lot based on lot area and lot width. 2.The survey indicates the existing garage is to remain on the property. The applicant has been advised the garage would be required to be removed simultaneously with the existing house. In addition only one curb cut is permitted on an individual lot. Options for Planning Commission Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Reconunend approval of the variances to permit no greater than 25% hardcover on the southern 250' of the lot, excluding the portion of the property that is used for the road. Recommend conditioned approval on preservation of existing mature trees, or develop a restoration plan if necessary and no greater than 25% hardcover. Table. Recommend denial. *2559 Gilbert Gehte !392 Baldur Park Road Variances 2 23 00 Page 5 4 i; A Application # Date Received i/i^InO Amount Paid ^,^ST>.oo CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATIOfil; Site Address / Property Identification Number (PJ.D.’l '0% - 11T- 2S ^ i POO Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propcj^c^cquired______________________________________ I (do) (dojigl)^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property:residential Xmonth/year) /'J t/other (specify’) C-d^L^?r',y Zoning District: L R » 1 C "V^/y - Address^fc^.^il;^ APPLICANT Name Phone fhomel Phone (M^ric)_ City: /zu' Zip: OWNER (if different^an applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:.Zip:.0 a( DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated O nstruction Cost $ ______ Describe request in detail: mo<rr ^^r4c / ^ (attach additional sheets if necess^) VARI^CES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Ki-rS i/' Ha?^cow?Lot Coverage Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSfflP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:^____________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 6 Land Use Hardship for 1392 Baldur Park Rd., Orono, MN This lot is particularly hard to develop for several reasons. The following issues should be considered; 1 . Waterfront setbacks exist on the front and back of the lot. This allows for a very small total square footage to calculate hard cover. There is a pre-existing road on the south side of the lot which renders that waterfront unusable. We request that the 75 foot setback not be enforced from the roadside of the lot in order to calculate total square footage for hard cover. I believe this was done for previous applications on this lot. 2. A profile view of this lot shows evidence of previous excavation in the center of the lot to build up the land height towards the north waterfront. This buildup extends well inside the 75 ft. setback and results in high crown with a fairly steep slope running the length of lot to the waterfront within the setback. This crown is unnaturally higher than the adjacent lots. The previous excavation also results in an unnatural depression in the center lot where improvements are proposed. We have no intention of changing the overall slope and contour that exists on this lot within the waterfront setback. Some slight modificatio* to the highest portions of the lot contour may be required within the setback area in order to blend the contour to the proposed new house. Efforts >vill be made to minimize these modifications within the setback area as showTi •>n the lot plan. An alternative would be to allow for excavation down to approximately level 936 at approximately an 85 fr setback and level excavation out to intersect the existing contour at that level within the waterfront setback. This would return the lot to a more natural hill and keep the new house from appearing to be on a pedestal. 3. Consideration should be given to allow for approximately 60 sq. ft. of level landing area near the waterfront to allow for safety and accessibility from an access way from the house approaching the dock area. 4. In an effort to minimize the hard cover area proposed we request the driveway be moved to the west side of the lot as shown. This will maximize the lawn/soft cover and improve the drainage situation. Additional healthy trees can be placed around the pre-existing garage structure to compensate for any storm damaged trees lost for the driveway. This will also allow us to return the previously excavated area to the natural slope while improving drainage from the current contour. 5. Every effort should be made to allow the existing garage to remain. This will blend favorably with surrounding properties and eliminate the need for additional grading and fill. Exemption from hard cover calculations is requested since this area of the property is not being changed. tt LAKE Mnketokka c 929.4 CONTOUR LINE PI Cotfvniit&WfO 7,\ l^jto Q ^ if.w \ —.r^ LAKE - - MINNETONKA E Rr'«^ - M Couy\e'<^ ■ M|2(,|1*| '\'0 • ‘ : I I I *• .% •.■IJ-------- 1 " ^ IVI— ^ approved HARDCOVER: -----1,.' ^ ** * ^ 0-75* North: NONE : 3?i f I#--: % •V SI V‘\ I ^\ TT 7M50’*»-75’South (Art* House 'i^ .f AtuchrfJst^Oai^e WJ,f' Stoop. wuJIu-ndP***® Wvewuy j 725 ,f . I 5.725/22.900 - 25% ^ \ ' ''••I V* ' I 0F % f-T CoiA.V\C* ^ A^pr«M«^ /J "VI.-.. Atf ) I./ r i«#i* V •• '*& I ••c' vjjl Ia .• \ / / If.'. !j•> h 1}^ AR»4’-|,|« v*«h X. UAtVfiifc .W, -i'7 /Vi \ I.,l\X i » 5/\ »r^U\ 6m» r-—'r^fc^ • • • • • •t.• • • / ^ \ \ mm • •• m «• isu __W m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OFJ NO. _iT-?ITY COUNCIL A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION (L) (1&2) FILE #2457 WHEREAS, David Lindberg and Paula Lindberg (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1392 Baldur Park Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legt^y described as follows: Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Baldur Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance wth Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on February 16, 1999, March 15, 1999, ^d April 19, 1999, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were ^ven the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision (L) (1&2) to permit hardcover for a driveway in the southerly 0-75' setback and new construction of a house in the 75-250' setback where 3,797.5 sq. ft. (25%) hardcover is allowed where 4,556 sq. ft. (30%) is proposed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2457. The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, where 1/2 acre is the minimum lot area. The property consists of .729 acres or 31,760 sq. ft. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 19, 1999, and recommended approval on a vote of 6 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact Page 1 of 4 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL .... A ri r/ riNO. - B C. D. The property conforms to the minimum lot width at the 75' setback, where 100' is required and 113' exists. The proposed new construction removes hardcover in the northerly and southerly 0-75' setbacks. The proposed plan reduces the total amount of hardcover on site. The proposed plan meets the average lakeshore, lakeshore, and side yard setbacks. 5. E. The proposed plan conforms to the structural lot coverage requirement. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision (L) (1&2) to permit construction of a new residence with hardcover in the southerly 0-75' setback at 8.7% where none is allowed and 30% in the 75-250' setback where 25% is allowed. Approval was subject to the following coni;*’.»ons: 1. Applicants are advised that any changes to the plaji Isied January 20, 1999 and most revised April 5, 1999 by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. will require reconsideration by the City Council. Page 2 of 4 r . : . iv CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4 2 •? 3 .NO. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not wth the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 26, 2000). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersgned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of April, 1999. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of April, 1999, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 I ^ F , ^' CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.A 9. ^ STA*MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY O’f HENNEPIN ) On thii__ _ day of , 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said coun^, personally appeared Icnown to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing insmiment.and acknowledged that he (Uiey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said counQr, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 4 of 4 IL pi CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 1 4 Pi A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 4128 GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISIONS 16(J) AND 16(L) AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERNDT PER SECTION 10.03 SUBDIVISION 19 - FILE #2370 WHEREAS, Gary O’Keefe (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1392 Baldur Park Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 17 and 18. Block 1, Baldur Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(J) and 16(L) to permit the construction of a new residence constituting hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, and to permit grading and land alterations within the 0-75' lakeshore protected area where such work is normally prohibited. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2370. 2. The property is 0.71 acres in area and is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page I of 6 t 1 1 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 j > V______ 3. 4. 5. 6. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 18, June 15 and July 20, 1998 and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of a hardcover variance to allow hardcover on the property in the amount of 5,725 s.f. per the revised plans, and approval of a CUP for grading within the 0-75' lakeshore protected zones, based upon findings w'hich are enumerated in Resolution No. 4128 dated July 27, 1998. On July 27, 1998 the City Council granted approval of the proposed variances and adopted Resolution No. 4128 wdth conditions. On August 10, 1998 the applicant requested Council approval for a revised plan which would reduce the hardcover associated with the house and driveway footprints in order to allow the addition of a patio while not exceeding the 5,725 s.f. hardcover level. The further revised plan eliminates the third upper level garage stall and reduces the area of driveway to free up additional hardcover for the patio. A lower level storage area will be incorporated below the garage, but will not be serv’ed by a driveway or other hardcover. The Council voted 4-0 to reconsider the application and voted 4-0 to allow the further revision as proposed subject to still meeting the 5,725 s.f. hardcover limit; that no driveway will be allowed to serve the lower storage area; and that no future variances are to be granted for this property. Council directed that staff bring a new resolution to the next Crimcil meeting for adoption. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance and CUP on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council fmds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merelv serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate ^ a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 CITY of ORONO .//RESOLUTION O^TyE CITY COUNCIL NO.^jL1 The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit for the proposed grading in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zones as proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will such use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivisions 16(J) and 16(L) to permit the construction of a new residence and amenities constituting hardcover on the property of 5,725 s.f. per the approved revised site and hardcover plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and further grants a Conditional Use Permit for land alterations within the 0-75' lakeshore protected zones and within 5' of a lot line per the approved grading plan and site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit B, subject to the following conditions: 1.No hardcover will be allowed in the northerly 0-75' zone. The only hardcover allowed in the 0-75' zone will be the portion of driveway as shown on the approved site plans. Hardcover in the southerly 0-75' and 75-250' zones shall not exceed the square footages per the site plan and hardcover worksheet attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, and shall not in any case exceed 5,725 s.f. in total. 2.Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property based on this approval will exceed the normal limits, and any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property will not be approved. It is the intent of the City Council that the level of hardcover approved with this resolution not be exceeded in the future, and that no additional hardcover variances will be granted in the future. Page 3 of 6 ■ato CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4143NO. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The revised plan which eliminates a third garage stall at the upper level, incorporates a storage garage below the remaining two stalls, and reduces the footprint of the house in order to allow construction of a patio, is approved subject to a condition that no hardsurface or driveway may be uistalled to the lower storage area. Any significant changes to the approved house footprint, to the approved grading plan, or other changes which result in a plan that City staff deems to be potentially in conflict with the intent of this approval, shall be subject to further Council review. Site grading within the northerly 0-75' zone with the intent to create a walkout situation shall not be allowed. Erosion protection as may be required by the Building Inspector shall be maintained at all times. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are pemiissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will on that date (August 24, 1999). V;,:,*.ation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be pumshable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 X I i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ ^ Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 24th day of August, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayors^ 1 Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of August, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of die City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4 143 ^NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ________^day of 1998 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared L'.x'i /?-/• C: n^Ar^:eA._;----------- known to me to be the person(s) descril^d in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. CAROLE A. HASEMAII NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY 5;^ MyComTjlsjicflWfKjlT31.?OCO R' C^/ if NOTARY PUBLIC (jt STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of within and for said county, personally appeared , 1998 before me a Notary Public known to me to be the person(s ’' aescribed in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 6 i • t J % ••. I •— I Vi ^ ^ ----approved HARDCOVER: I ^ .I.! ->A,^ M* * * nJ. ---------- ■ ^^yt^onb^. NONE 1 \ t \ \ I i i A. %- 75-250' * 0-75* South (Aft« - »»'• |, S«dMttUGa.^e «J»{ X Su)op.walkn«lpouo Drivo'wy 5 725 if w^ v I i,nsm.wi-2iv» ^ \ I ^ I V. I I \ 1' '''f I r I ,9.10^ 1 ii ^ ^ }\ EE* 1 7;^fi 5r,Si^/ # Cl I V n . '-y iT: K» \ I I •»1 ir* 0* \ ‘s' I ••c i-'-' IP Q? O /* •.'s’c.»:v f/‘ /lu ^ Ka'o A*«a (V‘. ..\ vir/ ^ * *: •t.K I ;i 5/\ .. bswfl• ir 1 t •• I « • 1 .• ... c • i *\ 'iK y 5. A\ & V \ lias ■ I / •. I / 1 \ ls<. vr. ks* !i ■h«<A, ■M»o '.^Hv<rr/ m»K s • r ‘ ^ i r , i « U rfc -Ifiii^lUtfil__^ ? Kfrgi«e-Hw __|_^ <» ^ E=,_euJJ«iifc&^^------ ERCA ] SETBACK ZONE: (CHICLE ONE) Co^SD 75-250 ’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE J'CUT// A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X rc.0 \ ■ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAi PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ __ * B X 100 PROPOSED FLVRDCOVER IN ZONE A> House_____________X Icngtlt Width X X X B. Garage ( fytjrj^c) C. Driveway AJ<c ^ X X X D. Sidewalk ____________ x _________ E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B X100 ■ X(p/£ ee//c€ /-n-O0yi~ti-oc> HARDCOV ER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 250-500’ 500-1000’ | ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A SE. B ^0 1 S.F. S.F. S.F. *S.F. 5*fO S.F. ^ ^J~f» O'Pr S.F. SE. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. V7/^E. A SMO si CriL 6-C//4C HARDCOVER CALCULATIOilVVORKSHEET /-/f-oa SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House ____________ 0-?5‘75-250*250-500* 2.-// 0 500-1000*I Length Widuh X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X : -V ‘ • • • • * • ;to S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Oiher X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ __ B X 100 S.F. A S.F. B % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE* A. House ______________^ 8 s F. fitfA tH Length Width X X X sF. _________S.F. • 'S.F. B. Garage (S T/J^C) S^3 C. Driveway _____________X X /yyo SF. S.F. D. Sidewalk A X /so S.F. S.F. E. Palio/Dcck X X /8o S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric. X X X S.F. ■S.F. S.F. G. Other X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONF A _ B S.F. A X 100 2XlZmI-St. b % 13 n f-' 'f’A w (P/C Gf//ce /'/7-00 HAIU)COVEEXALCULATION WORKSHEET l;^//-oO SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) Q-^S j 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARP COVER IN ZONE AJAApJ/ ///;- A- House_____________ X ---------------------“ • ------------------— Ungth Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -5- B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE/ A. House_____________ Ltngth 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 s =3 — \ :I . *» .'.ii < '• ■' xlOO Widih r= s TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __ - B X 100 I 3.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. «/o A B .S.F. S.F. S.F. ■*S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ,S.F. S.F. S.F. ’S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. O Vo A B V ’ « RUN DATE Rl/lV** ■ATCN StZ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROfERTV XNFORNATION SVSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXASS4II PACE 5 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAKPAYER NANE/AOOR SC CC-1X7*2S SI ccn •lACC RALOUR PARK RD CHARLES i REXD CHARLES ■ REXD ICCC DALDUR PARK RD HAYXATA HM 5SS91 SO tO-lI7-2S SI CCC2 •1S9C DALDUR PARK RD R J I N A NETT TRUSTEES RICHARD 0 NARCE NETT 1S9C DALDUR PARK RD NAYZATA HM SSSCX SC CC’XIT-ZS SI CCCS C1SY2 CALDUR PARK RD D LXNDDERO C P R LXNDBERO DAVID C PAULA R LINOCERO 1SC2 DALDUR PARK RD NAYZATA HN 55Sn PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SC CC-117-23 SI CCCA CISC4 DALDUR PARK RD H D S J A VERSTEEO NARK 0 VERSTEEO ISCC DALDUR PARK RO NAYZATA IM S5SVI SC CC-117-2S SI CCC5 •1S7« CALDUR PARK RO J NAN6 SOL BOTHNELL-WANO J NANO COL BOTHNELL-WANO 1S7A BALDUR PARK RO NAYZATA HN BSSCI SC iC-llT-ZS SI MCA CMSC ADDRESS UNASSXGNED WILLIAM J N FRANKLIN WILLIAM FRANKLIN 17SC NEW BRICHTON BLVD HPLS HN SSAIS PROP Al OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR SC M-II7-2S SI CCC7 MCSC ADDRESS UNASSICNED NXLLIAN J N FRANKLIN WILLIAM FRANKLIN I7SC NEW BRICHTON BLVD NPLS HN 5M1S SC CC-1I7-2S SA CC17 ClACC BALDUR PARK RD WILLIAM L/KRXSTI B ANDERSON WILLIAM L/KRISTX B ANDERSON 1AM BALDUR PARK RO NAYZATA HN SSSAI SC IS-II7-2S SA CMC ClACA BALDUR PARK RD CHARLES AFFIAS CHARLES AFFIAS 2ASA JERSEY AVE S ST LOUIS PARK HN 55A2A PROP Al OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR SC M-117-2S SA SCSI CCCSC ADDRESS UNASSICNED REOINALD A SPXNDLER R A SPXNDLER SPRXNB FARM BAC2 BURROUCHS RD N DEER PARK WA 99CCA SC CC-117-2S SA CC32 CCCSC ADDRESS UNASSICNED RECINALO A SPXNDLER R A SPXNDLER SPRING FARM DAC2 BURROUCie RO W DEER PARK NA MCCA SC CC-117-2S SA CC3S CCCSC ADDRESS UNASSICNED HAROLD R KITCHEN HAROLD KITCHEN BOX AID NISSWA HN SAAM OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR SO M-l^7-2S SA CCSA CCCSC ADDRESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P O BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN 55S2S TOTAL BATCH 5C2 CAMS ^ f1o'6 <^3 K n ^ / ' •» • * »». ' • •u -T'* ■ :i.-^ . •! *a -IJ z TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:February 14,2000 SUBJECT:#2561 Frank and Barbara Peterson 1261 Arbor Street Variance - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area:14,U00 s.f. (.32 acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H Application Site Plan/Survey Views Hardcover Calculations Plat Map Location Map Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (E) - Accessoiy Building Setbacks • Accessory structures in excess of 750 s.f. but not exceeding 1,000 s.f. shall be located at least 15' from any lot line. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 13 - Garages - Accessory buildings which are for the storage of cars shall have the doors thirty feet or more from the property line when doors face on a public street. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Lot Coverage - 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 structuies shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. 4. Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - Side Street Yard Setback - The minimum requirement for side yard adjacent to street setback in RR-IB is 50 feet. H2561 Frank/Barbara Peterson 1261 Arbor Street Variances 2/14/00 Page I Application Summary: The applicants have applied for variances to permit the construction of a 28’ X 32' (896 s.f.) detached garage on the northwest comer of the lot. The property currently does not have a garage servicing it. The garage will be accessed from Minnetonka Avenue. Minnetonka Avenue is not a heavily traveled street. The location of the garage is where parking space is currently located. The lot is shaped such that it does not allow for the garage doors to face away from the street. There are two other large detached garages in the neighborhood. (One is 28' X 24' and another is 26’ x 35', which were built in 1980 and 1990). The property lies within 1,000 feet of French Lake, however the amount of proposed hardcover does not exceed the allowed 35%. The detached garage will increase the stmctural lot coverage from 1,531.36 s.f. (10.9%) to 2,427.36 s.f. (17.3%) where 2,100 s.f (15%) is allowed. Accessory structures greater than 750 s.f. but less than 1,000 s.f. are required to be located 15' from ^e rear property line. The proposed garage will be located 5' from the rear property line. Accessory structures to be used for the storage of cars that have doors facing the street are required to be located 30' or more from the property line. The proposed garage doors will be located 10' from tlic property line. This leaves approximately 20' between the garage doors and the traveled paved roadway. The RR-1B zoning district requires a side street yard setback of 50 ’. The proposed garage will be 10' from the side street lot line. U2561 Frank/Barbara Peterson 1261 Spruce Street Variances 2/14/00 Page 2 ANALYSIS Lot Area : RR-IB Lot Area Side Yard Setback Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres)30' Actual 14,000 s.f. (.32 acre)5' Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 14,000 s.f.Allowed: 2,100 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,531.36 s.f. (10.9%) Proposed: 2,427.36 s.f. (17.3%) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 500-1,000’14,000 s.f.4,900 s.f. (35%) 2,156.36 (15.4%) 3,372.36 s.f. (24.1%) Statement of Hardship : The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues of Concern : 1. The property is not currently serviced by a garage. 2. There is a mature maple tree, approximately 50 years old, the applicants wish to keep, located just south of the proposed garage; the maple would be Jeopardized by moving the garage further from the street. 3. The shed on the survey is a historical building, the former snack hut at Wayzata Beach, hence applicant prefers to not remove it. #256/ Frank/Barbara Peterson 1261 Arbor Street Variances 2/14/00 Page 3 4. The lot is small for the RR-IB zone, but similar in size to many other lots in the neighborhood. 5. The residence was built prior to current zoning standards. 6. Other issues the Planning Commission may have. Options for Action; 1. Recommend approval of the variances to allow the detached garage of 896 s.f. to be constructed on the property as on the survey; OR 2. Move the garage 15* from the rear property line, eliminating one variance, and approve other variances to allow a detached garage of 896 s.f. to be constructed on the property; OR 3. Advise applicant what other possible revisions will make the application approvable, and table the application. 4. Other. Staff Recommendation; Review the applicant's stated hardships and determine whether justification exists to grant the requested variances. U256I Frank/Barbara Peterson 1261 Arbor Street Variances 2/14/2000 Page 4 • I Application # JUS^ I Date Received 11 Amount Paid S 00 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 (>er each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address i 2.(^1 Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 3l OC? ^ 2.___________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired___________________________________________^(month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X. residential Zoning District: R R ~ I B______2 other (specify). APPLICANT Name Fronk R Address: I Z-(g I 'Aybok'Cit\-: Phone (home)(^lZ.~*4*T Phone (work) (^12.- _______________Zip:-5^3Z3 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Cit\*:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ i S, OOP Describe request in detail: NftO dg*h3ci1gd C^VQ(^ ■) (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front ___Hardcover i:: Side/^^'"^^ Rear Lot Coverage 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 requirements: uvApit! iU'C \ > “to Keep X4*> n. <'.iun4t *Sil* f ' ^ ‘»u <cx. iTir\AAiAuV| ^ (attach additional slieets if necessary) ^ 6 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the aPDlicatlon ditC Jil order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 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). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 Vi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVi" 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 ysui: variance application is not complete if the" above information has not been inylwdtdi 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^er knowledge. Applicant’s Signature"2S£2<=i^Date CO 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 purposesji^ investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date ‘IZ2-loO Applicant must have all submittals into the Cit>’ offices 25 days before the Plannmg 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. J CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for!FRANK PETERSON MINNETONKA AVENUE of bifiiPtinous — W i' —140.00—'? VrrJK I oo Ws I -iI NNN N N\^3+.^ ^r. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, CRYSTAL BAY MINNETONKA, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, AREA® lAjOOO se.rr, I It F=^ J J GENERAL NOTES '.j * i 1 o Denotes iron monument r^ix%«aa fifMm In mnffrata Proposed top of foundation elevation * Proposed bosement floor elevotton • H 1 I• UJ UJa: 9 Hr• C 1 cr:o1*a: < GARAGE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES tHouW b« con»id«f«d wrh«n piaurtno Mid lunming your gafstf#. • OMMfnifW tif« of e^^ogo tequif^d. 1, 2, M 3 cort. to QMOQO bo from olrool or from oHoy. locol ufiliiy compomoo to locolo jlMlioo (900. woior. oowor. oopUc oootom oic.l . • 9ofofo olorbr^ conotfWClion of your Qorogo coniacl vn«tf lorof Ihi*I in • B • yyMofHf CofHoct Loyout and anAombto wall on concrata §lab. through plaiat into aach and of ilud a^Uh taro 16d nailt. Sguara aralla artd tamporanly nail lao diaoonaNy to frarr^a. Till up aach aida mnd and arall at con^atad mnd braca aacuraly. Plumb araWa. aquara building and apply top plata. Lap top plata ovar adiacant waMa for good tiam Nail aactiona togalhar and notch in dM.juiial cornar bracing if plyafood 'VI •«It,.! u*aJ riam* m ' ■" •‘ own MALL PRAHIWQ 0.8. Slultl 120 - 2»0 PUttAI Froti FOHAlAttOAl 120 L.F. 7 - 2al - 2al ■<> a • ••• .* *< •HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ 250-500’ jr^yrgriNG HARDCOVER Pf ZONE A. House <^1 Leasib Width X X X B. Garage • m * •• • C. Driveway \ • . .•X X m D. Sidewalk X X ^3 "73T E. Patio/Deck ^ O V Os X X / ip IB. Lindsey Uadediin By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A . ■________ +. . B I^.DCC X100 PROPOSED HARDCOVra IN ZONE A. House Lcagih WUA X X X B. Garage C. Driveway iU X X jy. Sidewalk 5 X X 4'6\ E. Paclo/D^k ■Q'X X X /ir F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fibric X X X O. Ocher 4m 44 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE , / " ^ ^ __________ + B I'ffHOO X100 D 00-1000' /5/a S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. • • * « S.F. S.F. • /sl 9 • • S.F.• S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. N.-^L-S.F. ■3.I^U.3Ls-r- l^fCCC S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. ,S.F. • mir S.F. 3^0 __S.F. S.F. ' ■S.F. ••S.F. • S.F. — S.F. S.F. |S.F. S.F. A 34«* • __S.F. 1 5'^1^'^'S.F. 14. mn.S.F. pin % f£>~ / / 7- ^3~3t 1/t)5 0 13 175 c 1 5 0II14 175 g s 15 176 —T" 's V-- ' 59.6?- - oin o in CO s s 140. 19 140 S R 140 o lO (75) 17 8 140 9 1 q14(R tfl(22)^ ^/<ni8//^ o olo W O m — V--N 10 i'87.4?(?5>' 9 TO ^6^ ^ 4;" ,(93): 8a«»T o’168.3||2 /04\ 'Z^x! !f>: 214(69) /Co \ 8 14BAYJ: *4- ?49. .8(99) lf>l & 5(66) 145 7/ 160.2 168.35 1 157.6^2) <c r cv ) S? 148.3^3) J' 3 AS 1J2.5g5) ^ f «D7 _ <V/ O ^7^ (27) 6 ^-0 118.9<o: S (16) S (1(J3) 72 50 90 PROSPECT AVE in CO S(58)176 04 1 (57) »« CMm 1 175 a kvi (51) 175 CM in I - jj. < / ■ • /t' -r-* b ounoT I (4) 370.4i ---------4:^}/' . «in.QT * (17) ^(30) |?5 175 ’A* it| m tfixA*soN j .• 140 >v R 8 ^,!T » "/,V,\»^ ’ a75 140 « 35|>*^ 4 -fP 1 « ?4 * 8 • up « Ji /«i« *■ ,"/»\; * » *• a140 a a^;"5. 9 ^ *• iV7fl) V 17 a V 10 140^ A *V- (74) ^(71) ' ^144 fl fl l> 14b - II ■ir'H /_______^20 3 718577^ 191 uinnetcnka ave I 140 (401 •:lov 5 'i2o^3* lAf (O) AI4Q CC < £ »\ " '*®a S) \'^-MYSTAL' V * C^) (38) a 9 '40C37) 4 140- **^(^6) * <i 7 140 -------------------------- I/'’" • '«>a' (35) a a:scc «/ I 190.1 157. i * (30) «/ (23) J5I.W*0 1 •/149.13 J ^ (29).^ ^/i4Q 07(24) iUi»a (?8):'a7 (2^ « '2TJ4J -I 1111 9 t*0.9 t)i.< ;■ 7 T •*. S • 140 S «(3(YSTAL ave : / s Sy loa ^ 4 'a> 4 111 90 r» r* ^(I6)S —«„ (14)4' jA.i y ' (97) s /cc/-«2r ^ (19) 8 9( 18) 1? (17) r» Oi (13)., * <A 91 . ; 175 r(53):' (57)» * 2>*(5*)* •775 ’ 9 (62)- cn cn < »—* (51) ^ 8 I>■ '”1 (52) « 173 ; 173 *(5J)i<55)S| ___ 1T3 8 1(47) __IVL__/-O 8(49)*i:48)' •7.3 b « 8 ITT ’ 8 (56)" RIM DATE Il/ID/Rl HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIASSAei PAGE A BATCH BOl PROP AODR OMNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 10-117-ES SI R020 •12M ARDOR ST STEVEN R DENSON STEVEN R BENSON W ARBOR ST MAYZATA HN 55SAI 38 ie-lir-2S Bl 8029 01270 ARBOR ST J E FULIERHN BAN HOLDZIO J E FULLERTON SAN HOLDZIO 1270 ARBOR ST WAYZATA HN 55391 38 10-117'23 31 0030 01250 ARBOR ST CARY F BURTON CARY F FARLEY 1250 ARBOR ST PO BOX 22 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 10-117-2S 31 0031 01250 ARBOR ST CARY F BURTON CARY R FARLEY 1250 ARBOR ST PO BOX 22 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 3^ 10-117-23 31 0032 01201 ARBOR ST FSB PETERSON F P PETERSON P 0 BOX 104 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 10-117-23 31 0033 01271 ARBOR ST JEFFREY E CUTSHALL JEFFREY E CUTSHALL 1271 ARBOR ST ‘ ORONQ HN 55391 PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 10-117-23 31 0034 01285 ARBOR ST C J ALBRECHT t J L ALBRECHT C J 0 J L ALBRECHT 1285 ARBOR ST WAYZATA HN 55391 58 .10-117-23 31 0035 01295 ARBOR ST A L HOPPE ET AL W/L EST LINDA SHRADER 1295 ARBOR ST PO BOX 93 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 10-117-23 31 0034 02140 CRYSTAL AVE H 0 J BLUE HARCUS J ■ JUDY A BLUE 2140 CRYSTAL AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AMR SB 10-117-23 31 01290 BRIAR ST CLARK E ZUHBACH CLARK E ZUHBACH 1290 BRIAR ST WAYZATA HN 55391 0057 30 10-117-23 31 0038 01270 BRIAR ST JOHN C RANGE JOHN C RANGE P 0 BOX 105 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 10-117-23 31 0039 01250 BRIAR ST LAURIE A PEARSON LAURIE A PEARSON 1250 BRIAR ST WAYZATA HN 55391 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SB 10-117-23 31 0071 01223 ARBOR ST J H K KENNEN S L S KENNEN JANICE S LEONARD KENNEN 1223 ARBOR ST WAYZATA HN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0072 01245 ARBOR ST JOHN H B0LDIN6H KAREN E BJERKENG 1245 ARDOR ST WAYZATA HN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0073 01245 ARBOR ST KAREN E BJERKENG KAREN E BJERKEm 1245 ARBOR ST WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AfiOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 10-117-23 31 01224 BRIAR ST HAVBELL KOHLS HAVBELL KOHLS 1224 BRIAR ST WAYZATA HN 55391 0074 38 10-117-23 31 0099 01240 ARBOR ST L S KENNEN I J H KELLAR LEONARD S KENNEN JANICE H KENNEN 1223 ARBOR ST WAYZATA HN 55391 TOTAL BATCH SOI 00017 6 \ PERMIT RECORD ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 ROLL The Oroiio Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners William Stoddard, Daniel Kluth, Jay Nygard, and Sandra Smith. Commissioners Dale Lindquist and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented City Staff: Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Public Works Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Gabriel Jabbour was present. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. PUBUC HEARINGS (»1) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT. 2523 KELLY AVENUE. AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITAfARIANCE Due to the absence of the Applicant, this item was heard after item #4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (M) #2647 KIMBERLI ;.ND WILLIAM ABBOTT. 470 BIG ISLAND. AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES. 6:35 p.m. - 7:16 p.m. Kimberli and William Abbott, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting after-the-fact 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 the Planning Commission to consider is hew much of the extensive decking associated with the waits and stairway should be allowed to remain in place. Weinberger noted the construction in question is located within the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone where normally no structure or hardcover is allowed. Weinberger stated the Applicants are hoping to purchase the property located on Big Island from Sam McCloud and to bring the property into compliance with the City's Codes. As a result of a superstorm in 1987, the lakeshore in this area experienced severe erosion damage. Sometime between 1987 and 1990, McCloud constructed an addition to the house, including a large deck, and also a massive retaining wall, stairway and deck system at the shoreline, all without the required permits. In February of 1991, McCloud made an after-the-fact application requesting that the site improvements be approved as built. The Planning Commission had reviewed the request at its March 13,1991 meeting, and tabled the application with a request that McCloud submit a revised plan. Page 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2647, Kimb«rli and William Abbott, Continued) Weinberger stated the current application by the Abbotts 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. The current application also does not provide the plans that were required per the 1992 Planning Commission direction. City Staff reviewed this application as if the construction has not occurred. Staff is recommending the following: 1. Approval of land alteration conditional use permit and variance for retaining walls and stainway to remain, subject to: a) Removal of all decks except portions necessary as walkways between stainways. Also, removal of any retaining walls serving merely to support the deck. b) Modification of retaining walls to eliminate all portions in excess of 3-4 feet high, and to result in terrace widths not exceeding 3 feet. 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 to submit r evised 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) Maximum allowed width of remaining walkways and stairs is 4 feet. d) Applicant is 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 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 four foot walkway/stainway system. 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 foot 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. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission may elect to recommend approval of this application subject to staff receipt and approval of design plans as specified in Item 1 prior to scheduling this for Council action; or the Planning Commission may table this item pending receipt of plans for Planning Commission. Weinberger noted if this application is tabled, an extension of the 60 day review period will be necessary since there was no December Planning Commission meeting. This application did appear on the November Planning Commission agenda, but due to the applicants not being able to be present at that meeting, the application was extended until February 20. Weinberger stated the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for February 23. Abbott stated he is not in total agreement vrith ail the conditions stated tonight and would be willing to work with Staff to arrive at some kind of compromise. Abbott stated he is fine with Page 2 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2547 Kimberli and William Abbott. Continued) removal of the decks, but noted that a three foot terrace width would not be possible. Hawn inquired what the present height of the retaining walls is. Abbott stated the majority of the retaining walls are under four feet, with one area being approximately five feet in height. Abbott indicated he does not have a problem complying with the four foot height regulation. Abbott requested he be allowed to retain the present terrace width, noting if he is forced to comply with the three foot width, the entire structure would need to be removed and he would not then be willing to purchase the property. Kluth inquired why City Staff is requesting the three foot width Weinberger remarked the three foot standard is stated in the State Building Code. Weinberger stated currently the width is approximately four to five feet wide. Abbott stated since the wall has existed since approximately 1987, the engineering of the structure has proven itself and should not wash out. Kluth commented the four foot height standard to his understanding is called for to prevent injuries should a child fall off the wall. Abbott stated a railing does currently exist on top of the retaining wall. Smkh inquired whether the retaining wall will need to be calculated into the height of the retaining wall. Weinberger stated the structure is measured to the top of the railing. Hawn inquired what the height of the railing is. Abbott stated the railing is the standard 36 inches. Abbott stated the railing could be relocated further back from the retaining wall. Abbott commented currently the landscaping conceals the railing. Hawn stated the railing will still need to be included in the calculations. Abbott stated If that was the case, the retaining wall could only be one foot high, which would not be feasible. Hawn stated so far she has not heard anything that would substantiate the need for this retaining wall structure to be constructed back in 1987. Abbott commented it was his understanding some pictures exist in the City's file which show the condition of the shoreline. Weinberger stated he has not seen any pictures in the file of the retaining wall but that some may exist of the decking. Weinberger stated he could review the file to see if any photographs exist of the retaining wall and/or shoreline. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant or City Staff has a statement from the certified engineer which would indicate that this retaining wall is necessary to help prevent the shoreline from eroding. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to have a showing of newJ by the Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2547 KimlMrli and William Abbott, Continued) Applicant. Weinberger stated City Staff is not in possession of a statement by a certified engineer. Abbott commented the storm experienced in this area back in 1987, necessitated the need for the retaining wall. Hawn commented that this property has been discussed for a number of years, with the present owner failing to bring this property into compliance or providing any evidence which would demonstrate a need for this retaining wall structure. Hawn stated the present property owner was told exactly what he needed to do to bring this property into compliance, which he has failed to do, and the same type of showing needs to be demonstrated with this application. Abbott stated the recommendations by City Staff appear to be the same as in the previous application. Hawn inquired whether there has ever been a finding that this retaining wall structure is necessary to prevent further erosion along the shoreline. Abbott commented he is attempting to resolve this issue. Abbott indicated if some type of agreement is not reached, he will not be purchasing the property. Hawn stated the cooperation of McCloud is needed to help resolve this issue. Hawn stated the Planning Commission must act within City Code as well as existing law and precedent. Abbott stated he is in agreement that cooperation on McCloud's part is needed as well. Stoddard stated the City of Orono does not allow structures to exist within the 0-75* lakeshore setback. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission needs to have an opinion from an expert on the need for the retaining wall. Abbott stated he is willing to remove all decking within the 0*75' setback and is only asking for some leeway on the width of the terrace. Abbott stated in his view the railing should not be included in the calculation for the height of the retaining wall and some type of agreement will need to be reached on that issue as well. Hawn commented a one foot retaining wall will probably not be very effective, but that the Applicant will first need to provide some evidence that a retaining wall is necessary in this area before the design of the structure can be discussed. Abbott inquired if he produced pictures showing the erosion along the shoreline, whether that would be sufficient to demonstate the need for the structure. Hawn stated pictures and/or a statement by an engineer would help to demonstrate a need for retaining walls in this area. Weinberger stated had the property owner requested the proper permits prior to any construction being done on the property. City Staff would have requested evidence showing the condition of the property as well as a statement by an engineer to help demonstrate the need for the retaining wall. Weinberger indicated that information would then have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Staff would have made a determination whether erosion along the shoreline was Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2547 Kimb«r1l and William Abbott, Continued) in fact occurring. Weinberger stated he has not seen any photographs illustrating the condition of the shoreline prior to construction of the retaining walls. Hawn commented there appears to be a reference to the fact that the City Engineer did review this situation in 1991. Kluth stated he would be willing to accept a statement by an engineer or landscape architect. Kluth stated Gaffron's March 12,1991 memorandum states, 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 supporting system. He is suggesting that the walls with a height exceeding three to four feet be lowered, and that some interior walls be added. The City Engineer has indicated that the stability of existing walls is questionable. He also stated that the lower walls would be easier to screen from the lake." Kluth stated apparently the findings of the previous Planning Commissions have taken the recommendations of the City Engineer into consideration. Kluth stated this Planning Commission could either adopt the findings and recommendations of the City Engineer made in 1991 or they could elect to have the site re-inspected by another engineer. Stoddard indicated the Planning Commission is attempting to work with the Applicant on this issue, but noted that City Staff Is unable to visit the site at this time of the year. Hawn commented she is unsure whether photographs of the area would be sufficient to demonstrate the need for retaining walls. Hawn stated she would like to make a record demonstrating the need for the retaining walls. Abbott stated it is his understanding he needs to address whether the current retaining wall system is adequate as well as determine whether erosion has occurred to this area. Abbott inquired whether there were any other issues that need to be addressed. Hawn commented there probably are other issues that will need to be discussed, but inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to obtain a statement by an engineer demonstrating the need for the structure prior to those issues being discussed. Hawn stated it may not be possible to obtain that statement until the springtime, and inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to wait. Abbott stated he would be agreeable to obtain an opinion by an engineer. Abbott inquired whether some agreement could be reached on the width of the stairway. Abbott indicated the structure was constructed out of railroad ties and could possibly be reduced somewhat. Stoddard stated in his view the width of the stairway is a small item compared to the overall structure. Stoddard stated he would be agreeable to leaving the width of the stairway as is if a benefit could be demonstrated. Abbott indicated he will probably be able to comply with the other conditions recommended by City Staff. Stoddard stated the Applicant will need to address whether retaining walls are needed in this area and also to look at whether the overall structure can be reduced and made to blend in more with the area. Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2547 Kimb«rli and William Abbott, Continued) Abbott stated he is willing to submit additional information on this application. Kluth stated he would like to see the Applicant obtain an opinion by an engineer on the necessity of retaining walls and how much of the structure is actually needed. Hawn stated it would be helpful if the Applicant submitted revised plans showing how he intends to have the structure constructed. Hawn stated there probably will not be any variances allowed on the cabin. Abbott stated an after-the-fact variance is needed. Weinberger stated after-the-fact building permits are needed on the cabin. Abbott indicated he is wiliing to update the septic system located on the property. Abbott stated he is willing to waive the 60 day review period on this application. Weinberger stated the Applicant is required to have one conforming septic site. Weinberger requested the Applicant be required to submit a ietter requesting the extension of the 60 day review period. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2547,470 Big island, to allow the Applicant time to comply with the conditions and recommendations outlined in the January 12,2000 Planner ’s Report, and subject to submission of a letter agreeing to waive the 60 day review period. There were no public comments regarding this application. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5. Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#2) #2400 MARK AND ARLETTE PLOEN, 4345/4365 NORTH SHORE DRIVE. CLASS I SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT. 7:17 p.m. • 7:31 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mark and Arlette Ploen, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing 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. This property is located within the LR-1B, One Family Lakeshore Residential District. Weinberger stated currently the lots consist of 1.7 acres and the other .25 acres In size. Weinberger stated one issue for the Planning Commission to consider with this application Is the fact that this proposal would create two lots that will not meet the 140 feet required lot width at the lakeshore and structure setback. Variances would be required to be approved to permit the lot line rearrangement. Lot A would have a lot width of 114 feet and Lot B is proposed to have a lot width of 113 feet, where lots in this zoning district are required to have 140 feet lot width. Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2400 Mark and Arlatta Ploen, Continued) City Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements along new property lines and vacate any drainage and utility easements along the old property line. 2. Applicant shall provide to the City any documentation relating to easements on both properties. 3. Prior to City Council review three original surveys of the survey completed by a licensed surveyor in the State of Minnesota shall be submitted, with signature blocks. 4. 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. Weinberger stated the property currently is platted within a Hennepin County easement, with Hennepin County requesting that the easement be deeded over to the County, with Hennepin County then having full ownership of that portion of the property. Smith inquired whether the intent of the Applicants was to build on both lots or to sell one of the lots. Mrs. Ploen indicated they intend to sell Lot B and leave Lot A as is. Hawn commented that Lot A will end up with two garages located on the property. Hawn inquired whether those garages will remain. Mrs. Ploen stated the garage located closest to Lot B will be removed. Kluth inquirad whether a portion of the existing house is located within the Hennepin County easement. Weinberger stated this is a standard request by Hennepin County in subdivisions. Weinberger stated at th€ time the deeds to the properties are created for the two new lots, that a quit claim deeded be created dedicating this portion of the property to Hennepin County. Weinberger stated the p'operty would actually be deeded over to Hennepin County. Kluth inquired whether that portion of the house would then be deeded over to the County. Weinberger stated this is a standard request by Hennepin County. Weinberger stated City Staff would be willing to work with Hennepin County on this issue. Weinberger stated an additional permit may be needed to retain the deck. Hawn inquired where the Applicant stood on deeding a portion of their property to Hennepin County. Mr. Ploen stated in his opinion the road needs to be widened in that area, and if the County owns a portion of his residence, he would not be able to contest the widening of the road. Page 7 t r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2400 Mark and Arietta Ploen, Continued) Weinberger stated the road would never be built up to the residence. Weinberger stated the County could elect to condemn the property. Hawn commented the two new lots would meet lot size but do not comply with the 140 foot width front yard setback. Stoddard inquired whether there were any precedents similar to this situation. Weinberger stated this lot line rearrangement is not increasing the housing density in this area, but would allow the Applicant to create two lots meeting the one acre zoning requirement. Weinberger stated these two lots would continue to be considered two housing units. Hawn stated in her view meeting the required lot size is an important factor to consider in this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to the other conditions recommended by City Staff. Mr. Ploen indicated they are agreeable to the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2400, 4340/4365 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, subject to the five conditions outlined in the January 12,2000 Planner’s Report and further subject to removal of the garage located closest to Lot B. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mrs. Ploen inquired when the garage would need to be removed. Weinberger indicated six months from the time of approval would be fine. (#3) #2500 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH. SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:32 p.m. - 8:23 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present, along with John Berg, Loucks & Associates. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting, where the application was denied due to the number of issues to be resolved and concerns regarding DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. The Applicant has submitted a revised plan for the subdivision to create an open space south of the creek, which eliminates any concerns with crossing the creek as well as concerns regarding bridging and extension of the sewer line across the creek. The DNR has requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property to help preserve the natural area along the Luce Line Trail. As it relates to sewer access to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, the best option would be to have Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the sewer come up from the south due to some of the concerns by the DNR of crossing the Luce Line Trail with the sewer line. Weinberger stated the original proposal had access to this subdivision off of Brown Road, ending in a cul-de-sac, with the private road servicing four lots. The City Engineer has recommended the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. He further recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50 foot width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. The Applicant's latest proposal has the same road configuration and also contains the same four lots off of the cul-de-sac. The lots located south of the private road have been revised to allow for larger lots. Weinberger stated one issue of concern is the fact that access to the property is via a Tract G, which is not owned by the Applicant. 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 Public Works Director have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Tract G should be in ownership of the Homeowner's Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Weinberger indicated a driveway easement has been granted many years ago to the current residence. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether the driveway easement would entitle the developer to utilize the road to service other properties. The Applicant has indicated that his Title Insurance Company has verified that they wilt guarantee access to the seven lots. Weinberger stated in 1977, Halstad Acres was developed to the south of the access, which is owned by Mr. Dunn. With that development, an easement was granted for roadway purposes with the intent that some day access would need to be provided for this property. This issue becomes a legal question over whether the driveway easement gives the Applicant the right to construct a roadv;ay to serve his development. Weinberger noted the City Engineer has reveiwed the drainage and grading plan for the subdivision and is requesting some modifications. The City Engineer at this time has some concerns regarding the size of the holding ponds and wants to insure that this development will not increase the runoff to the surrounding area. The developer will need to submit the requested information for review and approval by City Staff. Weinberger stated this proposed subdivision is located immediately adjacent to Long Lake, with the subdivision being serviced with sewer from an existing Long Lake sewer line. The Applicant is requested to submit the following information for review and approval prior to a final plat application. 1. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, incl' .ding detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Metropolitan Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. 4. 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 Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2850 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 5. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. 6. 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. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) predevelopment. The Applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable is required for a seven lot subdivision. City Staff is recommending this application be based tc allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the following: A. The property owner of Tract G become a co-applicant and agree to allow 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 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. 0. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Weinberger noted the revised plan does meet the intent of a PRD. Van Eeckhout commented the road access issue is a legal issue and indicated he is willing to work with City Staff to resolve this issue. Van Eeckhout stated the letter received from his title insurance company indicates that they are willing to guarantee access to this subdivision via this driveway easement which was granted a number of years ago. Van Eeckhout stated he has revised the plans in an attempt to comply with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Staff. Berg stated they would be willing to relocate the road to help increase the lot size of the two north lots, reduce the encroachment into the wetland area, and preserve more trees. Smith inquired what the impact would be if the road were relocated right next to the wetland. Berg stated any runoff from the road would need to be directed to the other side into a holding pond and away from the wetland area. Berg commented in his view this would not be a major issue to resolve. Smith commented the only way to create lots of one acre or more was to reduce the number of lots from four to three. Page 10 I L ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger inquired whether the land area calculations were determined by a surveyor. Berg indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable. Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRD must meet all the minimum lot size requirements, with 13.7 acres dry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots in this subdivision. Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot. Berg pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of years ago, which may not become flooded. Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland. Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and would in all likelihood never be wet. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not have needed to be included in the wetland calculations. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer look at increasing the lot size as much as possible. Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast comer. Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission act on his application. Hawn requested the Appiicant address the issue of access. Van Eeckhout stated he has paid Mr. Dunn three times for the same easement. Van Eeckhout stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insurance company, who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to serve his subdivision. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this item. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the property as well as the driveway easement. Barrett stated in his view the problem with the document agreeing to the driveway easement is it does not further address any other issues, such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of this issue. Barrett stated another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private road as an access. Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would allow the developer to build a public road. David Berkowski, South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2560 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road is constructed within a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way Is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger stated the developer is requesting a 24 foot road width, with City Code requiring 28 foot. The additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski's property. Berkowski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed. Weinberger stated they could. Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved. Hawn commented from the information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would run across the northern portion of his property. Kluth indicated access would become a condition of approval, and if not met, the subdivision would not be approved. Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easement. Weinberger stated City Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship being necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff is recommending construction of a 28 foot roadway. Berg stated they are attempting to preserve as many of the trees in this area as possible, noting there will be no parking on the roadway. Smith commented the reason behind the 28 foot requirement is to allow adequate access for emergemcy vehicles. Weinberger stated if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent in the past on what they approve In terms of density. Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size of the lots, and the size of the roadway. Weinberger pointed out even if six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself would be serving seven lots. Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots in this subdivision. Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development. Kluth commented he would be agreeable to allowing a 24 foot road if only six lots were created Hawn stated the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating resolution of the access issue. Page 12 ■A ■s ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2550 Charies Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth noted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. Hawn inquired whether the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue Van Eeckhout stated that is not an issue. Smith inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a 24 foot roadway or seven tots with a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard indicated he preferred the six lots. Kluth stated based upon the conditions stated by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce the number of lots. Weinberger stated this is another application that will need to be extended. Weinberger stated City Staff would be comfortable with sending this application to the City Council provided some direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions he should comply with. Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the developer consider reducing the number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the developer indicating he preferred to leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett stated the Planning Commission could vote to deny this application, with clear direction on what the Planning Commission would like to see occur on this application. Kluth moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550,120 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development, with a strong recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of lots within this subdivision to six in order to comply with the conditions outlined in the January 10,2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES. 8:25 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock appeared on behalf of Hennepin County. Weinberger stated the Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The present facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial uses. However, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s. thus making use of this property a legal non-conforming use. Hennepin County has made an application to the City of Orono requesting a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-1C zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-1C district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district. Weinberger indicated the property is pi-tssently used for salt/sand storage in the fall and winter Page 13 B-tntTar£lkk*i.M i L__ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) months as well as storage by the LMCD of their milfoil harvesters. 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. In addition, the ONR has located a wash rack for cleaning boats, trailers and other watercraft on this property. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCO 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. Currently the LMCO stores four milfoil harvesters at this site. Weinberger stated Hennepin County is proposing to construct a building consisting of 7,840 square feet with a storage capacity of 2,000 tons, which amounts to approximately one-third of the annual mixed salt/sand usage during the winter months. The building would provide for interior mixing and loading of materials. Currently that operation is conducted outdoors. The proposed building is 70 feet by 112 feet in size, with the height of the building being 42 feet in height. A height variance would be needed since the proposed building exceeds the height of the principal building. Weinberger noted the height of the principal building is approximately 18 to 20 feet in height. County Staff has indicated the operations would reduce the noise to the surrounding neighborhoods and would also eliminate the salt and sand runoff into the adjacent wetlands during storms. Hennepin County is estimating the number of round trip truck runs would be reduced to 60 based on the size of the proposed building. Weinberger stated the Burlington Northern Railroad exists to the north of this site, with the property to the southwest being zoned LR-1C-1, and the southeast being zoned B-5, Commercial Weinberger stated the City of Orono has recently purchased the land immediately adjacent to this site, which is zoned LR-1C-1. The property to the west of this site is zoned residential. Weinberger stated the proposed stormwater management plan includes construction of a stormwater pond on the southeast portion of the property. The land alteration on the site and for the pond will require a permit from the MCWD. Weinberger recommended approval of this application be conditioned upon review and approval of the stormwater management plan by the City Engineer. Weinberger stated in order for a zoning code amendment to be approved, the Planning Commission should consider the following: 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 County road. c. County facilities shall only be permitted as Hennpin County facilities. d. The Orono City Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined by the City Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. Weinberger stated a variance to permit hardcover alteration is needed as welt as a variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed height fcr a structure and exceed the defined height of the principal structure on the property A variance is also Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#25S5 H«nn«pin County, Continued) required to permit the storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on this lot. A conditional use permit is required for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. City Staff is recommending approval of 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. Staff is recommending approval based on 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. 6. Any future expanded use of the property shall require a conditional use permit amendment. 7. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded on the chain of title to the property alerting property owners of WCA protected wetlands. 8. A conservation and flowage easement shall be granted over the stormwater pond. 9. 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. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission may chose to approve the application as presented by Hennepin County, approve the variances to permit construction of the salt storage facility and a conditional use permit to allow land alteration under the existing non-conforming use of the site, or to recommend denial of the application, which will mean the site will continue to exist as a legal non-conforming use. Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock had no comment. Mike O'Connor inquired whether the height of the proposed building would block the neighbors' view of the lake. Page 15 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2558 Hennepin County, Continued) Weinberger stated the adjacent land is owned by the City of Orono, which might possibly become park land in the future. Weinberger stated there may be one or two residents to the west that may experience a slight impact on their view of the lake. Hawn inquired whether there were any other comments from the public. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the City had received any phone calls regarding this application. Weinberger stated the City did receive a couple of phone calls. The residents were informed that the deliveries would be lessened with the new facility and hopefully would occur more during the daytime hours. Stoddard commented some consideration should be given to the fact that this facility serves the needs of the community rather than an individual business or resident. Stoddard stated he has a concern with the proposed height of the building as well as the hardcover due to the closeness to Lake Minnetonka. Stoddard indicated he would not approve a variance to height or hardcover based on the current zoning of the property and the City's comprehensive plan. Hawn stated she has a number of concerns regarding this application as well, noting that a number of variances are being requested. Hawn questioned whether this site lends itself well to this purpose, noting that the proposed use will not enhance the area. Hawn commented this is an opportunity for the City and Hennepin County to review this property and its use. Hawn stated she would like more reassurance from the County that Lake Minnetonka will be protected from sand and salt runoff from this site. Hawn commented in her view the proposed use is also much more intense than what the properly is currently being used for. Kluth Inquired why the height at the peak of the building needs to be at 42 feet. Chock stated the building needs to accommodate dump trucks, which necessitates the need for additional headroom and trusses. Kluth inquired whether the service area will be expanded with the new facility. Chock stated the service area will remain the same. Chock noted the facility will have the capacity to store one-third of the amount of sand and salt used over the winter months. Chock stated the present outdoor storage will be eliminated and will be converted into grassy areas. Kluth inquired what hours of operation the County is anticipating for this building. Chock stated the facility will need to operate at all hours depending on when it snows. Nygard pointed out the proposed use is basically opposite of what the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for in this area, which should be addressed. Stoddard inquired whether any underground storage tanks exist on this site. Chock stated the County does have some underground storage tanks located on the site, which are hooked up to electronic monitoring devices. Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2655 Hennepin County, Continued) Smith expressed a concern with the size of the proposed facility as well as the need for a zoning amendment. Hawn inquired whether the County has pursued other sites for this facility. Nowlan stated to his knowledge other sites have not been looked at, noting this is the only parcel in the City which is owned by the County. Hawn indicated she would like to see this application tabled to allow Hennepin County some additional time to explore other possible sites for this storage facility. Nowlan stated the advantages to this building include indoor storage of the salt and sand, which would eliminate the runoff into Lake Minnetonka, increased life to the salt and sand by being stored indoors, lower noise level, and fewer deliveries to this site. Stoddard commented he would like to see the height of the building kept at 20 feet, noting he would not be in favor of a height variance for anything over 20 feet. Stoddard noted he is an agreement that this is not the ideal location for this facility. Kluth inquired whether steel trusses inside the building had been considered by Hennepin County. Nowlan stated to his knowledge that has not been explored, noting that due to the salt being stored inside the facility, corrosion may be a factor into why steel was not chosen. Smith suggested this item be tabled to allow the Applicant time to explore other sites for the facility. Smith stated she also has concerns regarding the size of the building as well as the need for a zoning code amendment. Chock remarked it would be difficult for the Hennepin to meet the needs of this area with a smaller sized building. Nowlan stated the County would like to have this building constructed in time for next year's winter season. Nowlan stated if the application is tabled, completion of the building by that time would be questionable. Hawn stated the Applicants can either have the Planning Commission vote on this application as it has been presented tonight or to table the application to allow the County additional time to review other sites. Hawn commented in her view it appears the application will be denied. Nowlan requested the Planning Commission act on this application. The Planning Commission noted the use of the property is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City. Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2555, Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive, Zoning Code Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Variances based upon issues dealing with the City's Comprehensive Code and Zoning. VOTE: Ayes 5. Nays 0. Page 17 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (Recess taken from 9:20 p.m. - 9:28 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS. CONTINUED (#1) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE, AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE, 9:28 p.m. - 9:31 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was not present. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant had submitted any additional information on this application. Weinberger stated he has had very little contact with the Applicant, with no additional information having been submitted. Hawn noted this application has been called on two separate occasions, with no appearance by the Applicant or a representative on his behalf. Hawn stated this application cannot be approved without the additional information being submitted. Hawn inquired whether the 60 day review period needs to be extended. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated the City does have the right to extend the 60 day review period under State Statutes without the Applicant's consent. Hawn suggested this application be extended to allow the Applicant time to submit the additional information. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to continue the denial of Application #2540, Bradley Hoyt. 2523 Kelly Avenue, After-the-Fact Conditional Use PermitA/ariance. and to return this matter back to the City Council for their review. Barrett noted the Applicant has received two letters from the City outlining the requirements of the City relating to the variances. Barrett stated without the additional information being submitted by the Applicant, a hardship has not been demonstrated and the application can be denied. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2543 TED AND JUDITH EDIN, 3025 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES. 9:32 p.m. - 10:06 p.m. Ted Edin, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated this application was tabled at the November Planning Commission meeting to allow the Applicant time to revise his plan in an effort to reduce hardcover. Page 18 L.. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2643 Ted and Judith Edin, Continued) Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to replace an existing deck and adding a small bump-out section, 8 feet by 12 feet, to serve as a sitting area, and remove 829 square feet of hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. The Applicant's proposing to replace an existing second story deck on the lakeside of the house due to its deteriorating condition. Weinberger stated the hardcover in the 0-75' setback will remain at 9.9 percent, with the hardcover in the 75-250' setback being reduced from 77.11 percent to 68.9 percent. The Applicant had indicated he would be agreeable to removing some of the existing rock and plastic underlayment located on the property. Weinberger noted the overall structure coverage will increase from 23.3 percent to 23.9 percent with the added bump-out section. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted a letter addressing hardship. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances to rebuild the deck to the same dimensions as what currently exists. City Staff is not recommending approval of the bump-out section to the deck due to the increase in the amount of structural coverage on the property. Edin stated due to a shared driveway, his property has higher than normal hardcover. Edin noted at the last Planning Commission meeting he was told to reduce the hardcover, which he has done in the 75-250' setback. Weinberger remarked that this is the same basic proposal that was presented to the Planning Commission at its November meeting. Weinberger stated the application was tabled to give the Applicant time to review his application and to make the necessary changes. Nygard noted the minutes from the November meeting reflect that the Applicant was asked to reduce hardcover. Edin indicated he is unable to reduce hardcover any further. Hawn stated she has concerns regarding the amount of hardcover and structural coverage on the property. Hawn indicated the Planning Commission tends to adhere to the 15 percent structural coverage requirement. The Applicant was advised that he would probably be allowed to replace the existing deck due to its poor condition but would probably not be allowed to add to the size of the deck due to the increase in structural coverage on the property, which presently exceeds the amount allowed on the property. Hawn stated the Applicant will need to reduce the size of the deck in order to reduce the amount of structural coverage. Edin stated the amount of structural coverage on the property was not discussed at the last meeting. Smith stated the Planning Commission will allow the Applicant to replace the existing deck to the same dimensions. Weinberger pointed out the Planner’s Report, which was provided to the Applicant, does refer to a variance for structural coverage. Weinberger stated Staffs recommendations remain the same. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth inquired whether the structural coverage could be reduced on this property. Edin reiterated he was not aware the structural coverage needed to be reduced Page 19 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2643 Ted end Judith Edin, Continued) Stoddard commented he would like City Staff to take the time to discuss this application with the Applicant, especially regarding the issues relating to hardcover and structural coverage. Kluth commented the minutes reflect the Applicant was requested to reduce hardcover on the property. Kluth inquired whether the Applicant intends to change the lower deck at all. Edin stated the lower deck will remain the same. Edin inquired what constitutes structural coverage versus hardcover. Hawn stated the building or residence is considered structural coverage. Edin requested he be allowed to build the deck as proposed since structural coverage was not discussed at the previous meeting. Kluth stated the minutes reflect that rock and plastic are not considered hardcover. Kluth indicated the reason for requesting hardcover be reduced is to reduce water runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Kluth commented the Planning Commission does encourage residents to replace old, deteriorating decks, but that they need to comply with structural coverage and hardcover limits as much as possible. Edin reiterated structural coverage was not discussed at the November meeting. Hawn stated apparently there has been a failure in communication, but that the Planning Commission does require Applicants to adhere to structural coverage and hardcover limits as much as possible. Hawn stated the Applicant will probably be allowed to replace the existing deck but would not be allowed to increase the size of the deck. Kluth inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to work with City Staff to resolve this issue. Smith stated the Applicant will need to stay within the existing dimensions of the deck, with no increase in structural coverage and/or hardcover being allowed. Edin indicated he will not be In town for next month's meeting. Edin inquired whether he is required to do anything further with hardcover. Kluth stated City Staff and the Planning Commission is recommending that the existing deck may be replaced, with the structural coverage limit remaining the same. Nygard indicated rock and plastic are considered hardcover. Weinberger inquired whether he would like this to be scheduled for the February 23 Planning Commission meeting. Edin requested the matter be scheduled for March Stoddard suggested this application be tabled tonight to allow the Applicant time to discuss hardcover and structural coverage with City Staff. Hawn indicated removal of rock and plastic underlayment will not be counted towards any reduction in structural coverage. Page 20 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 {tiZSAZ Ted and Judith Edin, Continued) Mayor Jabbour commented the Applicant will not be allowed to increase hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Hawn stated the Applicant will also need to stay out of the average lakeshore setback as well. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2543, Ted and Judith Edin, 3025 Casco Point Road, Variances, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans reflecting a reduced structural coverage limit. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2551 THOMAS MICHAEL RANOGAARD, 2765 8HADYWOOD ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 10:07 p.m. -10:30 p.m. Thomas Randgaard, Applicant, was not present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit 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. The LMCD approved the Applicant's permit in June, 1999. The LMCD permit indicates there is 120 feet between the permanent dock and the opposite shore. Weinberger indicated the permit for a permanent dock was issued in 1993. City Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit to permit a permanent dock extension of 14 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant maintains an active license with the LMCD. 2. The dock does not cause navigational problems or obstruct access within the channel. 3. Future replacement or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit from the City of Orono. Weinberger stated there is nothing v^hin the City's Code which prohibits docks from being located on a resident's property. Jim Zimmerman, 2745 Shadywood Road, stated he has sent a letter, along with Nick Ogle, to the City outlining their concerns regarding this application. Zimmerman expressed concerns regarding this dock application due to the use of this property as a party house and not a live-in residence. Zimmerman stated an extension to the dock will allow for increased boat traffic in the area, as well as the size of the boats being currently docked at this residence. Zimmerman stated in his view there does not exist 120 foet between the permanent dock and the opoosite shore, and an extension to the dock vw>uld cause the channel tc be narrowed even further, which causes concerns as it relates to the safe passage of boats through the channel. Zimmerman indicated this property currently has two docks located on the properly, which is in violation of City Code. If this application is to be approved, Zimmerman requested the following conditions be added. Page 21 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2551 Thomas Michael Randgaard, Continued) One, t)oats tied on the dock extension or permanent dock not be allowed to be used for parties or other entertainment; two, boats larger than 26 feet long and 10 feet wide not be allowed to be tied on the channel side of the permanent dock; and three, the second portable dock be removed as long as the permanent dock exists. Zimmerman indicated these conditions are reasonable and should be imposed should this application be approved. Zimmerman noted this residence has been cited on a couple of occasions for disorderly conduct, with the parties lasting two to three days. Hawn inquired how long these parties have been going on. Zimmerman stated the Applicant moved into the resident May 1st. with the first party being held May 2nd. Zimmerman stated a navigational problem does oxist in that the channel is very shallow and narrow. Zimmerman stated the typical boats that are tied on this dock are large in size and are left tied up for the entire weekend. Mayor Jabbour indicated the City of Orono has worked hard to ensure that all the property owners along Lake Minnetonka are guaranteed one dock, with the property owner being allowed up to four boats. Weinberger stated the LMCD does allow up to four boats per property with the exception of special permits. Weinberger stated they have not been able to find anything in the code which limits the number of docks allowed per property. The City of Orono has encouraged the residents to maintain only one dock in the past. Weinberger noted the docks must comply with the setback requirements. Richard Gay, 2735 Shadywood Road, presented pictures to the Plar.ning Commission showing the dock and channel. Gay inquired how the 120 measurement was arrived at. Weinberger stated the LMCO measures from the end of the dock to the opposite shore. Gay stated in his opinion the distance is closer to 70 feet. Gay stated due to the trees and shallowness of the channel, it is very difficult to navigate through this area, particularly if large boats are being docked in the area. Gay noted the Applicant owns a very large boat. Gay indicated he was informed by City Staff a couple of years ago that a property is allowed only one dock Gay stated he would like to see only one dock per residential property as well as the noise ordinance being complied with. Hawn noted the LMCD permit lists the distance as being 120 feet. Nygard stated he paced the area and arrived at roughly 75 feet. Gay stated he has measured the area and arrived at 70 feet. Don Miegel, 683 Sullivan Drive, expressed safety concerns with approval of the dock extension given the shallowness and narrowness of the channel. Hawn indicated the Planning Commission cannot hear this application without the Applicant being present, but thanked the members of the audience for expressing their thoughts regarding this application. Hawn indicated City Staff will notify the affected property owners of the next Page 22 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2551 Thomas Michael Randgaard, Continued) hearing date. Hawn stated the minutes will reflect the comments of the neighbors, which will be taken into account when voting on this application. Zimmerman stated if this application is approved, he would like the City to take some steps to restrict the second dock on this property. Stoddard requested City Staff review the City's Codes and to check with the LMCO regarding the number of docks permitted on a property. Hawn indicated she would like the distance from the dock to the opposite shore re-measured. Smith stated there are some safety concerns which should be addressed as well. Smith noted the October letter from the LMCD does suggest some safety concerns. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2551, Thomas Michael Randgaard, 2765 Shadywood Road, Conditional Use Permit due to the absence of the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2552 STEVEN AND SHEILA SIGEL, 1399 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES. 10:31 p.m. - 10:37 p.m. Steven Sigel, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated 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 square feet on each level, for a total of 360 square feet. Structural coverage will not increase. The amount of hardcover in the 75-250' setback will also remain the same. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to the average lakeshore setback. The proposed addition will encroach 78 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Bottenberg stated tr^c Applicants received approval in 1997, to increase hardcover in the 75-250' setback area to 30 08 percent when they constructed a new garage. Sigel indicated they would like to enclose the upper deck and convert it into a three season porch. Sigel stated a large number of trees exist in the area, which will shield this addition from the adjoining neighbors. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith commented she would like to see hardcover reduced somewhat in the 75-250' setback. Smith noted the structural coverage is under the allowable 15 percent. Smith indicated she does not have a problem granting a variance to the average lakeshore setback since the house currently exists in the setback. Hawn stated it was her recollection at the 1997 hearing, there was discussion regarding the possibility of reducing the stairway in an effort to reduce hardcover. Sigel indicated they did consider reducing the stairway down to the lake. Sigel stated there Page 23 — ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2552 Steven and Sheila Sigel, Continued) is a significant number of steps down to the lake, with the variance indicating that if the steps are to be repiaced, they could replace it with a four foot concrete walkway. Sigel stated the decks are included in the current hardcover numbers. Hawn indicated she wouid not be opposed to a variance to the average iakeshore setback. Kluth noted the structural coverage, hardcover numbers, and encroachment into the average iakeshore setback do not change with this proposal. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2552, Steven and Sheila Sigel, 1399 Park Drive, granting of a variance to average Iakeshore setback to permit the conversion of a three season porch and construction of a master bedroom addition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2553 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH. 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE • VARIANCES. 10:38 p.m. -10:52 p.m. Mike Connor appeared on behalf of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church. Bottenbeig stated 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 four feet by ten feet per side. The proposed sign is smaller than the existing sign, but 28 square feet larger per side than the allowed 12 square feet per side. Bottenberg stated the sign will be illuminated and will be located in the same location as the existing sign. The sign will be situated on a metal base approximately one foot in height and will be at ieast five feet from the property line. The sign is intended to advertise the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, a use approved by the Orono City Ccuncil in the mid 1950s. Connor stated the new sign wili be situated on a platform approximately two feet lower than the existing sign. Connor stated they are intending to try a Bright Light and a Cooi light to see which produces the softest light. The current sign is illuminated by two floodiights. The size of the new sign will be 40 square feet, with the existing sign 48 square feet. Hawn inquired what hardship exists for the variance. Hawn pointed out hardships typically are imposed by the property. Connor stated a larger sign is needed f r visibility off of County Road 15. Connor stated a number of trees and overgrown brush exist in the area, which causes the area to be dark. Connor stated the sign needs to be located further back from the road due to a ditch in the area. Stoddard inquired whether the sign is equivalent to other church signs in the area Weinberger stated this sign was looked at in comparison to other church signs in the area. Weinberger stated there also exists a utility easement in this area as well as a ditch, which necessitates the sign be located further back from the road. Weinberger stated the sign identifies the use of the property. Page 24 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19,2000 (#2553 Good Shepherd, Continued) Kluth noted Staff has recommended approval of this application. Smith suggested the Applicant try the soft light first There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2553, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive, granting of a variance for signage square footage to allow a 40 square foot sign based upon the hardship demonstrated, with the understanding soft lights will be used to illuminate the sign, and If the lighting proves to be too bright, this issue will be reviewed and approved by City Staff. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstention 1; Kluth Abstained. Kluth indicated he abstained due to a lack of information regarding this application Hawn inquired whether a variance was granted to the Calvary Church. Bottenberg indicated a variance was granted to the Calvary Church approximately five years ago. (#10) #2554 ANN AND GIL ANDERSON, 845 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH. VARIANCES. 10:53 p.m. -10:59 p.m. Ann and Gil Anderson, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct an 18 by 10 foot master bedroom addition to their residence. The addition will be constructed onto the side of their residence, which is currently located 36.5 feet from the front property line. The septic site is located 59 feet to the south of the residence. Structural coverage is not an issue in this application. The Applicant is seeking approval of a front yard setback variance. Hawn inquired where the addition was going, noting she is confused by the survey. Mrs. Anderson indicated the addition will be constructed on the south side of the residence, just opposite of the driveway. Weinberger indicated the survey was completed by a certified surveyor, but due to the size of the scale, it is sometimes necessary to break the survey lines. The Applicants are proposing to add a master bedroom addition to the side of the residence. Weinberger stated the addition should not adversely affect the adjoining neighbors. Smith inquired whether there are any other issues regarding this application. Weinberger stated the only issue is c variance to the front yard setback Smith noted the Planning Commission has looked favorably in the past on other similar applications. There were no public comments regarding this application Page 25 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2554 Ann and Gil Anderson, Continued) Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2554, Ann and Gil Anderson, 845 Willow Drive South, granting of a front yard setback variance to permit the construction of an 18 by 10 foot master bedroom to their residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2556 BARBARA AND COLLINS CAVENDER, 1405/1395 REST POINT ROAD • VARIANCES, 11:00 p.m. -11:49 p.m. Barbara and Collins Cavender, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing 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, or .30 acre, with the lots being located in the LR-1B District, which has a minimum of one acre zoning. The Applicants have requested various variances to permit construction of a single family home on the property. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to permit a structure within 75* of the lakeshore. The Applicants have proposed to construct a new residence 30' from the iakeshore where 75' is required. Variances to hardcover are also required in the 0-75' setback and the 75-250' setback. The proposed residence also encroaches 13.63 feet into the front street setback. The ^.re also requesting a variance to structural coverage. Weinberger noted the Applicants have been working with City Staff in an attempt to arrive at the best building pad for the proposed residence. Weinberger stated in order for the Applicants to comply with as many of the City requirements as possible, the proposed residence is situated in the best building site available for this lot. Weinberger stated the house will need to be raised one foot in order to be above the high water level. Most of the lot exists within 75' of Lake Minnetonka, so it should be assumed with development of this lot that some structure and hardcover will be located within 75' of the lakeshore. The Applicants are requesting a variance to the amount of structural coverage normally allowed so they may include the aount of existing structural coverage on the developed lot located at 1405 Rest Point Road and 15 percent of the undeveloped lot at 1395 Rest Point Road. The total structural coverage results in 17.4 percent, which is slightly above the 15 percent limit. Weinberger stated the property contains a lift station owned by the City of Orono. The property owners are being credited for 41 square feet of hardcover. Weinberger noted no utility easement has been granted for the lift station installed on the property. Weinberger indicated the City would like to work with the property owners to obtain a utility easement. Weinberger indicated the previous owner of this vacant parcel had requested variances to permit new construction which included a number of variances. That application was reviewed in January, 1998, with the Planning Commission recommending denial based on the size of the lot and lack of a sewer stub. The application was subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant and was not reviewed by the City Council. Page 26 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2566 Barbara and Collins Cavender, Continued) City Staff is recommending approval of the variances for lot area to create a buildable tot. Staff has concerns regarding the amount of total structural coverage on the property as the City of Orono has been consistent in requiring lots not to exceed 15 percent coverage. The total proposed coverage by the Applicant is 17.4 percent. The Applicant's rational for the coverage to exceed the Code requirement is replacement of existing coverage on the develop^ lot and 15 percent of the vacant lot. Weinberger stated if the application is approved, a condition of approval would be to have the lots combined into one tax parcel prior to recording the variance on the chain of title. Mr. Cavender indicated they are attempting to construct a new house on the combined lots which will fit in with the neighborhood and add value to the neighborhood. Cavender noted the new residence will be located out of the right-of-way for Rest Point Road. Cavender stated the hardship they are experiencing with this property is the small lot size, which is limiting the number of options available for placement and size of the structure. Cavender stated the setback from the lake is consistent with the other structures located in this area. Hawn commented the size of the lot really is not considered a hardship. Kluth stated the Applicants are close to the 15 percent structural coverage standard, and inquired whether the house could be downsized somewhat to meet the City's limit. Mrs. Cavender stated they have been working with their architect in an attempt to downsize the house. Bob Boyer. Building Contractor, stated an additional hardship for the Planning Commission to consider is the fact that the original structures in this area were built as cabins and not as year-round residences. Due to subsequent changes in the ordinances, hardships were created. Boyer stated the lots in this area will never be able to meet the setback requirements. Boyer stated they have attempted to limit the amount of structural coverage as well as the hardcover. Robert Bredeson. 1410 Rest Point Road, stated he has lived in this area for over 80 years, and all the homes in this area are all located within 25 to 30 feet of the lake and all have similar hardcover to what is being proposed. Bredeson commented the new residence will be constructed out of the right-of-way and will complement the neighborhood. Bredeson noted the existing residence has not been well maintained. Bredeson stated he is in support of this project. Mrs. Cavender presented pictures to the Planning Commission of the existing residence. There were no further comments regarding this application. Hawn commented in her view the proposed residence is an improvement over what currently exists. Hawn noted the City historically adheres to its 15 percent structural coverage limit as well as the 25 percent hardcover limit. Hawn stated due to the size of the lot. the proposed residence will not be able to meet the lakeshore setback. Hawn stated she would be reluctant to approve structural coverage over 15 percent. Smith commented the Applicants clearly will not be able to comply with all of the City's Page 27 r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2656 Barbara and Collins Cavender, Continued) requirements due to the size of the lot. Smith inquired whether the house could be downsized somewhat in an effort to meet the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Smith stated she prefers to see new construction at 15 percent or lower. Stoddard stated he is In agreement with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Stoddard inquired v/hat the total square footage of the house is. Becca Hein.. Architect, noted the second floor of the house has not been designed at this time, but will be approximately the same as the First floor. Mrs. Cavender commented the second floor will not extend over the entire First floor. Stoddard noted the footprint of the proposed residence is 2,300 square feet. Smith inquired how close to the lake the residence is proposed to be located. Mr. Cavender stated they would like to construct the house approximately 30 feet from the lake. Smith questioned whether the location of the residence could be moved further back from the lake. Kluth commented he personally does not have a problem with the setback, but noted he does have a concern regarding the total structural coverage being proposed for this lot. Nygard commented he would like to see the hardcover within the 0-75* setback minimized as much as possible. Hawn noted this lot is relatively flat and would not require a stainway down to the take. Hawn noted for the record that a letter of support has been received by the City from David Williams, 1400 Rest Point Road; Clarisse Johnson, 1398 Rest Point Road; and Pat Walsh, 1390 Rest Point Road. Mr. Cavender stated the City will receive a benefit by having the new residence being located out of the City's right-of-way. Mrs. Cavender stated their purchase agreement is contingent upon approval of their application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants would be able to downsize the structure. Mrs. Cavender commented if they are required to redesign their plan, it would require a signiFicant amount of work. Cavender noted the proposed garage for the residence is not oversized. Hawn inquired whether the house could be located closer to the road. Mrs. Cavender stated they will not be able to meet the setback requirements. Cavender indicated there are utility poles and a lift station located in the front yard, which necessitates the house being located a little further back. Page 28 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2556 Barbara and Collint Cavender, Continuad) Boyer stated due to the narrowness of Rest Point Road and the lack of parking available on the street, the house and garage need to be located further back to accommodate a car in the driveway. Stoddard commented he would be willing to approve a variance to the front yard setback, but that the Applicants need to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Stoddard suggested this application be tabled to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. Stoddard stated the Applicant probably will not be allowed to construct a patio or walkway to the lake. Mrs. Cavender stated the patio is located off to the side. Nygard noted the patio is still located within the 0-75' setback. Smith recommended the Applicants attempt to adhere to the 15 percent structural coverage limit and relocate the house closer to the road. Kluth indicated the number one issue is the structural coverage, with the 15 percent needing to be complied with. Kluth stated he would like to see the hardcover under the 25 percent limit as well due to environmental concerns. Kluth noted the 0-75 ’ setback is the most critical as it relates to hardcover due to the impact to the lake. Hawn stated it appears the Planning Commission would like the Applicants to adhere to the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Hawn inquired whether the Applicants would be willing to extend the 60 day review period should the Planning Commission table this application. Weinberger indicated City Staff will continue to work with the Applicants. Stoddard commented the front yard setback should be compatible with the other houses in the neighborhood, and suggested the Applicants consider locating the house 35 feet from the lake. Smith commented she would like to see the house 35 to 40 feet from the lake. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicants would like the Planning Commission to table their application. Mr. Cavender requested their application be tabled. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2556, Barbara and Collins Cavender, 1405/1395 Rest Point Road, Variances, to allow the Applicants time to revise their plans, and to extend the 60 day review period. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #2557 JUDITH AND DANIEL MCATHIE, 1449 BAY RIDGE ROAD - VARIANCES. 11:50 p.m.-11:56 p.m. JudiU and Daniel McAthie, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit the addition of a garage Page 29 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2557 Judith and Daniel Mcathie, Continued) and living space to the existing residence. They are proposing to raise the roof of the existing structure for additional living space on the second story. The Applicants are also proposing to enlarge the garage by approximately 350 square feet and reducing the size of the turn-around in the driveway. Bottenberg noted the amount of hardcover in the 75-250' setback will be reduced by 495.5 square feet, or 2.43 percent, for a total hardcover in the amount of 5,745.5 square feet or 28.27 percent. Bottenberg stated the amount of structural coverage is below the allowable limit. Bottenberg stated the residence was constricted at its present location in 1967. and now requires variances for side yard setback ano average lakeshore setback. The Applicants are requesting a variance for the second story addition to encroach 20 feet into the average lakeshore setback and a variance to permit a 10.62' setback to the north property line and a 9.93' setback to the south property line where 30' setback is required. City Staff is recommending approval of variances for side yard setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. Hawn inquired whether a variance to height is required on this application. Bottenberg stated the height of the proposed structure is not an issue. Mr. McAthie stated they are looking to update their residence. McAthie stated their neighbors are in support of this project. Bottenberg commented City Staff has received a phone from Michael Johnson. 1461 Bay Ridge Road and Kent Whitworth. 1425 Bay Ridge Road, indicating their support of this project. There were no public comments. Kluth inquired where the hardcover was being reduced. Mr. McAthie stated they removing some decking and a sidewalk located in the front. Kluth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2557, Judith and Daniel McAthie, 1449 Bay Ridge Road, granting of variances to side yard setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover in the 75-250' setback area to permit the addition of a garage and living space to the existing residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#13) #2558 ANTHONY PATTERSON, 1780 SHADYWOOD ROAD • VARIANCES. 11:57 p.m. -12:23 p.m. Anthony Patterson, Applicant, was present, along with David Bergman, Property Manager. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct 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 one and a half story residence that will Page 30 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2590 Anthony Patterson, Continued) be expanded to a full two story house under this proposal. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting approval of variances for lot coverage, hardcover in the 0-75 and 75-250' setback area, lakeshore setback, and side yard setback. The Applicants are proposing to decrease hardcover in the 0-75* setback to 45 square feet, and increasing the amount of hardcover in the 75-250' setback to 45.1 percent. Bottenberg noted the overall structural coverage on this lot with this proposal will be 19.3 percent. Bottenberg stated the existing residence was built in the 1960s, creating the existing side yard setbacks. City Staff is recommending reconfiguring the lakeside deck and keeping it at its present size of 285 square feet, which will eliminate the hardcover variance and encroachment into the 0-75' setback area. Staff also recommends leaving the sidewalk and driveway as is to allow for off street parking and a tum-around. Bottenberg stated the proposed side entrance is reasonable in size and is not excessive for the lot or size house. Bottenberg stated if the second story walls were to meet the 10 foot setback from the north lot line, this would create odd shaped rooms and cause problems with the layout of the second story. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn commented when she visited the site, the residence was already under construction and she was puzzled by what was new construction and what was existing. Hawn inquired why construction had commenced prior to the application being heard by the Planning Commission. Bergman stated he has spoken with the City's building inspector regarding this proposal. The construction that is presently undenway is outside the sideyard setback and a building permit was issued to allow commencement of that work. Bergman stated the property owners would like to have the work completed by April. Bergman stated the new construction is over the existing foundation, and the work requiring variances has not been commenced at this time. Hawn inquired whether the new enclosed porch is entirely out of the 0-75' setback. Bergman stated the enclosed, porch is outside the 0-75' setback, with the existing deck encroaching into the 0-75' suback. Kluth noted the Applicants are proposing to increase the structural coverage on this property. Bergman stated they ‘^oKing at expanding the entryway. Kluth inquired whethe< tr'c of the deck could be reduced slightly to lower the amount of structural coverage. Bergman commented tonight was the first time they heard there was a different between hardcover and structural coverage. Kluth stated the deck would be considered structural. Page 31 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2568 Anthony Patterson, Continued) Hawn commented the Planning Commission is reluctant to approve structural coverage which exceeds the allowable 15 percent. Kluth stated he does not have a problem with the proposed setbacks. Kluth stated the concrete sidewalk would be considered hardcover. Kluth stated if the deck is reduced by ten square feet, structural coverage would be reduced to 18.2 percent, which is the existing amount of structural coverage on the property. Smith suggested the Applicants keep the structural coverage at the existing limit, noting the code allows up to 15 percent structural coverage. Hawn suggested the Applicants revise their plan in an effort to reduce the overall structural coverage on the property. Smith noted City Staff is recommending reconfiguration of the lakeside deck and keeping it at its present size, which will eliminate the need for a hardcover variance and encroachment into the 0-75' setback area. Bergman inquired whether patio stones are considered hardcover. Smith stated they would be counted as hardcover. Smith inquired whether the Applicants would like their application tabled to allow them time to revise their plan. Kluth noted the sideyard is grandfathered in. Kluth recommended this application be tabled. Patterson inquired whether the application could proceed forward if they keep the hardcover and structural coverage at the existing limits. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to review the revised plan before approving it. Hawn stated she would not be comfortable approving this application prior to seeing a revised plan. Smith indicated she was in agreement with Hawn and that the Planning Commission really needs to review the revised plan to see exactly what is being proposed before approval is given. Hawn advised the Applicant to have the application tabled. Patterson requested the application be tabled. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2558, Anthony Patterson, 1780 Shadywood Road, to allow the Applicant tinie to submit a revised plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 32 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION-COMMENTS (#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON NOVEMBER 22,1999 AND DECEMBER 13,1999, AND JANUARY 10, 2000 This item was not discussed. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Mayor Jabtx>ur suggested City Staff discuss the applications directly with the Applicants prior to their appearance at the Planning Commission meeting to avoid any confusion regarding hardcover and structural coverage limits. Jabbour stated plastic '-■ sidered hardcover, noting that the City Council also requests that the residents remc.o che plastic underlayment whenever possible. Kluth commented the Planning Commission needs to have as much information as possible regarding an application in order to make an informed decision. Mayor Jabbour thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts on developing the City ’s stormwater management plan. Smith suggested the Planning Commission consider holding a December meeting in an effort to avoid the lengthy meetings in January and February. (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 22.1999 Hawn requested the taped portion of the November 22,1999 meeting concerning the Edin application be reviewed to see if structural coverage was discussed. (#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JANUARY 25. 2000 AND FEBRUARY 8. 2000 January 25 • Berg February 8 • Smith ADJOURNMENT Nygard moved. Smith seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 12:36 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn, Chair Page 33