The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-20-2000 Planning Packet!• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 20,2000—6:30 p.m. 2780 KcUcy Parkway —Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Charles Kelley audience MEMBERS: Please sign in for the pubUc 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 Commbsion is an advbory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the April 10,2000, City CouncU meeting unless otherwfae noted by the Chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings, OLD BUSINESS 1.#2551 Thomas Michael Randgaard, 2765 Shadywood Road, Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 2.#2543 Ted Edin, 3025 Casco Point Road, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 p.m. 3.#2567 Walfred Properies, 2380 and 2364 Shadywood Road, 3326 Navarre Lane, and address unassigned (17-117-23 44 0078), Zoning Code Amendment, Variances, Vacation and Commercial Site Plan. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). NEW BUSINESS 4.#2562 Cornerstone New Testament Church, 850 Wayzata Blvd., Conditional Use Permit and Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 5.#2564 6.#2565 William Scott Dampicr, 3550 Ivy Place, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). Peter Sche cr, 5* prono Orchard Road South, Variance Renewal. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). 7.#2566 James Langhans, 1366 Rest Point Road, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). i;- SKETCH PLAN 8.#2563 Mike and Ruth Filbrandt, 3960 Bayside Road, Sketch Plan Review. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 9.Report of Planning Conunission representatives attending Council meetings on February 28 2000 and March 13,2000. 10.Other issues for discussion. 11.Planning Commission approval of minutes for November 22,1999 and February 23,2000. 12.Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on March 27,2000 and April 10,2C ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance Meeting D ate 3 -Ov □COUNCIL ISl Planning C ommission □PARK C ommission □OTHER X V'i -;r--r- tVi;;V;'V*: ‘ !v v • ''' '--v::•••'ii?::-: v i > ;i>V;;' :::.v v•• ^ ■;/ v ■, ; v . . . :-v ; ::yv..;,v;A:’■ ' pPLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION I ^QUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ........ NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.. % ■K [)M\Pi^e ^ AtJ.ytL-cP^' ^■^50 'Tj J^ 4.P)CiJf»_____Hl<?0 AUlmIcJ^ ^ r^AdLKi U^Mt/AAShi c X,.Ar>( J,i ^lys^ f ^ ^ - y ^ s. 6. 7 ~r^L AAs \?!>V0 '0'»>»l. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.. 13. 14.. 15.. Im •— O ifr I A 8 O X •V a s ss £ D9 C (/) 2 O• •s I m D I or*a CD Gc/1 ?f §ifn O £ >sasf* 2 1 C/lc/1 s8<% ^H|SII rts Ot: § I • •s* i-I? § 8 ;? & o e. s. t < Qg_P nn i! i oc/i il?l? I Isr B 1 sr ■' I •9 Ms s it >* a C/l ->^/l o C/l §^ £o 3 M (A I I 3 :s •3 “ •« f < r hTo ^ I I J I 90M •De S* ( 9 B 3 3 TSa.o •» ? S- 5 W 11 1 a. 2.s » a i-BT • ^ ? &. M 8 P I s I 5 p r •? <5. § O8. P I » «• t I Ill llil Bi •<s I ►o M § i I 0 1 •V ilm /f TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner March 20,2000 SUBJECT:#2SS1 Thomas Randgaard 2765 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Permit to permit extension to a permanent dock Zoning Dbtrict:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Tbt of Exbibib A B C D E F Application Plat Map LMCD Permit Letter (Dated 6/22/99) LMCD Letter (Dated 10/23/9^) Site Plan Property Owners List Summary of Request: Mr. Randgaard has submitted an application for a conditional use permit, per Code Section lO.SS, 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 firom 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 permib to relocate the existing dock to ib present location, but no permib 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. *255! Thomas Randptard 276S Shadywood Road CoadUUmal Ust FtmU March 20, 2000 Pats I 1 LMCD Permit Greg Nybeck, Executive Director of the LMCD, has stated the Hennepin County Sheriff’s 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. In discussions with Mr. Randgaard, both sides have t^ed that the entire north side of the dock cannot be used for parking of additional boats. Staff has communicated its concern about any parking on the north side of the dock. Mr. Randgaard has stated he would be willing to have a condition of approval that no parking would be allowed on the 14' dock extension and no more than one boat would be permitted to dock on the north side of the structure. The LMCD has stated they do not have a provision to prohibit parking of boats in this location. 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 Plaiming Commission discusses with the applicant the issue of boat storage on the north side of the dock, it continues to be Sta^s position that no parking shall be permitted on the north side of the dock. t2SSl Thomas Remdgoard 2765 Shadywood Road ComliUoHal Ust Ptrmil March 20. 2000 Pagtl ,ta_rarv IIIIIIII IMlI I IMBM ■Irf ■■HH J m Application #255" I Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPUCATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address SDcoST ^ViAdjuIMOdA oeouo ko SSi.% I Type of ^plication to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)I V“\-—CKDGiO FLIC ANT (home) Nam e \ewv\______________ Phone (work) Address A,Chy Qgot«>o Zipji£2il OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address .Chy Zip, Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application X!^ $175.00 Residential Accessoiy Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more , ____ Grading, seawall, reudning walls within 75' of lakeshore 1 PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change firom original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee U OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Conunercial Site Plan Re^ew (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____S350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule ( I �/-//7- ,, . , . 'I. • :··1 ·•.·. ••• •. I • • ( .. ) . ., ..: Ill ,. •• 6 .. , .. I I , , I ,' ( ) , I I ' I 'l ,, BOARD MEMBERS Oouglu E. Bibcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bart Fostar Vica Chair, Daaphavan Eugana Partyka Sacrataiy, Minnatrista Craig Nalson Traasurar, Spring Park Andraa Ahrant Mound Bob Ambrosa Wayzata KantOahlan Minnato'^ka Baach Craig Eggars Victoha Tom Qiirran Exca'si:r Qrag Kitcnak Minnatonka USMcMman Orono Robart Rascop Shorawood Harb J. Suarth Woodland ShaldonWart Qraanwcod 50% Ptcydtd Cc"ttnt 10% ^Otl Coniwin«r Wtftt (D LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVO. • 3==?HAVSN. M.NNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 • FAX 612/745-9085 Gragory S. Nyback, EXECUTIVE DIRECTORJune 22, 1999 Mr. Thomas Rangard 2765 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 inspection. If the size, location, or configuration of the dock is changed in the future, a new permanent dock license application would be required. A new permanent dock license is not required for repair or replacement if it does not alter the size, type, location, or configuration of the dock. If you choose to deice around the dock, a separate deicing permit is required annually. Feel free to call me if you have questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Roger L. Winberg Administrative Te^nlcian end: site plan •t3t •*• cc: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Ceil Strauss, MN DNR VJtt Page Address: httpV/www.wintemet.confi/-.lmcd/ E-mail Address: lmcdOwinternet.com L... >V ^ \o •• • QoC ^ & :■ \ ^ w • • • \fi®i!Vw'ii® JUN 11 1999 i ••-** ;.i .**1 *"/ i •♦*•»v\ } \, L BU\RD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay BartFoatar Vioa Chair. Oaaphavan Eugana Paityka Sacrattwy, Mnnotiista Craig Nalson Traaaurar, Spring Park AndraaAhrana Mound BobAmbroM Wayaala KaniDahlan MinnalonfcaBaach Craig Eggara Victoria TomOaman EKcaialor QragNiehak Minnalonka UU McMillan Orono RobartRaacop Shorawood Harb J. Suarlh Woodland ShaldonWort Qraanwood o ■0%n«eycMOoMM 10% SWI ContuMr WMiW D LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVO. • OEEPHAVEN. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 812/745-0789 • FAX 612/745-9085 October 13, 1^Oragory S. Nyback. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Thomas Rangard 2765 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 ^a I <-----/ ••' ■•• Dear Mr. Rangard: T-arr* last week, we discussed the permanent dock permit application that was approved for your 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 the area. On the morning of 10/12/99,1 met with Lt. Ken Schilling of the Hennq>ifl' County Sheriffs Water Patrol to further investigate this issue. Based on our review, we have dftfpnin*^ 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, 1 am still concerned that boats being stored on the north ude of the dock could obstruct reasonable access to other docks on the east-end of the Cove. It is your responsibili^ 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 matter! Sincerely, LAKE MINNETO Grego^ Nybcck CONSERVATION DISTRICT Executive Director End: Code excerpt CC: Lt. Ken Schilling, Henn. Co. Sheriffs Water Patrol Mr. Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Ms. Ceil Strauss, MN DNR Web Peoe Addrest: hltp:/A«iww.winl#mel.com/-lmcd/ ea ____ __ * - - ^ ^ ^ — *■•niail Addrese: lmcdOwintemet.com iiaw ■■ riM II iiemn itii 4 — i i ■ nieui i Bi liTii r Iipi r eri Till ■tiinuwi eif n - i.-'i*'^• J^:'\ ^ c'v :A%a ^ . v.x<^7; •'^ '»‘’s n 1 r^cC,’ w7 'V 4>V. -r . vv--*7 V •'" ”- ;>•, per; . \'0«'- •./■ ••« . .1 lK2400tt.O ill"® ii n w Effl JUN 11 1999 ■^c- t.^^^K;^o“• fF./^;-«JL .,.,. $ lsJEC� LT iUN MTC 11/04/99 MTCN its nnr mm OMNEi NMI TAXPAVEi NAfC/ABM U 21-117-2S 23 0014 00050 AMRESS U<IASS10NED fNEASANT LANN WMEONNERS PHEASANT LAWN HONEOWNERS 2700 PlEASANT 00 EXCELSIOR MN 5SS51 HEttaPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 30 21<117-23 24 0003 02705 0NAOVWOOD RO 0 0 t J N FOX OAYLORO 0 I JON NARIE FOX 2705 SHAOYWOOO RD EXCELSIOR NN 55JS1 REPORT NO. PX4S5401 PACE 20 ■Mitt 30 21*117-23 24 0004 02725 SNAOYNOOD RD H D I R A MEEK NICNAEL D « RO0ERTA A HEEK 7775 SNAOvtIOIJO RO EXCELSIOR MN S5531 PROP AMR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR TAXPAYER NAME/AZX M 21-117-23 24 1005 02735 SNADYNOM RO R 0 0AY- 0 S L OAY RXCNARO CAY t SUE OAY 2735 SNAOYWOOD M EXCELSIOR NN 55331 30 21-117-2S 24 0020 00030 AOORESS UNASSXONED TNOHAS J CASEY ETAL TNONAS J CASEY 2705 SNMYWOOO M EXCELSXM NN 55331 30 21-117-23 24 0009 02775 SNAOYWOM M R K OLSON TRUSTEE lONNXE K OLSON 2775 SNAOYWOM RO EXCELSIOR NN 55331 30 21-117-23 24 0021 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO i K OLSON TRUSTEE RONNIE X OLSON 2775 SNAOYWOM RO EXCELSXM MN 55331 30 21-117-23 24 0014 00030 ADDRESS UNASSXCNEO RAVIO C COOK RAWXO C COOK M0 W HILLSIDE M NAY2ATA NN 55391 30 21-117-23 2* 0020 00030 ADDRESS UNASSXCNEO JANES 0 OXNTNER ET AL JANES 0 OXNTNER UNOXVXOEO TAXPAYER NAHE/ARM 10 21-117-23 24 0029 00030 AOORESS UNASSXCNEO RCATRXCE 0 CARLSON RXCNAM 0 OAY 0 SUE L OAY 2735 SNAOYWOM RO EXCELSIM NN 55331 SO 21-117-23 24 0032 02720 SNAOYWOM RO R A KVAH 0 J C KVAM TRUSTEES JOHN C 0 0EVERLEE A KVAN 2720 SNAOYWOM RO EXCELSIM NN 55331 50 21-117-23 24 0040 02700 SNAOYWOM M C S LXNOLEY 0 J 0 LXNDLEY C S LXNDLEY 0 J 0 LXNOLEY 2700 SNAOYWOM M EXCELSXM NN 55331 TAXPAYER NANE/ARM 30 21-117-23 24 0041 02700 SNAOYWOM M W R WITTHER 0 S K WXTTNER W R WXTTNER 0 S K WXTTNER 2700 SNADYNOM RO rXCELSXM NN 55331 30 21-117-23 24 0054 02705 SHMYMM RO T J CASEY 0 S 0 CASEY TNONAS J CAUY 2705 SNAOY WOM RD EXCELSXM NN 55331 30 21-117-23 24 0059 02771 SNMYNOM M R 0 0 N J O0LE RXCNAM 0 0 NARLYS J OCLE 2771 SNAOYWOM M EXCELSXM NN 55331 TAXPAYER NANE/ARM S0 21-117-23 24 0000 02705 SNAOYWOM M TNONAS N RANDOAAM TNONAS N RANDOAAM 2705 SNAOYWOM M EXCELSXM NN S533I 30 21-117-23 24 0001 00030 AOORESS UNASSXCNEO JOHN P TNINNESN TNONAS P NURER 2015 SNAOYWOM M EXCELSXM NN 55331 30 21-117-23 24 0002 00030 ADDRESS UNMSXCNM ROYS WXTTNAN ROYO WXTTNAN f 5455 TEAL CXR SNOREWOM NN 55331 •' ^r»* ^ • f ifim ■UN MfE U/M/99 MTCN S*S liriMEPIN COUNTY PtOTEOTV INPOUHATION SYSTEM PROPEOTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PMSMRl PACE 27 TAXPAYER NAHE/ABIM U El>il7*<S 2A RMS MAS# AWRESS UNASSICNEO D H1E6EL • J mEREL •ONAtD R A JUDITN D lUEOEL MS SULLIVJM RR COLUNilA NEX6HTS HN S5A21 TAXPAYER NAME/ABM SR a-117-2S Si •••2 •tTM SNASVMOOR RR R R S P A RECK STEVEN R 1 PERRY A RECK tm SNARYNORR RR EXCELSIOR HN SBSSl TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR TOTAL RATCN Its MI2A 1 , xn-Hp* . N I ;S>r 1 SR 21-117-2S 2A RtM RETSR SHARYWMD RR JOHN L PIEREUORN JOHN L PXEREUORN 27St SNAOYHOQO RR EXCELSIOR HN B5SS1 SR a-il7-2S M RtRS •27AR SNAOYNOOO RO ELAINE T PARRNXS ELAINE T PARONXS 27AR SNAOYVQOO RO EXCELSIOR HN S5SS1 SR a*il7-2S Si RRRS R27AS SHARVNOOO RD JANES E ZXHHERHAN JANES E ZXHHERHAN 27AS SNAOYNOOO RO EXCELSIOR HN BSSSi SR 2i-ii7-2S SZ ORRA RZRRR PHEASANT RO RALPH R RURCESS JR RALPH R RURCESS JR* CEO FOOO ENOINEERINO CORPORAHON 27RS NXAOARA LAN PLYMOUTH HN SSM7 X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS RSPRESOfTED ARE AN ACCURATE AMO TRUE REPrSeNTA^ of INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS OATE ON THE RECOROS OF TOE HEIRIEPIM COUNTY REPARTHEHT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE REST OF NY KNOMLEOOE ANR RELIEF. DATE / I i. f 'kv' f4 f I ■ r. .-Eii!. TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Pon Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner March 20,2000 SUBJECT:#2543 TedEdin 3025 Casco Point Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Dirstrict:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 Acre) Lot Area:15,370 s.f. (.35 acres) LbtofEihibits A B C D E F G H 1 J Application Revised Site Plan Letter to applicant explaining hardcover and structural coverage Average Lakeshore Setback Plat Map Location Map Planning Conunission Minutes (January 19,2000) Staff Report (January 19,2000) Planning Commission Minutes (November 15,1999) Staff Report (November 15,1999) Pertinent Code Sections: 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. Variance Request: To permit the deck to encroach 55' into the average lakeshore setback. 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LX2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75- 250' of the shoreline here shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 6,118.45 (67.7%), where 6,960 s.f. (77.11%) exists and 2,256.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. m4i Ted/Judy Edin 3025 Casco Point Road Variance 3/20/2000 Page / 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 structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Variance Request: To permit 3,576.45 s.f (23.2%) of lot coverage, where 3,589 s.f. (23.3%) exists and 2,305 s.f. (15%) is allowed. Planning Commission Recommendation and Application Summary: The Planning Commission voted on November 15, 1999 and January 19,2000 to table the application so the applicant could redesign a lakeside deck to conform more with Orono’s zoning code. The applicants have applied for variances to replace an existing second story deck on the lakeside of the house. The deck, floor boards and joists that were built into the house originally are rotting. The deck extends 4' from the house and is the full width of the house (54.2'). In addition to replacing the existing deck the applicant is proposing to add a small section onto the deck. The section would be approximately 8' x 12' to allow a sitting area. The house was built in 1959 at its present location and has not been added onto. The driveway is shared with neighbors through an easement and the lot is undersized for its zoning district. Brief Summary of proposed changes: The applicants were advised by the Planning Commission to stay within the square footage of the existing deck with no increase in structural or hardcover coverage on the lot. The new site plan (Exhibit B) is attached. The Planning Commission tabled the application at the request of the applicants. The applicants have revised the plans addressing the following concerns: Structural Coverage: The existing structural coverage for the lot is 3,589 s.f. (23.3%), including the existing deck which is 216.8 s.f. The redesigned deck is 204.45 s.f., a reduction of 12.55 square feet. The reduction of the deck reduces the structural coverage on the lot to 3,576.45 s.f. (23.2%). A variance is still needed for lot coverage. Hardcover Coverage: The hardcover percentage in the 75-250' setback area is currently 6,960 s.f (77.11%). The removal of landscape fabric on the lot (829 s.f) and redesign of the deck reduces the hardcover from 6,960 s.f (77.11%) to 6,118.45 s.f. (67.7%). A variance is still required for hardcover within the 75-250* setback area. Average Lakeshore Setback: The redesigned deck does not encroach further into the average lakeshore setback. It will be located approximately 24' from the property line and will not hinder the adjacent neighbor’s views of the lake. Because of the unusual lot configuration to the north, the existing deck encroaches 55' into the average lakeshore setback. (See Exhibit D). A variance is still needed for average lakeshore setback. m43 Ted/Judy Edin 3024 Casco Point Road Variance 3/20/2000 Page 2 ANALYSIS Lot Area; LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f.(.5acre)100’ Actual 15,370 s.f. (.35 acre)50’ Hardcover Calculations: Structural Coverage; Statement of Hardship ; Distance from Shore Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0’-75 ’6,344 s.f.0 s.f. (0%)628 s.f (9.9%) 628 s.f - no change 75 ’-250’9,026 s.f 2,256.5 s.f. (25%) 6,960 s.f (77.11%) 6,118.45 s.f (67.7%) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 15,370 s.f Allowed: 2,305.5 s.f (15%) Existing: 3,589 s.f (23.3%) Proposed: 3,576.45 s.f (23.2%) The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration ; 1.The residence was built in 1957 in its current position. There have not been any additions or changes to the original residence. The lot and average lakeshore setback is unusual because of the lot configuration to the north. U2543 Ted/Judy Edin 3025 Casco Point Road Variances 3/20/2000 Page 3 r i ..1 2.The joists of the deck are rotting and were built into the house and need to be replaced. 3.Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation; Staff makes the following recommendations: 1.Approve the variances for lot coverage, hardcover coverage in the 75-250' setback area, and average lakeshore setback. 2.A new survey to show revisions be submitted to City staff for approval before building permit will be issued. »2543 Ted/Judy Edin 3025 Casco Point Road Variances 3/20/2000 Page 4 A K l')2) AppHcadoii # Date Received /fi ^ Amount Paid cm* OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Rene>val Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Pmpertv Identification Number 3lO • /H ‘^3 3s _ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired >1 WH __________________(month/year) I (do) noj) also own the adjacW parcels of land. Presentuse m property: V residential ___other (specify)_____________________ Zoning District:\C_____________________________________________ APPLICANT^ Name i.A- A3dreJ[r~'ioZ'f Co>u*> Phone thome ^ *■/ Phone fworic l City: — Zip: S-S-3iV ’-J 0\^7s£R (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work).5 Address:City:.Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estiaiated Construction Cost $.1 (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance witii Zoning Code requirements:__________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) Theodore & Judith Edin - 3025 Casco Point Road - Orono Description of Request - from page one A need to rebuild portions of the deck from second floor - home built in 1959 -Deck extends 4’ from house, full width of house, with door leading directly from living room. As such it is the main and natural exit to the lawn and lake beyond the house. Several underlying supports show signs of rotting - a danger in the near future Surfrice of the deck was attached with regular nails, now some boards are rising at the end point where they are attached and cannot be nailed flat any longer - nails do not hold down Some of the deck boards are showing cracks and curling on the outer edges Our request is to: Strengthen the supports where they are showing rot Replace the deck with boards attached properly with screws, spaced to drain water below Replace the raUiiigs with horizontal “spacers’ most likely - installed to current code for spacers between each post Add a snudl section, approximately 8’at the deepest point, and wide enough for a small table about 4’ diameter and 4 small chairs. See two rough drawings as ideas for deck extension The entire roof overiiang above the deck is very generous and collects the water from the roof which drains down on either side of the house, and into the ground/lawn beneath and either end of the deck. Our plans are to retain the lawn/grasses beneath the deck extension, with no hardcover added. The only area we have changed, involving hardcover, is behind the garage. The replacement was fribric with “slots ”- draining the rain fall into the ground on purpose, to support the growth of large pine trees which grow along the north side, behiiKi the garage. As a result, wedk do grow in die summer, but the pine trees do flourish. All rainfall on the south side of the home drains from the roof, above and beyond the rocks and plastic in this area, onto the grassy areas beyond them and drains into the lawn below the house on the lake side. The two drain pipes idiich acctnnplish this are in place at all times but are removed during the winter months so ice does not back up into the gutters above them. Likewise, the rain from the entire north side of the house/garage drains into gutters and is carried into the ground from two points at each end of the gutters. If necessary to make a trade-off we will remove the plastic from the area below the entire present deck and add a few plantings. A 9 ) i “ 7 ' 6 r *• \ SITE PLAN \ \ I U- SCALE: 1 " • 30' 00-0009 t JOB NUMBER TED 4 JUDY EDN i CUSTOMER NAME 302» CASCO POMT ROAD i STREET UJATXATA >OTY 6D-41I-S621 I HOMEPNONE N/A 1 UI0RK PNONE THIS/ N/A 1 UlORK PMOie OCRS) DECK ADDITION •CONSTRICTION TYPE DOUaSELLE •SALESMAN N/A 1 PROJECT MANAfiER BRANDON nUTER <DESUNEDBY FEBRJARY M. 3000 •DATE O 1 1ST REVISION 0 t 2ND REVISION 1 i i>- ^aa-EDN-Ai- CONSTRUCTED BY PANELCRAFT OF MINNESOTA, INC.BJt CP CITYor OBONO Municipal Oflkcs Strait Mdrits: 2750 Kai:«} Pariiway Orono, MN 55356 MaiNiif Mdra ts: P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 January 27,2000 Ted and Judy Edin 3025 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Application #2543 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Edin: Per your request, this letter details Orono ’s zoning code regulations and options that were discussed at the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Also enclosed are some explanatory materials regarding hardcover (structural and non-structural) and structural coverage, as well as a letter for you to sign and return to waive the standard 120 day review period. Hardcover The amount of total hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area on your lot is currently 77.11%. This includes structural hardcover (things that are constructed such as buildings, decks, etc.) and non-structural hardcover (surfaces such as landscape beds underlaid with plastic or weed control fabric, sidewalks, driveways, etc.). In this setback area, Orono ’s zoning code allows 25% total hardcover. By removing black plastic or landscape fabric in this area the non-structural hardcover will be reduced and the total hardcover amount will be reduced. City Council Resolution #4006 adopted in 1997 (attached) clarifies the City’s intent that all plastic/fabric landscaping material be removed when variances are requested and existing hardcover exceeds the allowed percentages. Structural Coverage The structural coverage (the percentage of the entire lot area that is covered by structures) for your lot is currently 23.3%. The proposed bump-out on the deck will increase your structural lot coverage to 23.9%. Orono ’s zoning code limits structural coverage to just 15% for lots less than 2 acres in size. The Planning Commission discussed the amount of structural coverage and hardcover existing on your lot, and how your proposal to replace the deck affects these calculations. Their comments included: The hardcover percentage in the 75-250' setback area is currently 77.11 %. This is much higher than the allowed 25% and Planning Commission would like to see what can be removed to lower the number significantly. Removal of landscape fabric behind the garage (829 s.f.) and conversion of this area to grass or a similar non-hardcover surface will decrease the hardcover amount to 68.9%. Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 r i .1.iiM%l■■ll nfirr I Ted & Judy Edin January 27,2000 Page 2 The structural coverage cunently is at 23.3% and Planning Commission would like to see it not increase above that percentage. To accomplish this, the proposed deck would need to be kept at the same square footage as what currently exists- 216.8 square feet. Also, all parts of the deck and steps must be kept outside of the 0-75' setback area (Note that replacement of the deck at the existing square footage will still require a variance). Please sign and return the 120-day review period waiver letter. If you have any other questions, please feel free to call me at 249-4600. Sincerely, Assistant Zoning Administrator end. ji TED EDIN S A & B. R.L.S. NO. 394 IN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 36 ±-’ "35±‘ \ 33±-“--Y ^ ^.... -.^\ /. T^<45)i§>y 39 " -^r-n-r -?. - sV \ ■\ vj'\ <l' (?■< •> V !\0 (27)77 <7\r^ s'-\ # Tii^i i ^ ^~^}yfr.&: / / \9A .V \<D \ -o^TSryr y \ 15 yyic DOC MO 166757 • • • • \ V tD u O \ \\Jd \i X 254 Shad^^)od Point \\- B DEERINO ^\\ ra icf Av Vrm~bl^V ^ I ^ V ' •. /^/ P A \ • / *•/ Crystal q^LAND ..'f.Paga’nejsrani, ?oafoT5o!?-i //^ • • ODDIM/^ S55i_--ii!;-s^PAm ,*“i-6- tq Io wn o g9M| PTjfT^Mrrv^ SMORILINE l-KUITU t^Mimin tn , XUNOALC RO CMMli iSIl15!? E 1 r^wmucmMM ' Spring •. • isimii•^mwmmtn m2 Carnti ■51 j ^ witijrMW yA UTTTTl ^GOOSE ' ‘^5-=::^ ISLAND * • • •• * • P^SHADY - /. W>x ISLAND Vv / SPRAY |ISL^^tD *• • *« A • • # ^ • 's' t f s'**'kto i- if 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 PERMITA/ARIANCE, 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 additjpKal information on this application. Weinberger stated he has had very little contact with tl^ffApplicant, with no additional information having been submitted. Hawn noted this application has been called on ti4o separate occasions, with no appearance by the Applicant or a representative on his be^f. Hawn stated this application cannot be approved without the additional informatioiylMing submitted. Hawn inquired whether the 60 day review period needs to be extended. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, statedjhe City does have the right to extend the 60 day review period under State Statutes wittM^t the Applicant's consent. Hawn suggested this applip^ion be extended to allow the Applicant time to submit the additional information. Hawn moved, Kli^leconded, to continue the denial of Application #2540, Bradley Hoyt, 2623 Kelly Avemra, After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit/Variance, and to return this matte r back toVw City Council for their review. Barrett notbd the Applicant has received two letters from the City outlining the requirements of the pify 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 deined. 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 6- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2543 T«d 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 ^uare feet of hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. The Applicant is proposing to replace an existing second story deck on the lakeside of the house 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 88.9 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 cover&ge could be reduced on this property. Edin reiterated he was not aware the structural coverage needed to be reduced. .1 Page 19 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19,2000 (#2543 T«d and JudHh Edin, Continuad) Stoddard commented he would like City Staff to take the time to discuss this appiicatlon with the Applicant, especiaily 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 Appiicant 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 aliowed to buiid the deck as proposed since structurai coverage was net 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 (#2543 T#d 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 RANDGAARD. 2765 SHADYWOOD ROAD - .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 10:07 p.m. -10:30 p.m. Thomas Randgaard, Applicant, was not present. Weinbe^r stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit a 14 foot extensionWan existing dock. The dock is located in Lake Minnetonka and is under the jurisdiction ofthe 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 op^Mte shore. Weinberger indicated Ih# permit for a permanent dock was issued in 1993 City Staff is recommending^proval of the conditional use permit to permit a permanent dock extension of 14 feet, subjectl^he following conditions: 1.The Applicant maintains an actlVa license with the LMCD. 2.The dock does not cause navigation^K^roblems or obstruct access within the channel. 3.Future replacement or alteration of the doak will require a new conditional use permit from the City of Orono. Weinberger stated there is nothing within the City*sO<^e which prohibits docks from being located on a resident's property. Jim Zimmerman. 2745 Shadywood Road, stated he has seiHsa letter, along with Nick Ogle, to the City outlining their concerns regarding this application. Ximmerman expressed concerns regarding this dock application due to the use of this property asyparty house and not a live*in residence. iZimmerman stated an extension to the dock wilhqllow for increased boat traffic in the area, as well as the size of the boats being currently docw at this residence. Zimmerman stated in his view there does not exist 120 feet between the pb(manent dock and the opposite shore, and an extension to the dock would cause the channel to'iw narrowed even further, which causes concerns as it relates to the safe passage of boats flvpugh the channel. Zimmerman indicated this property currently has two docks located on the property, in violation of City Code. If this application is to be approved, Zimmerman requested the following conditions be added. Page 21 . i 5 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 14,2000 SUBJECT:#2543 TedEdin 3025 Casco Point Road Variances — Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 Acre) Lot Area:15,370 s.f. (.35 acres) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. To permit the deck to encroach 58’ into the average lakeshore setback. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit a hardcover variance to allow 7,032 s.f. (77.9%) where 6,960 s.f. (77.11%) exists and 2,256.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C): In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. To permit 3,661 s.f. (23.8%) of lot coverage. Application Summar - ‘ The applicants proposal to replace an existing deck and adding a small bump out section, 8' x .was tabled at the November 15,1999 Planning Commission meeting. The applicants are proposing to replace the existing deck, add the bump out section, and remove 829 s.f. of hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing second story deck on the lakeside of the house. The deck, floor boards and Joists that were built into the house originally are rotting. The deck extends 4' from the house and is the full width of the house. In addition to replacing the existing deck the applicant is proposing to add a small section onto the deck. The section would be approximately 8’ X 12' to allow a sitting area. The house was built in 1959 at its present location and has not been added onto. The driveway is shared with neighbors through an easement and the lot is undersized for its zoning district. H2543 TedEdin 3025 Casco Point Road Variance 1/14/00 Page I H ANALYSIS Area: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre)100' Actual 15,370 s.f (.35 acre)50’ Hardcover Calculations: Distance from Shore Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0’-75'6,344 s.f 0 s.f (0%)628 s.f (9.9%)628 s.f - no change 75’-250'9,026 s.f 2,256.5 s.f (25%) 6,960 s.f (77.11%) 6,227 s.f (68.9%) Structural Coverage : Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 15,370 s.f Allowed: 2,305.5 s.f (15%) Existing: 3,589 s.f (23.3%) Proposed: 3,685 s.f (23.9%)- (8'xl2' added area) Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. H2543 Ted Edin 3024 Casco Point Road Variances PC’l/14/00 Page ‘2 i .JK^ Issues for Consideration : 1 .The residence was built in 1957 in its current position. There have not been any additions or changes to the original residence. The lot and average lakeshore setback is unusual because of the lot configuration to the north. 2.The joists of the deck are rotting and were built into the house and need to be replaced, 3.Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.i Staff Reconunendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances to rebuild the deck the same dimensions as exists. Exhibits A Application B Letter from applicant C Site Plan/Survey D Plat Map E Location Mq) F Average Lakeshore Setback G Hardcover Worksheets H Property Owner's List 1 Permit Record 4 »2543 TedEdin 3025 Casco Point Road Variancts PC-l/14/00 page-3 A *Appficatioii # Date Received ^ Amount Paid 2.S*0^ cm* 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-die-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ ^^^ Site Address 3 o ^ o-S co ^3 T 3 if / Property Identification Number (PJ.D.^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ____________________(month/year) I (do) noj) also own the adjacent parcels Presentusc“ofproperty: ^ residentid _ Zoning District:\C____________ other (specify). APPLICANT^ Name 1 l's> & Address: 3oZ'^Pr- 0^^*^^ER (if different than applicant) Name _______________________ City: Phone fliome^ ^ 7 (— Phone (work)____ 2^Zip: S-:T3if '*‘-i Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $. ^attach additional sheets if necessary) _ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width X' Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear __ Average Lake^ore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:____________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) Theodore & Judith Edin - 3025 Casco Point Road - On Description of Request • from page one A need to rebuild portions of the deck from second floor - home built in 1959 -Deck extends 4* from house, full width of house, with door leading directly from living room. As such it is the main and natural exit to the lawn and lake beyond the house. Several imderlying supports show signs of rotting - a danger in the near future Surface of the deck was attached with regular nails, now some boards are rising at the end point where they are attached and cannot be nailed flat any longer - nails do not hold down Some of the deck boards are showing cracks and curling on the outer edges Our request is to: Strengthen the supports where they are showing rot Replace the deck with boards attached properly with screws, spaced to drain water below Replace the railings with horizontal '’spacers’ most likely - installed to current code for spacers between each post Add a small section, approximately 8 ’at the deepest point, and wide enough for a small table about 4* diameter and 4 small chairs. See two rough drawings as ideas for deck extension The entire roof overhang above the deck is very generous and collects the water from flie roof v^ch drains down on either side of the house, and into the ground/lawn beneath and either end of the deck. Our plans are to retain the lawn/grasses beneath the deck extension, with no hardcover added. The only area we have changed, involving hardcover, is behind the garage. The replacement was fabric with '‘slots ”- draining the rain frll into the ground on purpose, to support the growth of large pine trees which grow along the north side, bdiind the garage. As a result, weells do grow in the summer, but the pine trees do flourish. All rainfrdl on the south side of the home drains from the roof, above and beyond the rocks and plastic in this area, onto the grassy areas beyond them and drains into the lawn below the house on the lake side. The two drain pipes which accomplish this are in place at all times but are removed during the winter months so ice does not back up into the gutters above them. Likewise, the rain from the entire north side of the house/garage drains into gutters and is carried into the ground from two points at each end of the gutters. If necessary to make a trade-off we will remove the plastic from the area below the entire present deck and add a few plantings. c/s) a 6 "‘1^ T i r V y| r !i I •' I ♦ • 4 t i . I* I « I • I =i t ! . I . ' i I I I I • • *I i • i 11 6 0;.) i- .•••■» ED EDIN A & B. R.L.S. NO. 394 COUNTY, MINNESOTA E Arm ShadJ^ood Point \ j DEERINO vnomnii 1 Crystal vv' ■••'./?. V •* • Fog^rnessJ^nr . ••• : . X —^P^frnnHrrrv^ ■10131 rma TED EDIN S A & B. R.L.S. NO. 394 N COUNTY. MINNESOTA / •/ hc. t UA1U>CUVLK «-AL.V-Oi..v I M uivivdUL^i:. 1 G* SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-250’250-500’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House Length X X X B.Garage X C.Driveway X X D.Sidewalk X X E.Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House Length X X X B.Garage X C.Driveway X X D.Sidewalk X X E.Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B Width 1^5 4Z> 628 i X 100 9A ± Width S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.” COHCRFTf 5 s!f! S.F.-0^^*^ S.F.-$TOrt£ A'T.Z'S F.-ROCK AREf S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B Vo S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.h. S.F. S.F. •V^— S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. X 100 S.F. S.F. Vo A B • . • tlAlCDLU V t,K V-.ALi., I i..\ i SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75'^15-250[ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House X ____ Length X X X B.Garage C.Driveway X X D.Sidewalk X X E>Patio/Deck X •X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •*■ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE’ A.House X Length X X X B.Garage C.Driveway X X D.Sidewalk X X E.Patio/Deck X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X G.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ B 1.1 oi\i\.btill.L1 7^/9 %{(.Yow250-500’ 3509 S.F. - HOUSf __S.F.WAL __S.F.-U/«#0 WAt 220 ^7 1471 029 X 100 n s 8 X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.- S.F.-RO<K AR64 S.F. l-JrCP5 S.F. S.F. 69601 S.F. A ^026 t S.F. B 77.H t % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. - S.P.* * S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % MTCN SM ONNEII NMK TANfAVCi NANE/ABM M 2I-U7-25 M ttn •SASS CASCO POINT RD T OCRTNIAUNE/C RACHENNCISTER TMOHAS 0 OERTHIAUNE SR5S CASCO POINT ROAD HAYZATA HN SSSSl HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INPORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SO 2R-117-2S 34 ilOE •St25 CASCO POINT RD T R EDIN A J A EOIN THEODORE A JUDITH EDIN 3A25 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA HN S5S91 REPORT NO. PI4S54AI PAOE 10 SO 2A-117-2S 54 0M3 A5A15 CASCO POINT RD R 0 LAURIE ETAL R 0 LAURIE SAIS CASCO PT RD HAYZATA HN S5S41 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 2A-1I7-2S 54 0112 0SA4S CASCO POINT RD R A HASTENS ADC HASTENS RICNARD A/OAROARA C HASTENS SA45 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA HN SBS91 30 20-117-2S 54 0010 0S055 CASCO POINT RO JOHN P DENNIS ETAL JOHN P A EVY C DENNIS S055 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA HN 55591 PROP ADOR OWNER mm TAXPAYER NAHi/AOOR TOTAL OATCH SO 20-117-25 54 0024 0S005 CASCO POINT RD JANES R A CATHERINE HARTZELL JANES R A CATHERINE HARTZELL 2907 CASCO PT RO HAYZATA m 55591 V '1 00 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFOHNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE REST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND RELIEF. DATE 30i9S C cl -jcc /Qci PERMIT RECORD Pernit No.Date f»(-ilei nn^nhi/f>'i l(fS^___ nr* •f -• k't/’C'l S'/3>a9............. -3m ____-r -tS’ 7J 4-/4'^V H-3'^Ll /Z'9 L? T Type of Pernlt Lj^i*c of^^ C^'A I 0 A ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 T (1^542 Brace Hedblom, Continued) Bmc^edblom, Applicant, was present. Bottenber^s^ated the Applicant is proposing to remove an existing second story deck and replace it wthi a 10.6* by 23.4* three season porch and 10.6* by 9* wood deck. This proposal would not increase tne size of the space but would change the use. The space will consist primarily of the three seasoirtMrch and a small portion on the end will be deck. Hardcover in the 75-250* setback area will (main the same. Hedblom stated at thetime the house was originally constructed in 1972/1973, it met all the required building codes a^hat time. Hedblom noted the footprint of the house will not change with this proposal. Hedblom stabid he are interested in making the deck more usable by converting it to a three season porch. Hedblormqtated his adjoining neighbors do not object to this project. There were no public comments. Lindquist inquired why City Staff was r^mmending denial on this application. Bottenberg stated Staff was recommendin^enial of this application due to the excessive hardcover that currently exists on the property. Hedblom noted that the hardcover will remain the'^me. Lindquist commented that there is some plastic underl^ment that could be removed. Hedblom stated the plastic underiayment adjacent to the l^se is there for drainage purposes, but he would be willing to remove it if requested to do so. Lindquist stated he would like to see the plastic underiayment reribqyed. Lindquist noted he does not have a problem with the hardcover Hedblom noted that the residence is under the structural coverage limits Kluth stated he does not have a problem with the application. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application Brace Hedblom and Carol Cline-Hedblom, 2601 Casco Point Road, granting of a varies to lakeshore hardcover and granting of a variance to average lakeshore setback to^rmit construction of a three season porch and deck to replace an existing deck, subjeHjo the removal of the plastic and permeable underiayment and rock. VOTE: Ayes 6. Nays 1. Stoddard stated he voted against this application due to the increased structure in the average lakeshore setback. • (#6) #2543 TED EDIN, 3025 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES. 10:41 p.m. -10:52 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Ted Edin. Applicant, was present. Page 20 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2543 Ted Edin, Continued) Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to replace an existing second story deck or* the back on the house due to the deteriorating condition of the deck, floor boards and joi^. In addition to replacing the existing deck, the Applicant is proposing to add a small section onto the deck. The section would be approximately 6* by 12' to allow for a sitting area. Bottenberg stated the driveway is shared with neighbors through an easement and the lot is undersized for this zoning district. Hardcover would be increased from 77.11 percent to 77.9 percent. Total lot coverage on the lot would also be increased to 23.8 percent. Chair Hawn noted that the Applicants are replacing an existing deck. Edin commented that due to the shared driveway being located on their property, the hardcover for the lot is high. Edin stated they would be willing to remove some plastic undertayment and rock in an effort to reduce the hardcover on the property. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see less hardcover on this property. Smith commented the reason for less hardcover is to reduce the runoff into the lakes and streams, noting that a deck is considered hardcover as well as landscaped areas. There were no public comments. Bottenberg stated there is not a lot of area where hardcover could be reduced. Stoddard stated the issue before the Planning Commission tonight is whether they should be allowed to build over an existing structure and whether the size of the deck should be increased. Chair Hawn staled she has a hard time allowing additional hardcover on this property. Edin staled he would be willing to reduce the hardcover if possible, Hawn suggested the application be tabled to allow the Applicant time to reduce the hardcover on the property. Lindquist noted the Applicant currently has 77.1 percent hardcover and 23.3 percent structural coverage, where 15 percent is allowed, which the Planning Commission would not like to see increased. Lindquist stated reduction of the deck would count towards reduction of hardcover but not plastic undertayment or rock. Nygard stated the plastic undertayment will still need to be removed by the Applicant. Chair Hawn stated the Applicant has a right to have his application heard within 60 days, and inquired whether he would be willing to waive the 60 days. Edin stated he would be willing to waive the 60 days. Berg moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2543,3025 Casco Point Road, to allow the Applicant time to reduce hardcover on the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Item #10 was heard after item #11 Page 21 ORONO PLANNING COM>nSSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2543 Ted Edin, Continued) E ttenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to replace an existing second story deck on the b . ck on the house due to the deteriorating condition of the deck, floor boards and joists. In addition to replacing the existing deck, the pplicant is prop<‘. g tu add a small section onto the deck. The section would be approximately 6’ by 12* to allow for a sitting area. Bottenberg stated the driveway is shared with neighbors through an easement and the lot is undersized for this zoning district. Hardcover would be increased from 77.11 percent to 77.9 percent. Chair Hawn noted that the Applicants are replacing an existing deck. cidin commented that due to the shared driveway being located on their property, the hardcover for the lot is high. Edin stated they would be willing to remove some plastic underiayment and rock in an effort to reduce the hardcover on the property. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see less hardcover on this property. Smith commented the reason for less hardcover is to reduce the runoff into the l£kes and streams. There were no public comments. Bottenberg stated there is not a lot or area where hardcover could be reduced. Stodd'ird stated the Issue before the Planning Commission tonight is whether they should be allowed to build over an existing structure. Chair Hawn stated she has a hard time allowing additional hardcover on this property. Edin staled he would be willing to reduce the hardcover if possible. Smith suggested the application be tabfeJ allow the Applicant time to reduce the hardcover on the property. Lindquist commented that plastic underiayment and rock are generally not counted as hardcover. Nygard stated the plastic underiayment will still need to be removed by the Applicant. Chair Hawn stated the Applicant has a right to have his application heard within 60 days, and inquired whether he would be willing to waive the 60 days. Edin stated he wc..ld be willing to waive the 60 days. Berg moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2543,3025 Casco Point Road, to allow the Applicant time to reduce hardcover on the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Item #10 was heard after Item #11 Page 21 % TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner November 10,1999 SUBJECT;#2543 TedEdin 3025 Casco Point Road Variances - ublic Hearing Zoning District:LR-1C One Family Lakesliore Residential District (.5 Acre) Lot Area:15,370 s.f. (.35 acres) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.Sd, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. To permit the deck to encroach 58' into the average lakeshore setback. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LK2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit a hardcover variance to allow 7,032 s.f. (77.9%) where 6,960 s.f (77.11%) exists and 2,256.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C): In ail zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. To permit 3,661 s.f (23.8%) of lot coverage. / Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to replace an existing second story deck on tlie b^k of the house. The deck, floor boards and joists that were built into the house originally are fotting. The deck extends 4' from the house and is the full width of the house. In addition to replacing the existing deck the wplicant is proposing to add a small section onto the deck. The /section would be approximately'o x 12' to allow a sitting area. The house was built in 1959 and has , ^ * ij not been added onto. The driveway is shared with neighbors through an easement and the lot is \ 7 ■ wW *”undersized for its zoning district. it2543 TedEdin 3G25 Casco Point Road Variance II/I0/99 Page I S ANALYSIS Lot Area: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre)100' Actual 15,370 s.f. (.35 acre)50' Hardcover Calculations: P Distance from Shore Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0'-75'6,344 s.f.0 s.f. (0%)628 s.f. (9.9%)628 s.f. - no change 75’-250'9,026 s.f.2,256.5 s.f. (25%) 6,960 s.f. (77.11%) 7,032 s.f. (77.9%) Structu^l Coverage : Total Lot Size TotJ ^tructiiral Coverage 15,370 s.f.Allowed: 2,305.5 s.f. (15%) Existing: 3,589 s.f (23.3%) Proposed: 3,661 s.f (23.8%)- (6 ’xl.?.' added area) Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. »2543 TedEdin 3024 Casco Point Road Variances PC-11/1 0/99 Page-2 I Issues for Consideration: 1.The residence was built in 1957 in its current position. There have not been any additions or changes to the original residence. The lot and average lakeshore setback is unusual because of the lot configuration to the north. 2.The joists of the deck are rotting and were built into the house and need to be replaced. 3.There are a number of landscaped areas with plastic underneath. 4.Other issues raised by the Plaiming Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances to rebuild the deck the same dimensions as exists. Exhibits A Application B Letter from applicant C Site Plan/Survey D Plat Map E Location Map F Average Lakeshore Setback G Hardcover Worksheets H Property Owner's List I Permit Record m43 TedEdin 3025 Casco Point Road Variances PC-H/IO/99 page-3 s l4 » i Ll. 3 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner March 20,2000 #2567 Walfred Properties 2380 Shady wood Road Commercial Site Plan Review Code Amendment Variances Conditional Use Permit Vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane and rezone to B-5 Zoning B-S, Limited Neighborhood Business District Application Conunercial Site Plan review for construction of a Snyder’s Drugstore and Medical Office Building on the Grace Baptist Church site in Navarre. Lbt of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q Application Plat Map Section 10.44, B-5 Zoning District Standards and Permitted/Conditional Uses Navarre Zoning Map A1 - Site Plan/Monument Sign Plan A2 - Floor Plan A3 - Undergroimd Parking Plan A4 • Building Elevation Sketches/Building Sign Plan C-1 Grading Plan C-2 Utility Plan L-1 Landscaping Plan Engineer Comments (March 16,2000) Existing Sewer Existing Utilities Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Notification List Resolution No. 4043 - Approval of bank/office/rctail use (March 6,1998) Reference Only 1 Waffrtd Proptrtits 2380 Shadywood Road CommtrclatSlU Plan Revl*^• MdreM 20. 2000 pagt-l Application Summary Walfred Properties has proposed to redevelop the Grace Baptist Church site located on the northeast comer of the County Road 19 and 15 intersection in Navarre. Proposed is a two story building approximately 12,000 s.f in size. The ground floor would be a Snyder’s Drugstore (9,050 s.f. of dedicated retail space), the second floor would be 9,000 s.f of office space, to be used for medical office and a lower level underground parking area to accommodate 25 parking spaces. The application requires a Zoning Code Amendment to add ‘dmgstore’ as a permitted or conditional use in the B-5 zoning district. Clinics are a permitted use in the distict. The request also includes a conditional use permit to permit grading within 5' of a property line; variances for parking, front yard setback and hardcover; and vacation of a portion of the unimproved Navarre Lane. The portion of Navarre Lane to be vacated should be zoned to B-5.__________ Site Characteristics, Conformity (Note: Needed variances are shown in bold type) Required/Allowed Existing/Proposed Site area:20,000 s.f 85,000 s.f (incl. 4 separate tax parcels and vacated Navarre Lane) Deflned lot width:100'380' Required front yard:20’15' Required rear yard (through lot):20'30' Required side yard adj. to "R" district:15’15' Required side yard adj. to "B" district:Not deflned 3' to 15' Building setbacks: Front lot line:35’65' Rear lot line (Olive Ave.):35’60’ Side lot line adj. to "R" district:35’72' Side lot line adj. to "B” district:15’120' Building Height:30’30' Lot coverage by structures:15% (12,750 s.f)14.5% (12,165 - includes drive thru and trash enclosure) Hardcover: N. 500-1000' zone:35% (12,896 s.f.)73.7% (27,165 s.f.) S.500-1000' zone:35% (3,231 s.f)62.8% (5,803 s.f) Waifrtd Proptrttes 2380 Shadywood Road Commercial Siu Plan Review March 20. 2000 pagt-2 No. of Parking StaUs: Required = 1 per 150 s.f. of "net usable floor area for retail use" (Net = 9,050 s.f.± /150 = 60 stalls required) Required = 1 per 200 s.f. of “net usable floor area for office/medical use ” (Net = 9,000 s.f.± /200 = 45 stalls required) Total stalls required = 105 Total stalls proposed == 96 Signage Allowance Grading Within S' of Lot Lines 380 s.f. (CUP required) 350 s.f. Summary of Issues for Dbcussion 1.The proposed 'drugstore' use is not currently a permitted or conditional use in the B-5 District. The applicant has requested an amendment to allow 'drugstore* as a penmtted or conditional use in the B>5 District. 2.Variances are required for the following: Section 10.44, Subdivision 6 to permit a fix>nt yard setback for a parking lot to encroach 5'. The proposed parking rj-ea is 15' from the property line where the Code requires 20'. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 27,165 s.f. (73.7%) hardcover in the North 500-1000' shoreland setback where 12,896 s.f. (3 5%) is allowed, and to permit 5,803 s.f. (62.8%) hardcover in the South 500-1000’ shoreland setback where 3,231 s.f. (35%) is allowed. Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 to permit 96 parking spaces on the property where 105 spaces are required. Drugstore Use Clinic Use Required = I per 150 s.f. of "net usable floor area for retail use" (Net = 9,050 s.f.± /150 = 60 stalls required) Required = I per 200 s.f. of “net usable floor area for office/medical use ” (Net = 9,000 s.f.± /200 » 45 stalls req uired) The City of Orono camiot give a variance for parking u iless an independent consultant hired by the City shows us that the proposed parking is adequate for the site. »2J67 Waffrtd Prop€rtt«t 7mShaifwoodRoad Commtrcial Siu Plan Rivltw Monk 20. 2000 pagt-3 3. 4. 5. 6. Section 10.03. Subdivision 19-21 - A Conditional Use Pennitto permit grading within 5' of the property line. The pond and parking areas are located within what is now City of Orono property “Navarre Lane”. The applicants have requested to vacate the west half of the undeveloped ROW to provide additional land area. Currently, the ROW is used for sewer, water, phone and gas lines. The utilities may be required to be relocated outside of the ROW. The soutl» half of the east 33' of Navarre Lane was vacated in favor of the O’Sullivan property to provide additional parking area. The proposed pond will require the applicant acquire additional land to the east or an easement for ponding purposes. The site plan indicates the pond is not held completely on the property. The City Engineer comments are attached as Exhibit L. In his comments Mr. Kellogg has noted the proposed pond lies outside the property lines, the applicant should provide details as to how the pond can be constructed and how it may impact the existing wetland. The pond is designed to handle the runoff from the subject lot and the adjacent property to the east (O’Sullivan’s/Culver’s). The existing pond was constructed and designed for the O’Sullivan’s property at the time it was developed. A requirement was the pond would be redesigned at the time the Church property redevelops. Mr. Kellogg has reviewed the drainage and pond capacity and has determined the pond is not designed to NURP standards. NURP standards require the pond to handle a 2.5" rainfall over the contributing diainage area. The proposed pond only used a 2" rainfall. The MCWD will require the pond be developed to NURP standards. The applicant’s Engineer submitted plans that were not plotted to scale. The City Engineer will complete review of the project when the revised plans are submitted. Additional Engineering Comments and recommendations are attached. Please refer to the attached zoning map. Exhibit D. Three small areas of the City are zoned B-5. ACode Amendment would permit or cor fiitior illy permit ‘drugstores’ should approval be granted. All sites are located in Navarre and located adjacent to residentially zoned property. A complete list of permitted and conditional uses is attached as Exhibit C. Signage The proposed signage plan is attached and illustrated in Exhibits E and H. The Sign Ordinances do not list B-5 standards. Staff has determined the uses permitted in the district are consistent with many of the uses in the B-1 district. The standards for the B-1 district permit 1 s.f of sign space for each s.f. of frontage. The total frontage for this property is 380 ’ along C.R. 19. The total aggregate signage permitted on this property is 380 s.f i^2567 Watfrtd Properties 2380 Shady\¥Ood Road Commerxial Site Flan Review March 20, 2000 page-4 Proposed are several back lit signs that would be located on the building, and one monument sign would be located at the south entrance. Building Signage 1 - 4’ X 25’ “SNYDER DRUG” South Elevation 1 - 5’ X 4' “One Hour” South Elevation 1 - 3' X 6' “Photo” South Elevation 1 - 4* X 25’ “SNYDER DRUG” East Elevation 1 - 1’ X 16’ “PHARMACY DRIVE THRU” West Elevation Total = 254 s.f. on building Monument Sign 1-10’ monument sign is property at the south entrance. The total advertising spacejs two 48 s.f. back lit faces on the sign. Total = 96 s.f. on monument Total Signage u 350 s.f. Retaining Walls A retaining wall is proposed on the property along the west property line and extending to form the pond wall. Some parts of the wall will be close to 20 ’ in height. Some the height uill not be visible due to the expected water level of the pond. The exposed portions of the wall would be required to be 12 or 14 feet in height due to the existing topography and grading necessary for the parking areas. Additional wall design and detail should be provided for review. A two tier wall system may be necessary where the wall reaches 20 feet. Some vegetation will be required to screen the walls where they may be visible to residentiaUy zoned properties. Landscaping Plan The Landscaping Plan and Planting schedule has been attached as Exhibit K. A natural buffer of 29 Techny .-Vrborvitae will be planted along the west property line to screen the property and retaining wall. The Code requires lots in the B districts to create a screen not less than 50% opaque and at least 6 ’ in height along property lines to residential lots. The proposed plan indicates a series of spruce, pines and red oaks adong the north property line. Several other plantings are proposed in the green space along Shadywood and in the natural islands in the parking lot. The plan appears acceptable, but proposed planting height should be submitted. U2567 IVatfred Properties 2380 Shadyyvood Road Commercial Site Flan Revieuf March 20, 2000 pagt-5 / Pedestrian Access A proposed 8’ wide pedestrian access is shown on the plan to connect the Olive Avenue neighborhood to the property. The access would connect Olive Avenue to the existing sidewalk along Shadywood. The vacation of Navarre Lane would require public access through the lot via this trail. An easement for trail purposes should be granted to the City. Utilities All utilities serving this site are located in Navarre Lane. The utilitv' plan indicates the sewer line and gas line will be relocated to avoid the pond. Regrading the pood would expose existing utility lines. Water and Sewer lines are required to maintain a 10' separation. It may be necessary for the developer to contact the Department of Health if they are required to located the lines closer than 1 O'. Additional Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) may be required for the building. The 13,905 s.f. building would net to approximately 18,000 s.f. for SAC and sewer water unit determinatic^. The properties that make up this site were assessed for 4 commercial sewer units and footage as part of the 1965 sewer project. The City may have to collect a additional units depending on how many units MCES determines are appropriate. Municipal water is available to the site, with the primary connection at Navarre Lane and alternate connection on Shadywood at the north end of the site. The propenies making up this site were charged for full footage and a total of 5 commercial water units as part of the 1970 water project, hence no water unit adjustments nor connection charges would be required. However, this property was assessed only one unit for the Navarre Water Treatment Plant Upgrade, and would be charged an additional 3 or 4 units at $350 per unit for that upgrade project. All other utilities are available to the site. While the new service connections are required to be below ground, the existing power lines are overhead in this area. In the previous proposal by Walgreen’s it was suggested by Staff the developer should be encouraged to have existing overhead wires buried as part of this project, although the City code does not make this a requirement (Section 12.40). No determination on burial of lines was further discussed prior to the applicant’s withdrawing the request. The City has sewer and water in the portions of Navarre Lane. If vacated, the north part of Navarre Lane would be regraded to and a NURP pond would be constructed. Easements should be granted for utility purposes. The developer shall be responsible for bringing all manholes and shutoffs up to final grade and suitably finished at the surface to be approved by the Public Works Department and City Engineer. 1^2567 Waffred Properties 2380 Shadywood Road Commercial Site Plan Review March 20, 2000 page-6 f r Other issues for discussion ns raised with previous applications 1. 2. City agreeded to vacate west half of Navarre Lane in prior application. The southerly access is the same as approved for the prior bank/office/retail proposal and is located consistent with the Walgreen's proposal. The City of Orono shall reserve the right, with Hennepin County, to limit access for the southerly entrance/exit to a right in/out should traffic levels increase to create a public safety concern. Driveways and curb cuts for business uses are regulated by Section 6.05 of the municipal code. The proposed access plan appears to meet the standards of that section, with the exception that only one driveway access is normally allowed for a business s>te. This proposal has two. The second access was discussed at length during the prior proposals, and ultimately was approved for the bank/office/retail plan. The circuiaiion pattern for the current plan is quite similar to the earlier plans (bauk/office/retail and Walgreen ’s), counterclock>^se around the building to accommodate the drive-thru. The second access is expected to provide a safer exit for delivery trucks leaving the site than would be by a single access to the property. ^ 3.This proposed access connection is similar to that approvea for the bank/office/retail plan in 1998. The plan would circulate similar to the access that exists. The applicant has mentioned they are communicating about cross parking easements with the Culver’s property. 4.Legal combination of the four tax parcels should be a condition of approval. Planning Commission Recommendation 1.Planning Commission should make recommendations to the applicant regarding the following variances; Front Yard Setback for Parking: Section 10.44, Subdivision 6 to permit a front yard setback for a parking lot to encroach 5'. The proposed parking area is IS' from the property line where the Code requires 20'. Hardcover: Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 27,165 s.f. (73.7%) hardcover in the North 500-1000' shoreland setback where 12,896 s.f. (35%) is allowed, £uid to permit 5,803 s.f. (62.8%) hardcover in the South 500-1000' shoreland setback where 3,231 s.f. (35%) is allowed. C)Required Parking Spaces: Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 to permit 96 parking spaces on the cropeny where 105 spaces are required. Drugstore lisc Required = 1 per i '0 s.f. of "net usable floor area for retail use" (Net = 9,050 s.f.+ /150 = 60 stalk required) nm WalfndProptrliti 2380 Shaiywoed Road Commtreial Sit* Plan Rtvttv) March 20. 2000 pagt-7 Clinic Use Required = 1 per 200 s.f. of “net usable floor area for office/medical use” (Net = 9,000 s.f.± /200 = 45 stalk required) 2.A CUP is required for grading on the property within 5' of the lot lines. The grading plan (Exhibit I) indicates the pond and some grading will occur off site. The applicants should obtain {q>propriate easements that would permit off site use. 3.Site Plan layout indicates a building requiring 105 parking spaces (71 exterior, 25 interior/underground). Does this site plan meet the objectives of the Planning Commission. 4.Planning Commission should provide any comments on the Landscaping Plan (Exhibit K), trail connection to Olive Avenue, Lighting Plan, any concerns with building materials, signage and use of the property. 5.The proposed 'drugstore* use is not currently a permitted or conditional use in t)]e B-5 District. The applicant has requested an amendment to allow 'drugstore' as a permitted or conditional use in the B-5 District. Staff Recommendation Staff is primarily concerned with the unresolved grading issues, especially the pond size and location. Additional information is required to determine the pond location. The size and location of the pond is vital to the site’s ability to accommodate the proposed development. Staff recommends the application be tabled until such time the engineering details can be resolved, with direction to the applicant regarding the site plan and use of the property. A recommendation of approval shall be conditional on the engineering issues being resolved prior to Council review. Options for Planning Commission Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Table for additional information Recommend approval with condition Recommend denial, stating reasons Other action i^2557 Waffrtd Proptrilts 2290 Shadywood Road Commercial Site Plan Review March 20. 20(20 poit-9 A Application # Date Received"/i(g 1 OP Amount Paid S *? IS CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address__________J. 3 P/\ Type of Application to be Filed 4 / •/ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Nam e Address liy' ^ I o f\ ’z— ,L^-. City Phone (home) jj J Phone (work)__________________ Zip .rrjR lifferent than ^plicant) //C<_ OWNER (if different than ^plicant) Name ________ Address ^//» / ^ L City Phone (home). Phone (work) £jL Date Pro I (do) Acquired c» c o Zip ^<Zr3iaJ~' (month/year) ow£Ahe adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ~X^ $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application (vl«.r<lc _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore >3® PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renew'al Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS A * $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees)4.. .. • ^ $300.00 Vacation ___$200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision e;i pC $350.00 Rezoning (PUD ■ refer to fee gchedwU) ____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule 2. J. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1.___1:;^ Completed Application Form. ___Describe request in detail. ____Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271 ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. 4. 5. 6. 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). 7.'^^i-a^ist of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s* of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8.____ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 9.____As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR.COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (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 tliis application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hijAer knowledge. Applicant's signature Date /J~. 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 verification of this request. Owner's signature Date //7■h AppUcant must have ail submittals into the City offices 2S days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at ail scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place aiid advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. / cP ^ 3^ 7 Q6r. ”is V '"4m- sv»y, (27)26 -J? (28)/ 27. (2«) 3*^ Xy/N '•rS'”’<n m so /^124j^ (30)/29 (31)>: (32) (33) (M)'V L\ 5)'(64) (63) (82) iQ4_aL-5(L_^Sflj^—TTTTSsF «’»>j5 23^, 24^ 25* 26? 27?^ (81) •6) (77) (78)!(70:''- " JO.JXL-SSL J'- IS)^ -(83) (9) L01flRSREZSirpSH ^ *XtT’ :23r«i^ J 4»i 'iW; <xm.0TC (94) ti’fi 9 _ :an 24^ 252 26S 27 42)-(96)^,(99) (101) / J. . / »4fo2» '315.32 8 315.32._......... v»!>^S OUTUOT A<ty (55) <^o, '8 '&--3 ’•^» ,(52^ (53)_^ 4 yi(541 «M Ot-^4''^S _jj^_lawnas" JmosNavarre a 8 1 (46)? Ol 03 «v4>(IIJa^279 42 5^ I7g-42 W7‘3y«"^ 40.'^^^ nr»cs % 40V 8 2 (32) 'e-x ? y .X 7; r.; . ■ n< i::j 5 I 4 c §10.43 E.Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to any rear lot line, 15 feet to any side lot line, 35 feet to any side lot line adjacent to street; except when abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F.Fencing. Wherever a "B-4 ” Office and Professional Business District abuts an "R” District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height (no less than three feet nor higher than four feet adjacent to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. Subparagraph G. G.Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, H.Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and dFainage plans snail be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plaiw ^[^hail be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for i^ptoval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherxvise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent %vith other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. I.Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. SEC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators Md do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the "B-5" District as contemplated in the area kno\vn as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) §10.44 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Coimcil and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Pennitted Uses. Within any "B-5" Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A.Municipal buildings. B.Offices. C.Clinics. D.Art and school supply store. E.Book and magazine store. F.Office supply store. G.Banks, loan company, insurance company, real estate office. H.Barbership, beauty shop. I.Camera and photograph supply store. J.Locksmith. K.Hobby shop. L.Gift store. M.Glassware and pottery. N.Antique store. O.Jewelry store. P.Watch repair. Q.Library. R.Museum. S.Record shop. T.Music store. U.Tobacco shop. V.Galleries. W.Pet shop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A.Within any "B-S" Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1.Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, firozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. 3. 4. ORONO CC Drycleaning store. Tailor shop. Pressing and shoe shine shop. 348 (4-1-84) §10.44 5. 6r Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. Heme and garden equipment rental. Deleted via Ordinance No. 152.2nd Series Effective Date 10-28-96) 7.Veterinary clinic. 8.Kennels. 9.Coffee or bagel retail stores, subject to the following conditions: a.No more than 50% of the gross floor area of any single building shall be devoted to coffee and/or bagel retail stores. b.No individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall exceed 2,000 s.f. of gross floor area. A combined coffee and bagel retail store use shall nol^xceed 4,000 s.f. of gross floor area. c.The number of incremental paridng spaces required for the coffee and/or bagel retail store use shall be calculated using the zoning code parking requirement standard for restaurant uses. Applicant shall demonstrate that the total parking needs for the site will be met. d.An individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall be limited to a ma.\imura of 45 seats. A combined coffee and bagel retail store use shall be limited to a maximum of 60 seats. Source: Ordinance 170,2nd Series Adopted: 3-23-98 B.Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B” or ”1" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the ”B" or "I" District snd .subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Counci ’ C.Public Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. Source: Ordinance 161.2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) §10.44 Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A.Garages, Etc. Private garages, off*street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B.Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C.Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period of not to exceed time necessary to t:omplete said construction. D.Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features. E.Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F.Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G.Public Telephone Booths. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. A.Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. B.Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. C.Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. D.Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet; side yard adjacent to "R" District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E.Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 3 5 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less th^ 35 feet from such lot line. F.Fencing. Wherever a "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District abuts an "R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque- nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G.Building Design and Constmetion. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: I.All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a)Face brick, or, (b)Natural stone, or, (c)Specially designed precase concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or. ORONO CC 350 (4-1-84) §10.44 (d)Factory fabricated and finished metal- framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, or glass. (e)Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2.All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings- shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. 3.No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. H.Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plaiw shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natu^ water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 I.Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. Source: Ordinance No. 188 Effective Date: 11-22-76 ORONO CC 351 (4-1-84) 1 iliil...j . ' . • • • • . . • ' ' I q, \' ,... t \· I .c.. l ' '.',;.J ' .,1• ,. _I ,. ' r / .-' I . , ' ._ . r. t , • . . I • • . . . I . I i r l !•I ii : • . -\-r-. .. ·-· . . . . . . .. .. '·' .,... . ·. . ' . . . n .. 0..:.... • r· . . . - . ·• ..•• I I I I I ' I F .. • ' , ••••I •"-&. rr-:,. .. u-�\:. • ,&.,...-,;ans W .,'-'IC"."'-•'""•..,._.,._,.,, • .-,.,.... __ ,,, __ . 1 .e • , ________ _..�---' ... ,------ ••• :r 0.» .�;.��\�--• .. .. !: .. ' ' (T'I\ •�A'�-. · ·�el!,· _.,.> e 'I / ,. •••.r, .. .... ,. '" . . .... , z . • ◄ � !.L•J. �-'"-· ... •-·· '! ...::.. .. • �... � ' ' - I II I I I t I t ! I I ;' I / .. ) \ \ \ \ \ \ ..,. \ \ ' . ""... I t : ,! � ' • . •. .. .. . . .. ..• . . . ... If Tk yr f imJitf L_. /' •I / . :// ••» ■itx'^y ^'irw.....ratmmiumw »• ••- •••• •^N \*.\ \ ^T^iil^iiiTi-----rji fiiir ir^uiaij^—,:r _X \aukd. TTV.I ‘ ^ ■'0 r <o c.r> u.^ -» A .« «" l«w _Vjk -JL T L. ,. •j. l' : ., : ·' . ' . 1' • I • .. •••( I • • • • • •• o • • • • l . •. :' . ·: • • I . . . . . . . 1 •• • •• ' . . . -.... - ---... .·,............ ..,-. ... . .. . -... . jliTTilll 1 J�l 111111 Ul! L ·' I f -· I I I -.. , ,• I • __ _J j l •• �/., ... ... , . . ·( � . .. .. ,/ e � • • l I I I I I I I '!I .. I I I I I I I I! I ; I I§ i? I ' r � 0 I .. .. ... ' ' ' ' ' •, .. _ ·- .. ... -''· ·, . . \ .... ,-� / �,-,:.·---,......, . . I ; I I ' . I;··•. D � � .. "" �g - • ,I . . ... 1:-0/. •.,. I . --, ... __ _ .. ,.�-··-, -� I � I .... r , , � ,,,. ---.... . . ' '·, .. \ ' I r , ':, ,..-; . J,...,,,:;:;, _.,• A �1 f .... . ,· ;,? :,, I I I I I II I I I I I I !I • I • I ' ' I II I I iii � �i � � fli 6 C � .. �• / .I / I ,I , I ' (\ � i !11 • ••�, �c\ l I ,��i I I i� it �� _j_ -. � ....... .... -�u �. -• �,. ;. IS g... J �l'I !<I��o sta '- , !!I � t ! l l i t t j· � • I I II ' I I I I ' • I I I I Q l .:l . � -oI -�; g g .. -• - I I I I I I I I I I I • -y . t ■ J.r IM H EjS3|S[JEluO^aasaBBoa II ii ( X I i z 'm ! nIj 3 I 5 rm i % w 03/16/00 10:11 0 :01/02 NO:7A5 i, |l Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Y\ I Associates Engineers & Architects flonrrf';.**, ^Ojcntf ^na ASSOCl^t^i. /nt H Aff<nn.tf$vi» Action i^uju opportunity- tnpfp/0* Otto G 3o»*» tf sf rc • Jcjsepn c Anuerlib flit • M.Vv.o w Surv.iui Pfc # Glenn J» Cook. PE • P^brrt C Scnwnuht. PC • Jcr*y A Bcurdon PE • .tooen w rfnsrrc Pf P Chi*<’J E Turn«» P€ ir>0$ui«nw Cacriin r. PA Urruot Con%ui(i,niS Afinc’^rc '^'"incfOAtf A Sanford. PI. Keicn A. GorUcn PE « Pooeft I7 P»effer|# p£ • .'f fharj j/ fotte' P£ • DavidO Loskouv Pf • .'Jobtrt C Punen aia • M.irk a Hanson PC. • M»cnae« PC • Ted K.Pieul. PE • Kcnnetn P Andrr;on P| • M^rk R Pr^ifi. pg • ><orty • Jr.li#4imicn. PC L S • PoOcfC P itoumicfi • Agnei M Pmg • Anan «#».► ScrmiOt PC O^TiCrs 5f Pauf. dorrf j?e» Willmar and $f C<0Ud. MN • M««waukOC. W1 U/tL’i/.*r iwv^’.vhnnr j*rnn rf>m March 16. 2000 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Atlminislraior/PUinncr C!iiy of Oiono Post Ortice Box 66 Cry'i'tal Bay, MN 55323 Rc;Walfred Properticb/Snyders Site File No. 139GEN-2567 Dear Paul Wc have reviewed the preliminary grading and uliliiy plan for the propo.sed Snyders site in Nanirrc TIk site IS located un the cast side of Shadywond Road (CSAH I9> and north of Navarre Lane and Shoreline Drive iC.SAH I .^1 We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters: 1.Overall: The scale shown on the plan set I r’=30’) does not agree with the dimensions shown on the drawing (s.aniiary sewer lengths), it appears that the drawing was plotted at some other scale. For this reason we were unable tc> verify such things as piuking lot grades, pipe inverts, pond copocines, etc. Once a revised scalable drawing is submitted we will complete our review. 2.Sanitary Sewer: The existing sanitary sewer is shown through the proposed ponding area. The plans show a proposed realignment of the sewer through this area. The revised alignment shows the sewer approximately 7*feet away from an existing water main where 10-feet is the standard. The sewer should he reUwated outside the normal water level (NWL) of the pond. Plans should be submitted to the Department of Health for their approval. The proposed sewer realignment falls outside the property. Additional land or casements will need to be acquired to construct the pond and sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer should have a minimum of 6-fect of cover or should be insulated. All sanitary and stonn sewer manholes arc required to have un exterior scaling sleeve as manufactured by Infi-Shield or an approved equal Any connections to existing manholes shall be core drilled and a rubber boot installed. All applicable City Standard Details .should be included in the final plan set. 3.Grading: We recommend that access and parking lot grades not exceed 4*:?:. The proposed design may be within these parameters but we cannot verify until we gel a scalable plan. The proposed retaining walls are nearly 20-fcct tall in some tocation.s Retaining wall design and details should be provided for review. A two tier wall de.sign may be necessary where wall heights approach 20 feet. Some type of barrier w-ill he necessary above the wall in some locations for safety purposes. Di'iiinagv/Honding: As previously stated, the proposed pond lies outside the property boundaries, Uw applicant should provide details as to liow the pond can be constructed and how it may impact the e.xisiing wetland. The pond should be sized according to NURP standards using a 2.5-inch rainfall over the eontnbuting drainage area. Calculations submitted used a 2*inch rainfall and should be revised. The pond will require an outlet structure capable of providing I-foot of skimming as shown in City Standard Detail STO-8A. The pond should be consirucicd in accv>rdance with City Standard Detail STO-12. Pond and siomi sewer calculations should be revised and resubmitted along with a drainage area map. It is uncle;ir where the propo.sed catcli basin on the north side of the site drains to. Riprap should be provided at all outleb. Slorm sewer should be reinforced concrete pipe. Final plans should show plan and profile views 2335 West Highway 36 > St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636*4600 > Fax: 651-636-1311 : 1. w 03/16/00 10:11 g :02/02 N0:745* of the proposed sewer and include storm sewer details. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnehaliu Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for their review and approval. An erosion control plan should be incUidai in the final submittal. 5.Easements: Utility casements will need to be provided for the e.\isting utilities located within Navarre Lane. Drainage and utility ea.sements .should be provided S-feet wide along the perimeter lot lines and 10- feet wide along the County right-of-way. Drainage ea.sements should be provided across all ponding area.s. 6.Finunclul Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for die site Improvemems to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (65 1 ) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono inmuTiviaa I , .... I , .. • NA\IARRE LAN£ ,, • OF M NNETONKA NORTH 3 • • Ill 1•11' II •• ...... •M 2�1,•i,r.t.D ., � • 4;;,.•_ J·, .... .. o . .,. _. .. .,,,-· ,,. • - •• -11 t -rt .. I ...I I I 0 :i � .� :\ 0 :\ ' B .. ... . .... ... .... ... ••• LAN£ ••• NAVARRE LANE f *•»'r. o N0iei 1 2 TOTAL 4REA 36JB41 6F. 9^32 5f. vlOUfl PERVlOUft, 21J6& 6P. 9>bW &F. 5W VW SP. F^RVlOUSA »h 59.1 I MN MTE fS/lVtt M1CN SM TMPAVta NMi/AMM M X7>117-2S 44 ttSf •SS24 HAVAIRE U PAUL J PASCUm PAUL J PASCUZZX ssat NAVAimc la MAVZATA MN SSSU HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST St 17-117-2S 44 tltt •SS24 NAVARRE LA NXLLXAN CHAO NILSSON NXLLXAN CHAO NILSSON SS24 NAVARRE LA HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. P14S54tl PAOE 54 St 17-117-2S 44 tttS •2S44 OLIVE AVE JAMES S HEZTZ JAMES S HEZTZ 2S44 OLZVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55S91 OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR St 17-U7>2S 44 ••44 •2SSt OLIVE AVE PAUL NACKINNEY PAUL J NACXZNNEY 2SSO OLZVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55S91 St 17-117-2S 44 ••45 •2S2t OLZVE AVE J T JACOtSON t L D JM J T JACOtSON I L D JAI 2S2t OLZVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55S9I ISON ISON St I7-117-2S 44 ••44 •2Slt OLZVE AVE PATRZCX H SULLZVAN PATRZCR H SULLZVAN 2S10 OLZVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55S91 PROP ASM TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR St X7>117*2S 44 ttTS •2S14 SNAOYHOOO RO S R t K HORRRZO STEVEN R 1 RARER MORKRZO 2SI4 SNAOVHOOD RO HAYZATA MN 55S9X St 17-117-2S 44 ••74 •2S24 SNAOYHOOD RO RZCHARO JOSEPH HAEFNER RZCHARO JOSEPH HAEFNER 2S24 SNAOYHOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55S91 St 17>I17-2S 44 ttYS •2SS4 SNAOYHOOO RO J t 0 ERZCSON JOHN C I OAROARA E ERZCSON 142t SNAOYHOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55391 TAXPAYER MME/AORR SO 17-117-2S 44 OtTA •2SS4 SNAOYHOOO RO JOm C t OAROARA E ER» JOHN I OAROARA ERZCSON 1420 SNAOYHOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55S91 St 17-117-2S 44 ••77 •SS24 NAVARRE LA ORACE OAPTZST CMURCN/NAVARRE C Z CONSTRUCTZON LLC 121V SROAOKAY P 0 BOX 945 ALEXANORZA MN 54S9t St 17-117-2S 44 9979 99939 AOORESS UNASSXONEO ORACE OAPTZST CMURCN/NAVARRE C Z CONSTRUCTZON LLC 1214 OROAOHAY P 0 BOX 945 ALEXANORM MN 54S4t TAXPAYER NME/AOBR St 17-117-tS 44 9979 •2S41 SNAOYHOOO RO LOUZSS A 0AN6SLN0FF LOUZSE A OANOEUIOFF SS41 SNAOYHOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55S91 St 17-117-2S 44 tOtA •••St AOORESS UNASSZONEO TOHN OF ORONO CZTY OF ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL SAY MN 55S2S St 17-117-23 44 VAtA •2S54 OLZVE AVE CARY L HZIL OARY L HZLL 2S5t OLZVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55S91 TAXPAYER St 17-117-2S 44 9945 •SS49 SNORELINR OR VOYAOEUR SERVZCE CENTERS ZNC VOYAOEUR SERVICE CENTERS ZNC P O BOX 45 NAVARRE MN 55S92 St 17-117-2S 44 ••94 •••St ABORESS UNASSZONEO LAFAYETTE RZOOE HOHEOHNERS LAFAYETTE RZOOE HOMEOHNERS P O BOX 41 lONNETONKA SEACN MN 55341 St 17-117-2S 44 •••• •••St ABORESS UNASSZONEO CZTY OF ORONO CITY OP ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55S2S «9 Ol, V. ^24 t) RUN MTt •2/lR/lt MTCN SM NttMtfIN COUNTY ftOfERTV XNFORNATION SYSTCH PROPERTY OMNERS LIST ONNn NMK TAMPAVIR NAHE/AOOR SO 17-1X7-2S 04 tiOO OSSOt SNORELXNi DR OLASS IX PARTNERS OONAU NCCARVXLIE SS02 MAINER LA SSSOO TAKPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 17*117*2S 44 0100 02S0O SHADVMOOO RO PNYLLXS HENOERSON PNVLLXS HENOERSON aSOO SNAOYHOOO RO MAY2ATA NN I OSH TAXPAYER NANE/AODR TOTAL MATCH SIO 00042 »- ♦ REPORT NO. PX4S5401 PARE 5S SO 17*117-2S 44 0101 OSSOO SHORELINE OR L 0 C ROEHNEN LEROY ROEHNEN SSOO SHORELINE DR HAYZATA HN 5SS91 SO 17-117-2S 44 0102 02S0S SHAOVMOOO RO S N SCHNIOT 0 S J SCNHIDT STEPHEN H SCNHIDT 2S0S SNADVMOOD RO OOX IS MAYZATA NN SSS91 SO 20-117-2S 11 0002 02420 SHAOVMOOO RD VOVAOEUR SERVICE CENTERS VOVAOEUR SERVICE CENTERS CO RD IS 0 19 NAVARRE NN 5SS92 SO 20-117-2S 11 0024 OSSSS SHORELINE OR NOT COMPANY SUPER VALU STORES INC CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO OOX 990 HPLS HN SS440 IS / a ■: i I CERTZPV THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE ANO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON TNE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE REST OF NY KNQHLEDCE AND SELIEF DATE t •'^ .• ' •O': ■UN MTf t2/M/tt ■ATCN SM TAXPAVEt NMK/AOM TAMPAVEI NANi/AAMI 9A 17*117>2S AS tS79 MAM LVtlC AVE NOMEPIN FORFEITED LAfO CITY OF ORQNO P 0 MIX AA OnrSTAL OAV HN SSS2S M 17-117-2S AS RME MOSO ABORESS UHASS16NE0 cm OF PO SOX AA CRYSTAL RAY SSS2S HENMSPIN COUNTY PROPERTY IHFORHATXOM SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SO 17-117-25 AS •••# •SAM LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY NN 5552S SB 17-117-2S AS •••5 •••SB ADDRESS UNASSXOCO NOMEPm FORFEITED LAND cm OF ORONO P 0 DOX AA CRYSTAL BAY NN 55S2S REPORT NO. PIASBABl PAM SS SB 17-117-25 AS SSBl •SAAB LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEHED LAND cm OF ORONO P 0 DOX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN S5S2S SB 17-117-2S AS ••»• •SASB SHORELINE DR DALE S JOMISON C T JOMtSON ADA JOHNSON lAllB ATN AVE N PLVHOUTN NN BBAA7 TAXPAYER NANE/i PROP ADRR TAXPAYER NANE/ABRR TAXPAYER TAXPAYER SB 17-117-25 AS BIBA •SABS LXVXNMTON AVE SHERYL A PATTEN SNERYL A PATTEN SABS LXVXNBSTON AVE NAYZATA NN SBSBl SB 17-117-2S AA •••7 •2SM SNADVNOOO RD BRACE DAPnST CNURCH/NAVARRE C X CONSTRUCTION LLC mo DROADNAY P 0 DOX AAS ALEXANDRIA HN SASBB SB 17-117-25 AA ••!! •••SB ADDRESS UNASSXONED NEIMSPIN FORFEmD LAND CtTV OF ORONO p 0 BOX M CRYSTAL BAY IM SBS25 SB 17-117-2S AA ABSl •227S BAWXEN PL JANES R ANDERSON JANES R ANDERSON 227B BAYVXEN PLACE NAYZATA NN SBSBl SB 17-117-2S AA •••$ •••SB ADDRESS UNASSXONED TOWN OF ORONO cm OF ORONO PO MX BA CRYSTAL BAY HN SSS2S SB 17-117-25 AA BBBB •••SB ADDRESS UNASSXONED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND cm OF ORONO P 0 NX BA CRYSTAL DAY HN 5SS2S SB 17-117-25 AA BB2B •22SS BAYVXEN PL 0 N LEVIN B C N OLSON-KOSKA OREO LENIN/CAROL OLSON-KOSKA 22SS BAYVXEN PL NAYZATA NN 55SB1 SB 17-117-25 AA BBSE •••M ADDRESS UNASSXCHEO OENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK BENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK 25B5 BAYVICN PLACE NAYZATA HN SSSAl SB 17-117-25 AA BBSA •2SBB SNADVNOOD RD BRACE DAPnST CHURCN/NAVARRE C I CONSTRUCTION LLC 121B BROADWAY P 0 MX 9A5 ALEXANDRIA HN BASAB SB 17-117-25 AA •••» •2577 SHADYNOOO M NARCEL S DITTRICH HARCEL DITTRICH 2577 SNADVNOOD RD NAYZATA NN SSSAl SB 17-117-2S AA ••SB •22AS BAYVXEN PL BART E PONERLEAU BART E PONERLEAU 22AB BAWXEN PL NAYZATA HN SSSAl SB 17-117-25 AA BBSS •2SBS BAYVXEN PL R N STELLXNB ETAL tt OENE N BLOCK 2SBB BAWXEN PLACE NAYZATA NN SSSAl v>■) •j a «'• r> ■•V. \ ■7 ••. •* • ClTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 48- A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARL^NCES TO ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16(L) AND 10.61 SUBDIVISION 5(B) AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.44, SUBDIVISION 2 , FILE NO. 2326 WHEREAS, Tliomas Dillon representing Orono Development, LLC (hereinafter the "applicant") has an interest in the property located at 2380 Shadyvvood Road located within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City”) and legally described as follows: Lots 19, 20, 21 and 22, Wiley’s Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka; and that part of Lot 5, Block 3, Townsite of Langdon Park, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly comer of said Lot 5; thence Northwesterly along the Northerly line of said Lot 5 to the Northeasterly line of the public highway running across said Lot 5 and known as Minnetonka Lake Park and Maple Plain Road (now County Road No. 19); thence Southeasterly along the.Northeasterly line of said road to the Easterly Ime _ of Lot 5; thence Northerly along Ae Easterly line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. All in Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"): and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a building permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.44, Subd. 2 to permit the commercial development of the property that includes the approval of the following variances: Page 1 of 11 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 ^ ^ ^ i.Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - Hardcover variance: A.500-1000’ (North portion of property): Zone area = 36,150 s.f. + Proposed Hardcover = 17,250 s.f. + " 47.7% Allowed Hardcover « 35% *= 12,650 s.f. + Variance *= 4,600 s.f. = 12.7% B.500-1000’ (South portion of property): Zone area = 10,100 s.f. ± Proposed Hardcover = 7,810 s.f. + ** 77.3% Allowed Hardcover = 35 % “ 3,535 s.f. ± Variance ® 4,275 s.f. = 42.3% 2.Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B) - Setback variance for parking (not allowed within required front yard): Required front yard = 20' (10.44 Subd. 6C) Proposed front setback to parking = 5' Proposed encroachment by parking “15' Variance = 15* or 75% WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Copunission reviewed this comprehensive application at a public hearing held on January 20, 1998, and again at a continued hearing held on February 17, 1998 and recommended unammous approval of the development plans per the commercial site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan prepared by AMCON Design, Construction, Construction Management, Inc. dated 2/2/98, for Orono Development, LLC, subject to a recommendation that the City Council require a 15' setback for parking, panting only a 5’ variance. The City Council on February 23, 1998 reviewed the reconunendations of the staff. Planning Commission, City Engineer, consultants and the applicant's comments tod on a vote of 3-1 granted approval of the proposed variances and commercial site plan, directmg staff to prepare a formal resolution for approval incorporating unique findings and hardships in support of such approval; and Page 2 of 11 J >• CITYof ORONO ■m RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 4ft WHEREAS, the Orono City Council makes the following findings in regard to this application: 1. 2. 3. 4. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2326. The property is located in the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District requiring 20,000 s.f. in area. The property consists of 80,995 s.f. or acres. The development plans include an 11,246 s.f one-story commercial office/retml bmlding, to include: ■ -3,150 s.f. bank with drive-thni window -2,816 s.f. commercial/office space -5,280 s.f retail space The general uses proposed conform to the uses allowed in the B-5 Limited Neighborhood District Applicant has concunently requested (Application #2327) an amendment of the B-5 District list of alloi^able conditional uses to include bagel and coffee retail stores, which amendment is pending. 5.Per Section 10.61, Subd. 10, required off-street parking is approved as follows: A.Bank/commercial/office *= 1 stall per each 200 s.f. of net floor area. 5,200 s.f. net floor area + 200 *= 26 spaces. B. m Retail = 1 stall per each 150 s.f. of net floor area 4,500 s.f. net floor area 150 s.f. “ 30 spaces Required ■•56 spaces Proposed ■• 62 spaces (inch 3 handicap) C.If retail is restaurant uses “ 1 stall per each 80 s.f. of public floor area Assuming public floor area *■ 50% of 5,280 s.f. * 2,640 s.f. 2,640 + 80 s.f = 33 spaces (Required would be 26 + 33 ■ 59 ^aces) Requirement would still be met) Page 3 of 11 i i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 43 6.The stormwater retention pond located at the rear of the property will be expanded to accommodate surface nmoff from this site. All surface runoff will be directed via underground storm sewers to this stormwater retention area before discharging to the designated wetland to the southeast of the property. 7.David Zetterstrom, Entrance Permit Coordinator for the Hennepin Cotmty Department of Public Worics in a letter dated February 2, 1998 approved 4hc two curb cuts as shown on the site plan referenced above. 8.Tom Kellogg of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. in his letter of January 12, 1998 made a number of comments and recommendations regarding traffic, grading, drainage and utilities, easements and trail location. Kellogg's subsequent letter of February 13, 1998 regarding the revised plans noted a number of minor engineering matters in regards to drainage system design, which will be addressed in the construction plan review process prior to issuance of a building permit. 9.Wallace Case, Landscape Architect/Planner with DSU, Inc. in his letter of January 23, 1998 made a number of comments regarding the proposed site plan and landscaping, which comments were taken into account in the City's review of this application. 10.Applicants* development of the proposed site plan is dependent upon completion of the vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane as originally agreed to by Ae City via Resolution #3830 on January 13, 1997. 11.Surface drainage from this site will not have any impact on adjacent properties as all surface runoff will be directed to a retention pond to the rear of the site. 12.The property abuts the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District to the north and east. Adjacent and nearby property owners were legally notified of the public hearing for this project and were given opportunity to speak at that hearing. Page 4 of 11 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 4 R 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The site is topographically difilcult to develop and will require significant filling and grading to accommodate the proposed improvements. The proposed site grading plans have been reviewed by staff, the City Engineer, the Planning Commission and the City Council and have been found to be generally appropriate for development of this site, subject to adjustments to be made via a final grading plan which will have to be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Structural coverage on the site is proposed at 14%, meeting the 15% limitation on lot coverage by structures. The property has a unique shape and is a 'through' lot, abutung Olive Avenue to the rear and Shadywood Road (County Road 19) on the ^nL The orientation of the building is toward Shadywood Road, minimizing any commercial appearance or activity as viewed from Olive Avenue. The variance to allow a parking setback of 5' along the front lot line where a 20' setback is normally required, is justified by the unique shape and topograj^y of the site and the need to provide certain amenities for the development. The combination of front parking and driving lane needs; minimum functional depm of building; drive-thru exit lane and rear building delivery access; retaining wall design and location as well as screening needs; and the location and desi^ of the stormwater retention pond, result in the need to allow encroachment of the parking lot to within 5 feet of the front lot line in order to acconunodate the above noted features and concerns within the boundaries of the site, without creating the need for other variances. The proposed hardcover variance is mitigated to a great extent by the fact that all surface runoff from the site will be directed to a stormwater retention (NURP) pond designed to enhance the quality of runoff waters prior to discharge from the site. The magnitude of hardcover variance is further justified by the fact that less than 1 percent of the City’s shoreland areas are devoted to commercial uses, hence the overall impact of the excess hardcover created by commercial uses is relatively minor, especially when such impacts are mitigate by stormwater treatment facilities. Page 5 of 11 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. /I 0 4 ______ . 18. 19. 20. 21. The proposed site plan, landscape plan and building design incorporate features and elements which make this development appropriate for the B-5 District, especially in relation to its adjacency to an existing residential neighborhood. Such features and elements include orientation of the building toward Shadywood Road wth no vehicular access to the site from Olive Avenue or Navarre Lane, eliminating neighborhood traffic concerns; sufficient setback and vegetative buffering along the Olive Avenue boundary and the northerly boundary of the site; facade materials and design of a subdued character with design elements to break up the lock of a long roofline, and consistent styling carried around all sides of the building; creation of a pedestrian pathway through the site to allow the neighborhood easy access to the Navarre business area; and other features. The Council finds that the proposed cedar-shake-over-brick facade proposed is acceptable per Zoning Code Section 10.45 Subd. 6G(le). 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 variances on the health, safety and welfare of the conununity. The Council finds that the conditions existing on this propert>* are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the requested variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserv'c 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL^XD that the City CouncU of the City of Orono hereby approves the commercial site plan, building elevations and landscape plan Page 6 of 11 or^a CITY of ORONO 'ih RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 4a referenced above and approves the variances as requested based on the unique findings and hardships noted above; and approves the City’s issuing a building permit for the proposed commercial/retail/office/bank building to Orono Development, LLC subject to the following conditions: 1.Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide the following information for the review by the City Engineer: A. • Plans and specifications for service line connections, proposed new hydrants if any, etc. As-built plans shall be provided to the City upon completion. The Public Works Department shall review any potential problems associated with additional cover placed over existing water or sewer mains, especially in conjunction with the vacated portions of Navarre Lane, and applicant shall be responsible for making adjustments of City sewer and water lines, manholes, etc. in a permanent manner acceptable to the Public Works Department. B.Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing existing and proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater pond and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Plans must include additional detail on the pond outlet structure which currently is not acceptable as a permanent installation. Final stormwater retention pond plans shall be submitted, and must include information regarding the method of sealing the pond bottom. Storm sewer calculations must be provided, and revisions to the plans completed per the City Engineer's February 13 comments. Applicant shall provide confirmation as to whether gutter runoff from Shadywood Road will be entering the site and if so, that it will be adequately handled. A bwlldins pcniut gannot .bs issued until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has anorovcd IhS stormwater plans . C.Engineering details and design must be provided for the proposed retaining wall. Due to steep slopes along the north boundary of the site and north boundary of the pond, additional retaining walls may be required to result in slopes no greater than 3:1 to allow for landscaping viability. Page? of 11 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 4 3____ . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Upon commencement of building construction on the site, the City council will take formal action to vacate the portion of Navarre Lane as provided in City Council Resolution #3830. Applicant shall upon said vacation grant to the City utility and drainage easements over the entire width of right-of-way being vacated. Upon said vacation, applicant shall take all necessary action to legally combine the vacated roadway with the property. The sidewalk connection to Olive Avenue as shown on the approved sift plan shall be constructed and maintsuned permanently by applicant/property owner to provide pedestrian access through the site between Shadywood Road and Olive Avenue. Applicant shall grant to the City the following easements: a.A 10' wide trail easement over the portion of said sidewalk located between the front facade of the building and Olive Avenue. b.A trail easement 10' in width along the easterly boundary of the property abutting Navane Lane. It is the intent of the City that although the City is being granted such easements, the walkway within applicant's property shall be maintained by the property owner, not the City. All upkeep, maintenance and snow removal activity shall be the responsibility of the property owner. The parking lot shall be paved with concrete curb and gutter, driving lanes within parking lot shall have a 9-ton paven^nt section for trucks. A geotpchnical evaluation of the soil shall be done in conjunction with the pavement design. Applicants' architect shall submit final development plans to the Metro Council Environmental Services to determine the exact number of SAC units to be charged at the time of the issuance of a building permit. The City will also determine if additional Sewer and Water Unit Adjustment Charges and/or system upgrade connection charges will be required for the new development, to be paid by applicant prior to issuance of the building permit. Appropriate traffic and parking signage shall be installed subject to the Orono stziff and City Engineer’s review. Signage and cross hatching of crosswalk for the pedestrian walkway crossing of the drive-thru lane exit at the north end of the building will be required. Fire lanes shall be designated during the building plan review process and identified appropriately. PaoftSof 11 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 48 7.The landscape areas as shown on the above referenced site plan shall consist of grass wherever feasible and shall adhere to the above referenced Revised Landscape Plan dated 2/2/98 in regards to planting species, sizes and locations. Landscaping plan shall include placement of a minimum 6" depth of topsoil over all areas to be vegetated. Applicant shall permanently maintain all landscape areas as originally approved. 8.Site frontage for commercial signage calculstion will be limited to the frontage along Shadywood Road, being 381 feet in length. Signage for this site shall be regulated by the provisions of Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 1, Subd. 3(A) and Subd. SP). No commercial signage will be allowed along the facade of Ae building facing Olive Avenue except as minimally needed to identify service entrances to buildings, and as needed for the bank drive-thru. 9.Final lighting plan shall be subject to City staff approval and shall locate lighting so as to direct lights away from the adjacent residential neighborhood. 10.No business shall have its primary entrance through the rear (Olive Avenue side) of the building. 11.No formal approval for reciprocal parking agreements between this property and adjacent commercial properties has been requested or approved for this site. 12.Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". All erosion controls as required by the City shall be in place prior to commencing excavation on the site. The stormwater pond construction shall be substantially completed and functional prior to construction of building footings. 13.A Developer's Agreement shall be executed by the applicant to assure that all required site improvements as shown on approved site plan will be completed to the City’s satisfaction. The City Engineer has provided a preluninaty estimate of the cost of site improvements at $169,100. This amount does not include the cost of landscaping and plantings, which shall be in addition to the preliminary Page 9 of 11 L CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 45^ estimated amount Applicant shall provide an estimate of the cost of landscaping and plantings, which amount shall be added to the site improvement estimate. A Letter of Credit in an amount 150% of the fmal combined estimate shall accompany the Developers Agreement. 14.Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall provide suitable evidence of property ownership. 15.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the specid conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (March 6, 1999). 16.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. 17.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 Orono City Council on this 9th day of March, 1998. ATTEST: I.C/jLC, Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Property Ovvner(s)'/ ' Page 10 of 11 #1111 r % # CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 4 R STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of March, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. XTtSyK JAMIE LGEMAR notary njeuc4iNNesotA HBWEPMCOUKTY My CcnwistionBeiws Jit 81.2000 dd:lU.:. h'Qjfv ->r.O Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dayof I____11.._________JV tl , 1998 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared — known to me to be die person(s) described in and who executed the foregomg instniment, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. JAMIE L6EMAR NOTARY PU8UC4IINN60n HBINEPIN COUNTY My CcflUBbsiOA &eita JiiL 31.2000 NOT^Y PUBLIC STATE OF MT^TIESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _______^day of .^9^8 brfore nw a Notary Public said county, personally ap^^ed Cr --------------within and for said county, personally .. ____________________ known to me to be die person(s) descrilxd in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) fixe act and deed. " ^ NVRjf OPWQAAflO MfemManB^j«vn.aoaB Page 11 of 11 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner March 20,2000 #2562 Cornerstone New Testament Church 850 Wayzata Boulevard West (Wayzata Christian Center Property) Conditional Use PermitA^ariance Zoning:RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 Acres Application: Conditional Use Permit for a church in a residential zoning district and a variance to permit a 32 s.f. identification sign where 12 s.f. is allowed. Exhibits: A B C D E F G H Application Statement of Hardship Plat Map/Location Map Site Plan/Survey/Landscaping Plan Parking/Lighting Plan Septic System Inventory Septic System Map Property Owners List Application Summary: Cornerstone New Testament Church has made application for a conditional use permit to permit a “church ” on property located at 850 Wayzata Boulevard. The property has an existing building that was constructed in 1966 most recently known as the “Wayzata Cliristian Cct.ier” and “Wayzata Learning Center”. A special use permit was granted in 1965 to permit the church use on the site. The current zoning code was adopted in 1975 permitting churches as conditional uses in “R” districts. The property is owned by adjacent property owners to the north of the site who would lease the building to the Cornerstone Church group for an undetermined period of time believed to be 2 to 4 years. A variance to Section 10.61, Subdivision 2 (A) is required to permit a sign to exceed 12 s.f on the property. The Cornerstone Church has proposed to construct a 32 s.f sign on the locations indicated on the site plan attached as Exhibit D. The previous tenant had used the posts shown on the survey for identification signage._____________________________________________________ 1^2562 Cornerstone Sew Testament Church B50 Wayzata Boulevard West (Wayzata Christian Center Property) Conditional Use Permit/Variance March 20, 2000 page-1 ANALYSIS Conditional Use Permit: Municipal Code permits churches as conditional uses in the RR-IB zoning district. The proposed use will be entirely within the existing building and will be limited to weekly services and office one staff person. On occasion there would be special events that would be consistent with the church use of the property. A special use permit was granted in 1965 to permit a church. The existing building was constructed in 1966. There is no conditional use permit on file for a church use although the building had been used as a church in the past. A conditional use permit was granted to permit the Wayzata Learning Center for 30 daycare students. A conditional use permit amendment was applied for in 1995 to allow the daycare to expand to 66 students. The application was not reviewed by the Planning Commission or City Council and was later withdrawn. A conditional use permit is required if the use of the property as a church lapse for a period of six months. Since the building has not been in use in the last six months any conditional use requires a new permit. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit if the following findings are made: 1 .That 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 Comprehensive Municipal Plan; The proposed conditional use is in accordance with the Municipal Code as churches are listed as a conditional use in the "R" Districts. The proposed use is historical on the property and would be confined to the existing structure. 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. The proposed conditional use would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. The property has been used as a church and daycare since the building was constructed in 1966. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The use will not conflict with other provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Only the sign would require 1^2562 Cornerstone Sew Testament Church 350 H'ayzata Boulevard H'est O^ayzata Christian Center Property) Conditional Use Permit Variance March 20. 2000 pagt-2 i a variance. The need for a variance for the sign should be considered as a separate issue as the property could be used as a church site without Ae granting of a variance to permit a 32 s.f. sign where a 12 s.f. sign is permitted. Parking and Lighting The site plan provided by the applicant indicates a parking plan for 30 cars. Required parking for a church is one space for each four seats based on the design of the main assembly hall. The parking spaces provided would accommodate a main assemble hall capacity of 120. The applicants have stated they intend to have a seating capacity of 120. The intended seating is also indicated on the site plan submitted and attached as Exhibit E. If parking is required to be increased in the future is appears the existing lot could be realigned to permit additional spaces. The parking area is lighted by several light poles that exist on the property. The property owner has indicated the existing lighting will remain on the property. If it is necessary box lights can be installed on the poles. Staff has communicated to the property owner new lights that would deflect all light down should be installed. The code does not permit the direct source of light to be visible from the property lines. Landscaping Plan 1 PC existing trees are shovm on the Landscaping Plan (Exhibit D). The property owner has indicated ■rScy would be planting additional trees over the north and east portions of the property. No planting schedule or plan has been submitted or will be required with the CUP. .^■Aiitional Requirements ^4 ..onditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed arf: ubserved, and the use does not cease for a period of more than 6 months. CUPs may be revokable, may be g* 'nted for a limited time, or may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Septic The property contains a private sewage treatment system. Routine inspections have determined the septic system on the property is non-compliant and must be replaced by 2007. The current septic code does not prohibit use of the property due to non-compliant systems. However, if it should be determined the system is failing the system would require immediate replacement. The Septic Inspector has reviewed the proposed use of the property and has determined the existing septic system has the capacity to handle anticipated water use. 02362 Comgruoh€ AVw Testament Church 850 Wayzata Boulevard West (Wayzala Christian Center Property) Conditional Use Permit'Variance March 20. 2000 pagt-3 Variance: A variance has been applied for to permit a 32 s.f. sign at the entrance of the building, 'fhe proposed sign would identify the church and service times. The sign is located on Highway 12 were there is a 55 mph speed limit. The applicant has stated they request to erect a 4' X 8' wooden sign on the existing posts. The posts supported the previous signs on the property. A larger sign is necessary to attract attention on the highway curve where vehicles are permitted to travel at speeds of 55 mph. Please review the applicants sign proposal narrative and statement of hardship attached as Exhibit B. Staff Recommendation: To approve the conditional use permit for the Cornerstone New Testament Church to allow the existing building located at 850 Wayzata Boulevard West finding all pertinent standards of the zoning code have been satisfied and no new uses or more intense use is proposed over previous use of the property. Further, no improvements to the exterior of the building will be required based on the following conditions: 1.The City reserves its right to recall or reconsider the conditional use permit as it relates to additional parking needs or future paving improvements. 2.Any change or more intense use of the property will require an amendment to the conditional use permit. 3.A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed, and the use does not cease for a period of more than 6 months. If the use of the property as a church would cease for a period of 6 months a new conditional use permit is required. Staff recommends approval of the variance to the sign requirements to permit a 4' X 8' sign for the church based on the applicants hardship statement. Most churches in the area have a sign consistent with the size proposed. The signs are used to provide information other than the name of the church they also are used to post service hours. The property is located on Highway 12 where the traffic is permitted to travel at speeds up to 55 mph and the sign is located on a curve in the highway making it difficult to read the sign if it is constructed at the size permitted by the sign ordinance. The church will not own the building, but intends to lease the property for 2 to 4 years. They would prefer to use the existing posts that were used by the previous tenant for installation of the sign. The posts require a sign 8 ’ in width. U2562 Cornerstone Testament Church 850 H'ayzata Boulevard (Vest OVay’zata Christian Center Property} Conditional Use Permit Variance March 20, 2000 page-4 i A Application U 2,S^(p^ Date Received Amount Paid $^0 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address______6hA. ication to be Filed / U se -^75 ciViCi^ Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)Vvc/c/oV ____________ APPLICANT Phone (home ) Nam e (Othersibt^ Ajfuj7m<4mCUhrt.L Phone (work )yooA Address JU.City PI>ji*aU'k ________Zip OWNER (if different than applicant Nam e A-friV^gK<I Address Phone (home ) ^t2 ~ Ht^^A97<’ _____ Phone (work ) ^/jl- /9a f City lU0>.y2jK.i^Zip Dai^Property Acquired ^BN (^ , l^^*\ I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Y FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$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 CORNERSTONE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH APPLICATION TO CITY OF ORONO FEBRUARY 14,2000 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SIGN Term- At the present time, the Church considers its occupancy of the property to be temporary. The Church is therefore asking that the requested sign be approved for a 24 month period, at which time the future of the Church in that location will be much clearer. B Sign Construction- The requested sign will be a 4 ft. by 8 ft. wooden sign. The existing sign supports as noted on the survey will be used to attach the sign approximately 6 to 7 ft. off the ground. This is the same set-up used to support the previous sign of the same size. The background of the sign will be white with black letters. The letters in the church name will be 12 inches high while the letters for other information on the sign will be 6 inches high. Lighting- The sign will be lit by a small external spotlight situated near ground level in front of the sign. Reason for the Request- Almost all churches have a sign at least 4 ft. by 8 ft. since the signs are used to list information other than just the name of the church, such as service times and the type of church. A 12 sq. ft. sign is not large enough to include the information so it can be read from the highway. The speed limit near the sign is 55 mph and the sign is located near a curve in the highway. These two factors make it more difficult to see the sign fix>m a distance making it easy for people to miss the driveway to the building. Slowing down to read a small sign on a busy highway could prove to be a hazard to people. y •t • • ...}•• -• . * -A ’ .1 •.■' '• •^ -T, ;i • » »»•^ • * ♦• I C ••■' '•■•’;; •* ^• likiiiMliiik^ 88 88 {{ II fa _ :!! 'ten iil! A 3. !STI •^‘ ri?lii • I • •,:............. -.·.·..: _.,.' I FENCE • I / Q ARB OR .P • • I •• .. • . .. ... ... . ... SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTOR Y Address: 850 Wayzata Blvd.PID: 35-118-23 44 0004 Building Typ church #BRs/GPD:#Systems 1 Units Billed 1 Permit#: 1306 Date of Permit: 10/6/66 Installer: Murphy Plbg. System Type standard trench Experimental: no Appliances toilet,sink F SYSTEM CONDITION Confoanity:3 Tank Condition: 5 DF condition: 1 1 Failure Pot: medium SEFiTC TANKS Mate:IiiI. concrete block Setback to Bldg: Capacity: 1000,500 Cesspool: unknown DRAINnELD Length of Lines 400 # Lines:Trench Width: 2 Treatment Area: 800 Type of Filter rock Soil Boring: yes Tile Size:Under Tile PercRate: Setback DF-Bldg:DF Ht above Wt: 0 Soil Type: sandy loam, loam, clay loa Limitations: water table WELL DATA Setbacks - WcU-Tanks: Pump Type: subm. INSPECTION RECORD DATE mini 5/12/80 8/25/86 8/30/90 9/21/92 6/14/94 8/19/96 4/15/98 8/31/99 DESCRIPTION Well-DF:Report in File yes Depth: 167 Diameter: 4 Method: drilled PUMPOUT RECORD COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS no surfacing no surfacing no surfacing-need risers,pump tanks no surfacing-need risers,pump tanks locate system by 9/1/94 system located,non-compliant-repair by 1 non-compliant-need risers-repair by 12/3 s 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 non-compUant-need risers-repair by 12/3jy2ct(s3 \ •: fh> '■" >J 1,i Vi f'^ So UJbtyzajt)t El\i^ G RUN Mil 0R/t7/M lATCN Its NfNNIRXN COUNTY PROPCRTV INFORHATION SVSTEN PROPCRTY OWNERS LIST RENMT NO. PX4SMil PAOf 10 TAXPAVIR NMK/AB0R SO U-110-2S 01 OOOO 00020 NAVZATA OLVD H D E ANDERSON ETAL DARREU E ANDERSON 920 N NAVZATA OLVD NAVZATA NN S559I OWNER NAHE TAMPAVER NANE/AOOR SO SS>110-2S 90 0009 OOOSO NAVZATA BLVO N P N PROPT 0 K PROFT TRUSTEES RAROI PROPT 40 NVRTLENOOO RD NAVZATA MN SSS91 TAMPAVER NANE/ABOR SO S4-110-2S 2S 0002 OOOSO ADDRESS PENDXNO STATE OP NXNNESOTA DEPT OP NATURAL RESOURCES TAM SPEC RUREAU OP RE MOT SOO LAPAVETTE RO ST PAUL NN SSiSS TAMPAVER NANE/ADOR SO S4-110-2S SS 0010 00070 NVRTLENOOO RD R J NEUS JR ET AL R J NELLS JR 70 NVRTLENOOO RO NAVZATA NN SSS91 TAMPAVER NANE/AROR 99 01*117>2S 22 OOOS 00990 NAVZATA OLVD N cm OP NAVZATA cm OP NAVZATA 400 RICE ST NAVZATA NN SSS91 TAMPAVER TOTAL RATCN SOS ooou A :• »• . X SO SS-110-25 91 0010 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSXCNEO NENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND cm OF ORONO P O OOM 44 CRYSTAL RAY HH SS52S SO SB*110-2S 91 0020 OOOSO AOORESS PENDINO STATE OP NINNESOTA DEPT OP NATURAL RESOURCES TAX SPEC SURRAU OF RE NOT BOO LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL NN SSISB SO Sfi<110-2S 94 OOOS 0007S NAVZATA OLVD N SOS DEVELOPMENT LLP NEW HORIZON 145SS S4TN AVE N 0700 PLYMOUTH NN SS997 SO SB-110-2S 99 0007 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OP NXNN • STATE OP NINN CDNR> <LUCE LINE TRAXLI SO S4-110-2S SS OOOS OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSU STATE OP NXNN STATE OF NXNN lOMI) ILUCE LINE TRAIL) SO S4*110>2S SS 0012 00090 NVRTLEWOOD RO MEVXN L THOMPSON KEVIN L THOMPSON 90 NVRTLEWOOD RD NAVZATA NN BBS91 SO S4>110>2S SS 0020 00040 NVRTLEWOOD RD P N PROPT SR A K J PROFT KAREN t PATRICK PROFT SR 40 NVRTLENOOO RO NAVZATA NN SBS91 72 SB-110-2S 99 0002 0091S NAVZATA OLVO N E J DOULEV ETAL E J OOULEV 91S N NAVZATA OLVD NAVZATA NN SSS91 99 02-117-2S 11 0009 OOBOO NAVZATA BLVO N cm OP NAVZATA cm OP NAVZATA 400 DICE ST NAVZATA MN BBS91 99 SS-11S>2S 99 9000 OOBIO NAVZATA DLVO N cm OP NAVZATA cm OP NAVZATA 400 RXCE ST NAVZATA MN BBS91 9 38 02 117 23 11 0003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:March 20,2000 SUBJECT:#2564 William Scott Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area:13,030 s.f. (.29 acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K Analysis Worksheet Application Letters from applicant Site Plan/Survey Views Hardcover Calculations Photos of Property 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 eirea. Variance Request; To permit 2,433.2 s.f. (18.7%) lot coverage, where 2,188.7 s.f. (16.8%) exists and 1,954.5 s.f. (15%) is allowed. 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2) - Lakeshore Hardcover - Within 75- 250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 4,468.7 s.f. (48.9%), where 5,061.7 s.f. (55.4%) exists and 2,282.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. U2564 William Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variances 3/20/2000 Page I 4 J 3.Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B); Side Setback: The minimum requirement for side yard setback in the LR-IC zone is 10 feet. Variance Request: To permi. a side yard setback of 2.9'-3.4' where 10' is required; replacement of the second story continues the existing substandard side setback of 2 9'-3.4' on the w#* ♦ si^’e of the house. Application Summary: The applicant has applied for variances to permit a 364.5 s.f addition to the south side of the residence and to remodel the existing residence. The scope of the project involves removing the roof, the street side deck and steps, and the second story. The first story walls and foundation will remain. The addition will replace the outside stairway and provide for an entrance thru the house. The roof line will change, however the height will stay the same. The addition will also aid in diverting runoff further downhill rather than into the house. The remodeling and addition will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2,433.2 (18.7%), where 2,188.7 s.f. (16.8%) exists and 1,954.5 s.f. (15%) is allowed. The lakeside deck is considered structure because it is more than 6' above grade. NOTE: If the I.akeside deck was not considered as structural coverage, the proposed house and addition would meet the 15% limit. But, this deck must be included based on the definition in Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C)(2). (See Exhibit G (2/2). The remodeling and addition will result in a reduction of hardcover coverage in the 75- 250* to 4,468.7 (48.9%), where 5,061.7 (55.4%) s.f exists and 2,282.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. The applicant is proposing to remove streetside deck, steps, walk, railroad ties, and landscape fabric under rock. Replacement of the second story continues the existing substandard side setback of 2.9'- 3.4' on the west side of the house. The house was built prior to current zoning standards. Statement of Hardshi p; The applicant has included his statement of hardship in Exhibit C. The applicant should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. iMues of Concern; 1.The roof line is changing, however the height of the residence is not changing. 2.The 75-250' hardcover coverage on the lot is decreasing, but viJl still greatly exceed the allowed amount. iH564 H'iUiam Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variances 3/2a'2000 Page 2 1 3.The addition is adding mass to the residence, but to the street side rather than the lake side. There is no average lakeshore setback encroachment. <1. The lot is small compared to the LR-IC zoning district standard. 5.The foundation and first story walls will remain as existing. 6.If the lakeside deck was not calculated in structural coverage, the proposed house and addition would meet the 15% limit (14 9%). If the deck and railing were lowered it would not be included in the structural coverage of the let. 7.The house was built prior to current zoning standards. 8.Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Oprions for Action; 1.Recommend approval of the variances to allow the addition and remodeling with the condition if the foundation is found to be in disrepair this will be considered a rebuild and needs to come back to the Planning Commission for review. Also a new survey showing revisions be submitted to City staff for approval before building permit will be issued. OR 2.Advise the applicant what other possible revisions will make the application approvable, and table the application. 3.Other. Staff Recommendation; Staff recommends the application be tabled. While meeting with staff, the applicant did mention the lakeside deck will need to be replaced sometime in the future. Because replacement of the deck will in itself require a setback and hardcover variance, Staff feels the structural coverage and hardcover on the lot would be better addressed if the addition, remodeling and lakeside deck were reviewed concurrently. (NOW). Lowering this deck could eliminate its lot coverage status and result in no need for an overall lot coverage variance i^2564 William Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variances 3/20/2000 Page 3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Side yard setback Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre)100'10' Actual 13,030 s.f. (.29 acre)50 ’2.9'-3.4‘ on west side Structural Covemge: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 13,030 s.f.Allowed: 1,954.5 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,188.7 s.f. (16.8%) Proposed: 2,433.2 s.f. (18.7%) The structural coverage on the lot increases with the proposed addition and remodeling to what presently exists and over the allowable amount. Hardcover Calculations; The hardcover coverage in the 75-250' setback area decreases by 6.5% with the proposed addition and remodeling. Distance irom shcaeline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'3,900 s.f.0 s.f. (0%)0 s.f. (0%)0 s.f. (0%) - No change 75-250’9,130 s.f.2,282.5 s.f. (25%) 5,061.7 s.f. (55.4%) 4,468.7 s.f. (48.9%) A I 1 6 ■f/ K‘ I t • Application # CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received -l5~^€O C> Amount Paid ^^00 i6T> PROPERTY INFORMATION Site T\)^/'^LACt----- Property Identification Number fP.T.D.’^ , ^ ferropeny lacnuiicauuu v* ^ i ^ —r---------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey., •Date Property Acquired TDCr ^5^_____^—__—;-----------------------------^ Present use of property: Y residential Zoning District: L-0. -1_________ other (specify). Address; ^S’OJlO^ Phone (^omt)Janjif2LQkk!L^ Phone /tvnrlft *?72~2- City:Zip: i^32l OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ------------------------------- Phone (home). Phone (work).*-:i Address:.City:.Zip: description of request Estimated Construction Cost $ ^0,000 Describe request in detail: SPP ftTTAfHfO----------------------------- f ^ 1 ?• •T' " 'I •/(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover X Lot Coverage Setback:Front X Side V Other (specify)^)oA/ • Rear Average Lakeshoie ^ I'' compliance with Zoning Code requirements:., 'SEE----ArACHiQ-------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) I t. '4i' 2>/^/9-occ' Hardship A.The topography of the area cause my house to be downhill from my neighbors, that plus my neighbors use of hardcover cause my house to be flooded in the event of heavy _____> — — m m V mrain. The runoff from their roofs and hardcover can overwhelm any defense I have constructed. This addition will allow me to divert runoff further onto my yard and allow my west lawn to deal with runoff. B.Due to the almost flat pitch of the roof on the west end of my house,{less than 2 inches in a foot} Ice dams are too easily formed in the winter. Causing the roof to leak inside. In addition with the slow rat of runo'Tdue to the low pitch, during heavy rains the roof can leak caused by the ponding effect of the starter row of shingles. C.Erosion caused by the heavy runoff from neighbors has in the past Washed out my entryway steps, 4 times! The new addition will replace those entryway steps thus eliminating those potentially dangerous outside stairs completely, thus ending any the possiblity of a lawsuit, caused by slippery or washed out steps. Previous attempts at correcting the existing hardship. The first attempt at correction of preventing heavy rainfall from flooding the ground floor of my home involved the removal of any hardcover in an attempt to absorb the runoff from my neighbors. That FAILED because the amount of water was too large for the amount of land available. The second attempt at diverting runoff involved recontouring the land to divert runoff further downhill. Due to topography involved that FAILED, because the area involved remained too flat to effectively drain water away from the area consequentially a heavy rainfall resulted in flooding of the ground floor of my house, with the resulting disgusting mess to clean up. The third attempt at a nonstructural correction FAILED, that was to dig a diverter trench into the landscape. The trench simply filled up and the resulting overflow did the damage, any increase in size of the trench was at best a de'?.ying action rather then a true solution. A trench of sufficient size to contain all of the run off from my neighbor would have been unsightly as well as dangerous. The fourth attempt at a nonstructural correction FAILED when a swale was added to divert the water further downhill. A large enough swale to divert the runoff caused my lawn mower to scalp the lawn until it no longer acted as a swale. The scalped lawn just speeded up erosion Others attempts at resolving some of the other issues include reroofing the house, and 4 times replacing the steps.. The only solution that will provide relief is something that includes a dam running East to West long enough to divert the runoff at least 16 feet to the West and allow the increase slope at that point to take runoff and naturally disperse it onto the West lawn. That dam would be formed when the foundation was poured for the new addition. Don't you love elegant solutions? An eyesore could be created in an attempt to resolve the flooding problem. Some equally ugly solution such as rolled roofing could be used to resolve the roof drainage problem, and the regular wash out of stairs could be resolved with a large cast concrete stairway. Ugly? Absolutely but needed! Or you can accept a elegant solution that reduces hard cover and reduces structure, A solution that is in keeping vvith the chaiacter of the neighborhood, A solution that would not be visible to most people. The view from the lake is obscured by Three large mature trees [and when construction is done two additional trees as well as bushes will be added]. Both neighbors on either side of my house have homes further toward the lake then mine so their view is not affected in any way by this solution. In addition the neighbor behind me has a view over my home and as there will be no increase in height of my house his view will also be unaffected. His primary view of the lake is to the north into Casco Cove, any view he has to the East {into Carmens bay} is over the garage roof of my neighbor. The structure to be removed includes a 4ft By 32ft Entryway deck [128 sq.ft.] as well as 12ft. By 23ft. Entryway stairs [ 276 sq.ft.] for a total structure reduction of 404 sq.ft When compared to the added 352 sq.ft. Both the structure and hard cover will be removed! Thus with this change Lake Miimetonka will have the burdon of 52 sq« ft less to deal with. While it is not overwhelming it is an improvement. The final comment is that this change will improve things for .... Lake Miimetonka The city of Orono's tax base My family The neighborhood The only person that will be negatively impacted is that stupid fool that has to do all the work and pay all the bills, and he deserves it! DESCRIPTION A steep pitch to the roof oriented north to south will be added over the kitchen and dining room to form a great room. Entering the great room will be an entranceway over the existing outside stairs. In addition to providing a safe assent to the second floor it will allow a weather lock to be incorporated into the design. The entranceway will be oriented east to west. The steep pitch of the entry roof will match the pitch of the great room. Both will meet the roof of the existing house. By using a steep pitch roof a less ponderous facade will be presented from the view of the driveway. [ several homes in the immediate area have a similar pitch] Any other view, including the view from the lake will be obstructed by the many large trees on my lot. The exterior facade will be English Tudor using Black walnut "beams ” and stucco over a base of Chilton stone. At the intersection of the entry way and the main house will be a "silo” designed to house a spiral stairs. The interior will be built with large white oak timbers [most over 200+ years old, many were growing before the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776] Timbers as large as 12 inches by 12 inches. Beams as long as 24 feet. Beams will be triangulated into scissors trusses to form a ridged, open vaulted ceiling over the great room. The addition will be built conforming to both the Uniformed building code and NT..^ J ,c-, -. •** \ .* ■t ■i ''•a ll c (4l6) the American Institute for Timber Construction. The foam core panels used to enclose the addition comply with all relevant code requirements from ICBO, BOCA, & SBCCI. In addition the panels have been tested in accordance with ASTM E 72, ASTM E 119, ASTM E 84. The panels are listed in the current Underwriters Laboratories, section BLBT, BXUV, & BZXX. Conforming to UBC 17-5, room comer bum test. t ' 1}'d... \ .J CO f '• t • »; / 5 Mrtrf-10-O0 10:41 AM FRENCMY 6124710664 P.02c, (3/6) 3lic/acco My neighborhood Out at the end of Casco point is a narrow little road called Ivy Place. It a cull-de-sac or dead end Very few people drive it's ftill length, previous dead ends >^d up turning around in someone’s driveway. That's an embarrassment few are willing to risk. Since we live almost at the very end of that "dead end" the only traffic we get is gucsts.ncighbors, and a rare real-estate junkie. . • To the west of our home,across the street is a large shrub line,overgrown with grapevines and dense foliage. As that area is within the 73ft. Setback ft-om Lake Minnetonka there is NO chance that any one could ever build there. To the Northwest is Casco Cove and it's vrildlife island that shields the view any of the residents might have of my home while affording me an interesting and peaceful view of nature. Directly nonh of my home is a view of Casco Point. Overgrown with large mature trees, brush, and grapevines it too is an interesting view of birds, rabbits, a beaver, an occasional pair of Bald eagles etc. ^ most of the area falls in the 73ft. Setback and the little land that docs not is too small to build on, it too vrill remain as God made it. To the northeast approximately 25 ft. away is the back of my neighbors house. Fortunately [since they live so close] they are very nice people and we get along well. 1 Minnetonka is East of our home about 100 ft. from Carmens Bay. The view to the southeast is restricted by 3 large mature trees which also affords us privacy and prevents those cruising on the lake from seeing into our side and back yard. South of roy home is my other neighbor, the placement of my home offset towards Ivy Place gives both of us privacy and since both neighbors have little view out the back of their homes anything in my back yard has no impact My only other neighbor, to the southeast, across the road has the side of his garage facing our home. In addition his house is uphill about 15 ft. higher than mine. Any view out the side of his home has to look over my neighbors garage Ukc Minnetonka has no universal or common Architectural style however within three lots of my home or about 130 ft. is a house with the same roof pitch that I propose. Ivy Place as well as Ca^co Point is dominated by 50ft. Lots so most houses are like mine in that we are too large for the lots and as such we are structure'* While wc don’t conform to the current rules, wc should not be punished for that. Please remember the rules were put into place long after most of our houses were built. Nor should what wc do impact Ac rest of Orono Wc arc after all zoned LB1£ which is Vz acre lots or smaller. As most of Orono is zoned LRIA or RRl^yB [lofs 1 •ere or larger] allowing home owners a reasonable level of self determination is not only fair it is in Ae best interest of Ac city. •/.’ft- l'.. ■ •*•i :•/ .■;*:•,. 'f‘ V ••.*•. V .( «•_• .* • m a> 9i r-; r.'.vjn'w 'Of^ D LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 173. TAYLORS SUBDIVISION 0? SPRING PARK LOTS. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by roe or under my direct supervision, and that -I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN 6 GRONBERG, INC. Hark S. Gronberg MH. Lie. No. 12755 Engineers. Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale Date 0 1 inch = 20 feet March 23, 1990 Iron markerBearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. If: o K V«iev..*rrr Jim -'•U. 2 rr; •%•« •% •• LEGAL description OF Lot 173.TAYLORS SUBC O ) I hereby certify tha or under my direct s registered Civil Eng laws of the State of COFFIN a GRONBERG, I Mark S. Gronberg MN. Engineers, Land Surv Long Lake, Minnesota Scale Date 0 1 inch = 20 March 23, IS Iron marke*^ Bearings shown ar^j t 4 M>C% !i L _^_ _ _ _ t a·. r.3'·d.. ,, . . . . . ) - .. : {/ ... • I ... ..... ...,......... _,_.......,....,_,___ _ �:,-�_.,It_ .... --4 -JJl' .... J""" ... II&&. __ ,._ I I I , : •I �· • ·- 4 '... ; I . I -----·--- ... - ·--:-t·.. :�• • • I I I ..' ,: 'I ' .,.__I • I I • I • f• I I 9lt ... a·J.S .. -...... ··----: IA'l ,1-.'lpPf?• • 1------ ·-■ ·--· --�-...--·. :,,.... . . .. .. -. . .. . . ...... ,. __ _ c:..�� :.: ..... ·-- 1 I l . . . •· I • ...,,, I .� .. .. \ -"·· ·- -. -.. . . o---�· ...� \• .. I 1 ... : r ... �-;..1t f . : � .: I � . I I I I I 1-1 l I .. , . -.lJi -#t -1 ----. -~ . -· -... -... -..-- ' .·· .) . , I � ·. . . . � • • I 4 , • f v/i ••-•--_...& I• I ' ('I • ' . , I • f ' I' f' � . . ' ... . p r ' '. ........ _. � r r • ' l \\ Z,. 4/ .. .,, � � 4• f\ ' cC' � .,,.t:,� '° !, 'V -· �, � �-.. • .... ) 'l 'J-. t: .. 48' -.... ---♦------- -t't ;� � _/� �-00 '?>. 'o-r- � ��o C, � �>. 0 � -l, . t LJ 'I" I I l . I 0 ,,... 'r - ... 1,1 _, - (. ... "") E: -0 •• -.. ,, ,, I I ' � ,-..... -- I ^ *J •. • .f HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500’500-1000’ y yrgriNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________•X Lcoftfi Wlddi X X X B.Garage -• C.Driveway ••*X X D.Sidewalk X X E.Pado/Deck F.Landscaiie Uadedain By Plasdc Or Fabric X X X O.Odier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •A n +B <QPO r ^tCC xlOO r> PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________X LcQlih X X X B.Garage C.Driveway X X D.Sidewalk X X E.Pado/D^X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plasdc Or Fabric X X X Q.Ocher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ + B .XlOO S.F. S.F. S.F. s.p. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. 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 S.F. S.F. S.F. % 0 — m •• .. .•.• • HAKDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’250-500’ P VtgTTNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 6 x Leo|di X X X B.Garaje • m * • C, Driveway ■.itD L X X D.Sidewalk •3 X X E.Pacio/Deck iL-X X F.Landsc^e Uoderiain By Plasde Or Fabric O X X X O.Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONfi A •/. '7 ® . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ^X Ltogih iU: I X X X B.Oarage C.Driveway .QC X X D.SldewaU:X X E.Patlo/DKk X X F.Landscape Uoderiain By Plastic Or Fri)ric 5 n X X X O.Other s 13- 30-^ 5'S ^7 71.^0 xioo Ik- Ik inAJL r. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL P^OP^p^ AREA IN ZONE +B X100 500-1000’ ,^4-D C^) /t>S6.6 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3... m -3T S.F. ■75.* • S.F. m •30 S.F. ISL'T m S.F. m S.F. iH m S.F. m S.F. m S.F. S.F. /. -7 S.F. 01:50 S.F. wm . 4 %• • i6<;c>6 S.F. S.F. p.S.F. m S.F. • S.F. S.F. mm S.F. S.F. •••• c _S.F. S.F. m .J.«4 S.F. • P,C S.F. P,S.F. P,S.F. IS • S.F. ‘-Hli-Sd.S.F. •S.F. A B u^rio// MfT £0C)I vC,11CaJ 4>57o G" 0 'mmW PI ."■■>/•• 1 *■ *y ' t T- r, - i.1 a % & 'r^' ./j--' / U [ I'/i /-' /V^*‘ / .' ■' . . /y tn ' . 'S' T. BwmCSi 1 Pi ••. -- - -JV w --r.^' y, ? .I' '^T\ f t { I i t ' ■J' J •'/ /'A . '-C . f f- y/A jv I f^^ocd. I , f' -.'rU I f « 'T 1,0 («) ^ yVEST*^^? 187.42 . f <8> (31)\ , ;■ '“• / H’^’" 14± \ 3 >e-18± -►(3) \^feu \ '% ^_n.^ 4^<p iceIly ^ J ”7 >.i>- S' ^ '“' 4>\ <9 2Nn,ADDN V ^^ I <S‘'^ 7>.-v<=^. ^ % '^1= .>7 ,“ tft5 ^'-^'VAC ^ ^\5ih '<?> A •\-T c. ts^ <5^AtP. 1B7 _ ^ ^ . . ,-, J«’"P '■IMtoJIP,,5s ...f iP '?f,X*«iy 7 ’ f ^■=:^ v V *• ‘ “V*-’- / /• .•. UTS81 . OPORI Q« 0 ^ 0 niuf VAIUTA ORONO VIAA ca 5 *WATf ATOWI« 8 Cf^ M 0 Timoftp un HWMn g •^85»S"^^4aJS 3 ***-A^» ^2 •••••••••• •l» LiM>••••••••* WAIT WAACM lit W%Nori ? VUtf OtVUiU lOAivmeR iki.••"—•'•• I .................... AjatSOI «Af ORON 8 V 3 NoMrabwi <00 !<*• ■''Nw^ j ■; . ' * B/SV ?•!■ r\i-*r •MMVIt*;,., Lake li';^ V"'*" ORONO >Arm *«rfw>orf Feint yev II DegMNO •jf^\ B r-vISLWD V~ •*.‘'*•*•* •* 'J .* ^ V SV, -.I ■ S>cv» Ty r|^A'> VlOAf^ :ve i::T •V '• . 1 -ilx, i^nt /.__it® •iwits lU ^. • • Fogmm Feint %-mrnmmK mm SSSsi Crysta!^ B(k ?:.:' Bohns Feint Crystal _, Bay iSSiSf Feint «?Eukd i.(^SHADY . V#>. ISLAND ^^sSPRAY /ISLAHD / {PrimA^ T§ # ORONO 18C0 ^ - / •... *.'•• /.<* **• >• ■ *••••.>•:•: • • Smith Bhy Brmc <?• ‘ •• «••.*• * '% » •* SrJ/^ ‘1 fTif.. .. .. »•• .' ; . • I Jl • .•: • - * • • .• •• * •• • V I ••A V A *. % •^Mtlngten Feint y/j|* '•'. I IllAIld r ••CrescentBeedt * p ■ I ,^i£cAoBo;». . .. Gilt Itlaad ••• ) > > I Mil MTt tt/lVM ■iVCN Mi tIST m.ra« >~ M M*U7*n it Mil TMTAVn S L MMJM IT M. TMMfIM jMMft If imMirnit mmirh him Si ti-u7 •MM rn rMwniB lmm irntmuk St ti-lI7-tS it Mli •SiM IM n, Ml ■ J iMMia MUIM i MMmB SIM IW fUCI MVZATA Ml HSn Si tt-U7-tS it M17 Si i#-n7-ts it MU TMMm miMit • mi. stii m iucB HAVIiTA Ml fisn » ti-117-IS it Mli •SiM m n. m i MMKV CAMA AtiwM H jmrrr Siii IM PI HAVZATA m sssn mt AMI■uu Si ti*U7*tS it Mt7 •A CMOifMMtll IT AL ■ART A • LMM A sfu m PI MAVtATA Ml sssn St •SI ti-m-ts it nsi s m PL i TSTAL tATCn Sii IMM SSiS m PL KAVIATA Ml sssn X CCRTXPV 1MAT IMS PACTS MEPWIMWH AM m ACMMATI rATBM iP PTiMIATlMI AS XT APPtAM IMS BATI W PStPMWT TAMATXMI, It TM BUT MLXiP. A ro i... f , s'* ■r"'\h.y<J S Perait No 3jT/V 3fun -2^ 7535- [:■ 3^/3^ L. r ii t ► PERMIT RECORD Date tHrOs £ LhJ3^^ 16 1-^L /2i/yL^tL^y'jtC . /• Response 1.Variance request, to reduce lot coverage from current 2548.8.8 sq.ft, to 2480.6 sq.ft, a total reduction of 68.2 sq. ft. 2.Variance request, to reduce hardcover from 5061.7 sq.ft, to 4468.7 sq.ft. 3.Side setback [please note; there is no second story on the north side of the house the only difference is between the nearly flat current roof and the steep pitch of the new roof 4.Application summary; the existing second story will not be removed [as shown on the blueprints] 5.Structure will be reduced from 2548.8sq.ft. to 2480.6sq.ft. Issues of Concern: 2.However, the hardcover is much less than either one of my neighbors. I do not have large area's of my yard covered with plastic covered by rock. 4.The lot is typicid for the neighborhood. Most Casco Pt. lots are similar size or smaller [refer to plot map RLS No 477} 6.It's astonishing that a person in such a responsible position in city government would dare to suggest that a structure that is in compliance with the law be brought out of compliance. 1 refer to the Americans with disabilities act. That deck is in compliance, it is wheel chair accessible. Options for Action 1 .A survey will be provided after construction to show any changes. The current survey provides all the required information. 6.RE: Staff Recommendations: The deck as it is complies with the Americans with disabilities act Staff recommendations could make the city libel if her recommendations are followed. Wendy is simply wrong in her assessment of what is and what isn't structure. Her contention that the stairs and rear deck are somehow not structure is incredulous. My entryway door is 8 ft. above ground level. The stairs are required to enter my house. [ however, if Wendy will free jump 8 ft. I might be willing to discuss not counting them] By what logic could you consider these stairs as not part of the structure of this house? Because they don't have a roof over them? Well the lakeside deck has no roof yet it is properly considered structure. Wendy is also wrong in assuming the front [lakeside] deck is on the table. Recently the deck was repaired with pressure treated wood. However, the rear deck is already rotted and has been patched countless number of times and approaches the dangerous point. Such a deck would not be approved by today's building code. If you include the stairs and rear deck there will be a 68.2 sq.ft. Reduction in structure. Wen^ did not count the 576 sq.ft. Of hardcover That 1 have already removed in anticipation of this permit, hardcover clearly shown on the survey. In addition the hardcover of my driveway should be reduced by 876 sq.ft. [15,300 bricks laid over dirt yields approximately *4 jn. of grass and moss growing between them, the bricks are 8x3=1 lin.x .75=126,225 sq.in. Which is 876 sq.ft.]. The front deck is considered hardcover, contrary to what other co;'.ununities have ruled. My 80^ year old Oak Sl Maple trees growing through my deck since 1974 are proof that this is not hardcover. Also not included is the many ft. of rail: oad timber retaining walls that I have removed in an attempt to reduce flooding of my ground floor. Total over count of hardcover removed is close to 2000 sq. ft. Wendy has l^n confused from the start of this process. She looked at plans and an exact scale model that showed only the addition and modified area and wrongly decided that 1 was planning to tear the whole house down. Every time we contacted each other she was confused. Clarification only seemed to cause her to find something else to object to. In spite of a very clear set of plans, an exact scale model and many discussions she still gets fundamental facts wrong. Somehow she now wants me to change the lake side of my home, no discussion of where the money would come from, or the time. It's particularly confusing because when she erroneously thought that the entire house was going to be tom down, I wouldn't be allowed to do that, but now it seems like that's exactly what she want's! My discussions with her have started to sound like lefs make a deal. Remove this and I'll let you have that, make that smaller and fll let you do this. Well all of those compromises have already been made with Lyle and Chris. This house is typical of the neighborhood, if anything it is smaller than many homes in the area. As for meeting your formula, I would remind you that our home as all of the homes on Casco Pt. are exiatiM^noB-coafomhip stmcture. the rules dont fit so we are grandfathered in. Ifs like Wendy isn't going to honor what has been agreed to. She wants to design house hfiC ^y- It doesn't matter what the rules are, only what her interpretation of the rules are. It just seems that if there is a way to say NO! Wendy would rather take it, no matter what grief or hardship that causes 4 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner March 20,2000 SUBJECT:#2565 Peter L. Scherer 15 Oi ono Orchard Road ___________Variance Renewal — Public Hearing Zoniog Dutrict:RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area:4.387 acres List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H Application Site Plan/Survey Plat Map Location Map Property Owner ’s List Resolution #3473 (September 26,1994) Planning Commission minutos (September 19,1994) City Council minutes (September 26,1994) Pertinent Code Sections: 1.Section 10.28, Subd. 5 (B) - Lot Width - The minimum requirements for lot width in the RR-1B zoning district is 200' as measured at the front setback line. Application Summary: On September 26, 1994, owners of this property were granted a variance for lot width. The lot is triangular and only 50* wide where it abuts Orono Orchard Road. At the 50' front setb?ck line, the width is 80'. In 1994, the owners were granted a lot variance to remove the existing house and construct a new residence on the property. The existing house was removed, however the new residence was not constructed on the lot. The variance expired after 1 year. The present owner proposes to construct a new residence on the lot that meets all setbacks in the RR- IB zoning district. The location of the new residence and the narrow nature of the lot has little impact on adjacent residences. The present owner would like to renew the lot width variance on this property. Staff Recommendation: Staff reconunends renewing the variance for lot width. U2565 Peter Scherer 15 Orono Orchard Road Variance Renewal 3/20/2000 Page I FI Application # Date Received Amount Paid ^ 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-confoiming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number fP.I.D.'i //*7 * 'Z’^' 000*2^_____________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prc^rty Acquired________________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do r^yalso own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential Zoning District: other (specify).IQ APPLIC Name L- S0-H( gtfg. Phone Oiome ^ Phone(wori O Cp(^- Address:/V . Citv:____Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ ) Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: iQtJild /lei^ Estimated Construction Co^ $, /dr. % VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width (attach additional sheets if necessary) Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSmP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: .f^— (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date In order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy %Vi' x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVz" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8Vj" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and'to^ct t^ the^est of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of inyestigajion ajfd vtflrificatiiDn 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 Pbnning 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. IX 11 h si if2Pts LOT SURVEY PREPARED FOR LANOSCHUTE DeCPHAVEN. MINNESOTA s SATHRE-BE ISO SOUTH amMiwAY • m r- C 35-34 - ^,18 -'A f ..*^,/» MMT V tuid M i if M or if M m 1 ti-1 n-a3- (II 7 ;? ?i .•* .% • • fr^4^ M iii^h >■III Hi ii I at I ■■#~■I'^ii —irihi I !■iffiMii Mil I iH Itm-■rtii^i I ninrii—w vu ffc iil inrfiYlii iti mi ■■Nri«fliiii —■■n i ■.v^%r k [«^1 iHliiiiYlit>i II I Ti in ifUfiXfci ~l~iiiHi'i UNsnauAZinaaffi WN MTI NENNiPXfl COUNTY mOKRTV XNFOmATION SYSTEM PMPERTY ONNillS LIST REPOtT NO. PMSMEl EASE 25 MTCN fM TAMPAYIR TARPAYtR NAHi/AROR TARPAYtR TARPAYtR NANt/ARRR SO tS'llT-aS 22 •••! OttSS ADDRESS UNASSIONED STATt OP MINN STATt OP HINN (DNRl ILUCt LlNt TRAIL) SO 02-117-25 22 0002 OOOIS ORONO ORCHARD RO S P L SCNERtR too SCMCRtR PtTER L A OERZ 0 SCHERER 19000 51ST PL N PLVNOVTH MN 5S407 SO 02-117-25 22 0005 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIONED CAROILL MAC NILLAN JR ETAL LONORlDOt ASSOCIATES P 0 ROM 1020 MPLS m 55000-5020 SO 02-117-25 22 0000 OOOSR ADDRESS UNASSIONED STATE OP HDDI STATt OP NZNN (RNR) ILUCt LINE TRAIL) 50 02-117-25 22 0005 00205 ORONO ORCHARD VILLAOE OF CITY OP P 0 DOR 00 CRYSTAL RAY HN 55525 RD S 50 05-117-25 11 0001 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIONED CAROILL NAC NILLAN JR ETAL LONORIOOE ASSOCIATES P 0 DOR 5020 (1PLS MN 55000-5020 !* SO 05-117-25 11 0002 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIONED STATE OF HINNESOTA STATE OF NIMN IDNR) ILU6E LINE TRAIL) 50 50-110-25 00 0005 00155 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EONUND U F RYOELL EDNUND RYDELL 155 ORONO ORCHARD RD LONO LAME MN 55550 50 55-110-25 55 OOOO 00025 ORONO ORCHARD RO N R J ■ T R SPENCER REITN J 0 TtNRESA R SPEICER 25 ORONO ORCHARD RO N LONO LAME MN 55550 SO 55-110-25 55 0005 OOOSR ADDRESS UNASSIONED STATE OF NINN STATE OF NINN IDNR) ILUCE LIME'TRAIL) Si 55-110-25 55 0009 00020 ORONO ORCHARD OLD ORCHARD FARM LLC OLD ORCHARD FARM LLC SO ORONO ORCHARD RD HAYZATA MN 55591 TOTAL lATCH 50i 00011 1 CERnFY THAT THE FACTS RCPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE_ _ _ _ REPRESENTATION OF DVORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE NCNNEPZN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TARATZON« TO THE REST OF NY RNOMLEROE AND DELZEF DAtJioIoo iM&Ju) Vy1V r-r h H.. h.. Mi CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council '8 4 7!^NO. A resolution GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 1963 WHEREAS, James and Camilla Farley are the owners of, and Engen & Kozojed ^Tnc rhereinafter "the aDplicanls) have an interest in the property located at 15 Orono (hereinafter 'CUy") and legally described aa follows: That part of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Swtion 2, Township 117, Range 23, which lies northerly of me Luce Line Tr^. Hci^pm County, Minnesota (also known as Property Identification Number 02-117-23 22 2) (hereinafter "the property"); andIII! WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit *« f residence on a lot 80' in width in the RR-IB zoning district where required lot width is 200 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: hndings 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1963. The properly is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 19. 1994 and recommended approval of the proposed variance ase upon following findings: A.The shape of the property does not allow conformity to the City of Orono ’s 200’ frontage requirement. The lot is triangular in shape aM approximately 130’ from the front lot line. Page 1 of 5 P i I i tvmM : CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ■ ^ ^ 7-3.------ 4. B Adiaccnl property to the south is the Luce Line Trail and to the north is a developed residential property containing a wetland near the no^ boundary of applicants’ property. The adjacent property is not available for purchase to increase the width of applicants property at the 50 front setback line. C.The existing house on the property has existed tlKte for many decades ^ is located less than the required 30’ from the side lot line adjawnt to the Luce Line Trail. .Applicants propose to remove that house and construct a new residence that meets all setbaclc requirements of the City. D Strict enforcement of the zoning code would not allow the existing hoi^ with non-confonning setbaclc to be replaced with a new house having conforming setbacks. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and „endations of the Planning Commission. «Ports by Cuy staff, by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds thafthe conditions existing on this property are Pe^uhar to it and do not appW generally to other property m this zoning disttict, ttat granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions. ligW ait ror nose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not se“e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to a demonstrable hardship ot difficulty; is necessary to pt^w a aubsiaima tight of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council ^ conditions: 5. 1.The new residence shall meet all required setbacks. Page 2 of 5 !mmf f CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council no.A4J^2_1_ 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with Ae *PP ^ • but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 26, 1995). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the teims 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. 4. hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Cham of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of September, 1994. ATTEST: ^Dot^iihy^pallifi, City Clerk /^Property 9wnerTs)^ penyvOwner (s) Page 3 of 5 A >k % CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council N0> ■ 3 4 7 L3_____ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on ^ay of Seotember 1994 by Edward I. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Halim, Mayor and City Clerk of ftTcurof Orono^ a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. NOTAm^WJBUC - SSwESOTA Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) /C 0 tfAuuU , 199^ before me a Notary^Public within ^ Sfown "S:; S^eT-K-J in atS^o' . __t-j__I .u«*^v^rntMi the same as his (their) tree act and deed. JAMIE L BOSMA „ N(nMYnJ8IJC4liNNCS0n B HENN9IN COUNTY | MyComffl.Expi«12-19-97 « ►grfkV'Awrrixy'.rr*?? STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. known to me to be the personas) ocscriDca wuv/ . A^mA Mknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. JAMIE L BOSMA NOIAflY PU6LC MNNESOIA NBmEPlNCOUtOY My Conm. E«i« 12-19.97 _____ZX'y)uJU ^ NOTARi” PUBLIC ^'Q-ry- Page 4 of 5 L. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CTTY COUNCH. NO 8 4 7 3 ^ 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^PU^C - MINNESOTA HENNEPIN county _ My coffwiittion tipirtt NOrARY PUBLIC 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 instrumeot,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 5 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. It was determined that the lot width at the garage would be 110' and 150 ’ at the house. Keith Spencer questioned the intent for another structure on the property which is orooosed to be built. It wiU only be a bam-type stnicture placed at the rear of the drt^^y and was told there are no more buUdable sites on the property, precluding a second house or lot split. Nolan moved. Smith seconded, to approve Item #1963 as proposed. Ayes 4. Nays 0. Gr . j I .% . I ^tINlrreS OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL mee ting HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26. 1994 Mabusth summarized the current situation. The propert>' was inspected on 9/26/94 found to be in violation of agreement made at last Coundl meeting regarding the aafrage of materials in the garage. Siegler was also to have contacted Staffin regard discontinuing the use of a lower level room as a sleeping room. / Barrett relayed the options the City has at this point. A civU suit would^d to revocation of the conditional-use permit and fines to demonstrate thp^ase. or a cnminal misdemeanor complaint would be filed by the prosecuting attot^of the City against the owner. remove the materials in the garage bjM 0/1/94. CaUahan motioned, Goetten «c4ded. to table Application meeting on 10/10/94. Stapto resolve the above issue by that date and conduct inspection of the properp^n 10/2/94. The neighbors at 5^ Livingston were present at the meeting. They voiced their concern with thd^pUcant not meeting the conditions of the condiUonal ^. They felt tha»^ applicant has been given sufficient time to correct any pro e the Chy ndWs to take action to remedy the problems. (#5>1#'l96l WARREN PASCHKE, 3349 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCE - ;soLunoN # 3472 Goetten moved. Kelley seconded, to approve Application ^1961. Resolution -^472, as proposed. Ayes 5, Nays 0. RESOLUTION #3473 Goenen moved. Kelley seconded, to approve Application f?1963. Resolution n-j473, as proposed. Ayes 5, Nays 0. A J 7 TO:Chair Ham and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner March 20,2000 SUBJECT:#2566 James Langhans 1366 Rest Point Road Variance ~ Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:27,043 s.f. (.62 acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K Analysis Woiksheet Application Letter from applicant Elevations/Floor Plan Site Plan/Survey Plat Map Location Map Hardcover Calculations Photo of property Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LX2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75- 250* of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 5,368 s.f. (29.33%), where 5,376 s.f. (29.37%) exists and 4,575.5 (25%) is allowed. Application Summary: The iqjplicant has tqjplied for a variance to remove a lakeside deck and replace it with a 16' x 18* (288 s.f.) addition and new deck (465 s.f.). The addition and new deck is a total of753 s.f., however the removal of the existing deck/steps results only in a net increase of 388 s.f. (1.4%) or total structural lot coverage of 11.6%. A reduction of hardcover coverage in the 75- 250' setback area occurs because the {q)plicant is proposing to remove hardcover items. The addition and deck meet all the setback requirements for the LR-IB zoning district. ^2566 James/Sheih Laghans 1366 Rest Point Road Varianct-hardcover 3/20/2000 Page I The addition and new deck will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 3,1S1 s.f. (11.6%), where 2,763 s.f. (10.2%) exists and 4,056 s.f. (15%) is allowed. The addition and new deck will result in a reduction of hardcover coverage in the 75-250' setback area to 5,368 s.f. (29.33%), where 5,376 s.f. (29.37%) exists and 4,575.5 (25%) is allowed. The hardcover coverage results in a reduction because the applicant has proposed to remove the existing deck, steps, stepping blocks, wood steps, sidewalks and landscape material under rock in two areas. (See Exhibit H for details). Statement of Hardship: The i^)plicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1.The structural coverage on the lot is increasing but still below the allowed 15%. 2.The 75-250' hardcover on the lot is decreasing with the removal of stepping blocks, sidewalks and landscape material under rock. 3.The house is 55 years old and concrete around the house is needed for drainage. 4.The concrete retaining wall on the east side of the house is to keep adjacent neighbors yard from eroding. 4.The driveway and turnaround is necessary because the slope makes it difficult to back out onto Rest Point Road. 5.The lot is small compared to the LR-IB zoning district standard. 6.Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation! Staff recommends approval of the variance for hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. U2566 James/Sheila Langhans 1366 Rest Point Road Variance - Hardcover 3/20/2000 Page 2 m 1 1 € ANALYSIS WORKSHEET The application needs a variance for: 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 2, and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(2) - Lakeshore Hardcover (75-250' setback area). Lot Area: LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)140' Actual 27,043 s.f. (.62 acre)100’ Structural Coverage: The proposed structural coverage is an increase, however still below the allowed amount. Hardcover Calculations: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 27,043 s.f.Allowed: 4,056 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,763 s.f. (10.2%) Proposed: 3,151 s.f. (11.6%) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'7,562 s.f.0 s.f (0%) 457 s.f (6.04%) 457 s.f- No Change 75-250'18,302 s.f.4,575.5 (25%) 5,376 s.f (29.37%) 5,368 s.f (29.33%) 250'-500'1,179 s.f 353.7 s.f (30%) 940 s.f (79.73%) 940 s.f- No Change The property is on the lake and lies within 500' of the lakeshore. The hardcover coverage is decreasing however, the amount is greater than the allowed 25% in the 75-250 setback area. The applicant has proposed to remove stepping blocks, sidewalks, wood steps and landscape material in two locations. In 1989, a variance to allow 457 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area was approved. A storm damaged boathouse was removed and a deck was constructed in its place. Hardcover coverage in the 75-250' setback area was not reviewed at the time. 4 6 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non*conforming structures $250.00 Afrer*the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) implication # X S Date Received Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Rcecd. ^ /lAfiVAAO ^ Property Identification Number fP.I.D.’l ••3c^ -_______________ ^ ^ A A A a A «# # (month/year) Present use of property: Zoning District:______ residential other (specifyX APPLICANT V Name Address: j34f> ge.si- Phone Oiome'l ____Phone (woik ^ ^CX.vy \^_____^ City:A'Vbvv.JvA Zip:v ,J Phone fliome l ^ ^ Name ___________Phone (work) fei Address: rox:^ W City:a AO iaw A ____Zip: 5P5<^ OWNER (if different than cmplicant) Name L-n.w\WtkS>T ■ 1 «f •• • DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estima Describe request in detail: piated Construction Cost $ ^^(0^ "V~c___ (attach additional sheets if necessaty) s. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width t Setback:Front Side ^ Hardcover Rear Lot Coverag^J ..■* t!v Average Lake^re Other (specify) HARDSmP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difQculty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:______________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complctei 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map fi’om Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/s" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/^" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views provide one (1) copy 8'/s" 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 vonr 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 t^t the information supplied is true and correct 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, Cormnission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Conunission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Pianning 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. James & Sheila Langhans 1366 Rest Point Road Mound, Mn. 55364 February 27,2000 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Mn. 55356 Dear Zoning Counsel, We have proposed an improvement to our home that will reduce the hard cover from 29.37% to 29.33% in the 75ft to 250ft zone. This represents a total hard cover percentage of 25%. We believe that additional hard cover removal would represent a hardship for the following reasons. Because of the steep incline of our driveway it is necessary to turn a vehicle around in order to safely exit onto Rest Point Road especially in winter. Additional hard cover could be obtained by eliminating the concrete apron on the north side of the house and the concrete wail and walk on the east side of the house. I believe that these structures are necessary to insure proper run off and protect my basement from serious water damage (which is 55years old) and protect my lot and my neighbor ’s lot (Brian & Sue Schebier) from erosion that would be caused if the concrete wall on the east side was removed. I respectfully request that a variance be allowed as I believe that it is in the best interests of myself my neighbors and the City of Orono. Sincerely, James s Sheila4»nghans lL^ c lillltlllllltMllli cUAl^MAlO At>ti3l.TZ»/0,fe.E^sT, VoXLt^r ■ Sct-^l-e /gr" - !' % 1 Jt3. Al>t>31 TXO^ \^i>',e IL /^‘ \ V.f V X. ^A^r W-E.\/ATx:oAf /C,'-o" ADW1TX0»'J mm lilliiiiiii iijj lii !iii!iiiilH lllllllll llllllll III PJLf\/ArxffM I rt‘T fiSf^acPwA.«t ••*«M> •» --------- ►« •»•^1 •♦ ^xIStx *)o» -- .1 •fO ^ CiKiC La a.c/c!iiioW |/W Piooc^?e«l I3^C^ Resf 'terKrt. So^l^!/g»' c. )' Po ^ z 3 ___/V'1 /g’ 1 1 ✓ ^/✓ -5V'-0,” / 1 .S qocH\ SL^o^'L./^k\ «W < ., ‘ • J • 7/ r^-2;;/ t- i •• 'i^p*^^ Lt^e “r • /’-*. /.'N • ‘r^ \ 1^ t I r bc.W’ mm •••• • I !_ _x pgc,Vi: .....//pA W 3 / ?T /5&^ -^SnicA /phhMttS CWOi'Li C/i^ . I 9 ■—% ** mm t . • •* * J ^'-v.:r':,/l) y;'* ••» C v_ I ;■■./■ .<■»-f ■•; V } *'• U I A •I 1 i £ i'\2) OCSCWPTIOW Of P«ClylSCS : 2.Btoel. I. R£ST POWf LAKE dtnoifi iron ingrtior l«9S tno«n ort boto^ wpon on ossumoO datum Minnetonka «o the« Ih* boundonat ol (h* oboy* dtteribad prep«r(y, lecolioa of «n tutlnf houM. Ui« prepoM J lecolion pt o propotad addition. t»>a locdtion ol «■ «i«ibla ’hordCOvar" tharaoa It doaa not purport to iboa oliiar onprovamantt or ancreocivnantt cornu 0 cMiBaG. me ^cas&fic ooim uM uirai HI mum «2 tlMMACB A\CM£. ICNC IM. m 551^ €i2-4IJ-4UI •STlSlpSSiM^taftf • m A «Av iCM0 POAnmwu n» At UOIV 1C M or mmn» .^0. ioLLw'J.ucii« M«ai* « f_ �\ I 2..) ' ' ' I \ \ • ' \ ' '1, ' ' ' ' ' ' \ ' \ \ ' \ ' ' • , . . . ,.-. , . ·-·•.£--� .: -. . , ... . ·--. · .. · ., . . -. · . . .. . . . . ' .. : .• • .•. •1 ·· . • '' • ' .. . t .. • \ ' \ \ • \ ' ' \ ' • \ ' \ ' \ , , , , , \ \ \ \ • '' ' ' - SETBACK Lt£ IDOi c-n,1 ' '• \ \ \ ' ' ' -- -,.,. ... -·' . , 2 -- 75• -·--------... -- SETBACK LN: 0 r ^ nr.^(53)1^(52)^^ aivfniAu i ORON s AAnsi oromcm o mcr •CNASriv o« TWA.tS ilio CM m V LakeYiew 400 1 wnmiu SEE MAP 61 , imi ST .r'. ;• \“2 V-vStjiWj.:;: i ) Jj •jBajL ICO ...#.*.,1- .jr;:: Cwrie . y; twinWuuiewii _• « * © ^.. w Ok.^\r<>r«(>*j| if o-jN.,V >/SkegsUtg Pdtu RuMMf U '^Harrison | I t il f'il I . I •• « Mot 5-f** • » .?f.. • .' Bg f -• •.:r/i I • * , '*’* •’ .Arm .X.\\- vc^-- ^ ■ ORONO Arm / • ;• fmu 3^1 •'• in? a l-illif u JtfiMAIULtt »4iIM4UA9 Ci oks Bay MOUND Wm 1 \ ISTiSi II iirrt rr-rnrri»-k. Say Foint ,.-x- *r* «»?& f/i Say^* LAND SHADY . ISLAND SPRAY ISLAh ^ >«ORC ••* ..•ortk* ^ — ^ • bTRUCTt;;<c> t^NUMiTEO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ■?•. t; *.• •A. : c: •. SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE)75-2S0 ’250-500'500-1000'>4 4;V'. >•» • -.Vi:- •V .. •» V. * X. %• • fV *? ** • ^ .1. iK*:- ’• .viJbV •• •>V?T. V‘V4 »•# • •j' • ‘ • • • «♦ .*K. •. »v . ; %• ••;. .V . */• ;v . . CY1ST1NG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.H^e X •_S.F. Lfnaih lt.9 Width X l#3 SS 22.3 p .ROOC 112.3 X o.y 94»S.F.-WOCO WAU, X ” S.F. B.Garage Driveway X *_ S.F. • C.X S.F. X s I S.F. D.Sidewalk • X S.F. •X =~ S.F.- E.Patio/Deck • X -Z23 S.F.-.BY SHME X *I*??S.F.-'*'®W STAIK • F. • Landscape Uadertain • ••t • X •. . S.F. .. . X =S.F. By Plastic Other X •_ S.F. 0.X -ZT _ S.F.-BBR AMD <0^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F.A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE m 79AZ t ■“ S.F.B A +B X 100 B L.Oft-i PUOPO^rn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House X c _ S.F. • Length Width X —S.F. X S.F. .X -S.F. •9.Garage X *_ S.F.f' c.Driveway X S.F. X B _ S.F. D.Sidewalk t ••t ♦ X * ••• S.F. X I S.F.«... E.Pacio/Dcck X S3 S.F. •X •-S.F. •• F.Landscape X S S.F. Uaderlain X 8 S.F. '* a >aBy Plastic Other X 83 _ S.F. 0.X n _ S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE m S.F.A I TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE m ” S.F.B #A +B X 100 WX % t. vt* 'i •- f STAcicTctA.rr f/i 'Z'9? rt*u 2-/<*^£ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250:250-500*500-1000■ H^/3) «• !' * •*• • % • • 7 ' ♦V*. .,..*• •** EJU A. WAi House X -zns S.F.-HdwSg Lenfih Width * X 1/S.F.-®^R uMi X s q -S.F.-S7FP^'^ 22?X 2.7 sr Al S.F.-C^NC?tT-‘ B.Garage X =11 c p »wwo 5T£. • £/^ OC-^ C.Driveway X nz7 S.F. .X 3 =iP:11 •C C D.Sidewalk X i8o S.F.-St0EW«.iC X \pr7 S.F.-RE9K W/ E.Patio/Deck X 36S-S.F.-P^C*^ X *loj 5 p-WdOO OH w ^lOC Of PC F.Landscape X s I7<?S.f.-H^RT kof^ Underlain X s 1 Bo S.p.-east cf «i By Plastic X =S S.F. G.Other 33B.3 X o.s ss 167 S.F.-W07D Wx TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE m S37A S.F.A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •19.302 t S.F.B A •t- B X 100 =29.37 i % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE if: *• /rfAtf ra/( A(Aiei^(a A.House X as S.F. Length Width ' Af ax a JXJf Asxxr*xf^ /S' x /€.rs •f 2SP X as _s.F. ■• X s S.F. V B.Garage X -S.F.•> C.Driveway X iY ^ S.F. X t=S.F. D.Sidewalk X •>' \S.F. '•' X as S.F. —^ 4 E.Pauo/Deck ___________ ' • •V * K' -S . *aL ' F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X /•.*-* M.- • f V^5 S.F. ...----"^•( •. •>? __________S.F. __________S.F. S.F. ■ >1 G.Other A€/Hai/JLS €x/fr//y^— 7Sf S.F. :*> • . r .• TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -I- B s^3^e X too S.F. S.F. % A B ,y ♦• • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET •i ■. t*r- •.j'j'r •' ?■r.' **1,. •• •A. ■•/..• SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7 S’ fexiSTlNC HARPCOVFR IN ZONE A.' House _____________X 75-250’250-500 ’SOO-IOO Length Width •• •.!> t.; y-■ » •# *v* *. K •• .. . I •v» « •< ,»T. B.Garage C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E.PaUo/Deck F.Landscape Underlain .By Plasilc O.Other X X X X X X X X X X X X S.F. • • •*.v . • . ». • . • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ••-!• B X 100 ••-f • . . v' .*: • *%. > •• •• ••• !.-4 • PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House_____________X Lcnaih Width A? •I.: i • '• / I • • •B. Garage C.Driveway .r.••e -D. sidewalk •M K* •■ *“r ••f/a •1- ■ *r-'* ‘ 4 . . . t• • r E.Patio/Deck F.Lartdscape . Underlain By Plastic ’,v-O,Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B _ _X 100 •,- •* rl C% S.F. - s S.F. *S.F. i ♦ S.F. i /' S.F. =--------- • -S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. -S.F. S.F. =S.F. •S.F.i •S.F. f ^ ' "1 m S.F.A m in<? t S.F.B = %■ •* s S.F. _S.F. S.F. a S.F. S.F. S.F. A* » Jy ’ ' . ^ MS S.F. m S.F.•vtN ' a S.F.I i S.F. *' • •• ••: ^ — Mt S.F. a S.F.(p \. a S.F. a •••S.F. a S.F. •S.F.A m S.F.B OB % r j .•I • I 7 -ft / >'. ( • I- ‘ /■'. ,'/. t « { /;-:•/./» y-/cc IV •n ■•• •« ’. } * t yMmmym-'-' > .t 'v 4| I i,f :»4-' I •'ill:'fen 1^_*r- r^r 4* j^au hariyjMwriiifa^ 1 ... *.—rr~ !*?*■•- '— ■ ' u^J .;~..n- »-r. >«.(".(.y-.•.• 1: •■ <-. *- ' *....•.■ «• • . .. » ✓-r »*• »4 *. ‘..A vr ’••• -v* *i •* •■ f tk. ^-n •‘.' •» V .. ■„ ... ^'..l'*'’ '•’ !'.j-• '.'>' ■■-'.•'■•... b MM BATt t2/17/M HCtMCfIN COUNTY PHOfCtTV INFORMATION SYSTEM PROrERTV ONNERS LIST RCPOiT NO. PIASSAtl PACE 15 MTCN StS OIMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ANR OIMER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR OWNER NANS TAXPAYER NANE/AROR SO S7-U7-2S SI tSM •ISit REST POINT CIR RICNARO L ANFINSON RICNARO L ANFINSON ISIS REST POINT CIR mum m sbsm so 07-II7-2S S2 OtSO OISIO REST POINT U E 0 t C L REINHART ERIC D REINNART ISIS REST POINT LA NN SSSM SO 07-117-2S S2 OOSl 01S40 REST POINT CIR D 0 J OOIES JR DAVID D 0 JENNIFER DOIES M ISOO REST POINT CIRCLE Ml SSSM SO 07-117-2S S2 OOSO OISOS REST POINT RD TNONAS NICHOLAS DERSCHEIO THOMAS NICHOLAS DERSCHEIO ISOS REST POINT RD NOUND NN SSSOO SO 07-U7-2S S2 00S7 •1S7S REST POINT RD N D 0 L X OERLICHER MICHAEL D 0 LYNNE OERLICHER 1S7S REST POINT RD NN SSSOO SO 07-117-2S S2 OOSO 01S7S REST POINT RD K E ANDERSON OAK KRAMER KIRK ANDERSON IS7S REST POINT RD MOUND NN SSSOO SO 07-I17-2S 52 0000 OISOO REST POINT RD J K LANONANS 0 S LANONANS JANES K 0 SHEILA LANONANS ISOO REST POINT RD SSSOO so 07-1I7-2S 52 0001 01S71 REST POINT U KENNETH H 0 RENEE 0 EOOERT KENNETH N 0 RENEE 0 EOSERT 1571 REST POINT LA HOUND NN SSSOO SO 07-1I7-2S 52 0102 01550 REST POINT CIR B A SCHEBLER OSD SCHEDLER D A SCHEBLER OSD SCHEBLER 15B0 REST POINT CIR NN SSSOO SO 07>117-25 S5 0007 OISOO REST POINT RD DAVID K DLOOOETT DAVID K DLOOOETT ISOO REST POINT RD NN SSSOO 50 07-117-25 55 0012 01S70 REST POINT RD 0 R BLOOM OTA BLOOM OEOROE R 0 TNERESA A DLOON 1S70 REST POINT RD NN SSSOO •'.M TOTAL BATCH BOS 01011 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO TNE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDOE AND BELIEF DATE /^66 ;?esv-T^cacJ PERMIT RECORD Perait No. 3P» Date I0-I9lf 'i\3U 9-/fc ^s V39y IDIOTS' <^/- .3 r--? c>. fr -..... K Type of Permit tIQO^ AOomc^ <^Ljg(^ 14- cJZr-7 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner March 20,2000 RE:#2563 Mike and Ruth Filbrandt 3960 Bayside Road Sketch Plan Review Zoning:RR-1 A, One Family Rural Residential, S Acre Minimum lot size Application: Sketch Plan Review for 3 tax parcels to create 2 non-conforming lots. Lbt of Exhibits: A B C D E F Application Plat Map Site Survey Zoning Map MUSA Boundary Map Permit Record Application Summary: The Filbrandts have owned the lots as one property for many years. They are interested in subdividing the properties to result in two buildable lots. The total acreage is approximately 9 acres of dry buildable land, where the minimum lot size is 5 acres in the RR-1A district. The most appropriate way to subdivide the properties is by a lot line rearrangement because three separate tax parcels exist. However the lots share one address and have only been used as one residential property. __ ANALYSIS Lot Size 26 acres 9 acres dry land (approximate) 17 acres wet land (approximate) A wetland delineation has not been completed on the property to identify the actual location of the wetland boundary. About 3/4s of an acre of dry land is not contiguous and is located at the far northwestern comer of the 26 acre property. In the 5 acre district two acres must be dry contiguous and have a total of 5 acres dry land. $2565 Mtki and Ruth Filbrandt 3960 Baysuk Road Skitch FUm Revlaw March 20. 2000 pagc-l Area* Lot Width and Yard Requirements Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard S acres 300 feet 100 feet 50 feet 100 feet Access: Access to the existing property is via a private driveway that is shared with two other residences to the west. The driveway intersects with Tonkawa Road and Bayside Road. The subdivision ordinance and Comprehensive Plan suggest a road should be constructed when 3 or more residences are served. It is unlikely access to a second lot from Bayside Road would be the desired option. Bayside Road is a County Road and would require extensive grading to create a safe access. We have not contacted Hennepin County about access since it is unclear where the property line would be located if a subdivision is approved. Septic Sites: Before a subdivision application is received on the property 4 new septic sites must be identified, resulting in 2 standard systems on each property. The existing septic drainfield has been determined to be non-compliant and is required to be replaced by 12/31/2007. The topography of the site may be a challenge to locate 4 sites on the property. It is Staffs position that without four septic sites it would not be possible to create a second building site on the property. No site testing has been completed for the Sketch Plan Review. Surrounding Properties: The property is located in the RR-1A zoning district (Please refer to the attached zoning map Exhibit D.) North is zoned RR-1A (5 acre) South is zoned LR-1A (2 acre) West is zoned RR-1 A (5 acre) East is zoned RR-IB (2 acre) -*563 SUkt ami Ruth Ftlbrandt 3960 Bayside Road Sketch Plan Review March 20. 2000 pagt-2 Primary Issue for Discussion: Lot Line Rearrangements have not been reviewed by the Planning Commission in most cases as a Sketch Plan. The proposed rearrangement involves one residential property that would be split to make the potential for a second lot possible. It is not clear why the three separate tax parcels have not been combined. If they where under one tax ID a subdivision would not be possible without granting variances to the minimum 5 acre lot size. The potential exists for the existing nroperty owner to sell the three existing lots independently. This creates the chance the City could have requests to buiM on the existing parcels that are less than 5 acres in size Orono ^as approved lot line rearrangements in the past. In most cases when Iot.« did not meet the minimum lot size requirements and the subdivision was approved the properties had existed as two residential sites in the past. This rearrangement would create a second site where only one residence exists. Other Issues for Discussion: 1.The lots are less than 10 acres dry land. It is a fact the lots are recorded as three separate tax parcels. If the properties were combined it would be a requirement the lot be replatted and variances to lot area granted. The City of Orono has been consistent by not granting variances for lot area within subdivisions. In this case is it the position of the Planning Commission, because three tax lots exist, a lot line rearrangement is possible to create a second lot, or a third? 2.Access is via a private drive shared with other lots to the west. If an additional property requires access should a road be constructed per requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, and intent of the Comp Plan? 3.Septic testing and a Wetland Delineation Report shall be completed prior to any formal subdivision application. Only one site is located on the property that has been identified as a non-compliant system due to the drainfield's elevation being within 3' of the water table. The most recent inspection of the septic system was completed 11/12/99. Replacement of the system is required by 12/31/2007. M2563 \ftke and Ruth Filbrandt 3960 Baysuk Road Skitch Plan Review March 20, 2000 r Application 0 ^ S (^ 3> Date Received" 2lh lOTj Aiuount Paid .i 2 C A a CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION^ Site address _____S960 PH___________ Property Identification Number (PID) (\*>//~7 C^C>C>~1 Please check one - Property ____abstract or ____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT ^ Nam e tr Address City /1^7 Phone fliome)^?^ Zip « ft*yPhone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________ Address City__Zip Phone (home) _ Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Si Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ / Present Zoning District ^^ jM,. PROPOSAL ______Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) \y^ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites /Existing Units J New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________ X,...-S -0 •im -5 K: »' iitH< 'i'l^i • B > I s' ^-f ifi 'KltCJT, i * 1ICNCSA ST ^-S .»t:A ft •ft • H .♦• •.•—i M •.j •♦. •»o !•m 9’^i p H " ^ ,/l ••J• I L«r • •)•t 9L SWING SI $ -■nr J PMTi^r ''SB- m 3^* • ♦ * //* fe liCW ■/im\‘ SlilOBS -» W- ba y no -SS f^ j::a :« J S' / •' 11 : s.%i>M.. * »»»i >“ 2 1 l.— I-®.- ! 5P= « is; 1 s " /i . » !* 5 11 1 d © JU ■ VJt 1 k U- I � � � � • � � � � � � • �. I·•-r·-. . . , .... . . . : : ... .. .. .. . . . . .... ... .. . . . . . : ;,. . .. .. . . . . ' . I .. •' .... · .... . . .. .. . . • .. .. I f r— -----—-—' —‘j—*' n ! I i i'- ---------- -- -:h • :\ . 9 • Roc^^d -‘f +m ‘ . f r--« —«I II \/^ __i. ^If : v'S. fir^'•x\ m=iti\ l$<'i-i:i IV \ :7 i I •f ' ' '•' h /-AV I j 1 t * i%<«AMiiimwi>ii«i i^-i. ___j IV\0S/\ OouLv%^ocir I \\__— f , — lot iiattMiA i r Xf - _ \^ * ^ N 'ir •i •I • f- V .—±x s^> t • •* ;•? / UMTnu'itn Mar T'V— tnnviVTa^, WMMSm i!*Mii)S HMII^J Lk =l== ifi •I lui yiWTOMU «l urn •\= Permit No. IR s=l ZlQl. ^5S?iL LI 1 3^£)0 csouuOijidfl £-d- PERMIT RECORD Date >:5‘? ^-6'Z> 1L:6^ 9-/-^3 /di^'b r Type of Permit j[i) T?0 I /? ^ c^-'LfLrv 0 •I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, Novembar 15.1999 ROLL: The Orono Planning Commission met on the atx)ve date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn. Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Daniel Kluth, and Jay Nygard. Commissioner William Stoddard arrived at 8:08 p.m. The follovidng represented City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Aclninistrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Bcb Sansevere was present. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: PUBUC HEARINGS (#1) #2525 LARRY JACOBSON AND VICKIE O’NEILL. 635 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - VARIANCE, 6:32 p.m. • 6:36 p.m. Larry Jacobson, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant was proposing to construct a detached garage on the north side of the residence, which was tabled at the October 18,1999 Planning Commission meeting to allow him time to submit a revised plan. The Applicant is now proposing to construct an attached garage on the north side of his home consisting of 612 square feet and located 13.9 feet from the side property line, with the garage door facing to the east. Bottenberg stated a variance is neeoed for a side yard setback for the garage to be located 13.9 feet from the side yard where 30 feet is required. Jacobson stated in an attempt to reduce the variance, he has downsized the garage and relocated it somewhat. Jacobson stated this is probably the best location for the garage. Hawn noted that the old proposal was for 569 square feet, with the new proposal being 612 square feet. Hawn inquired why the size of the garage was increased. Jacobson stated he incorrectly stated the size of the garage in the old proposal. Jacobson stated ihe garage will have a 16 foot garage door, with two feet on either side. Smith commented that the size of the garage was fairly standard. Bottenberg stated this is not an oversized garage. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2525, Larry Jacobson and Vickie O'Neill. 635 Femdale Road North, to permit a variance to side yard setback to allow the construction of an attached garage located 13.9 feet from the side yard where 30 feet is required. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2) #2530 WILLIAM WEAR, 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD • VARIANCES Troy Ramhill, Conoco Owner, and Duane Downy, Suburban Lighting, were present. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission at its last meeting tabled the request by William Wear to locate new signage on the property not in conformance with Resolution 2073 approving a sign plan in 1986. The Applicant had originally proposed a 59 square foot pylon sign and two Conoco, canopy signs. The monument sign had been reduced from 89 square feet. The Planning Commission tabled the application due to a substantial amount of signage not being in conformance with the requirements of Resolution 2073, and recommended that the signage be reduced to 380 square feet, which would be allowed if the zoning matched the use of the property. Weinberger stated currently the property is zoned B-1, with the current use of the property being more in conformance with that listed in the B-3 Shopping Center District. Under the B-3 zoning standards, the property would be allowed 380 square feet of signage. The Applicant is proposing to erect a sign that is 10' 6" in height, which can be compared to the Super America sign at 13' 10". The proposed sign consists of 59 square feet. Currently the property is allowed total building signage of 288 square feet, with each individual sign permitted to be 2' by 12', for a total of 24 square feet. The west pylon sign, which is still existing, consists of 112.5 square feet. The east pylon sign, which has been removed except for the pylons, consisted of 112.5 square feet. The total signage permitted on site per Resolution No. 2073 is 573 square feet. Weinberger stated the request by the Applicant is to allow a sign plan that would permit the property 180 square feet of building sign space. Included in the building sign space would be 40 square feet of signage on the canopy for two 2.5' by 8' Conoco signs. Tenants would be allowed one building sign above each entrance to each business, except businesses which are in the center of the mall or located on the south end of the mall. Each building sign would not be allowed to exceed 30 feet in height. Weinberger pointed out that the west pylon was approved five feet off the west property tine and ten feet from the front property line. The east pylon sign was approved 27 feet from the front property line. The east pylon sign was located within the front yard setback. The Planning Commission will need to consider the future of the pylon signs that are not in conformance or allowed by variance as well as whether signs should be allowed to be replaced once removed. City Staff could recommend approval of variances based on the fact that the signage proposed would be allowed under the existing Ordinance if the property would be zoned B>3. Staff recommends the property owner show on a site plan the location of the proposed monument sign, and to design a sign and base that conforms to a smaller scale arterial street and utilizes materials used for the base of other monument signs in the locality. Weinberger noted that the approvals granted in 1986 assumed the current location of Highway 12. Relocation of Highway 12 would reduce the existing Highway 12 from a major highway route to a local arterial. Ramhill commented that they have removed some of the existing signs from the building to reduce the total amount of signage on the property, and is attempting to improve the appearance of the property by the installation of a canopy and a nice monument type sign. Nygard inquired how many square feet of signage remain on the building. Downy stated that there currently exists 124 square feet of signage on the building. Page 2 j ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2830 William Wear, Continued) Nygard pointed out that some of the existing signs are oversized. Downy stated to their knowledge they have removed all the signs that were non-conforming. Smith commented if the 288 Is reduced to 124, the total is 309 square feet. Smith inquired whether that number would be accurate for the total signage. Downy stated there is 180 square feet allowed on the building, with 141 square feet of signage on the west pylon sign, and the proposed 59 square feet of signage would bring it to a total of 380 square feet. Lindquist noted that the Planning Commission is probably only going to approve up to 380 square feet of signage. Downy acknowledged that this sign plan does not allow for much additional signage for any new tenants. Weinberger pointed out that the 180 square feet and the 124 square feet that currently is on the building would also consist of 40 square feet on the canopy. Lindquist inquired whether the west pyion sign would be relocated. Downy stated the west pylon sign currently has signs in it. Weinberger stated that the sign located under the power poles is being replaced with the Conoco sign. Staff does have a concern if the total number of tenants drops below six, the west pylon sign would contain less signs that what is currently allowed. The owner has indicated that the west pylon sign would remain as it currently exists. However, the west pylon sign is a non-conforming structure and would require that any proposed changes to the s.gn would require Council review. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith commented that a site plan is also requested as part of this application. Weinberger stated that the new sign would be required to meet the ten foot front yard setback and 15 foot side yard setback, and City Staff would like to have a site plan submitted showing the proposed location of the sign. Chair Hawn noted that Wiliiam Wear, Applicant, is now present. Weinberger commented ihat Items A, B. and C were what was previously approved per Resolution No. 2073. The Applicant is now requesting 180 square feet of building signage, 59 square feet for the new Conoco .sign, and 141 square feet for the existing pylon sign, for a total of 380 square feet. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Applicant #2530, William Wear, 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, granting of variances based on the signage proposed, with a maximum of 380 square feet of signage being allowed for this property, with the understanding that the Applicant will submit a site plan illustrating the location of the proposed monument sign, and with the further understanding that the east pylon sign will be removed. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 VARIANCE RENEWAL (#3) #2546 CHRISTINE WOOD, 4005 NORTH SHORE DRIVE • RENEWAL VARIANCES, 6:58 p.m. - 7:02 p.m. Christine Wood, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a renewal of variances on this property which were originally granted on November 12,1991, to construct a detached garage and storage addition of 834 square feet to be located three feet from a street rear lot instead of the required 10 feet and 10 feet from the side or rear lot line instead of the required 15 feet for a structure over 750 square feet. In addition, a variance to hardcover within the 75-250 foot setback is required. The property was recently purchased by the owner who would like to have the variances renewed. Bottenberg noted that the lot Is unusually shaped and does not have a functional garage currently on the property. The Applicant has indicated that a new foundation will be built and the old cinder blocks put in by the previous owner will be removed. Smith inquired whether she was the original applicant. Wood stated she was not the original applicant for the variances, noting that she has recently purchased the property approximately two months ago. Smith commented to her understanding the zoning codes have not changed since the original variances were granted. Chair Hawn inquired whether the existing driveway would remain Wood stated the present driveway would remain. Chair Hawn questioned whether the garage would be oriented in the same location as depicted in the old site plan and whether the shed would be removed. Wood stated she was informed the shed would need to be removed, but that she is planning to leave the garage as depicted, noting that she may reduce the size of the garage somewhat by eliminating the workshop. Chair Hawn pointed out that the Applicant is allowed to reduce the size of the garage but cannot enlargen the garage without a new application be submitted. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2546, Christine Wood, 4005 North Shore Drive, granting of a renewal of variances to permit the construction of a detached garage and storage addition. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. The Scheduled Public Hearings were held after Item #6. Page 4 ORONO PLANNING C0M^USS10N MONDAY. NOVEMBER 15,1999 NEW BUSINESS (#6) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA/ARIANCE. 7:03 p.m. - 7:58 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Richard Sheridan. Attomey-at-Law, and William Skolnick, Attomey-at-Law. were present. Bradley Hoyt, Applicant, was not present. Weinberger stated the Applicant has filed a general land use application for an after-the-fact conditional use permit, which also requires variances for hardcover. The application is a result of a request by the City of Orono to allow the property to comply with Code requirements and have the necessary permits issued. The application deals with the construction of boulder retaining walls within the 0-75* iakeshore setback but not with any lakeshore land alteration that may have occurred on the property. City Staff has indicated to the Applicant that the property can be restored or an application for after-the-fact permits can be filed with the City. The Applicant has chosen to apply for the necessary permits for any work that has been completed on the property. The Applicant has indicated he is unaware of any lakeshore land alteration that may have occurred on the property. However, it is the belief of Staff that some land alteration may have occurred with the construction of the retaining walls. The Applicant has stated he did conslfu>^t a retaining wall in a letter dated October 29,1099, which is attached to this report, but denies aomg any land alteration work within the 75 foot lakeshore setback. The property surveys indicate that substantial regarding has cccurred on the property within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Typically this would be considered extensive grading within the 0-75* setback since it is Staffs belief that more than 10 cubic yards of fill have been moved in this area. Weinberger noted that the only application that has been filed by the Applicant is for the retainii^ walls. The land alteration work is not a part of this application. Mr. Hoyt acquired this property in approximately 1996 or 1997. Weinberger stated that it is City Staffs position that Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19. has been violated, which states that it is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the Council: C. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property, which would require the Issuance of a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit can be granted in this case if the proposal meets all the other sections of the zoning code. Weinberger stated, however, this proposal would not meet the other sections of the zoning code since the retaining walls would constitute hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. If the retaining wall had been constructed outside the 0-75* setback, a conditional use permit may not be required and would be subject to other restrictions. Weinberger stated a variance would be required under Section 10.55, Subdivision 8. which states that no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, .viions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed virithin the Flood Plain and V* 'tilands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet or the ordinancy highwater elevation of any lake shoreline. In order to grant a variance, a definite hardship must be demonstrated by the Applicant. In addition, variances to permit the construction of the retaining wall would also fall under Section 10.22, Subdivision 2. and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L), for a total of three variances being Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt. Continued) required for the construction of the retaining wall. Weinberger noted that regardless of the conditions that existed for the regrading of the property demonstrated by the two property surveys, after-the-fact permits are still required on the property to bring the property into conformance with the City's Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. City Staff is recommending the application for a conditional use permit be denied based on the adverse impacts of hardcover within the shoreland area as well as the lack of an application by the Applicant for variances. However, in discussions held with legal counsel for the Applicant today, Mr. Sheridan has indicated that they would be willing to appiy for variances, but based upon the application before the Planning Commission tonight. City Staff is recommending denial of the application. A recommendation of denial is also based upon the findings within the Comprehensive Plan and the fact that variances are required in this case, noting that the conditional use permit cannot be granted since it is in violation of the regulations governing this application. Weinberger stated a second alternative available to the Applicant would be to request that this application be tabled to enable City Staff to meet with the Applicant's representatives and to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised and complete application. Weinberger reiterated that this application deals only with the construction of the retaining wall. Richard Sheridan, Attomey-at-Law, commented that the language included in the Planner's Report stating that the Applicant was informed by City Staff that the property can be restored or he can file an after-the-fact permit is the first time they have seen anything in writing by City Staff that the Applicant is able to restore the property. Sheridan remarked that restoration of the property was raised in connection with some litigation regarding this matter. Sheridan stated a conclusion is being drawn by City Staff that substantial grading has occurred on the property based on a 1990 survey and a 1999 survey. Sheridan stated to his knovdedge Staff has not viewed the property to make that determination. The property was acquired by Mr. Hoyt in late 1996 or early 1997, with the residence being constructed in 1990 or thereabouts. The most recent survey indicates the slope has been regraded creating a flat area on the lakeside of the boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately five to ten feet into the lake. An issue of contention in this matter is whether Mr. Hoyt actually placed the rip rap into the lake, which is being adamantly denied by the Applicant during his ownership of the property. Sheridan commented that these changes to the shoreline could have been undertaken prior to his purchase of the property, and the Applicant is objecting to any conclusion that grading work has occurred within 75 feet of the lakeshore during his ownership of the properly. Sheridan stated that some of the ordinances that City Staff is contending the Applicant has violated did not become effective or were not modified until the late or mid 90s, and that the conclusion being drawn by City Staff is incorrect as it relates to Mr. Hoyt undertaking the grading work. As it relates to the three variances that City Staff has indicated are required, Sheridan stated in his view only one variance is actually required since they all deal with the 75' setback. Sheridan stated that the first time they were informed of the need for a variance is when they received the legal notice from the City that their application was for a conditional use permit and variances. Sheridan indicated that the Applicant is willing to apply for after-the-fact variances at this time, noting that Weinberger indicated that he did have sufficient information to file an application in their discussion earlier today. Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Sheridan requested that the Planning Commission consider the application before them tonight. Skolnick commented that the Applicant has found himself involved in litigation with the City and being threatened with criminal action concerning this boulder retaining wall when there is no basis in fact for it, with a potential sale of the residence being lost. Skolnick stated that most of the i/ifoimation is inaccurate; such as, placement of rip rap in the lake. The Applicant denies placing any rip rap in the lake. Chair Havm remarked that the rip rap is not an issue before the Planning Commission tonight. Skolnick stated the Applicant is also denying doing any grading In the 0-75' setback. Due to the windstorms approximately a year and a half ago, some trees were blovm down and removed, with some boulders being placed in the area to prevent erosion. Skolnick commented that that 1990 survey does not depict the concrete wail which has been in existence for 30 or 40 years on the property. Skolnick commented a survey should be obtained showing the topography of the land just prior to Hoyt's purchase of the property. Skolnick stated the Applicant is attempting to work with the City by filing an application for a variance. Skolnick noted that the Applicant was not informed that the application is incomplete until recently. The matter before the Planning Commission tonight deals with an after-the-fact variance for the boulder retaining wall. Ip regards to the Comprehensive Plan as the basis for denial. Skolnick remarked that the Applicant Y s complied with the Comprehensive Plan. An expert hired by the Applicant has found that the retaining wall has been constructed to industry standards and does not present any issues relating to water drainage or runoff into the lake. Skolnick indicated that the Applicant is willing to continue to work with the City on this matter, noting that they are willing to submit additional paperwork If needed, but that they are objecting to any decision that is made on inaccurate information. Skolnick stated he has not heard anything tonight which would prevent the Planning Commission from granting the after-the-fact variance except for the lack of some forms being submitted by the Applicant. Sheridan expressed a concern with the 1990 survey being the recorded topography of the property, noting that he is unsure what that means, and would not like the decision of the Planning Commission to be based solely on that survey. Sheridan commented regarding the hardcover In the 0-75' setback, a stairway previously existed in that area, which are allowed in the area. Sheridan stated that the amount of hardcover in this area has not changed significantly and questioned whether rocks should be counted as hardcover. Skolnick stated as it relates to an adverse impact on the shoreline or hardcover, the boulder retaining wall does not present an adverse on the shoreline, the water, or the hardcover. With the removal of the stairway, the hardcover in this area has been diminished. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth inquired about the nature of the litigation that relates to this property. Skolnick stated that there is presently a lawsuit filed In federal court relating to defammation of the Applicant as well as the loss of the sale of the residence. The parties are currently in the process of discovery in that lawsuit. Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER IS, 1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Kluth inquired what the defammation lawsuit resuited from. Skolnick stated that it is alleged in the complaint that Mr. Vang made some untrue statements to a realtor representing a buyer and as a result of those statements, the buyer cancelled the purchase agreement with the Applicant. Kluth inquired whether the statements made by Mr. Vang related to the retaining wall. Skolnick stated they related to the retaining wall as well as the rip rap. Skolnick remarked that a statement was made that the Applicant has altered the rip rap, which caused a problem for the City, and that the rip rap will need to be removed as well as the retaining wall. The buyer decided at that point to cancel the sale. Skolnick stated in his opinion there is no issue relating to the rip rap and there should be no issue regarding the boulder wall. Kluth commented that the matter before the Planning Commission tonight relates to the boulder wall, which the Applicant has admitted to constructing. Skolnick stated the Applicant is not denying that he had the retaining wail constructed after the windstorms. Kluth questioned whether the Applicant and the contractor hired on his behalf were unaware that they were violating policies of the City at the time this retaining wall was constructed. Skolnick stated he cannot comment on what the Applicant or his contractor knew. Sheridan stated the Applicant is not present tonight due to the legal action that has been threatened against him by the City. Kluth stated in his view the two matters are interrelated and impact one another. Skolnick stated they were told by the City Attorney that the two matters would not impact one another. Skolnick commented they are appearing tonight before the Planning Commission in good faith and that the permit should be granted. Kluth inquired what impact a decision would have on the litigation. Skolnick stated the claims alleged in the lawsuit would not be settled tonight. Kluth inquired whether this matter should be tabled to allow the other items to be resolved. Skolnick remarked this application should not be tabled because they were promised by the City of Orono that this would be a fair process. Kluth commented he was merely asking if the Applicant's representatives thought it would be a good idea to table the application tonight. Skolnick stated they are in favor of obtaining the permit, and if there are still some unanswered questions, they are willing to address those, but they would like to avoid this becoming a long-drawn out affair. Lindquist inquired when the retaining wall was constructed. Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Skolnick stated to his understanding It was constructed In 1998, with the issue being raised in April of 1999 relating to the boulder wall. Lindquist inquired how the City became aware of this matter. Skolnick stated the house was listed for sale, a buyer was interested in acquiring the property, an agreement was signed, and the realtor checked with the City on some items, with Mr. Vang making some statements that resulted In the buyer cancelling the sale. An effort at that time was made to try to resolve this matter with the City, with Mr. Hoyt then being threatened with legal action, which has led to the application tonight. Lindquist stated If this matter appeared before the Planning Commission in June of 1998, he probably would have voted against the retaining wall at that time and would have liked to see other options pursue In an attempt to lessen the impact on the 0-75 ’ setback. Lindquist commented he is familiar with the area and that there have been a tremendous amount of changes made to the shoreline over the years. Chair Havwi commented In her view the Planning Commission Is looking at a conditional use permit application after-the-fact, and the issues relating to the rip rap and land alteration is not before them tonight since the Applicant has not filed that application with the City. Hawn stated it is unclear whether the retaining wall was truly needed after the windstorm, noting that the Planning Commission has lost the opportunity to review the situation at the time the wall was constructed due to the lack of an application being filed by the Applicant. Hawn stated due to the loss of that opportunity, under Orono's ordinances, the Applicant needs to demonstrate the need for the retaining wall, which will be difficult at this time. Hawn stated absent a showing of need by the Applicant for the retaining wall, given Orono's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, she would not have voted in favor of the retaining wall at the time It was constructed and is not in a position at this time to vote in favor of the after-the-fact. Kluth Slated he was in agreement with Lindquist and Hawn regarding this issue, noting that a hardship has not been demonstrated by the Applicant. Kluth noted that in general the Planning Commission does not look on this type of application favorably when it relates to land alteration within the 0-75' setback. Chair Hawn stated the Planning Commission will approve after-the-fact permits if they would have approved them in the first instance. Hawn commented there appears to be consensus among the Planning Commission that absent a showing of hardship, it is unlikely that the retaining wall would have been approved at the time it was constmcted. Hawn stated as a matter of public policy, the City should not give a benefit to a property owner who does not comply with the City's ordinances in the first place and then later approaches the City requesting after-the-fact variances. Hawn commented it is doubtful that this application would have been granted in the first instance. Berg commented that every community has ordinances regulating shorelines, noting that it has been well published In this area that Orono takes a very proactive approach to protecting the lakeshore. Berg inquired why the Applicant chose not to ask the City what steps need to be taken to address this issue before any work was commenced in the 0-75 ’ setback, noting that an answer to this question has not been given tonight. Smith commented that some of the issues relate to work that has apparently occurred between the time of the two surveys. Smith inquired whether there were any neighbors or witnesses or tests Page 9 liiitfininri II ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) that could verify when the work was completed. Weinberger stated the City has not heard anything from any of the adjoining property owners. Nygard inquired whether there were any other surveys previous to 1990. Weinberger stated the City is in possession of a topographic map taken from some 1990 aerial photographs, noting that the map does depict a rather significant drop to the lakeshore. Weinberger stated the City does not have any other surveys on file subsequent to 1990. Smith inquired whether the Applicant and City Staff could work together on restoring the property should this application be denied tonight. Weinberger stated City Staff is willing to work with the Applicant, noting that it is unlikely that City Council and the Plannig Commission would recommend approval of any after-the-fact permits if the property remains in the same condition that exists today. Weinberger remarked it is possible due to the nature of the lakeshore that a retaining wall may be necessary due to erosion concerns, but the Applicant will need to be willing to make those changes to the property and obtain the necessary permits for that work. Nygard inquired what will happen with the rest of the property. Weinberger stated the Applicant will need to obtain the three variances discussed earlier before any other work can be commenced on the property. Weinberger stated this application only deals with the retaining wall. Nygard commented that photographs showing the condition of the property prior to the retaining wall would be helpful in considering this application, and encouraged the Applicant to obtain some photographs which might assist in this matter. Skolnick inquired whether a permit would be necessary if the retaining wall were removed. Nygard stated that a permit would need to be issued to remove the retaining wall. Skolnick questioned what would happen if the City denied issuance of a permit to remove the retaining wall. Skolnick inquired what action the Applicant should take in this matter. Smith stated that City Staff would be willing to work with the Applicant on this matter to address the concerns regarding erosion and water runoff. Sheridan commented that there has been a lack of cooperation on the part of the City in this regard. Sheridan stated as it relates to hardcover, it was his understanding that hardship applies to variances and not to conditional use permits, and that perhaps the appropriate standard should be defined. Sheridan remarked as it relates to denial of the retaining wall in the first instance, he has not heard one single reason for the denial and what adverse impact the retaining wall has on the 0-75' setback. Chair Hawn stated it has been determined that hardcover in the 0-75' setback, which is a public policy in Orono, does have a more severe impact on the drainage issue. Hawn commented she is hopeful that this situation can be resolved amicably. Hawn indicated she would like to deal strictly with the conditional use permit after-the-fact application tonight. Page 10 . frff^ iiwfcifiiiJ eTirmiiiYin •j ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Kluth commented In his view, due to the litigation, the parties have taken more of an adversarial role versus that of attempting to assist the Planning Commission in resolving this issue. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2540, Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue, based on the adverse impacts that the hardcover would have in the 0-75* setback and the incomplete application that has been submitted by the Applicant VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#4) #2522 THE BANCOR GROUP, INC., SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND NORTH WILLOW DRIVE - SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 5:00 p.m. - 9:13 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. David Newmann and Marty Campion. The Bancor Group, were present. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has received a new Preliminary Plat application for a 25 lot development on 58 acres for property located at the southwest comer of County Road 6 and Willow Drive North. Previously the Planning Commission had reviewed a proposal for a 49 unit development at this site. The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed this development as part of an application for rezoning. The proposed rezoning was denied by the City Council. This application also includes a continuation of the conditional use permit for a PRD. The purpose of a Planned Residential Development is to .enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid In improving the welfare in general of City residents. Weinberger stated the City has changed its Comprehensive Plan to reflect medium density residential for the property located directly south of the proposed development. Medium densHy residential will likely be townhomes. It is the intention to extend Kelley Parkway to Willow from Old Crystal Bay Road. Properties located to the south of Kelley Parkway and north of Highway 12 are guided for offices uses. The lots located to the east of the subdivision, on average, are smaller than those lots to the south and west. The PRD would allow the lots to be developed at the sizes shown on the site plan, with the overall density of the subdivision not exceeding one unit per two acres dry buildable. The City has approved PRD's in the past with an allowance of property being dedicated for other purposes such as roadways and ponding to count towards the lot area with the idea that the PRD would meet all the other criteria listed in the City Code. The roads are proposed to be developed to City standards and dedicated as public streets. No lot within this proposed development would have direct access to Willow Drive or County Road 6. All lots would be required to access a newly platted street. The Applicant in their original application had proposed a trail along Willow Drive and along the south side of County Road 6. The intent of the trail is to connect to the larger regional system towards the school property and eventually west to Baker Park. This trail would provide future access to the middle school property. This latest Page 11 1 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 I#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) plan does not address the need for trails. Weinberger stated the site plan proposes three stormwater treatment ponds. The ponds would treat the runoff for approximately two-thirds of the development. The Applicant has indicated that most of the runoff from the southern one-third of the development can be treated by a fourth pond being located within the conservation easement of Lot 2, Block 1. The Applicant is aiso proposing private wells for this division rather than City water. This proposed development is located within the MUSA boundary allowing for sanitary sewer connection. The developer will be responsible for providing sewer to the property. Weinberger stated the proposed access to this development has been relocated further to the south, with the access point being made as a general intersection with Shadywood Drive to allow for a safer intersection. The Director of Public Services has reviewed this pian and has indicated he does not have any concerns with the proposed access. The Applicant would be required to pay a park dedication fee equivalent to eight percent of the lot with a maximum of $4,900 per lot or a minimum of $2,900 per lot. The Code does allow land dedication for park space rather than a cash contribution. The Planning Commission will need to determine whether a Conditionai Use Permit is appropriate for the site. City Code and Comprehensive Pian ailow a PRD to be approved as a land conservation tool and to improve the appearance of neighborhoods. Only one space outlet is being created, with the purpose of the outiot for wetland and ponding. Each lot would have a conservation easement over it with ownership to be held by the individual property owner. City Staff would be inclined to recommend that the conservation easement be platted as a conservation outiot, as Outiot B, with the road being platted as Outiot A, to protect drainage and wetlands in the area. The conservation outiot would not allow the property owner to remove or alter any vegetation to the rear of the house. City Staff is recommending approval subject to the six conditions outlined in the Planner's Report of November 15,1999. David Newmann, Bancor Group, stated they have attempted to incorporate the comments of the City Council, Planning Commission, and adjoining neighbors into account when revising the site pian for this development. Newmann noted he has met with Steve Johnston, one of the residents in the area, who suggested that he go with private wells. City sewer and larger lots. Newmann stated a PRD for this development would benefit the City by minimizing the impact to the wetlands. Newmann commented in his view this pian addresses the concerns raised in the past regarding this property. Marty Campion. Bancor Group, had no comment. Chair Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments concerning this application Steve Johnston, 2335 Shadowood Drive, commented in his view the developer has done a nice job of addressing the issues in this matter, noting he persohally does not have any concerns with the proposed density for this development. Johnston raised a concern regarding the connection of the road opposite of Shadowood Drive and the negative impact it would have on the traffic in that area. Johnston suggested that the entrance could be relocated approximately 750 feet further south opposite Cox's property to avoid this traffic congestion and provide for more continuity. Johnston Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) stated he would also like to see trails, a preservation of trees in the area, and vegetation along Willow and County Road 6 to act as a buffer. Bill Leskinen, 1125 Willow Drive, stated he agrees with the concerns regarding traffic in the area, which in his view will add to the congestion and increase the accident rate, as well as the need for providing a trail in this area. Steve Luther, Jim Cox, Matt Sampress, and Lance Everson expressed concerns regarding the proposed density, drainage, and traffic. Kathy Johnston, 2335 Shadywood Drive, expressed concerns regarding traffic, noting that the young children In the area are required to wait for the bus in this area, which will creite a hazard if additional traffic is added. Jim Cox commented with the relocation of the access, consideration will need to be given to the impact of headlights on the houses in that area. Newmann, Bancor Group, commented that the purpose of a PRD is to allow for some flexibility In the density for a development. Bancor noted that City sewer is being provided for this development, which increases the costs, and to keep the project economically feasible, they need to be able to develope a minimum number of lots. Newmann stated that they will be providing more detailed plans in the future to address the concerns raised relating to landscaping, drainage and traffic. Newmann indicated he Is still willing to continue to vmrk with the neighbors in the area to help address some of their concerns as well as provide copies of the plan for their review. Chair Hawn suggested that the people in the audience who would like to talk to The Bancor Group further provide their names and addresses to Mr. Newmann. Newmann stated that the City Council had directed them at their last meeUng to locate the access across from Shadowood Drive. Smith commented that the problem with headlights will need to be addressed. Weinberger stated he is unsure at this time about the possibility of a stoplight for that area. Gaffron commented that the City does not intend to Install a stoplight at Willow and County Road 6. Lindquist inquired whether the drainage plan will be adequate for this area. Campion stated the runoff will be diverted to some holding ponds in the area and discha^ed south across the proposed road and Into a series of wetlands. An effort is being made not to divert the runoff to the east, with the majority of the drainage being diverted to the west and south. Campion noted that this drainage plan will need to be reviewed and approved by the Lake Minnetonka Watershed District. Matt Sampress commented that the water table in the area is rising, and inquired how the drainage situation will be monitored by the City. Newmann stated they are attempting to reduce the water runoff to the east and that they vwll need to comply with whatever requirements the City Engineer determines are appropriate for this Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2522 Th« Bancor Group, Continued) development. Cox commented that there is a tremendous water problem in this area, which will need to be addressed carefully. Stoddard noted the drainage plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer, with certain issues needing to be addressed prior to the time of final plat approval. Stoddard commented that the traffic situation and water runoff will need to be reviewed further, but that the main issue before the Planning Commission at this time is whether this development should be PRD'd, which allows some flexibility in the density for the area. Stoddard stated that the Planning Commission will need to determine whether the number of units being proposed for this development are appropriate, with the rest of the issues being addressed at a later stage. Newmann commented that the outside area of the development wilt also be treated as a conservation outlet. Kluth commented that this is a unique piece of land with a large number of wetlands and that the developer has done a good Job of addressing the concerns relating to density by reducing the overall density to 25 units. Kluth stated that the other issues will need to be further defined before final approval. Lindquist stated he understands the concerns of the residents, especially as it relates to traffic in the area. Lindquist stated in his view this property should be developed as a PRO, noting that he is in favor of the proposed plan. Hawn commented that the developer has done a good job of addressing the concerns raised at the previous meetings. Hawn raised a concern regarding the use of private wells in this area due to the high water table, and encouraged The Bancor Group to re-examine the possibility of utilizing City water for this development. Hawn stated the City of Orono needs to agree on the best way to develop this property, and in her view, a PRD is the best way to go for this parcel. Hawn encouraged City Staff to continue to work on this application to address the concerns relating to traffic and drainage. Weinberger stated one of the concerns regarding use of Kelly Parkway is it is intended for office/commercial use and multi-family in the future. Weinberger pointed out the Comprehensive Plan does not identify residential traffic utilizing Kelly Parkway. Chair Hawn pointed out with approximately 51 acres of dry buildable, under a PRD the developer has meet the density requirements for this area. Smith commented there are a number of issues that still need to be addressed further, but the Planning Commission needs to determine whether a PRD is appropriate for this area. Smith expressed a concern that the wetlands may not be sufficient to handle the runoff, which will need to be reviewed further. Smith commented that this parcel does lend itself to a PRD due to the other developments in the area. Nygard commented in his view The Bancor Group has done a good job of developing an acceptable plan for this area. Stoddard commented he is in favor of residential for this area. Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) Srrith stated it is her desire that the developer and residents in this area continue to maintain the natural looking ponds and not utilize them for recreational purposes. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2522. 'fhe Bancor Group, Inc., Southwest Comer of County Road 6 and North Willow Drive, granting of a Preliminary Plat approval subject to City Staffs recommendations and conditions outlined in the November 15,1999 Planner's Report. The developer is strongly encouraged to pursue city water for this development as well as continue to work with the adjoining property owners to address their concerns regarding this development. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Newmann commented he will continue to work with the neighbors on this development and will attempt to hold an informal neighborhood meeting. Newmann stated they are attempting to get this on the next City Council agenda set for December 13,1999. (Recess taken from 9:13 p.m. - 9:25 p.m. (#9) #2545 LOU AND MARILYN FEGERS, 3590 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES, 9:25 p.m. - 9:33 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Lou and Marilyn Fegers, Applicants, were present. Bcttenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct an attached garage to the west side of their residence consisting of three floors. An upstairs and a lower walkout will be for storage, with the middle floor being for parking. The property owners have purchased the lot to the west and are in the process of legally combining the lots. The property currently does not have a garage servicing it. Hardcover will be increaesd in the 75-250' setback to 38.9 percent where 25 percent is allowed. The Applicants are proposing to revert a portion of the current driveway into grass as well as remove an existing deck. Lou Fegers submitted pictures of his property for review by the Planning Commission. Chair Hawn commented that a majority of the Commissioners have reviewed the site. Fegers stated one mistake on the survey is the size of the screen porch should be approximately half the size depicted. There were no public comments. Smith inquired whether the garage being proposed was slightly larger than normal. Bottenberg stated it is a slightly larger garage. Fegers stated part of the reason for the larger garage is the need for a stainway to access the upper and lower floor of the garage. Smith commented she would like to see the hardcover in this area minimized if possible. Page 15 . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2545 Lou and Marilyn Fegers, Continued) Kluth Inquired whether the shed still exists on the property. Fegers stated the wind has blown the shed down. Stoddard stated with the acquisition of the adjoining piece of land, he would tend to look favorably on this application. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2545, Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a hardcover variance to permit construction of an attached 24* by 30* garage to the west side of their residence subject to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and further subject to removal of the shed at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 9:35 p.m. -10:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has received a Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the oroperty to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. The RR-1B zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRD as a conditional use. Under a PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which vrould gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac. The development would also include three larger lots. Lots 5.6, and 7. This property is located immediately north of the Luce Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRD would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes. This application would require a road width variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40 feet wide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road. The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the seven lots being proposed as part of this development, which requires a road width of 28 feet. The subdivision is located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the too floodplain. This subdivision would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 feet of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD will need to approve any wetland alteration on site. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of the MUSA area, however, this area is proposed to be serviced by City sewer in the future. It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the number of wetlands and high water table in the area. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with Page 15 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout. Continued) the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work vrith the DNR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenance issues and would prefer the sewer extension be am along Brown Road. It Is City’s Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G. which is not currently o^ed by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being repiatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would bo required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of t^e land value, vrlth a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff Is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows: A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval; B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided vrith safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a ten percent slope; C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minn etonka; D. City Staff, the applicant, and the DNR shall determine if a permit can be issued to cross the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox Ridge. If It Is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition. Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one, since the access Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) corridor will not front any building sites, no parking is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan in general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the DNR issues resolved as well prior to approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is in agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a PRD, noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line in this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout stated he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred that some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRD the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Page IS .t ■I ii 11 M Ilif ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charies Van Eackhout, Continued) Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg stated the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented that it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated in order for a PRO to be approved, the benefits to the City must be shown, and that clustering is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlots for this development. Stoddard stated he would be In favor of a PRO if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlets. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these issues. Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies It, at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there ;j insufficient information available to the Planning Commission in order to make a responsible decision on the application at this time. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. % '• *1 NEW BUSINESS. CONTINUED (#7) #2542 BRUCE HEDBLOM AND CAROL CLINE-HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. • 10:40 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Page 19 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2542 Bruce Hedblom, Continued) Bruce Hedblom, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to remove an existing second story deck and replace it with a 10.6' by 23.4' three season porch and 10.6' by 9' wood deck. This proposal would not increase the size of the space but would change the use. The space will consist primarily of the three season porch and a small portion on the end will be deck. Hardcover in the 75-250* setback area will remain the same. Hedblom stated at the time the house was originally constructed in 1972/1973, it met all the required building codes at that time. Hedblom noted the footprint of the house will not change with this proposal. Hedblom stated he are interested in making the deck more usable by converting it to a three season porch. Hedblom stated his adjoining neighbors do not object to this project There were no public comments. Lindquist inquired why City Staff was recommending denial on this application. Bottenberg stated Staff was recommending denial of this application due to the excessive hardcover that currently exists on the property. Hedblom noted that the hardcover will remain the same. Lindquist commented that there is some plastic underlayment that could be removed. Hedblom stated the plastic underlayment adjacent to the house is there for drainage purposes, but he would be willing to remove it if requested to do so. Lindquist stated he would like to see the plastic underlayment removed. Lindquist noted he does not have a problem vlth the hardcover Hedblom noted that the residence is under the structural coverage limits. Kluth stated he does not have a problem with the application. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2542, Bruce Hedblom and Carol Ciine-Hedblom, 2601 Casco Point Road, granting of a variance to lakeshore hardcover and granting of a variance to average lakeshore setback to permit construction of a three season porch and deck to replace an existing deck, subject to the removal of the plastic and permeable underlayment and rock. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1. Stoddard stated he voted against this application due to the increased structure in the average lakeshore setback. (#8) #2543 TED EDIN, 3025 CASCO POINT ROAD • VARIANCES, 10:41 p.m. -10:52 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Ted Edin, Applicant, was present. Page 20 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2543 T«d Edin, Continued) Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to replace an existing second story deck on the back on the house due to the deteriorating condition of the deck, floor boards and joists, in addition to replacing the existing deck, the Applicant is proposing to add a small section onto the deck. The section would be approximately 6* by 12* to allow for a sitting area. Bottenberg stated the driveway is shared with neighbors through an easement and tho lot Is undersized for this zoning district. Hardcover would be increased from 77.11 percent to 77.9 percent. Total lot coverage on the lot would also be increased to 23.8 percent. Chair Hawn noted that the Applicants are replacing an existing deck. Edin commented that due to the shared driveway being located on their property, the hardcover for the lot is high. Edin stated they would be willing to remove some plastic underlayment and rock in an effort to reduce the hardcover on the property. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see less hardcover on this property. Smith commented the reason for less hardcover is to reduce the runoff into the lakes and streams, noting that a deck is considered hardcover as well as landscaped areas. There were no public comments. Bottenberg stated there is not a lot of area where hardcover could be reduced. Stoddard stated the issue before the Planning Commission tonight is whether they should be allowed to build over an existing structure and whether the size of the deck should be increased. Chair Hawn stated she has a hard time allowing additional hardcover on this property. Edin stated he would be willing to reduce the hardcover if possible. Hawn suggested the application be tabled to allow the Applicant time to reduce the hardcover on the property. Lindquist noted the Applicant currently has 77.1 percent hardcover and 23.3 percent structural coverage, where IS percent is allowed, which the Planning Commission would not like to see increased. Lindquist stated reduction of the deck would count towards reduction of hardcover but not plastic underlayment or rock. Nygard stated the plastic underlayment will still need to be removed by the Applicant. Chair Hawn stated the Applicant has a right to have his application heard within 60 days, and inquired whether he would be willing to waive the 60 days. Edin stated he would be willing to waive the 60 days. Berg moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2543,3025 Casco Point Road, to allow the Applicant time to reduce hardcover on the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Item #10 was heard after Hern #11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#11) #2549 DAVID LOVELACE. 220 BIG ISLAND, DOCK PERMIT, 10:50 p.m. -11:28 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. David Lovelace, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a dock permit to access an inland lot without lake access. City Ordinance allows installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way when such dock has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council. Not more than one season dock will be approved for access to any one property. In reviewing and approving this permit, the City Council shall consider the width and topography of the right-of-way, the number of property owners requesting dockage at that location, the plan of the proposed dock, and conformance with City and LMCD dock regulations. The City Council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit. Weinberger stated the City Council has preliminarily reviewed this application and recommended one area on the east side of Big Island that could potentially serve as access to the inland landlocked properties. This particular location has been established as an area for potential dock permits to be granted for inland property owners simply because no other access exists elsewhere. Currently there are two inland properties that curently have dock access to Lake Minnetonka; with the dock being located in the right-of-way and having been in use since 1986. Weinberger stated permits are only required for the docking and not for any other public access. For example, walking along the public right-of-ways is allowed without a permit. City Code states permits issued are valid for one year and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the Council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the City to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. Any formal requests for permits on Big Island require a public hearing with the Planning Commission. Weinberger noted this is the public hearing for this dock request, with all property owners having been notified of the hearing within 350 feet of the access. Weinberger stated the City has expanded the 350 foot requirement and have notified all inland property owners of the status of this application and the public hearing being held tonight. Weinberger stated there are approximately four or five separate record lots, which could consist of several PID's, that are actually inland on Big island. Not all of the lots on Big Island are buildable lots. Only a few actually are developed with a dwelling on the property. The total number docks potentially, including the one that currently exist, would not exceed four or five individuals who could potentially request dock access. The property in this case is fiat enough and could sustain the type of access being requested in this case. The dock access would be located in an area approximately 90 feet wide, which is probably the only area on the island which will be able to sustain future dock access and allow for access by the other inland property owners. Weinberger stated the City Council has previously granted a lot area variance for this property to permit the Applicant to construct a seasonal dwelling on the property. The property consists of 4.3 acres in size and is iandlocked. Weinberger noted there is a platted right-of-way that goes directly from the access and is recognized as a road. Some minor grading and maintenance of this road has occurred in the past. The City has not performed any of the maintenance in the past and does not have an interest in assuming that responsibility at the present time. Page 22 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2549 David Lovelace, Continued) City Staff understands the need to provide access to the inland landlocked properties on Big Island, and recommend approval of the dock access, with the permit being subject to renewal on an annual basis. Weinberger stated issues for consideration by the Planning Commission include the following: 1.Should the dock rights be for property owners without any other access? 2.Many of the lots are commonly owned but have not been combined into a larger tax parcel. Potentially the individual lots could be sold to several owners that may request access in the future. 3.The permit approved by the City Council permitted a dock In favor of property located at 230 Big Island. A coridition of approval was any other requests for decking at the Bay Place site would cause the permit to be immediately revoked. 4.The City Council has reviewed this item with Mr. Lovelace and has provided direction for the Applicant and Staff. 5.The following are uses permitted on Big Island: Seasonal dwellings, with some accessory structures being permitted on the land without a principal structure. Weinberger stated he would be available for questions by the Planning Commission. Lovelace stated he does not have any additional comments. John Uran, 160 Big Island, expressed concerns regarding the swampy nature of the land in the area proposed for the dock access. Uran stated he is not in favor of this dock access, particularly when the location of the road and swamp have not been properly Identified. Lovelace indicated the dock accass being proposed is a substantial distance from his property, but his main concern is obtaining access to his property and not necessarily the location of the dock. Chair Hawn commented that unfortunately due to the location of Big Island, it is difficult for the Planning Commission members to view the site. Lovelace stated the other landlocked property owners have the right to request dock access and the City Council is attempting to accommodate those possible future requests as well with this proposed dock location. Lindquist commented he would like to have a survey done of this area to determine the exact location of the road and the property lines. Uran stated City Staff needs to review the site during the spring and summer months to determine tne location of the wetland. Tom Egan stated there presently are posted signs saying no vehicular traffic on the inland roads. Gaffron commented that the City is aware that there is vehicular traffic on those inland platted roads, but that the City is faced with the situation of having to provide access to the landlocked properties. Gaffron stated the City is assuming when these roads were platted approximately 120 years ago, they were intended to be used to gain access to the inland properties. Gaffron inquiry whether another area is available for dock access should this proposed 90 foot area not be suitable. Gaffron suggested that the Big Island property owners arrive at a workable solution amongst Page 23 ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MONDAY. NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2549 David Lovelace, Continued) themselves or the City will be faced with deciding where the dock access will be located. Mrs. Uran suggested that perhaps Mayor Jabbour has a conflict of interest in this matter since he is a property owner on Big Island. Chair Hawn pointed out that Mayor Jabbour is not present tonight. Kluth stated if Mayor Jabbour feels there is a conflict of interest that exists in this matter, he can excuse himself. Chair Hawn stated the City would like the property owners on Big Island to come to a solution that the parties can live with. Hawn pointed out the members of the Planning Commission have a difficult time gaining access to this area and are unfamiliar with the layout of the land. Kluth stated he was in agreement with Hawn, and urged the local residents on Big Island to reach an amicable solution among themselves. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the property owners on Big Island reach an amicable solution among themselves regarding dock access for the inland landlocked property owners. Egan stated the landlocked property owners purchased the property on Big Island knowing it was landlocked at the time. Lovelace remarked he is entitled under City Ordinance to apply for dock access, and indicated he would be willing to sit down with the other residents of Big Island in an attempt to reach a workable solution. Egan inquired whether the land needs to be developed prior to dock access being granted. Gaffron stated City Code allows property owners on Big Island to have dock access to their property even if it is undeveloped. Gaffron stated the City of Orono is required under Ordinance to provide dock access to the landlocked parcels. Gaffron indicated he would be willing to work with the property owners on Big Island in an effort to resolve this matter and is in support of providing one dock access for the inland property owners. Chair Hawn stated due to the suggestion by City Staff to have the property owners arrive at a workable solution among themselves, Hawn Inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to have this application tabled and to waive the 60 days. Lovelace stated he would be willing to have his application tabled and to waive the 60 days. Lovelace requested that a deadline be set in which this matter should be resolved. Egan stated since their boats are in storage for the winter and it would be difficult to access Big Island at this time, he suggested they be given until late spring to resolve this. Egan noted that some of the property owners are only available during the summertime. Lovelace pointed out that the residents will still need to follow the rules set by the governing body of the lake. Smith commented that City Staff could assist the property owners in that regard. Page 24 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2549 David Lovelace. Continued) Gaffron indicated he would be willing to work with the Big Island property owners on this matter and to obtain the necessary information from the LMCD. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2549, David Lovelace, 220 Big Island, until April to allow the Big Island property owners time to resolve this matter. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #2547 KIMBERLI AND WILLIAM ABBOTT, 470 BIG ISLAND, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES. 11:29 p.m. -11:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were not present. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2547, KImberli and William Abbott, 470 Big Island, due to the absence of the Applicants. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#12) MIKE HILBELINK/JOHN VOGT, 3850 WATERTOWN ROAD. CLASS III SUBDIVISION Mike Hllbelink. Applicant, and John Vogt. Applicant, were present. Weinberger this is a sketch plan review with the Applicant proposing to subdivide a 21 acre parMi into a three lot rural residential development. The proposal would require, one. approval of a private driveway for a property to serve a three lot development where a road would typically be required for a three lot subdivision; two. variances to approve a subdivision resulting in a bam to be located within a required side yard adjacent to street setback: three, septic sites to be review^ and approved by City Staff; and four, approval of a subdivision with an outlet dedicated to a riding ring in favor of proposed Lot 2. Weinberger stated the property lies within the RR-1A zoning district, which has a five acre minimum lot size. The major issue in this subdivision relates to a platted driveway and the location of an oversized accessory structure. Lot 3 has the required frontage aiong Watertown Road, with Watertown Road having been defined as a collector street. Staff has concerns regarding direct access to Watertown Road. If a private road is constructed within Outlet A. the lot would become a comer lot and the lot width would be measured along the private road. If the private road is constructed, the lot would not meet the minimum lot width required for this zoning district. The Public Services Director has reviewed this lot layout and has recommended that Lot 3 not be granted direct access to Watertovm Road. Weinberger stated some of these issues relating to road access can be resolved with City Staff. In addition, the bam. if developed with an access outlet or a private road, would require a vanance to remain on the property. The bam would be located on Lot 2 and would be located entirely within the 100 feet side yard adjacent to street setback as proposed for an outlot. Bams are required to meet a minimum 75 foot setback to the lot line. Weinberger noted the bam encroaches into the 75 foot required setback. Weinberger stated the standard requirements would need to be r jmplied with as they relate to Page 25 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (Mike Hilbelink/John Vogt, Continued) septic, perk, and tot sizes. Hilbeiink stated as it relates to access, he is unsure whether an easement or an outlet would be better in this situation due to the topography of the land. Hilbeiink stated the bam is an existing structure and would be a nice asset to the property. Hawn inquired whether the bam could be relocated. Hilbeiink stated that is a possibility which they have not considered. Weinberger commented the bam has been moved once before. Lindquist commented the Applicants will need to find a place for the bam where it will meet all the required setbacks, noting he does have a problem with the bam in its present location. Stoddard commented that the City prefers outlots to private driveways to avoid any possible conflicts that may arise between the property owners. Hawn stated that the Applicants will need to address the issue with the bam further to try to avoid the need for a variance. Lindquist suggested the Applicants pursue an outlet rather than a shared driveway. Weinberger stated the bam would be considered an oversized accessr*''^ uuilding. Hawn commented that it appears some members of the Planning Commission wou.. tot be opposed to the bam as long as it meets the setbacks. Smith inquired whether the bam will continue to be used for horses. Hilbeiink stated that seems to be the appeal of the bam and probably will continue to be used for that purpose. Weinberger stated it may be possible to place a curb cut on Watertown Road but would be subject to approval by the City. Hawn suggested the Applicants continue to work with City Staff to resolve any disputed issues. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would prefer to meet on Wednesday in January and February. Lindquist stated he would be able to meet on Wednesday if there is not a quorum available on Monday. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to schedule the January and February meetings on the third Wednesday of the month for January and February. Page 26 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (Other Issues, Continued) City Council Representative Sansevere stated he would be In favor of scheduling a workshop to the possibility of adopting some type of administrative approval for some of the applications that appear before the Planning Commission. Stoddard indicated he would like to discuss the concept of a consent agenda for the Planning Commission. (#15) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 18,1999, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#13) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON OCTOBER 26,1999 AND NOVEMBER 8,1999 Smith stated she attended the October 25,1999 City Council meeting, noting she had nothing to report. Kluth stated he attended the November 8.1999 Ctty Council meeting, noting that the Council did adopt the Adult Use Ordinance. The City Council commended the Planning Commission on their fine efforts regarding this ordinance. (#16) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON NOVEMBER 22,1999 AND DECEMBER 13,1999 November 22.1999 - Stoddard December 13,1999 - Hawn (#17) SELECTION OF WORK SESSION DATES IN DECEMBER TO DISCUSS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SION ORDINANCE Gaffron noted a work session has been scheduled for December 22,1999, to discuss an amendment to the sign ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Berg moved. Smith seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 12:02 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn, Chair Page 27 r i 1 •It iT«'t\v TVt rtTiTTiTiTlTt •1 TiW • rtMVitif li ^ ftTtiii r-T#: 1 r€ rtTn«^«i« lUI* Itl* iTT^ 1 rsM ir^«] w *i'j rtwti«i*]i[t •tt «Uj K{9V^r. •■•HI*rti lUfltii* • •TliTiliW:!* ■ M •I^aW i •1 tiVi l[« tMtli«l0 il[*rSTTTiTi M fi¥» R1 I rtivtu • r»iiiti*ii ![•r»T:U« Tlltl ll-l«J •TC«]*^ n Ci»:T»Wiri III iW«J • h &• lit •U*U] •r’»'» ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 (#2513 Connie Piepho, Continued) City Staff is recommending denial of the application based on the negative impacts to the adjacent property and locating the pool within the average lakeshore setback. Weinberger indicated he has spoken with Mike Movani of Custom Pools who has indicated the property owner would prefer the swimming pool to be located in its original proposed location. Weinberger stated an agreement between the two property owners could perhaps be considered to allow a secondary septic site in the proposed location with relocation of the adjoining neighbor's well. This option would be acceptable to City Staff if all the parties are in agreement. Weinberger reiterated that City Staff is recommending denial of the application as presented tonight. Movani commented the property owner would like the pool located in the original proposed location. Movani stated a variance was needed for the septic site ir its present location, with no secondary site being found compatible with the City's septic requirs?nents. Movani stated they have attempted to comply with the City's requirements by reducing the size of the pool and trying various locations. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to consider the application that has been presented tonight. Movani stated they would prefer to have the original application considered. Hawn inquired whether any discussions have been held with the adjoining neighbor. Piepho indicated she has spoken with the neighbor regarding their options. Kluth inquired whether the present septic site operates fine currently. r Piepho stated the present system is six years old and operates Fine. Smith inquired whether there were any other possible locations for the pooi. Piepho indicated they have considered other possible sites for the pool and were not able to find a suitable location. Kluth indicated he was unsure what option the Planning Commission is supposed to be reviewing tonight. Movani stated the Applicant would like to pursue the option of reaching an agreement with the adjoining property owner in which he would agree to relocate his well in the event the Applicant's primary septic site needs to be replaced. Kluth 'nquired whether this property was located within the MUSA district. Weinberger stated there is a potential this will be included in MUSA in the future Hawn stated she has a concern with the proposed option in the event the adjoining property owner decides to sell the property, which would encumber future buyers. Hawn stated one other option would be to relocate the well now. which would be an addeci expense to the Applicant. Tim Pellizzer, 520 North Arm Drive, stated his well was installed in 1984. Hawn inquired whether P-9'iizzer would have any objections to working out an agreement with the Applicant. Page 2 t 1 # ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23. 2000 (#2513 Connie Piepho, Continued) Pellizzer stated at this time he is not opposed to reaching some type of agreement with the Applicant. Weinberger stated some type of bond could possibly be posted with the City in favor of the adjoining property owner, which could be used to help pay for relocating of the welt. Weinberger stated the bond would have to be attached to the property in the event a sale of the property should occur. Smith commented she would rather not see the City involved in an agreement of this type if at all possible. Movani stated in his view he does not see why the City would need to be involved. There were no further public comments. Hawn commented she would be willing to table this application to allow the Applicant time to try to reach an agreement with the adjoining property owner. Movani inquired whether they would need to appear before the Planning Commission again if an agreement is reached. Movani noted the prior application was approved. Hawn stated that approval may have expired. Movani stated he is unsure whether that approval has expired. Weinberger stated he would prefer a new recommendation by the Planning Commission, noting that the previous approval requir^ that a secondary septic site be identified, which has not been done. Movani commented they will need to find a secondary septic site. Hawn inquired whether the adjoining property owner had other available sites for a well. Peliizer indicated he does. Movani stated there are not available locations for the pool without a variance of some type. Weinberger stated the approval in August was based on the Applicant finding an alternate septic site. Hawn stated the Applicant will need to locate a secondary septic site before August 16 in order for the previous approval to still be in effect. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table this application. Movani inquired whether they would need to come back before the Planning Commission if they meet all the necessary criteria. Hawn stated it will be necessary for them to appear before the Planning Commission again. Movani requested the application be tabled. Weinberger noted the Applicant submitted a letter requesting the 60 day statutory review period be waived Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23. 2000 Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2513, Connie Piepho, 540 North Arm Lane, with the understanding the Applicant will seek to reach an acceptable bond and agreement with the adjoining property owner to insure relocation of his well in the event the Applicant’s primary septic site fails, and identification of a secondary septic site on the Applicant’s property, and further subject to submittal of an accurate sketch depicting the location of the proposed pool and secondary septic site. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#2) #2561 THOMAS MICHAEL RAND6AARD, 2765 SHADYWOOD ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This application was not heard due to the absence of the Applicant. (#3) #2556 BARBARA AND COLLINS CAVENDER, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 1405/1395 REST POINT ROAD • VARIANCES, 7:00 p.m. • 7:13 p.m. Barbara and Collins Cavender, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission reviewed this application at its January 19,2000 meeting where the application was tabled to allow the Applicants time to revise their plans in order to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit and address concerns regarding the lakeshore setback. The Applicants have submitted revised plans which reflect a reduction in total structural coverage to 15 percent. The proposed setback to the lake is now 34 feet as opposed to the 30 feet originally proposed. The house would be located further from the lake if the shoreline were consistent across the full width of the property. Weinberger commented many other primary residences along this road are located at a distance comparable to the 34 foot setback. Weinberger noted the City of Orono currently owns and maintains a lift station on the property. The prop''^ location of the house creates the greatest distance possible on the lot from the lift station. Weinberger stated this applr;ation requires variances to permit structure within 75 feet of the lakeshore as well as variances to permit structure and hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. In addition, variances to hardco -er in the 0-75' setback is required and a variance to the street setback. The proposed residence will encroach 13.67 Into the setback. City Staff is recommending approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 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 requesting an easement for the lift station. D.The lot has a very limited building pad. Any new constnjction on the property would require setback variances. Because Rest Point Road is narrow, it is not possible to park cars on the Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 (#2556 Barbara and Collins Cavender, Continued) street without causing a public safety issue. Each lot along Rest Point Road will require off street parking areas to accommodate quests. 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. Mr. Cavender stated Weinberger has done a thorough job presenting the application. Cavender stated one item that was accidentally omitted was a 4' by 4' concrete pad for an air conditioning unit. Hawn commented the proposed plan is an improvement to what currently exists on the lot, noting the Applicants have complied with the direction of the Planning Commission. Kluth commented he does not have a problem with the application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Mrs. Cavender inquired whether she would be permitted to do some limited landscaping near the lift station. Weinberger recommended the Applicants work with the Public Works Department on that issue, noting the City typically encourages some plantings in that area. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2556, Barbara and Collins Cavender, 1405/1395 Rest Point Road, granting of variances to permit structure within 75* of the lakeshore, variance to average lakeshore setback, variance to street setback, and a variance to hardcover within the 0-75* setback, subject to the two lots being legally combined and granting of an easement to the City for the lift station, with the understanding a 4* by 4* concrete pad will be allowed for an air<conditioning unit. Hawn inquired whether all the patio and underlayment depicted in the diagram wiil be removed. Mrs. Cavender indicated it will be. Weinberger noted a variance to the average lakeshore is not required in this case. Kluth moved, Hawn seconded, to delete the variance to average lakeshore setback from motion. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4) #2558 ANTHONY PATTERSON, 1780 SHADYWOOD ROAD • VARIANCES, 7:15 p.m. - 7:37 p.m. Anthony Patterson, Applicant, was present, along with David Bergman, Building/Contractor. Bottenberg stated this application was tabled at the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to allow the Applicant time to redesign the deck and side entry to conform more with Orono's zoning code. The Applicants are requesting variances to permit construction of 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. The additional living space would allow the Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23. 2000 (#2558 Anthony Patterson, Continued) existing residence to be expanded from a one and a half story to a full two story house. Bottenberg stated the Applicant was issued a permit for construction on the second story as long as the construction did not occur within the 10 foot side yard setback. The Applicants were advised by the Building Inspector that the variances could be denied. Bottenberg stated tl's Applicants have redesigned the deck to eliminate it from protruding into the setback area, lowering the hardcover calculations in this setback area to 0 percent, which eliminates the need for any variance. The existing deck located in the 75'-250 ‘ setback area has been reduced from 291 square feet to 235 square feet, in the combined setback areas, total deck square footage is reduced from 285 square feet existing to 220 square feet proposed. Bottenberg indicated the Applicants had originally proposed to construct a side entry consisting of 165 square feet. They have reduced the side entry to 80 square feet. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are still proposing to remove 95 square feet of driveway and 128 square feet of sidewalk. Bottenberg noted a variance is still required for hardcover within the 75*250' setback area, with the proposed hardcover being calculated at 41.4 percent. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has been informed of the difference between hardcover and structural coverage, but is still requesting a variance to structural coverage to allow for 15.9 percent. The existing structural coverage for the lot is 1,977 square feet or 15.7 percent. The Applicant has indicated he would like to keep the side entry at 8* by 10*. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances for lot coverage and side yard setback, approval of the variance for hardcover in the 75*250' setback area, including the sidewalk and full driveway. A new survey showing revisions should be submitted to City Staff for approval before a building permit will be issued. Patterson stated he has become aware of the differences between hardcover and structural coverage, noting he was left with the impression after the last Planning Commission meeting that structural coverage could be reduced from the proposed 18.7 percent down to 18.2 percent by removing a portion of the deck and reducing the side entry. Patterson stated they were informed of the need to comply with the 15 percent limit later on, noting they have attempted to comply with the limits as much as possible. Hawn commented the Applicant has made progress on this application, but stated she still has a problem with the proposed structural coverage. Hawn stated she will allow the Applicant to replace what was existing, but she is not in favor of increasing structural coverage any further than what currently exists. Hawn expressed a concern that the Applicant may have a problem navigating a vehicle in the driveway if it should be reduced. Hawn noted the property should have a sidewalk to access the garage. Patterson stated they have conducted some tests on the reduced driveway and feel that it will be acceptable. Kluth commented the minutes from the previous Planning Commission meeting reflect that the Applicant was advised the deck would be considered structural coverage, with a clear direction being given by the Planning Commission that they would not be in favor of any increases in hardcover or structural coverage. Hawn stated she is opposed to allowing the structural coverage to be increased beyond the existing Page 6 4 i r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23. 2000 (#2558 Anthony Patterson, Continued) 15.7 percent. Patterson stated he will reduce the side entry if necessary. Hawn stated the consensus of the Planning Commission is to leave the structural coverage at the existing 15.7 percent. Nygard indicated the Applicant will need to remove 43 square feet in order to reduce the proposed structural coverage to 15.7 percent. Nygard inquired whether the driveway should be removed. Kluth commented he would like to see the numbers for hardcover and structural coverage kept at the existing numbers. Hawn inquired why structural coverage increases if the deck is being reduced. Bergman stated the driveway was part of the original proposal and apparently has not been removed from the calculations. Kluth stated they need to get the correct hardcover and structural coverage numbers on this application. Hawn commented it appears the hardcover is less than 43.7 percent. Kluth stated he would like some assurance from the Applicant that the existing hardcover and structural coverage limits will not be increased. Kluth stated the Applicant will need to calculate the correct numbers prior to appearing before the City Council. Kluth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2558, Anthony Patterson, 1780 Shadywood Road, granting of variances to lot coverage, and side yard setback, with the understanding that all existing hardcover and structural coverage limits will not be exceeded, and subject to the submittal of a new survey showing the revisions to City Staff for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#5) #2488 ELAINE ERICKSON, 1270 SPRUCE PLACE - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:38 p.m. • 8:26 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Nancy Anderson. Daughter, Jeff Olson. Son. and Al Hirsch, Contractor, were present. The Applicant was not present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting variances to remove an existing residence and build a new residence further back on the same lot. The Applicant is also applying for a conditional use permit to permit grading within 75 feet of the lakeshore. The Applicant is proposing to remove a "bulge" in the topography to bring the lakeside of the lot more in natural flow with the adjacent property. The proposal includes relocating the new residence back out of the 0-75* setback area, which will allow It to be more in alignment with the adjacent properties. Bottenberg stated the Applicant initiated this process in April of 1999, when the Applicant brought Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 (#24S6 Elaine Erickson, Continued) in the first set of house plans. The Applicant has submitted several sets of revised plans, with the latest set of plans calling for the elimination of the side yard setback. The Applicant is requesting variances to lot coverage and hardcover coverage in the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas, with a conditionai use permit still being necessary. The bulge that the Applicant is seeking to remove occurred in 1975, when the owner of the adjacent property did some grading work on his property and a walkout was created. Bottenberg stated since that time, the City has denied a number of requests for simiiar grading to create walkout situations when they involved excavating in the 0-75' zone. The Applicants have been advised by Orono's building inspector that one option to correct the incorrect grading on the adjoining property would be to remove the trees and level it out to flow more with the other properties. Bottenberg stated this option, however, would be inconsistent with the zoning code and with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Bottenberg indicated the Applicant will need to relocate the existing well should this plan be approved since it will be located underneath the new residence. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing total structural coverage in the amount of 1,584 square feet, or 16 percent, where 15 percent is permitted, and hardcover in the 0-75' setback of 5.84 percent where 0 percent hardcover is allowed. The Applicant is also proposing hardcover in the 75-250' setback of 48.6 percent, where 25 percent is allowed. Bottenberg stated the hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback area will be reduced to 0 percent if grading is permitted and the proposed residence and deck are relocated further back on the lot out of the 0-75' setback area. Bottenberg noted if grading is permitted, the sidewalk and steps will no longer be needed. City Staff is recommending denial of the conditional use permit to permit grading or excavating within 75' of the lakeshore due to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Nancy Anderson stated the biggest issue they are faced with is attempting to construct a single-story handicapped accessible residence to meet her mother’s needs. Anderson commented they have attempted to reduce the size of the residence as much as they feel is economically feasible in order to retain its resale value. Anderson stated it is difficult to find a suitable building pad which will meet all of the City’s requirements, noting they would like to do some grading on the lot in order to correct the drainage on the lot and to make the lot flatter. Jeff Olson stated he personally is not in favor of altering the lakeshore, but in his opinion some action needs to be taken in order to correct the drainage and remove the bulge that was created from some previous grading work that was completed on the adjoining property. Olson stated his mother would like to construct this new residence so her daughter, who lives next door, will be able to take care of her. Hawn stated the Planning Commission will need to address in further detail what the Applicants are proposing for the lakeshore side of the property. Hirsch stated they would like to remove some dirt to create a walkout to the north Hawn stated typically the Planning Commission does not allow grading within 75' of the lakeshore and the Planning Commission cannot grant a conditional use permit to allow grading in that area simply because some incorrect grading has occurred on the adjoining property. Hawn acknowledged some incorrect drainage does currently exist on this property, which should be addressed. Hawn stated ideally it would be better to correct the grade on the adjoining property, but due to the lack of an engineer's report, the Planning Commission is not able to determine what ideally should be done Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23. 2000 (#2486 Elaine Erickson, Continued) to correct the drainage. Hawn noted the Planning Commission typically does not approve walkouts near the lakeshore. Hawn acknowledged the tree in the location of the bulge has been damaged, which should also be addressed. Hawn noted the Planning Commission typically does not permit structural coverage to exceed the allowable 15 percent. Hawn stated the deck would be considered hardcover versus structural coverage if the proposed residence was a two-story structure. Kluth stated he would like to separate what appear to be aesthetic concerns versus hardships that exist due to the topography of the land. Kluth commented he is in agreement with Hawn and that some action should be taken to correct the incorrect drainage that has occurred as a result of the grading on the adjoining property. Kluth stated he would like City Staff to continue working with the Applicants to see if some resolution could be reached to these issues. Anderson stated a walkout could still be created without the bulge being removed. Anderson stated they are in agreement that something needs to be done with the damaged tree. Hawn inquired whether additional fill could be put near the tree. Anderson stated if additional fill were placed in that area, it would block the neighbor's view of the lake, which was one reason why the grading was completed. Anderson stated the house could perhaps be moved further back out of the 0-75 ‘ setback, and suggested that the grade between her mother's house and her house be altered to help correct the drainage in that area. Hawn inquired whether that would eliminate the need for a retaining wall. Anderson stated it would. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs some direction from an engineer as it relates to the excavation and the impact to drainage that any grading work would do to this property as well as the adjoining properties. Kluth commented he has concerns regarding the grading and drainage. Kluth suggested the parties speak to City Staff regarding the removal of the damaged tree. Hawn stated the City's forester should perhaps take a look at the situation before the tree is removed. Hawn stated she would not be opposed to a small amount of grading on this property, but noted the overall grading and drainage issues need to be further addressed before any approval can be given. Anderson stated they are merely requesting the right to level the land in this area. Hawn reiterated that an engineer will need to review the situation and submit his recommendations to City Staff. Weinberger stated the City Engineer can review this situation and how it will affect the lakeshore. Weinberger commented the City wants to protect the natural environment as much as possible. Nygard acknowledged there appears to be a major drainage issue which needs to be addressed. Hawn stated the Applicant will need to show how much grading will occur, where the grading will occur, and how much dirt will be moved. Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23.2000 (#2480 Elaine Erickson, Continued) Hawn stated the Applicant needs to address the drainage concerns and reduce structural coverage. Hawn indicated she does not have a problem with an attached garage. Kluth commented the driveway is not a major issue in his opinion. Hawn remarked the Applicant may have some issues with snow removal as well. Anderson commented the road was not constructed as it was originally platted and should be located further uphill. Weinberger stated the City Engineer can review the drainage and grading plans prepared by the Applicant's engineer and make whatever recommendations are necessary. Weinberger noted the City Engineer normally does not go out and review the site. Gaffron pointed out it would be hard to tell the viability of the tree at this time of year, and suggested the Applicant hire a tree service to look at the tree and make some recommendations on what should be done. Hawn suggested the application be tabled. Anderson requested the matter be tabled. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2486, Elaine Erickson, 1270 Spruce Place, to allow the Applicant time to revise their plans, submit a grading and drainage plan, and to address the issues with the damaged tree. Gaffron inquired whether the Appiicant will be allowed to keep the structural coverage at the proposed 16 percent. Hawn stated the Planning Commission typically does not allow structural coverage to exceed the allowable 15 percent. Hawn stated it is hard to determine the exact amount of hardcover being proposed at this time, which will need to be recalculated. Gaffron suggested the Applicant lower the deck below six feet so it will not be counted as structural coverage. There were no public comments regarding this appiication. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4. Nays 0. (#6) #2559 GILBERT GEHLE, 1392 BALDUR PARK ROAD • VARIANCES. 8:28 p.m. -9:15 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Gilbert Gehle, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting hardcover variances to permit hardcover in excess of 25 percent within the 75<250' lakeshore setback and to permit hardcover within 75' of the south lakeshore. A variance is also required to permit a small amount of regrading within the south 0-75' lakeshore setback for a driveway. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23,2000 (#2859 Gilbert Gehle, Continued) Weinberger noted this property has appeared before the Planning Commission on a number of times for various variances over the years, in August of 1998, the City Council approved hardcover in the amount of 5,725 square feet in the south 0-75' setback and the 75-250' setback due to the fact the property is located on a peninsula and has two 0-75' setbacks. In April of 1999, the City Council approved 5,606 square feet of hardcover in the south 0-75* setback and the 75-250' setback, which is 119 square feet less than the first approval the previous year. Weinberger stated the property presently contains an existing residence and detached garage. The garage and driveway will be removed but will continue to utilize essentially the same access point that currently exists. Weinberger noted any change in access to the property would require variances due to the access to the property being located within the southerly 0-75' zone. Staff would agree that this limited access does place an undue hardship on the property. The proposed development meets all setback requirements. Weinberger stated the hardcover variances are related to the size of the proposed house, with the need for a variance being minimized in the 75-250' setback by a reduction in the size of the house. 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 is recommending that no mature trees be removed within 75' feet of the lakeshore. Weinberger noted the proposed driveway location may require some loss of natural vegetation. City Staff is willing to work with the Applicant on the alignment of the driveway to help prevent any loss of mature trees. Gehle indicated he would like to have a walkout in the front, noting that the vast majority of the houses on the lake have a walkout. Weinberger stated Exhibit D shows a two story building with the lowest story being part of a walkout. The Applicant is not proposing to do any grading within 75' of the north lakeshore. The City's Comprehensive Plan discourages any changes to the natural grade along the lakeshore, which would occur if any grading should take place within 75' of the north lakeshore. Weinberger stated the proposed hardcover on the property is 5,738 square feet, which is 4.3 square feet short of the allowable 25 percent. Gehle stated he is willing to raise the elevation of the house if necessary, but would like to avoid that due to aesthetic appearances and creating a pedestal type look. Gehle pointed out a large amount of grading has occurred in the past in the middle of the lot, with a knoll existing by the trees. Gehle stated he would ike to retain the trees and reduce the knoll if possible. Gehle stated it will be necessary to remove one to two trees in order for the proposed driveway to be constructed Gehle stated he would like to construct a front loading garage. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant was proposing to construct a path to the back side of the garage. Gehle stated the existing garage and driveway will be removed and replaced with vegetation. Weinberger stated he has a concern with the areas that are proposed to be redone, noting Staff was not informed they would be driving across the lawn. Hawn inquired whether there was any public comment regarding this application. A resident on Baldur Road expressed some concerns regarding potential drainage issues that may be created as a result of this project. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 (#2559 Gilbert Gehle, Continued) Hawn inquired whether any drainage problems currently exist. The resident stated no. Weinberger stated any proposed retaining wall will need to stay within the allowable hardcover. Kluth inquired whether any grading is proposed in the north 0-75*. Gehle stated they do not plan on doing any grading in the north 0-75' setback. Gehle commented they may place some paving stones down to the lake, but will limit the hardcover to a minimum. Kluth commented the issues are the proposed hardcover in the south 0-75' and the 75-250' setback. Kluth recommended the Applicant keep the concerns of the neighbor in mind when doing any grading. Hawn inquired whether a large amount of grading will be necessary once the existing house is removed. Gehle stated some fill will be needed by the garage. Gehle stated the elevation of the house will dictate how much fill is required. Smith noted the City did not allow any grading within the 0-75' setback on the two previous applications. Hawn stated she would like to know the specific amount of fill proposed to be used as well as the amount of grading to be completed on this property. Gehle requested the Planning Commission consider allowing him to change the contour of the land within the 0-75' setback area and to allow him to keep the house at a reasonable level. Gehle stated the ideal situation would be to lower the house and do the grading that was previously approved. Hawn stated the Planning Commission would be more comfortable knowing the exact amount of fill to be moved as well as the grading that is being proposed. Hawn stated the Planning Cr*^'.mission needs to know the impact to the grading and drainage before they can approve the elevation of the house. Kluth sia^^ he is not fully aware of what was previously approved. Gaffron stated his recollection of this application is that the two large trees on top of the knoll were approved to be cut down, as well as the knoll. Gaffron commented there were no proposed changes to the grade in front of the house, with the City requiring a land alteration permit in the 0-75' setback to allow for the placement of fill after the structure is removed, with the contours on either side being matched. Gaffron commented the Planning Commission needs to be cautious about changing the contour of the property in order to create a walkout. Gehle stated he was unaware he would need the figures for the amount of fill to be moved tonight. Weinberger stated in the previous application the owners were proposing to return the land back to its original natural contour, with the elevation of the house remaining the same as uie previous house. Hawn indicated a conditional use permit is required if the Applicant plans to move more than 500 cubic yards of fill. Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23. 2000 (#2559 Gilbert Gehle, Continued) Gaffron noted City Staff has not received any formal grading and drainage plans on this property. Gaffron stated the Applicant needs to submit a plan showing the proposed drainage and grading. Kluth suggested a restriction be placed on this application limiting the amount of grading or table the application to allow the Applicant time to submit a grading and drainage plan. Weinberger stated City Staff has just received this plan recently, with the present plan showing some grading on the property. Staff had understood the Applicant would be working within the existing grades on the property nor did Staff anticipate any grading beyond what would be necessary to create a natural walkout in the area. Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission was in agreement that grading should occur on this property. Nyg.ird stated grading was not approved in the previous application. Kluth commented it is difficult to determine what people mean by a little fill without the exact figures being spelled out. Hawn commented it is unclear what is meant by restoring the natural contour without it being further defined. Gaffron stated the existing house is proposed to be removed, with the existing foundation being filled in to match the surrounding contour of the land, which returns the land back to its original state prior to construction. Gaffron commented some grading may have occurred on the site prior to construction of the original residence. Gaffron stated the Applicant is not allowed to do any grading within the 0-75* setback. Weinberger stated grading within the 0-75* setback requires ? conditional use permit, which has not been applied for, as well as additional variances. Weinbe ger inquired whether the Applicant still wished to cor.t.nue to work within the existing grades on the property. Gehle stated he would like to work within the existing grades. Gehle stated he is not proposing to do any grading within the 0-75' setback. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant is agreeable to maintaining the contour of the land as it presently exists. Gehle indicated he is agreeable to that. Hawn Inquired whether that would be agreeable to the Commissioners. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Applicant should stay within the existing contours of the land. Weinberger stated In the two previous applications, the applicants were given credit for the hardcover in the south 0-75* setback. Weinberger stated it would be acceptable to Staff to keep within the existing contours of the land. Hawn stated she would be reluctant to approve any additional hardcover over what has been previously approved in the O'Keefe application. Weinberger stated O’Keefe was approved at 5,725 square feet in the south 0-75 ’ setback and the Page 13 I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23. 2000 (#2559 Gilbert Gehle, Continued) 75-250' setback. Weinberger stated this proposal exceeds what was approved in the O'Keefe by 13 square feet. Gehle stated he would be willing to reduce the patio. Hawn indicated she would like to see the patio reduced to meet the same percentage that was approved in the O'Keefe application. Hawn stated she is willing to allow the contours of the land be restored, with no additional grading to accommodate a walkout, the existing garage and driveway to be removed, hardcover reduced to 5,725 square feet, no tree removal in the 0-75' setback, with the understanding the adjoining properties will not be negatively impacted by any drainage and grading, and submittal by the Applicant of the appropriate drainage and grading plans to City Staff for their review and comment. Hawn stated the Applicant will also need to work with City Staff on the issue of the placement of the driveway. Gaffron stated in his view that encompasses the issues. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2559, Gilbert Gehle, 1392 Baldur Park Road, with the understanding the Applicant will submit a grading and drainage plan to City Staff for their review and comment subject to the grading being limited to restoration of the existing contours of the land, with no additional grading being allowed for a walkout; hardcover being reduced to 5,725 square feet in the south 0-75* and the 75-250* setbacks; the existing garage and driveway being removed, with the Applicant working with City Staff on placement of the new driveway to avoid the removal of mature trees; and further subject to no removal of trees within the 0-75* setback. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) #2561 FRANK AND BARBARA PETERSON. 1261 ARBOR STREET - VARIANCES. 9:18 p.m. • 10:00 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Barbara Peterson, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit the construction of a 28' by 32' detached garage on the northwest comer of their lot, which will be accessed from Minnetonka Avenue. The property currently does not have a garage. The proposed garage will be constructed where parking space is currently located. The shape of the lot is such that it does not allow for the garage doors to face away from the street. Bottenberg stated the property lies within 1,000 feet of French Lake, with the amount of proposed hardcover not exceeding the allowed 35 percent. Bottenberg stated the detached garage will increase the structural coverage from 10.9 percent to 17.3 percent, where 15 percent is allowed. A variance is required to allow the accessory structure to be located Five feet from the rear property line where 15 feet is required. A variance is also needed to allow the doors to be 20 feet from the traveled paved roadway where 30 feet or more is required and a variance to side street yard setback to permit the proposed garage to be located 10 feet from the side street lot line where 50 feet is required. Peterson presented the Planning Commission with pictures of other sheds and garages thct exist in her neighborhood. Peterson inquired whether the 15 percent structural coverage limit is geared towards lakeshore properties or to the City at large. Page 14 Ik ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23. 2000 (#2561 Frank and Barbara Peterson, Continued) Nygard commented the City's policies are designed to help lessen the impact to the lake and lakeshore as much as possible. Peterson noted a garage located in her neighborhood did obtain a variance to structural coverage. Peterson commented she would be willing to remove the existing shed in order to construct a nice garage. Bottenberg stated most of the sheds located in this area have been constructed without the necessary approvals and permits. Peterson stated they have a one-story house and would like to construct a garage to store their vehicles as well as other personal property. Smith stated it can be a hardship to be without a garage in Minnesota. Smith inquired what the structural coverage would be if the garage was reduced to 24' by 28'. Bottenberg stated it would be 15.6 percent. Hawn commented that the Planning Commission generally does not deviate from the 15 percent. Hawn stated she would like to see the Applicant comply with the 15 percent, noting she does not have a problem with the rest of the application. Kluth inquired whether the Comprehensive Plan addresses garages at all. Gaffron stated the City's Plan contains a statement which says the City will not adopt an ordinance requiring a miriimum house size nor will it specify that the house should have a garage. The present City Council looks at the applications as if the Applicant will eventually build a garage if it is not specified in the plan and requires that the Applicant allot some of their structural coverage to a future garage to insure that they will comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Hawn inquired what the structural coverage would be with a 24' by 24' garage. Bottenberg stated with a 24' by 24' garage, the Applicant would be under the allowable limit. Bottenberg noted the garage cannot exceed the height of the principal structure. Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission would be willing to allow structural coverage at 15.6 percent. Kluth commented the Planning Commission needs to have a consistent standard to adhere to. Hawn indicated she does not have a problem with approving the other variances, but would like to see the Applicant comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Peterson commented a 24' by 24' garage is smaller than most of the sheds that exist in the area. Hawn stated a 22' by 22' garage is the standard size garage, which can accommodate two cars. Nygard commented the Planning Commission may be setting a precedent if they approve anything in excess of the 15 percent. Peterson stated she would also like to construct the garage to help improve the appearance of the Page 15 ^ - -»*- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23. 2000 (#2561 Frank and Barbara Peterson, Continued) property, which would allow her to eliminate the need for a small storage shed. Peterson stated the City should look at whether they are creating another problem by limiting structural coverage to the 15 percent. Peterson commented in her view property owners are forced to store cars and other personal property outside or in small, unsightly storage sheds, which is very detracting to the appearance of the neighborhood and appears to be a growing problem. Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission has ever approved structural coverage in excess of IS percent on any other applications. Hawn stated the City does allow Applicants to replace what Is existing. Hawn noted this garage would be considered new construction. Kluth stated he would not be opposed to considering Minnesota winters a hardship. Gaffron stated the City prior to 1983 granted variances to hardcover with minimal discussion if the property exceeded the allowable limit. The City Council, starting in 1984, realized that excessive hardcover was getting out of hand and started to enforce the limits. Over the years the City has gotten stricter on hardcover and structural coverage. Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of building an accessory building which exceeds the height of the principal structure. Peterson stated this garage would be used to store vehicles, snow blower and lawn mower. Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application There were no public comments. Kluth inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to compromise on the size of the garage. Peterson stated she would like to build the garage as proposed. Kluth moved to recommend denial of Application #2561, Frank and Barbara Peterson, 1261 Arbor Street, unless the proposed garage is reduced in size to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. NO SECOND. Hawn inquired whether the Appiicant would be willing to construct a garage which will comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit. Peterson stated her husband probably will not be agreeable to limiting it to the 15 percent and will erect a shed to accommodate their other personal items. Peterson stated rather than deny the application, she would be agreeable to limiting the structural coverage to 15 percent. Kluth moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2561, Frank and Barbara Peterson, to permit the construction of a garage not to exceed the allowed 15 percent total structural coverage on the lot, and to grant variances to side yard setback, lot coverage and location of the garage doors. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23,2000 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#S) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JANUARY 24, 2000 AND FEBRUARY 24, 2000 Hawn indicated the Hoyt application was discussed at the City Council meeting and appears to be heading back to the Planning Commission for review. Hawn stated the Applicant failed to apply for certain variances and a public hearing wili need to be heid on the request for the variances at the Planning Commission level. Gaffrcn noted the City Council tabled the application. Peterson stated she has the understanding he will be filing an application for the variances. Hawn stated the Department of Transportation is presently seeking other sites for the sand/salt storage facility. Weinberger stated they are looking at the new maintenance facility in Medina. (#9) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron indicated Rick Luzaich has recently signed his response to interrogatories, with the Judge requesting the matter be resolved by June. (#10) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 22,1999 AND JANUARY 19,2000 Nygard moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 19,2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Smith moved, no second, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 22,1999, as submitted. NO VOTE The recording secretary noted a change was made in the November 22,1999 minutes as it relates to the Edin application. Kluth requested the minutes from the November 22,1999 Planning Commission meeting be included in their packets for their review prior to approval. (#11) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 28, 2000 AND MARCH 13, 2000 February 28,2000 • Smith March 13.2000 • Nygard ADJOURNMENT Motion by Kluth. second by Smith, to adjourn the meeting at 10:29 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn, Chair Page 17 btarirtiwwnl'