Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2000 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 17,2000—6:30 p.m. 2780 Kelley Parkway-Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Robert Sansevere AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the May 8,2000, City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or betw een scheduled public hearings. OLD BUSINESS 1. 7. #2486 2.#2513 3.#2549 4.#2555 5.#2564 6.#2567 #2569 Elaine Erickson, 1270 Spruce Place, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). Connie Piepho, 540 North Arm Drive, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). David Lovelace, 220 Big Island - Request for Dock Access. (Staff: Mike Gaffiron). Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive, Zoning Code Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). William Scott Dampler, 3550 Ivy Place, Variances. (Staff; Wendy Bottenberg). Walfred Properties, 2380 and 2364 Shadyw ood Road, 3326 Navarre Lane, and address unassigned (17-117-23 44 0078), Zoning Cede Amendment, Variances, Vacation and Commercial Site Plan. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). W.Duncan MacMillan and William Waldron, 1860 Fox Street, After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). NEW BUSINESS 8. 9. #2570 #2571 George Stickney, 2590 Countryside Drive, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). Doug Ault and Jim Ginther, 2739 Shady.vood Road, Conditional Use Permit and Aftcr-thc' Fact Variance. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 10.#2572 11.#2573 Steve Morkrid, 2314 Shadyri'ood Road, Variance. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). David and Marti Blodgett, 1380 Rest Point Road, Variance. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). 12.#2574 Tom Micheletti, 519 Femdale Road North, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). 13.#2575 James and Jill Cornell, 2145 Watertown Road, Variance. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). SKETCH PLAN 14. #2576 Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail, Sketch Plan Review. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). PLANNING CO>EVnSSION COMMENTS 15.Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on March 27,2000 and April 10,2000. 16.Other issues for discussion. 17.Plaiming Commission approval of minutes for March 20,2000. 18.Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on April 24, 2000 and May 8,2000. ADJOURNMENT J Public A ttendance MEEnNG D ate 1 7 0 □ □ Council Planning C ommission Park commission Other i-::/Please fill out the informahon t BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS,r-'> NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER r 2.. 3.'y7;v ^ v:d\^<j -U 'Vi A i ■ • Jp\^^,n£);‘73:W ll/tvl 'H ''S ** -I ~i7 ys' ---------^ -*d A (Z^ ATiS---- 1 l^v aH:L-J 9 ^‘<L:! .r.ri .9/ 8 9 Xjl ^ 2 cx., )XI to U-./C- hhi ,Ar.i h AJciti' r/f _ 10.. 11. 12. 14. 15. mmj / TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: SUBJECT: April 17,2000 #2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B Lot Area: One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 9,850 s.f. (.23 acre) Exhibits A Application B Applicants Letter C Existing Site Plan/Survey C(l) Proposed Site Plan/Survey D Elevations/Floor Plans E Revised Hardcover calculations F City Engineer Comments G Location Map H Planning Commission Minutes (February 23,2000) I Staff Report (February 14,2000) including application, survey, etc. Summary: This application was tabled at the February 14,2000 Planning Commission meeting so the applicant could redesign and move the proposed residence to conform more with Orono ’s zoning code. The applicant is requesting variances to tear down an existing residence and build a new residence further back on the same lot. The project involves moving the new residence back out of the 0-75' setback area to be more in alignment with adjacent properties. The application presented at the February 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting included a conditional use permit to allow removing the “bulge”on the lakeside of the residence. The grading and altering of the lakeside land is no longer being proposed. Tile applicants have made changes that eliminate the need for a hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback area variance, lot coverage variance and conditional use permit, however they still require a variance for hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. U2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variance 4/17/2000 Page I Brief Summary of proposed changes: • Hardcover in 0-75’ setback area: The proposed residence and deck have been moved back out of the 0-75' setback area. Walkway and steps to the lake will remain, therefore the hardcover in this setback area is not changing. No variance needed. • Lot coverage: The proposed house and garage square footage is 1,499.5 square feet. The second story deck has been moved to the lower level and the proposed residence is slightly smaller, keeping lot coverage under the allowed 1,500 square feet. No variance needed. • Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area: The proposed residence and deck have been reduced from the prior application reducing the amount of hardcover in this setback area. The proposed hardcover is 2,647 s.f. (46.93%), existing hardcover (residence currently on the property) is 1,682 s.f. (27.58%), and 1,525 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Variance is still needed for hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. • Topographic Alteration/Grading and Filling: The conditional use permit to remove the “bulge” in the topography to bring the lakeside of the lot more natural in flow with the adjacent properties is no longer being proposed. No Conditional Use Permit needed. This application requires the following variance: Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250' setback area; To allow 2,647 s.f. (46.93%) of hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, where 1,682 s.f. (27.58%) exists, and 1,525 s.f. (25%) is allowed. ANALYSIS The “existing ” in these tables is the residence current v on the property. “Proposed ” is the new residence the applicant is requesting a variance to build. Lot Area: LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Lakeshore yard Side yard Street yard Required 43,560 s.f.140’75'10’30' Existing 9,850 s.f.50'50’8.7 ’ (north) 9 ’ (south) 80' Proposed 9,850 s.f.50'50’11.2’45' -24S5 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place I ‘ariance 4 17/2000 Page 2 Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 9,850 s.f Allowed: 1,477.5 s.f (15%) or 1,500 s.f Existing: 1,150 s.f (11.7%) Proposed: 1,499.5 s.f The structural coverage is under the allowed amount of 1,500 s.f. for a lot under 10,000 s.f. Hardcover Calculations ; Distance from shoreline 0-75' 75-250’ Total area in setback 3,750 s.f. 6,100 s.f. Allowed hardcover 0 s.f. (0%) 1,525 s.f. (25%) Existing hardcover 533.2 s.f. (14.21%) 1,682 s.f. (27.58%) Proposed hardcover 136 s.f. (3.67%) 2,647 s.f. (46.93%) House 2 sheds Driveway Existing 978 s.f 129 s.f 462 s.f Proposed 1,499.5 s.f w/garage 0 s.f 800 s.f The proposed hardcover calculations are more than what currently exists because the house is larger than what exists, has an attached garage, and a larger driveway. 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. Staff Discussion; The City engineer reviewed the grading and drainage plan, the comments are Exhibit F. The only issue of real concern is the drainage runoff. Drainage calculations and a drainage area map should be submitted for review to ensure the water is diverted to the street and into adjacent neighbors yards. The other concern is the retaining wall. It should be an engineered design and submitted for review before final approval by the City Council. #2-/5(5 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place i’ariance 4/17/2000 Page 3 Issues of Concern; 1 . The applicant is aware that the well will have to be moved. If it is kept in its current location, it will be underneath the new residence. 2. The sheds on the property shou-.J be removed. 3. Drainage calculations and a drainage area map should be submitted prior to City Council approval. 4. The retaining wall should be an engineered design and submitted for review prior to City Council approval. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff makes the following recommendations: The vEiriance for hardcover in the 75-250' setback area be approved with the condition that drainage calculations, drainage area map and an engineer designed retaining wall be submitted for review and approved by City staff prior to City Council review. H2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variance 4/17/2000 Page 4 Application # ^ Date Receiv^~~ V// i /f f Amount Paid ^ 30 C *-^27 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address S pr l-c c- P c r'--------------- Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) C)*S~ \\ n ' CCIS Attach legal description to apphcation if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired___________________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___^other (specify)------------------------------— Zoning District: /, /P - / A______________________—-------------------------------- APPLICANT Name /P/ /V/r_<<A P ^/rsT' Phone (home) Phone (work). r Address: ^ ^ "i, A OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Kfi*>\ cir< c n City: n k Ziv: ■V.S'3 ■=?% i./'. Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:City:,Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: i4 c n-l r\' i.' or- — f. iri t k <.e h i.—u J a h t" /2. :__n n c e O r c p M'r \ A/& (attach addit^nal sheets if necessary)T VA^NCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback: Front / C.^7 Side Y Hardcover Rear m Lot Coverage 87 * Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual proper^ conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Tit nrl (17 1 ^ ^ — r}-,e Sh ck V. S h ^n.U ru<rvr—/7 fhe r^T.—dS^S-fClFr /3rh<^ Ccrk.a----------------hr uC fe h (attach additional sheets if necessary) I, Nancy Anderson, am writing on behalf of my mother, Elaine Erickson. My parents^ have been residents of Orono for over 35 years. In 1979, in anticipation of my father s retirement, they purchased a small old home (1270 Spruce Place) next door to me. Their plan was to rent it until the day came when they felt they could not handle the upkeep of their big home and then to build a new, easy to maintain, home on this property. They began the process of building in early 1998 by contacting a builder who had just finished building a “retirement" home on Spruce Place. Their directive was to design a small home with all needs for an older couple on one floor with an additional bedroom and family space in the lower, walkout, level. When the plan was finished they approached Orono and began the process of securing the permission to build. There were many problems with the lot and the plan....size, elevation, set backs. They, with the help of their builder, redid plans and surveys and consulted several times with Orono employees. By the fall of 1998 they had committed to full speed ahead to build in the summer of 1999. My Dad died, unexpectedly, in the Spring of 1999. The new, small house is an absolute necessity now. From the first meetings with various Orono employees, we have made it our goal to comply with the rules and regulations as best we can. There are several overriding problems with the lot that make this application for the altering of the land a necessity. The first and foremost problem is the unnatural contour of the lakeside as it compares to the neighboring properties. A second issue is one of drainage and placement of the house in relation to the street. We are requesting the removal of the -bulge" (dirt) In the topography and removal of one tree on the lake side. This will bring the lot in flow with the lots on the north and south and will allow the house to walk out on the northeast corner. It will allow the lower level to have a family space and a bedroom. This change will also allow the level of the garage to stay at an acceptable level to the street for drainage reasons. The final consideration is that this seems to really be the only solution to providing for acceptable drainage for the neighboring properties. Plea.se be advised that there is ns question about replacing trees and planting lots of bushes and shrubs. My mother is a hardy gardener and a nature lover (other geese!). We have already discussed, at length, what pines spruce etc can be planted to recreate a "woodsy" feel to the lot. We have had discussions with all of our neighbors and without an exception they are supportive of our plan'*'. We are including the signatures of the near north and south neighbors who have . viewed our plans. We are including photos for your information i. -i-' S,XJULCSL h BUnJDING PERMIT SURVEY FORi/fex/ ^ \U^- T\ IQ •" ^42-^ AoT Z Blac/C /O s/iOA f/ui ee^/s£o f .7 A.• m S Li If* ^ V. srti • \ • ** ^BI/KcO ff □ * WOOD STAKE PLACED B.M. - BEARINGS ON ASSUMED DATUM o - iron MON. SET • » IRON MON. INPLACS PROPOSED INFORMATION ________1st FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. « DRAINAGE 000.0 * EXIST. ELEV. (oOO.o]‘ PROPOSED ELEV. qqo.O * ^‘^T. & F.ROP. ELEV. , SCHOBORG LA n D SURVEYING I hereby cerllly that this plan, survey or report wasI ^•^Buy ccruiy uia^ K'v* •*»«**^/ prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the state 4-77^ ?INC. of Minnesot Book - Page era.3331 aeer Oy. ns. ta sc OMno. MN ssaas 03,^y /Registration No. 1471 Scale /‘'-30 V. VtoN D•• V-'• c ^ ; • ’S' A 8-& .5I-C» N, ^ mBonestroo Rosene ■ Anderl ik & |\ \ Associates Engineers & Architects April 10. 2000 Wendy Bottenberg Assistant Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Bonettroo. Rosene. Anderltk and Associates. Inc. Is an Affirma: .e Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G Bonestroo. PE • .Varvin L Sorvai»i, PE • Gicrr “ Cook. PE • r?ot)efl G Schunicnt, PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE Senior Consultants: Poocri W Rosene PE • Joseph C Anclerlik • Richard E Turner. PE • Susan M EDerlm. C PA Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon . Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Poster PE • David O Loskota PE • Robert C Russek A a . Mark A Hanson. PE • M'cr^ael T Rauimann PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Andersor • Mark P Rc.'fs. PE • David A Bonestroo. MBA* Sidney P \llilliamson. PE L S • Agre' *.* ' ''g \1 B ^ • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE Offices: St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester and Wiiimar MN • Milwaukee Jt'i \Mebsiie: wwwbonestroocom I' Re: Elaine Erickson Site Plan File No. 139-2486 Dear Wendy: We have reviewed the site plan for the proposed improvements on the Erickson property. The site is located at 1270 Spruce Place in the southwest quarter of Section 8. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. • The proposed gravel driveway is shown at a grade of about 3.6^. This appears acceptable, we recommend that the driveway be paved with bituminous or concrete to minimize erosion. The propc-icd curb and gutter should be concrete. • Proposed grading is shown right up to the north and south lot lines. This has created problems between neighbors in other parts of the City. We recommend that easements from the affected property owners be acquired prior to any grading activity. Silt fence should be shown on the plans and be in place prior to any grading. • A drainage area map and drainage calculations should be submitted for review. It appears that the drainage boundaries ore being revised, with more water being diverted to the street. The grading plan and drainage area map should be enlarged to show the swale where the water will be routed to the lake. The proposed runoff routed through this swale should not be increased from existing conditions. • The proposed retaining wall removal north of the north lot line shows no grading. It is unclear how this will be accomplished, plans should show the appropriate grading necessary for the wall removal. The proposed new retaining wall will require that wall details and an engineered design be submitted for review. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONI STROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. '5^/oTyf Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono • .w- 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax. 651-636-1311 • • CMIPf nvA u ORON BATSDC . OFORI cm 0 /f/ „HIGH TMilS END cm Ni RTM • *. RED OAX ; Red Oak.T ■ Golf •. ^ Course 61 •i/ WEST fRAJICH RO I lings Bay VoodUn4’- M'^TL'4 ^ •> 8C0 ^^200 5CHRSTIRE OR i-/EILEEN $T 2 ^ •»A^ * • > - ♦ 5 3f'-“S w liia;.. : ^ • • • % . •. -.V»“» K «S5 ;* :• ^ • Stiibbs •/ - '* «■ • *••••* - _ R/jv ,«y FOX i!ft _ ^ • ^ ' Nort i Or \oAHL 80 .. c\ \ » • N -. • • •• ^ • •• • *•• ••:. •• - .*?• ,.• V, son : ‘"•C Skogsberg Point • ' • * • • x^;r y> OHTjt C»IR»» oRONO/s *.* # •SAedWoft/Pm/}/ \\ H DEERING i/ X;ISU\ND .. ,\^j Fagerness Point i«»0Rnjn^ ^ Crystal ^ tuoo/ ll\l__ h“<5^ '' icksonx V. • .8w XV. ni 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 structupdTcoverage at the existing 15.7 percent. Nygard indicated the Applicant will need to remove 43 square feet inpfoer to reduce the proposed structural coverage to 15.7 percent. Nygard inquired whetherthepdveway should be •■emoved. Kluth commented he would like to see the numbers for hai the existing numbers. iver and structural coverage kept at Hawn inquired why structural coverage increasesjPfhe deck is being reduced Bergman stated the driveway was part of thp^^ginal proposal and apparently has not been removed from the calculations. Kluth stated they need to get the application. feet hardcover and structural coverage numbers on this Hawn commented it appeals the hardcover Is less than 43.7 percent. Kluth stated he wouldlike some assurance from the Applicant that the existing hardcover and structural covera^limits will not be increased. Kluth stated the Applicant will need to calculate the correct nprfibers prior to appearing before the City Council. Kluth nlwed, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2558, Anthony Pa^t^on, 1780 Shadywood Road, granting of variances to lot coverage, and side yard ^ jwack, 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) #2486 ELAINE ERICKSON. 1270 SPRUCE PLACE - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:38 p.m. - 8:26 p.m. Certificale 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 (02486 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 conditional 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 similar grading to create walkout situations when they involved excavating in the 0-75’ zone. The Applicants have been advised by Orono’s bui.'ding inspector that one option to correct the incorrect grading on the adjoining property would be to •emove 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 aiso 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 constnjct 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 Ine 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 staled 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 (IH2486 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 Applicant 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 Applica.nt iuwcr the deck below six feet so it will not be counted as structural coverage. There were no public comments regarding this application. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 9 GILBERT GEHLE, 1392 BALDUR PARK ROAD - VARIANCES, 8:28 p.m. -9:15 p.m. The Certificate of Maittng^d Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gilbert Gehle, Applicant, was presen Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting hardcdvec-xariances to permit hardcover in excess of 25 percent within the 75-250’ lakeshore setback and to permirhaojcwer within 75’ of the south iakeshore. A variance is also required to permit a small amount of regr8dkia within the south 0-75’ lakeshore setback for a driveway. Page 10 I TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner February 14, 2000 #2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variance/Condilional Use Permit — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:9,850 s.f. (.23 acre) List of Exhibits A Variance/CUP Applications B Applicant ’s letter C Existing Site Plan/Survey C(l) Proposed Site Plan/Survey Site Plan D Elevations/ZFloor Plan E Hardcover Calculations F Inspector ’s Memo G Photos of Bulge H Plat Map I Location Map J Property Oumer’s List K Permit Record Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C)-Lot Coverage-In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area but no less than 1,500 square feet if area is less than 10,000 s.f.. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(1): Hardcover in the 0-75' Setback Area; Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250 ’ Setback Area: Within 75-250’ of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. H2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variance/Conditional Use Permit 2/14/00 Page I 4. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(J)(2): Topographic Alteration/Grading and Filling: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Section 7 of this section. Grading, filling, or excavating of 10 cubic yards or less shall require City staff review and permit and be subject to other pertinent sections of the Zoning Code. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances to tear down an existing residence and build a new residence further back on the same lot. Also, the applicant is applying for a conditional use permit to permit grading within 75' of the lakeshore. The scope of the project involves moving the new residence back out of the 0-75 ’ setback area and to be more in alignment with adjacent properties. The conditional use permit is to remove a ‘'bulge" in the topography to bring the lakeside of the lot more natural in flow with adjacent properties. Staff/Applicant Discussions: Plan #1: The process began in April of 1999 when the applicant brought in the first set of house plans. From the onset, the applicant wished to conform with zoning codes as best as possible. The first set of plans had many difficult issues dealing with the lot, elevations, setbacks, and hardcover coverage. The applicant decided to take the plans and redesign them. Plan U2: In October of 1999, the applicant came forward with a second set of house plans. This set of house plans needed three variances (lot coverage, side yard setback and hardcover in 75-250' setback area) and a CUP was needed. The applicant decided they could make some changes to conform better with Orono ’s zoning code. Plan #3: In January' of 2000, the applicant came forward with a third set of house plans. This third set is the latest set of plans. The redesign eliminated the side yard setback, however. lot coverage, and hardcover coverage variances in the 0-75' and 75-250’ setback areas and a CUP are still needed. The “bulge” occurred in 1975 when the owner of 1270 Spruce Place was issued a permit to raise the house and build a basement under the existing residence. The owners apparently w'ere not asked to regrade or replace any of the dirt removed, i.e. they were by default allowed to turn their lot into a “walkout ” lot. Since then, the City has denied a number of requests for similar grading to create walkout situations when they involved excavating in the 0-75' zone. Attached as F.xhibit F is a memo from 1975 discussing the situation. No*e: During the summer of 1999 while out on inspections for the neighboring property, Orono ’s building official was asked his opinion on what should and could be done to eliminate the “bulge.” He advised that one way to correct the ‘‘bad grading” would be to remove the trees and level it out to flow more with the other properties. However, this would be inconsistent with the zoning code viewpoint on the matter and with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. U2-4H6 Elamc Erickson /2/0 Spruce Place yariance'ConJiiional Use Permit 2^4/00 Page 2 The applicant is aware that the existing well will need to be relocated. If it is kept in its current placement it will be underneath the new residence. ANALYSIS The “existing ” in these tables is the residence currently on the property. “Proposed ” is the new residence the applicant is requesting variances to build. Lot Area and Yards: LR-IB Lot .Area Lot Width Lakeshore yard Side yard Street yard Required 43,560 s.f.140'75'10'30' Existing 9,850 s.f.50'50'8.7' (north) 9’ (south) 80 ’ Proposed 9,850 s.f.50'50'11.45'60' Structural Coverage : Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 9,850 s.f.Allowed: 1,477.5 s.f. (15%) or 1,500 s.f E,xisting: 1,150 s.f (11.7%) Proposed: 1,584 s.f (16%) The house and garage square footage is 1,500 square feet. The portico (8.5' x 5') does not have a roof over it. The second stor>‘ deck (6' x 14') brings the total to 1,584 square feet. ^2436 Blame Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variances^'CunJiUonal Use Permit 2 n 4/00 Page 3 Hardcover Calculations: Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75'3,750 s.f.533.2 s.f 0 s.f 219 s.f (14.21%)(0%)(5.84%) 75-250'6,100 s.f.1,682 s.f 1,525 s.f 2,965 s.f (27.58%)(25%)(48.6%) The hardcover coverage in the 0-75' setback area will be reduced to 0% if grading is permitted and the proposed residence and deck are moved back on the lot out of the 0-75' setback area. If grading is permitted, the sidewalk and steps will no longer be needed. However, the sidewalk and steps will remain if the grading is not allowed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS The Planning commission may recommend approval of a conditional use permit amendment if the application meets the following standards: 1. 1 he proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan; 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under w hich it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Statement of Hardship : The appUcant has included the statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. ^2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variances Conditional Use Permit 2'14/00 Page 4 i Issues for Consideration: 1. The applicant is aware that the well will have to be moved. If it is kept in its current place, it will be underneath the new residence. The existing well is located 5’ away from the west side of the residence. The proposed house location is directly over the well and city policy requires a well to be 3’ from the residence. Therefore it needs to be moved to another location and 3' from the proposed residence. 2. The two sheds on the property should be removed. The sheds are currently used for storage. Construction of a garage will eliminate the need for the storage space and should be removed . 3. The residence should be shifted back 6' to keep it out of the 0-75' setback area. Moving the residence back 6' will keep it out of the 0-75 ’ zone. City zoning code states no principal building shall be located closer than 75' to the natural ordinary high water mark of a lake abutting the property. New construction is an opportune time to adhere to zoning code regulations. 4. Newer residences constructed in the neighborhood have attached garages, even though the adjacent properties have detached garages. Garages: detached versus attached. Typically detached garages require less driveway thus less hardcover. Attached garages require longer driveways therefore more hardcover. 5. Grading within the 0-75' setback area and the concurrent removal of mature trees would seem to be in conflict with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. See attached excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan regarding city policies and views on altering shoreline areas. 6. The grading and drainage appears inadequate and applicant should w'ork further with staff to bring it to a suitable and workable design. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. **2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variances/Conditional Use Permit 2/14/00 Page 5 Staff Recommendation: *- Staff recommends denial of a conditional use permit to permit grading, or excavating within 75' of the lakeshore. ► Review the applicant ’s stated hardships and determine whether justification exists to grant the requested variances. it2486 Elaine Erickson 1270 Spruce Place Variances/Conditional Use Permit 2/14/00 Page 6 FNVTRONMENT JUNE, 1980 I I 6.THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY| PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza Study, the 208 Water Quality Management Study, and Orono's Surface Water Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that require protection as part of the City's storm water management program It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen­ dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Management Plan. I 7.PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. 8. I I I P I I I PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCTS WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMECT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitiv bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachmentjH LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. 10. LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new channels or Inlets will not be approved to provide riparian access where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds. s I I I I I CMP 3-20 I I gNVIRQNMENTAL JUNE, 1980 15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL LAND ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each contractor will be required to minimize the probability of soil erosion on site and/or siltation damage downstream. The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways Fill must be compacted and stabilized for permanence. URBAN AREA POLICIES FOR NATURAL RPSQURCE MANAGEMENT 1. 3. 4. 5. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot widths will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. I I I i I i I DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will be and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover in proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover will be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline pursuant to Mn. DNR recommended shoreline practices. ALL EXISTING URBAN WETLANDS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. The existing urban runoff exceeds the capacity of the urban marshes to assimilate all nutrients, ^^®^®^®^® ®<Jditional pollution hazards would be created if any wetlands would be lost. Additional steps to improve nutrient assimilation include on~site retention on all new developments and storm water recycling through the existing marshes. CITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER QUALITY. Salt use for winter street treatment will be minimized. Snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites where they will not overload the natural drainage system or where foreign matter, especially salt, will not directly enter a marsh or lake. Spring cleanup will promptly remove road sands and salts before environmental damage occurs. i I i i i i I CMP 3-22 I ■ ■ ■ 1 I ■ i I I I I 1 I i I I I LAND USE JUNE, 1980 3. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. 4. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease­ ments for conservation of these lands. 5. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Hn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reason­ able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. I CMP 4-13 I I I I I lAND USE JUNE, 1980 11 A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS ^D OPEN S RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON lake MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat^storag^ 13.RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANI AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro­ hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation ylj-* be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RliRAI LAND USE POLICIES 1.ORONO’S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR PERMANENT LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's rolling rural area is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs marshland assimilative capacity preclude expansion of the urban service area without major environmental problems for Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the ideal land use for that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the planned low-density rural residential land use. Commercial and industrial uses will not be permitted in the rural area. CMP 4-19 Application # ^ Date Receive r V//f/j* F Amount Paid 3CC’-^^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address SPrwcc P Ja. c. r' Property Identifi^tion Number ^.l.D.) 0%-\\n ' ^3- - QC Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired___________________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; X residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: ___________________________ APPLICANT Name /7/ 0 £ h>! Phone (home ) Phone(work)____________ Address: ?> .i y ^ ^ ^Citv: p^y.w. ni . Zip: V-/'-.. iOWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name f>i cL-c c n Phone (work). Address;____________________________ City:_____________Zip:. ■---- b •**' * Sv DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $____________ Describe request in detail: a ri'l >. rs- — t k h \ j h 'h Tii 4^ f\}r- h ttYiC r> n "fU T < c o r \i- O r c o *- j^L iii( p r ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Y Hardcover Setback; Front / C.^i7 Side __Rear Lot Coverage Si ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements; 'Tn CA nA^T/f^^ TJ-jl ' S h! cl: h h L» , U /L/c~y/ 7~i rh^ (icicfhJe'r - TV) & t' C c'Ij • n u c- iJ ZL L- C' e- —A' •'i t\ ^ ^ r^t' y (attach additional sheets if necessary) r cj auiAi Application # g24S(b Date Recchcd \^^)-C:ry Amount Paid ^ rr- CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address { ^~70 CO PType of Application to be Filed_________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OS 11 ~J- ^3 ~~ 59 'CO ! 3 APPLICANT Name C. v V\c ^ > Clt^v^C ^ Phone (home) Phone (workX Address C A-Q^/> City [ ____Zip___ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_ Phone (\vork)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired _ I (do) (do not) also ovvn the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use X $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more X Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____Afler-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) CO t- ' > 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) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$ 1 00.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule ■^.5 i(j^ 6 ok) (yviJ~Cj\dhCIS <3> (2-gO (joCc^) —h-sjz^ <’pvci^6i'i'A. in^~ftij!_ UkdM< )^-<_c£^ . '~ft(-t^ l/£XV-^ A jIajusiaj ^ C^ yh^iuo du^ dLS^x^ cf~ (joicf ■V.-H<-<?(b-<. wje-^ /t<-f ^T^-CC- K q -O /1-<32 6A -4. (AjCt~i') (jL c; (AjtXius^t^ |'.jxo O-rbf^ (0^j 2aj 2 ~fi'~^^ yf^OLLraJtrS , osi) I, Nancy Anderson, am writing on behalf of my mother, Elaine Erickson. My parents have been residents of Orono for over 35 years. In 1979, in anticipation of my father ’s retirement, they purchased a small old home (1270 Spruce Place) next door to me. Their plan was to rent it until the day came when they felt they could not handle the upkeep of their big home and then to build a new, easy to maintain, home on this property. They began the process of building in early 1998 by contacting a builder who had just finished building a “retirement" home on Spruce Place. Their directive was to design a small home with all needs for an older couple on one floor with an additional bedroom and family space In the lower, walkout, level. When the plan was finished they approached Orono and began the process of securing the permission to build. There were many problems with the lot and the plan....size, elevation, set backs. They, with the help of their builder, redid plans and surveys and consulted several times with Orono employees. By the fall of 1998 they had committed to full speed ahead to build in the summer of 1999. My Dad died, unexpectedly, in the Spring of 1999. The new, small house is an absolute necessity now. From the first meetings with various Orono employees, we have made it our goal to comply with the rules and regulations as best we can. There are several overriding problems with the lot that make this application for the altering of the land a necessity. The first and foremost problem is the unnatural contour of the lakeside as it compares to the neighboring properties. A second issue is one of drainage and placement of the house in relation to the street. We are requesting the removal of the "bulge" (dirt) in the topography and removal of one tree on the lake side. This will bring tl. lot in flow with the lots on the north and south and will allow the house to walk out on the northeast corner. It will allow the lower level to have a family space and a bedroom. This change will also allow the level of the garage to stay at an acceptable level to the street fc' <irainage reasons. The final consideration is that this seems to really be the orily solution to providing for acceptable drainage for the neighboring properties. Please be advised that there is no question about replacing trees and planting lots of bushes and shrubs. My mother is a hardy gardener and a nature lover (other than geese!). We have already discussed, at length, what pines spruce etc can be planted to recreate a “woodsy" feel to the lot. We have had discussions with all of our neighbors and without an exception they are supportive of our plans. We are including the signatures of the near north and south neighbors who have reviewed our plans. We are including photos for your information.1 • ' . .1.. s,"uxcc.h 13.(^0 ^^4 f q PI. i/:\e T a tXioldV- BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY lo^AiA/ AaT Z Blac/C /<7 S/?<S/7 f/ui ee\r/s£o f 3 i» Si u O R svkc O J990 • ■ IRON MON. INPLACE□ « WOOD STAKE PLACED O • IRON MON. SET B.M, - BEARINGS ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM ________1st FLOOR ELEV. — ________BASEMENT ELEV. — ■+• « DRAINAGE 000.0 » EXIST. ELEV. (oOO.o)* PROPOSED ELEV. EXIST. & PROP. ELEV, GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. I htreby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of Lhe State of Minnesot; en-0221 eoer c^- is sc OMan». MN ssssa Date . ^ Registration No. 14700 J08»_ Book - Page 3f-/3^h Scale / '1- lO IfiKB mln//\/S7d/v^/9 929.^ 1 hfOy e*rWy mat mn plan, aurvay or .raoor. was aparad^maeruftoarmydiraetsuoarviaion and tnatlam luty L^nd Survvy^unotr th« laws o* tha Sute JOB. ^09'i Book • Page TS Scaia , /''-20 • • IRON MON. .;.*rLAC£□ ■ WOOD STAKE PLACED O • IRON MON. SET B.M.-TJ/* '*T’'-Ate TOt. BEARINGS ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM _________1 ji FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. drainage OQO.O • exist. ELEV (ooo oj'PROPOSED ELEV. GARAG: floor ELEV. top block ELEV. 000 0 • exist. & PROP. ELEV. f^c'd iInIco f TTi mfifiiiiniiTBr wiariiiii n iiir i ii ............. .... .i,. ....... Q _ ; » •• •mm 51-<i, .• ^ •hakdcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500’ /^^stin 'g hardcover in zone A. House X 7' Leofth WUih X X X B. Garage 0. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk Jin X X .5 E. Ptfie/Beefe X X H F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric a'l m X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • + B . yiTiCl PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Leogib WUA X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk • 'UCO rbk'p it M-C X X E. Patio/Deck it'X X In' F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Ocher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B • • • xlOO . xlOO 1 500-1000’l ^(> ' S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. • * S.F. S.F. :S^• S.F. S.F. I&S.F.m S.F. 54 S.F. .:i.s S.F. S.F. S.F. 5 ^''6 'A S.F. S.F. i4...L % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. </y '•S.F. ' •• .55 S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. --------------------S.F. --------------------^S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B ^. • « •• • ^ SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ HAEDCOVER CAiCULATIONWORKSHEET 250-500 /tiVTSTING HARDCOVER PT ZONE a' House iL Ott' s/uvi Leo|th y/:-2) iC X X X VTidth 10 G> • S ■• . . B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X 3 E. Patio/Peck Stocp X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or F^ric M X X X •i2. C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A / L- s-a •>■, B _Ldk£. f pnposro HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 1(1 pc \ -i ICC Length vndih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk -/X X E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ® .f L 500-1000 fj d.r. S.F. • m S.F. :S3 /nO-S.F. . =S.F. • •••S.F. •S.F. • • S.F. S3 -^/ C'-S.F. • S.F. wm iSS S.F. • ^74 S.F. S S.F. S.F. • S.F. /, )i S.F. A. /l /■'S.F.i•11OOH.^9 % • ^ ^ ^ c 7 :-5^V o-S.F. C3 'JCC S.F. B S.F. B S.T. S.F. 127^S.F. BS S.F. S.F. S.F. «s • S.F. B S«l* • S.F. B _S.F. B S.F. 9(\le5 S.F. •/ ' < ' .S.F. xlOO •»c-_5S A B / I TP!HanV 'ClinchroiiM* • •**Ue ^chcllcr .'WVr.:Aumst 2S, IP7S RH;Paul Schuller - pradine <P2.. S^!ic""s‘’exisrinp hoa'o ''"vn^er^finXVof n'f.o ”dc?,: "-•' It ).c!k«.vcs .l. to be NTn- ««f'‘^':^''^'/^;;^^iv^.e?oi^’'Issu^ tbe shore proport''. T pnjlc an ^111^000010 '‘-cro simlv not rerrrlt ancl did not asV for final ‘ 7«;* ^ethaeV area..Ware that there could not he anv alterations in tie /. “i*;; would bo higher than the t/alkout foor. V : o • yt.* >. ’ .'-V . *< :n r„ - '■« % ^ * *• ’sy •'/ , V nM-'' r* /V * h ‘ •- A ' ■ V • ■ \ ' . rv^ •5 - •- •■ • '•K ‘‘ ‘•'A •iV?i ■ " -.^ir • iS?’' :ra ■^f> “' * 'Ikl'V 1PP«F« S5f¥ ■' ./. ■>}.(•■■''••■'I ' N'1> '• ■'^1 If ' Ei^ I r • 1/ I'. fCsj^^ft; i ip ____ I i *-^1 S^" ^:r m-iZlf. ■?vii5 -1 IHEIS.P w-'m!5» ;'^- •V» - ♦ • j ^ ...p? ••* ■'■-'• .1 * _ j ‘ #■ <• r V'. ^ • AW I J‘ Sj v#-Y *-•! •f .V oQ’ • •A- •rr - : * ’ '• •I* ' ’ .J I4 ^ 1^3/Li\. ,m, . .j.- .J ‘V^ "kJ.. >: ./* - » % /w ,*^ 'V,ik^ ^ » I .*» ’.*1 *1 bc* :• :« I ' ^^ y ,'"• /-• o* c^ iLiid r -;>L' -wni- .-I' ■ V : •" >II" '" V'»*' — •• s.* 'J^. ' Or~//7-J3-sA NORTH ARM '** Jinnings r ■ ( WoodUn4i »:sc mji \l:~ " -r.-rj Fo4ml W • ttlW%««U >ILt« rt^iMfC * rrT^ 'IK * 1. IfAMMI U Harrison \ Lake Arm • • • •\, ' V.-' -J *•• -1 —: \ *• • r *? . ••“*, X * • • ^ •* * • * \ • • V*. -'•*>’ . • ^ I •*^ V ^ r- . • ... : West ORONO Arm ) T ® I' s ^ •yAo^/Woorf Point n \DEERINO fijaai:irni .•Tv.y OTORS *HPmM BLVDS MAYWftOO R02400O ^ cnrmu .cf* V, LA ______3 □ MUM S! BOHNS 70INT > U »v«»MMtau ISH M) - Bum .. mnjuatM Spring 1.RUITLA >^MiMim wn B.CLINOAU BO C<foA:y Bay MOUND f •P3*f^ BU00(* ;l>suc D omaio Mrrm n MABMIP If ^ -*^iNOBTpOIOT m GOOSE = ' I9f ANm Crystal Bot '. Bay : .V- ’ int»«i3!£K CRTSUlL ri Huron imc V Mt AXSHORELtNC o SA o\*y aHP"a IT /•ir ^ ^ ^Carman 2-JCC i ORO ^ So HUN DATE 12/E7/W \ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATIMI SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS tIST REPORT NO. PX435A01 PAGE 19 I BATCH SB2 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 #7-117-25 A1 iiSO 81S78 NORTH ARM DR C N BANICK 8 K L K BANXCK KARX 8 CHRISTOPHER BANXCK 1578 NORTH ARM DR HOUND HN 555M 56 OT-117-25 A1 88S1 015' . SPnUCE PL CLAYTON R FUCHS CLAYTON R FUCHS 1585 SPRUCE PL HOUND HN 55588 56 87-117-25 81 8852 81578 NORTH ARM OR WILLIAM E BOWEN WILLIAM E BOWEN 88 PARK LANE HPLS HN 55818 PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 58 87-117-23 81 8878 81258 LOHA LINDA AVE K L HOFFMANN 8 L S HOFFMANN KENNETH L 8 LINDA S HOFFMANN 1258 LOHA LINDA AVE HOUND HN 55388 38 87-117-23 81 0077 81258 LOMA LINDA AVE K L HOFFMANN 8 L S HOFFMANN KENNETH L 8 LINDA S HOFFMANN 1258 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND HN 55388 38 07-117-23 81 8078 01295 SPRUCE PL HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 88 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 PROP ADM OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 87-117-25 81 8887 81218 LOHA LINDA AVE DONALD R UDELL ET AL DONALD R 8 CAROLYN UDELL 1218 LOHA LINDA AVE HOUND HN 55388 38 87-117-23 81 8889 81298 LOHA LINDA AVE J N CARY 8 D L CABLE JOEL N CARY 8 DIXIE L CABLE 1298 LOHA LINDA AVE HOUND HN 55588 58 08-117-25 32 8807 81288 SPRUCE PL D A WALLNER 8 L J WALLNER DAVID A WALLNER 1288 SPRUCE PL HOUND HN 55588 PROP ADM OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOM 58 88-117-25 52 8008 81258 SPRUCE PL WALTER H WOLFE ET AL PHYLLIS J WOLF 1258 SPRUCE PL HOUND HN 55588 38 88-117-25 32 8812 81288 SPRUCE PL E A ANDERSON ET AL TRUSTEES EVAN A ANDERSON 1288 SPRUCE PL HOUND HN 55588 38 08-117-23 32 8013 81278 SPRUCE PL K H 8 E E ERICKSON KENNETH S ELAINE ERICKSON 2773 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA HN 55591 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOM 58 88-117-25 52 8018 81288 SPRUCE PL P J 8 S J SCHUELLER PAM. J % SUSAN J SCHUELLl ik 1288 SPRUCE PL hound HN 55588 38 88-117-23 32 0015 01298 SPRUCE PL WILLIAM 8 ELIZABETH AHERN WILLIAM 8 ELIZABETH AHERN 1508 SPRUCE PLACE ORONO HN 55588 58 08-117-25 32 8018 81588 SPRUCE PL RICHARD F KYLE RICHARD F 8 KATHLEEN A KYLE 1588 SPRUCE PL HOUND HN 55388 PROP ADM OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOM 58 88-117-25 52 8817 81518 SPRUCE PL JOHN W WALKER JOHN W WALKER 1518 SPRUCE PLACE HOUND HN 55588 38 88-117-23 32 8818 01316 SPRUCE PL PATRICIA A CROETKEN PATRICIA A CROETKEN 1318 SPRUCE PLACE HOUND HN 55388 TOTAL BATCH 582 88817 RUN DATE 12/R7/99 BATCH BB2 38 07 117 23 41 0091 1220 LOMA LINDA AVE W WYATT & NANCY S MOE W WYATT MOE 825 8TH ST S MPLS MN 55404 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 07 117 23 41 0092 1230 SPRUCE PL W WYATT & NANCY S MOE W WYATT MOE 825 8TH ST S MPLS MN 55404 J5 REPORT NO. PI43M01 PAGE 2R riTV 0093CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL JjAY MN 55323 ' nK-^\?r' o/ X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS Of THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE F. ^ /J- S- 9?„ PERMIT RECORD 1210 Permit No.Date 'I-P'7- S9 Type of Permit ficury^ Si O; a3^C. 7, ^•^6 fa ^-/s- 7 a UJiS^C s-;^€~A;ou^'n£I 2. TO; FROM: DATE; RE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 14, 2000 #2513 Connie Piepho 540 North Arm Drive Variance Zoning: LR-1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acres Application: To permit construction of an inground swimming pool within the average lakeshore setback. Application Update: The Planning Commission had discussed the issue of granting a variance to the average lakeshore setback to permit construction of an inground swimming pool on the property. The primary issue was the pool could not be placed on the property without relocating a future septic drainfield site. The septic site would be required to be shifted 30' to the north. This results in the site being located within 75’ of the water supply well on an adjacent property. To satisfy the requirements of the septic code one of two options existed to allow the secondary septic site to be shifted the necessary 30'. You may recall no hardcover or grading is permitted within 20' of a septic site and no septic site (primary or future) can be located within 75' of a well. Option #1 To have an agreement in place with the adjacent property owners that would require the owner of the subject lot to pay to relocate the neighbor’s well should it be necessary to replace the septic to the alternate site. This would be completed by a private agreement between the property owners with money being placed in escrow to relocate the well. Both parties agree this is a viable option. Option #2 1 he On-Site Systems Manager for the City of Orono grant a variance to the septic code and permit a drainfield site to be located less than 75' feet from the neighbor's well, but not less than the State requirement of 50'. Before Mr. Pence could agree to granting of the variance the owner of the well should be consulted. This appears to be the best of the two options. The pool has been relocated to the other side of the property to have the least impact on adjacent residences. Please read the attached Staff Reports that were reviewed by the Planning Commission in August, 1999 and February, 2000. <^2513 Connie Piepho, 540 North Arm Drive Variances April 17. 20QQ pag*~l Planning Commission Action Requested To recommend approval subject to acceptance of either of die two options listed on Page 1 Attachments: A Revised Site Plan (Received April 13,2000) B Staff Reports #2513 Connie Piepho, 540 North Arm Drive Variances April 17. 2000 page-2 /) iv ■ ! r\CU V V" V >'-1 % A ’lirinBl /i 3.f V 10' 5' 50'-n 1, ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above dale with the following members present; Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jay Nygard. Sandra Smith, and Daniel Kluth. Commissioners Janice Berg, Dale Lindquist, and William Stoddard were absent. The following represented City Staff: Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, City Council Representative Barb Peterson, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS (#1) #2513 CONNIE PIEPHO, 540 NORTH ARM LANE - VARIANCES, 6:33 p.m. - 6:58 p.m, Connie Piepho, Applicant, was present, along with Mike Movani. Custom Pools. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission had reviewed this application at their August 16,1999 meeting, where it was recommended the application be approved on a vote of 5 to 0 to grant an average lakeshore setback variance on the property subject to the property owner identifying a secondary septic site on the property. The oriqina' proposal had the swimming pool located within an area designated as the secondary septic site on the property. The Applicant has submitted a new site plan that relocates the pool to the north property line, which requires the application to return before the Planning Commission for review. The present application is for an average lakeshore setback to permit construction of an inground pool. For swimming pools, the setback is measured from the water basin to the property line. The size of the setback is set by the size of the basin, which in this case is less than 750 square feet, requiting a ten foot setback to the property line. The pool itself is proposed to be located 15 feet from the side property line, where ten feet is required. Weinberger stated the Applicant, following the first public hearing, was to identify a secondary septic site. The previous proposal discovered that the secondary septic site is located between the home and the secondary septic site. City Code requires all structures to be located at least 20 feet from the absorportion area of the mound. To date no secondary septic site has been identified which meets all requirements of the Septic Code. One problem in relocating the septic site further to the north is the well for the adjacent property owner is located 16 feel off the Applicant's property line where the Septic Code requires a minimum 75 foot setback between a septic system and an active well. The City's septic inspector will not approve a variance to the septic code to permit a site to be located closer than 75 feet to the neighboring well. Staff has concerns regarding the placement of a potential health risk to an adjacent property owner's water supply to accommodate a property owner to relocate a septic site. Weinberger stated Staff has some concerns regarding the impact the new location of the pool would have on the views to the lake. The intent of the average lakeshore setback is to protect views for adjacent property owners and to promote consistent development along the lakeshore. I Page 1 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 in its present location, with no secondary site being found compatible with the City's septic requirements. 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. Piepho stated the present system is six years old and operates fine. Smith inquired whether there were any other possible locations for the pool. 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 inquired 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 p:oposed option in the event the adjoining property owner decides to sell the property, which would encumber future buyers. Hawn slat^'d one other option would be to relocate the well now. which would be an added expense to the Applicant. Tim Pellizzer, 520 North Arm Drive, stated his well was installed in 1984. Hawn inquired whether Pellizzer would have any objections to working out an agreement with the Applicant. Page 2 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 well. 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. ^iovani stated in his view he does not see why the City would need to be involved. There were no further public comments. Hov.n commented she would be willing to table this application to allow the Applicant time to try to rt3:h 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 required 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. Pellizer 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. Ha.vn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table this application. Movani inquired whether they v.'ould need to come back before the Planning Commission if they meet all the necessary criteria. Havm 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) #2551 THOMAS MICHAEL RANDGAARD, 2765 SHADYWOOD ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE |ERMIT Thi^pplication was not heard due to the absence of the Applicant. (#3) #255^ARBARA AND COLLINS CAVENDER, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 1405/1395 REST POINT ROAta - VARIANCES, 7:00 p.m. - 7:13 p.m. Barbara and Colros Cavender, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated tmi^lanning Commission reviewed this application at its Janua^ 19, 2000 meeting where the ap^cation was tabled to allow the Applicants time to revise their plans in order to comply with the 15 pe^nt structural coverage limit and address concerns regarding the lakeshore setback. The Applicants have submitted\fivised plans which reflect a reduction in total structural coverage to 15 percent The proposed setbacluo the lake is now 34 feet as opposed to the 30 feet originally proposed. The house would be looted further from the lake if the shoreline v;ere consistent across the full width of the property. Weinb^^r 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 currentrkowns and maintains a lift station on the property. The proposed location of the house creates the ^reat^^ distance possible on the lot from the lift station. Weinberger stated this application requires variation to permit structure within 75 feet of the lakeshore as well as variances to permit structure anrLhardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. In addition, variances to hardcover in the 0-75’ setback i^icquired and a variance to the street setback, The proposed residence will encroach 13.67 into the setB^k. City Staff is recommending approval of this application subjeoUo th^* following conditions: A. The property has been developed and used as a residential p^erty for many years To complete the application it is a requirement the lots be combineo^ permit the construction. B. Most of the property is located within 75 feet of the lakeshore. It is nwriy impossible to locate a house outside of the 75 foot setback requirement without building ontijje street right-of-way line Other houses in the locality are located at comparable setbacks frortuhe lakeshore. C. The City of Orono owns and maintains a lift station located on the property. City has a regular weekly inspection schedule for lift stations. It is reasonable to expect aVuffer” between the house and the station based on regular inspections The City of Orono is reqa^sting an easement for the lift static n. D. The lot has a very limited building pad. Any new construction on the property would req^re setback variances. Because Rest Point Road is narrow, it is not possible to park cars on ti Page 4 / 5 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner February 23, 2000 #2513 Connie Piepho 540 North Arm Drive Variance Zoning: LR-1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acres Application: To permit construction of an inground swimming pool within the average lakeshore setback. Exhibits: A Revised Proposal B Planning Commission Minutes (August 9,1999) C Staff Report (August 9,1999) Application Summary: The Planning Commission reviewed this application at the August 16,1999 Public Hearing and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0 to approve an average lakeshore setback variance on the property subject to the propert>' owner identifying a secondary septic site on the property. The previous proposal had placed the swimming pool in an area designated as the secopvi.’ry septic site on the property. Since the Public Hearing no testing has been completed on the property to attempt to identify new sites. Rather the property owner has submitted a new site plan that relocates the pool to the north property line. Staff s position is the site plan has been altered therefore it is appropriate the application should return to the Planning Commission for review prior to moving the request forward to the City Council. This application is for an average lakeshore setback to permit construction of an inground pool at 540 North Arm Drive. For swimming pools, the setback is measured from the water basin to the propert>' line. The size of the setback is set by the size of the basin, which in this case is less than 750 sq. ft. requiring a 10 foot setback to the property line. The pool itself (the water area) is currently proposed at 15' from the side property line where 10' is required. The area surrounding the pool is allowed to encroach into the sideyard setback provided it is not at a height greater than that of the main floor of the home. No part of the pool would be allowed to encroach into the 5 Drainage and Utility Easement which runs along the side propert)' line. "2S/J Connie Piepho. 540 Sorth Arm Drise I ariances February 23. 2000 page-! The previous proposal discovered that the secondary septic site is located between the home and the secondary septic site. The Septic Code requires all structures to be located at least 20' from the absorption area of the mound. Therefore, the pool could not be located as it was proposed without identifying another site. Pertinent Ordinances: 1.Section 10.22, Subd. I, (B) No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. Please see the section from the Septic Ordinance defining setback requirements in the exhibits. Please note that the Plzmning Commission does not have the authority to grants variances to the Septic Code, only the Septic Inspector may approve the request. ANALYSIS Staff has concerns with the proposed new location for the pool. On the site plan the 929.4' contour shows views to the lake are best to the south for the adjacent property and most impacted by the new location. The intent of the average lakeshore setback is to protect views for adjacent pioperty owners and to promote consistent development along the lakeshore. The previous proposal located the pool on a low part of the property 150 feet from the closest adjacent residence. Several mature trees and the topography of the site minimized the negative impacts of structures on lakeshore views from adjacent property owners. It is still possible, with soil testing, to relocate the secondary septic site if the setback is measured to the absorption area of the future mound. An obstacle in relocating the septic site further to the north is the well for the adjacent property owner is located 16 feet off the applicant’s property line. The Municipal Septic Code requires a minimum 75 foot setback between a septic system and an active well. If the applicant wants to proceed with the application as is, it requires approval from Chris Pence, City of Orono Septic Inspector. Mr. Pence would not approve a variance to the septic code to permit a site to be located closer than 75 feet to the neighboring well. Staff is concerned about placing a potential health risk to an adjacent property owner’s water supply to accommodate a property owner to relocate a septic site. Staff has issued variances to the septic codes in the past, but traditionally the requirements w’ere varied to allow one replacement site on the property when no other alternative is available. This has occurred primarily for replacement of non-conforming systems. ^2513 Conrue Piepho, 540 Sorlh Arm Dn\e I jrionces February 23 2000 page-2 Lot Area and Yards LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard Required 2 Acres 200'75'30'50’ Proposed 2.7 Acres 245'167’ (from pool to OHWL) 15’NA Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’27,612 s.f.0 s.f.none 0 s.f (0%)(0%)(0%) 75-250’54,334 s.f.8,995 s.f.13,583.5 s.f.10,643 s.f (16.6%)(25%)(19.6%) 250-500’38,349 s.f.3,606 s.f.11,504.7 s.f 3,606 s.f. (9.4%)(30%)(9.4%) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the application be denied to permit a new location for the pool based on the negative impacts to the adjacent property and locating the pool on the lakeside yard within the average lakeshore setback. Staff recommends the applicant complete additional testing or redesign the pool to be located as previously proposed. ^2513 Connie Piepho, 540 Sorth Am Drtve lartances February 23, 2000 page--3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16,1999 (#2509 Andrew Ronningen, Continued) Lindquist inquired whether 320 square feet of hardcover could be removed outside of the plastic underlayment. Ronningen commented the driveway is gravel with grass down the middle. Smith stated that the entire gravel driveway would count as hardcover. Smith inquired If the plastic underlayment is removed, what the hardcover would be reduced to. Jenson stated there is approximately 436 square feet of landscaping with plastic underlayment currently, and the size of the addition is 520 square feet, which would result in a hardcover figure under 25 percent. Jenson noted that removal of the patio blocks is already calculated into the hardcover figures. Stoddard inquired whether the neighbors have expressed any concerns regarding this application, Jenson stated the property is heavily wooded and would not impact the neighbors ’ property. There were no public comments. Smith stated in her view the plastic underlayment will need to be removed as a condition of approval. Jenson stated if all the plastic underlayment is removed, hardcover would be approximately 24.5 p< 'cent. Jenson stated a minimum of 350 square feet of hardcover would need to be removed in 01 .!er to meet the 25 percent hardcover limit. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2509, 3030 Casco Point Road, for a variance to the average lakeshore setback to construct a two story, 22' by 24* addition to their existing home, subject to the removal of approximately 436 square feet of landscaping/plastic underlayment within the 75-250* zone. Smith Inquired whether this would be another property that should be notified that no new applications for hardcover will be looked upon favorably by the Planning Commission. Stoddard stated that with removal of the plastic underlayment and landscaping, the hardcover would be under the 25 percent limit, so in his view that stipulation is not warranted on this property at this time. Stoddard commented his motion will remain as originally stated. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) #2513 CONNIE PIEPHO, 540 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES, 7:57 p.m. - 8:01 p.m, The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Connie Piepho, Applicant, was present. Jenson stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to the average lakeshore setback to permit construction of an inground pool, which is 830 square feet. The pool is large enough to be classified as an oversized structure, which requires 15 feet from the property line. The pool itself is currently proposed at 13 feet from the side property line. Staff is recommending that the pool be relocated Page 8 a ORONO PLANNING COMADSSION MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16,1999 (#2512 Alan Richie, Continued) City Engineer as well as obtain a permit from Hennepin County Department of Transportation for the new curb cut and access to Lots 1,2. and 3. The Applicant is further required to submit plans for extension of the sanitary sewer service for review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director. Erotas stated they have the understanding that this property was previously approved for a three lot subdivision before the original residence was constructed. Weinberger stated it was originally subdivided into three lots and then combined into one lot for tax purposes. There were no public comments. Smith inquired v/hether the applicants have any concerns regarding the conditions outlined in the Planner's Report. Erotas stated they are in the process of complying with the conditions. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approvai of Application #2512, 905 Tonkawa Road, for a three lot lakeshore residential subdivision of a 6.3 acre lot, with the understanding that the Applicants must comply with all the conditions outlined in the August 9,1999 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CONTINUED NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#7) #2509 ANDREW RONNINGEN, 3030 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCE, 7:30 p.m. - 7:56 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Andrew Ronningen, Applicant, was present. Jenson stated the Applicant is requesting variances to construct a two story, 22' by 24 ’ addition to the existing home. Variances are required to the average lakeshore setback, as well as hardcover within the 75-250' zone. The Applicant has proposed to remove 18 patio blocks as part of this project; however. Staff feels that in there is a large amount of landscaping with plastic underlayment that could be removed in order to allow for the addition and stay under the 25 percent hardcover allowed. Structural coverage limits will not be exceeded with this addition. With the reduction of 320 square feet of landscaping, the hardcover would be reduced to 24.2 percent. Ronningen stated they would like to construct the addition onto their house to accommodate their growing family. Lindquist stated that the Planning Commission does not count plastic as hardcover anymore, but that removal of the plastic will be a condition of approval. Lindquist inquired whether removal of the patio blocks would be sufficient to bring the hardcover under the 25 percent limit. Jenson stated removal of the patio blocks would account for approximately 180 square feet, but would need to remove approximately 320 square feet of hardcover elsewhere in order to bring the hardcover below the 25 percent limit. Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16,1999 (#2513 Connie Piepho, Continued) Iwc feel over to comply with the 15 fool setback. Jenson stated upon further review of this application, Staff has discovered that the secondary septic site is located between the home and the current septic system site. The Septic Code requires all structures to be located at least 20 feet from the septic site. The pool in its proposed location does not meet the required 20 feet and would need approval from the City’s septic inspector. Staff is not in favor of a reduced setback for the septic, but would be In favor of the Applicants identifying a secondary septic site that meets the required setbacks elsewhere on the let. Piepho stated they are attempting to comply with the City Codes as much as possible. Kluth inquired whether an alternate septic site could be located on the property. Pi-pho stated that there is a possible area in the front and that they would be willing to relocate the pool two feet further from the property line. Jenson suggested that approval be subject to submittal of documentation verifying an alternative septic site. Lindquist stated he would be willing to approve the average lakeshore setback but no other variances. There were no public comments. Smith commented that the pool should not encroach on any easements or secondary septic site. Weinberger inquired whether the Applicant was planning to erect a fence around the pool, noting that Orono only allows fences three and a half feel within the average lakeshore setback. Piepho stated that a fence will not be constructed. Stoddard noted that Orono does not require fences to be erected around pools. Kluth moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2513, 540 North Arm Drive, for an average lakeshore setback to permit construction of ari inground pool subject to submittal of documentation verifying the location of a suitable secondary septic site, with the understanding that no other variances should be required on this application. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2515 TOM AND MAUREEN PALM, 1685 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES, 8:02 p.m 8:12 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Tom Palm. Applicant, was present. Jenson stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a new 30' by 30' garage in a different k cation than the existing 24' by 26' garage, as it is located partially over an existing sewer easement. The existing garage Is located 98 feel from the rear property line, with the proposed Page 9 ORONO PLANNING CO\CVnSSION MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16,1999 (#2515 Tom and Maureen Palm, Continued) garage being located 48 feel from the same property line. Because the structure is considered to be oversized, the sideyard setbacks are required to be 15 feel rather than the district 10 foot standard. Staff is recommending that the garage be reduced by five feet in depth, which would allow the Applicants to maintain a three car garage and still meet the 10 foot setback requirements. Jenson stated a 750 square fool garage would reduce the existing hardcover to 28.9 percent in the 75-250' setback, with the current hardcover being calculated at 34 percent. Palm indicated he would be in favor of reducing the size of the garage to 25 ’ by 30’. Palm noted the City has received two letters from his adjoining neighbors indicafing support of this project. Jenson stated the letters are included in the Planning Commission ’s packet. Palm commented in his opinion this situation benefits everyone by reducing the existing hardcover on the property and relocating the garage off the sewer easement. Tom Tralnor, 1675 Concordia Street, indicated that he was In support of the project. John Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street, commented he also was in favor of the project. Palm indicated he would be willing to reduce the size of the garage to 750 square feet. Lindquist moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2515, 1685 Concordia Street, to permit construction of a 750 square foot garage and driveway as depicted on the survey, with the understanding that the existing garage will be removed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item No. 10 follows Item 15 (#11) #2517 SCOTT AND LISA BITTMAN, 25 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCES, 8:15 p.m.- 8:22 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Scott Bittman, Applicant, was present. Jenson stated the Applicants are requesting a front yard variance to add a second story to the existing home, which was constructed 42.7 feel from the right-of-way to Brown Road South. Jenson commented the lot is heavily wooded and the house is not visible from the road. Jenson stated the addition was started without a building permit, with the roof having been removed by the time Staff had discovered the work. Staff allowed the work to continue with the understanding that the variance would be applied for to make the addition legal. Bittman had no comment. There were no public comments. Stoddard inquired why the work was commenced without a building permit. Page 10 TO: FROM: Chair Hawn and ybanrJng Commissioners Ron Moorse. CiO ' '•♦rator Kris Jenson. As;i»tan,\ s, Jministrat ^r/Planner DATE: RE: August 9, 1999 #2513 Connie Piepho. 54u . Variances-PubliG >• Zoning:LR-1 A, One Family Lakeshorc Application: To permit construction of an inground - Mimning pool. STAFF SUMMARY This application is for an average lakeshore setback to permit construction of an inground pool at 540 North Arm Drive. For swimming pools, the setback is measured from the water basin to the property line. The size of the setback is set by the size of the basin, which in this case is 830 sq. ft., large enough to classify it as an oversized structure, requiring 15' from the property line. The pool itself (the water area) is currently proposed at 13' from the side property line, where 15' is required. Staff does not support a variance for the side yard setback. The area surrounding the pool is allowed to encroach into the sideyard setback provided it is not at a height greater than that of the main floor of the home. No part of the pool would be allowed to encroach into the 5 ’ Drainage and Utility Easement which runs along the side propert>‘ line. The survey shows boulders to be located within the easement, which is not permitted. As Staff was researching information for this variance, it discovered that the secondary septic site is located between the home and the current septic system site. The Septic Code requires all structures to be located at least 20' from the septic site. Therefore, the pool cannot be located in the proposed area. If the applicant wants to proceed with the application as is, it will require approval from Chris Pence, City of Orono Septic Inspector. Staff would not be in favor of a reduced setback and feels it is highly unlikely that it would be granted. However, there is another option. Staff suggests iat the applicant contact S-P Testing Inc., who did the original septic work on the site. If they could identify an acceptable secondar>' septic site that meets the required setbacks elsewhere on the lot, then an area would be cleared for the pool. A sketch of the drainfield sites has been included with this report. The outline of the house is slightly different, as it's labeled "proposed house", but the scale is the same as the survey included with this memo. By comparing this to the included survey, it shows the edge of the proposed pool area in the same area as the comer of the drainfield. and that is before the pool is shifted to meet the side yard setbacks. ^25 1 5 Conme Piepho. 540 North .Arm Dnvt yariances Augtist 9, 1999 pag*-l There are several options with this application. They are as follows: 1. Planning Commission votes on the application as submitted, with variances for average lakeshore setback and side yard setback, subject to the applicant receiving approval from the Septic Inspector for encroachment into the secondary drainfleld site. Staff does not recommend approval of the variances. 2. The applicant moves the pool out of the sideyard setback, still requiring a variance for average lakeshore setback. This would also require approval of the Septic Inspector. Staff is willing to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance, however, they still feel that the Septic Inspector would not allow the structure within the secondary' drainfleld. 3. The applicant requests the matter be tabled, to allow them the opportunity to work with the original septic designers to find an alternative secondary site. If this is successful and receives approval from the septic inspector, then the matter could come back to the Planning Commission, with Staff recommending approval of the av erage lakeshore setback to place the pool (Staff would not recommend approval of the side yard setback variance). Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 1, (B) No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 9, (E) Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square feet footprint shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. 3. Please see the section from the Septic Ordinance defining setback requirements in the exhibits. Please note that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to grants variances to the Septic Code, only the Septic Inspector may approve the request. ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard Required 2 Acres 200’75'30’50’ Proposed 2.7 Acres 245'78' (from pool to OHWL) 29.9’, 13 ’252’ to shed, 282.1* to house i'5/i Conme Piepho 540 Sorth Arm Drive I arurtces August 9 . 1999 page^-2 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75'27,612 s.f.0 s.f.none 0 s.f (0%)(0%)(0%) 75-250'54,334 s.f.8,995 s.f.13,583.5 s.f.10,819 s.f (16.6%)(25%)(19.9%) 250-500’38,349 s.f.3,606 s.f.11,504.7 s.f.3,606 s.f (9.4%)(30%)(9.4%) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the matter be tabled to allow the applicant to have another secondary drainfleld site identified in order to place the pool between the house and the lake. Exhibits: A B C D E F G H Application Location Map Plat Map Survey Septic Ordinance Requirements Site Plan with drainfield sites identified Hardcover Calculations Neighboring Property Owners List ^251} Connit Fitpho, 540 Sorth Arm Drive Vanances Augujf9, 1999 pat*~i h Application # Date Receive" ~ Amount Paid ^ cmr OF ORONO - variance application Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION, . , . „ ----- Site Address __d2^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ ^ ^ M mAttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired__________________________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V residential ___pother (specify)-------------------------------- Zoning District:_____I ______________________—------------------------------------ APPLICANT. Name Add .-ess: )Le (fa ^ ,_________ OWNER (if different Jha n applicant) Name CjO l Address: Jljl DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Phone(home l 7^/3 ____ Phonefwork I ^ City: Zip: ___ miKt CxxS'ftr/^ ■IK.TT'. Phone fhome l *^9 (-Z)_______ ^Phone (worki Zip: cS!T fr f Estiinated Construqtion Cost $ /OfOrO Describe request in detail: --------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) a VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear X Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets if necessary) 07/20/1939 10:02 10’d TdlOi 6125468756 FOX COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 03 BEQVl SUBMITTALS All of the foMowipy information mmt be lubmingd hr the aopUcatlon deadline d»te to crdgr for your ronild*re<l eompltltt 1. 2. ^ 3. X 8V4* X ir for 5. 6. .7. 8. Completed /^plication Fom: Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels an|! ^ ibap (you must obtain this list, libels and map from Hennepin Coum)( Fmance, A-603, Govt Center. >48 aBM). 3 •/ S-S' y/<3 Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and calculations as ratjuirad. In ad<Stioo, pro^dde one (1) copy reproduction. Topographic survey (existing proposed elevattoos) if any ch^gaa in a Hilling grade are proposed. In addrtcc. provide one (1) copy 8Vi* x 11* for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor L elevation \news ^ovide one (1) cjpy 8V4* x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all perrons w th an intcr^ in the property. This would include namc(s) of applicant(8) if not turrent owner(s). Aa an addendum to this applicafion, please anach a separate |st of any other persons you wish notified cf this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please renjember that tout variance application it not complete if the above information has not bqen APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requestrd by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by origi nal fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred t review of this application, and certifies tlMt the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNER'S SIGNATURE 13 a The owner hereby acloiovvledges and agrees to thlx application and further autlsorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City stafi( consultasls, agents, Comraisaion members, and Councilentry onto the property by City ftaflC members for purposes of investigation aid verification of this request. /? . —i ________ Date '/fOwner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals icto the City ofiElcai 25 days befere the Planning '111. Monday of each f the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third month. Applicants must be present at aD scheduled review meetings Commission and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make airangemects to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to a^ vise the Bidding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting t0d eS22COi2l9 9c :Sl 666t-6l--r»f 07/20/1999 10:02 TO*d •Ti'iOi 6125468756 FOX COMMUNICATIOMS VAGE 02 I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Aeknowledgemeat Form [print neme(s)](print tddress] have reviewed the olans for the proposed inrpfovement or proposed use of th« W ^ D ^ also referred to as Land Use Application No. _ pioperty located 1 (wt) understand that in executing this icknowledgement, I (we) am (m) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merdy to oofl Inn for the Chy Ccuccil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and tl^ the pr iposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. OV //^ d Property Owner Property Owner Date I (wti :mMu of Awn Chn9~ [popl naroe^ (prim address} have reviewed the elans for the proposed improvtfflent or proposed use of the •1 ^0 wUx D(L. also referred to as Land Use ^plication No. property located I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (ve) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to conmm fbr the City Council that I (wa) am (are) aware of the improvement plana and that the prenosed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. If). Mh'ijum Property Owqsr Date Date k * cJ Q e If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your conaments to the Building & Zoning Office least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. % S'*n> M H- g TOd 6i?2££62t9 St €66t-6t-Tir • . It I !i h I • -1-i •vw %« %—I .T=^ r I 12.30 1, Setbacks. The minimum setback distance requirfements are as follows: Sewace Tank and Soil Treatment Area “ 75'Feature Water Supply Well Wetland lake : % General Development Recreational Development Natural Environment Tributaries, Strear.s /Driveways, Sidewalks, Decks, J and other Hardcover^ Property Lines, Buildings ( and Buried Pipes ^awn Sprinkler Systems 2. Sewage Tanks, requirements are as follows: The minimum sewage tank size No. of Bedrooms 4 or less 5 or 6 7, 8 or 9 10 or more Tank Liquid Capacities:. (Gal.) 1000+1000 Regardless of garbage disposal use 1250+1000 1500+1500 Sewage tanks shall be sized as "other” establishment’ per Subp. 3 Sec. B in MPCA Regulations Chapter 7080.0130 3 Pumoing Stations. In order to standardize Regulations Chapter 7080: (a) Electrical Connection. , (1) A water-tight, lockable electrical box must be mounted on a 4x4 inch treated redwood or cedar post. All electrical connections shall be made within the box. Pum? connection must direct line (plug in only). Wire entry to the electrical box shall be sealed with putty. Alarm and pump floats shall be on separate electrical circuits. ORONO CC 496-1 (2-10-92) iMir WILL S'!J<r ’—i|4_i AMf V^WAVS <«UNTKk^-r- AO»4,ar«T*»<^ervA ____________ ^1—w •iT'-•.*.•? Seal* €L* iry* t> ^Perebiotion Tests .XSoil BofinQS Bench Mark Note* This system b to be consinicfed to meet the Mnnesola PodMlion CorM Agency Chapter 7080 6 Local Ordinance PROP£RTY OP' ^0 o v>QS»^rvA ocov*o ts^ u. sJigyiW. 5-/» 72T57»Vi? Note I Check ell underground utilities ^ClUiL /^^s- (fO^ TESTING tNC, OeilgKd By PH.«• 497-3968 ■\ \ RUN DATE 97/19/99 BATCH 509 HENNEPIN COUHTV PROPERTY INFORfMTXUN SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AOOR OWffR NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 06-117-2S 51 0005 00520 NORTH ARH DR TIHOTIIY PELLXZZER TIHOTHY PELLXZZER 520 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55364 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 0A-U7-2S 51 0009 00500 NORTH ARH OR H D I N J HOY HAHHEW 0 A HEXDZ J HOY 500 NORTH ARH DR HOUND NN 55564 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR TOTAL BATCH 509 00006 REPORT NO. PX455401 PACE 59 5A 06-117-25 51 0006 00540 NORTH ARH DR CONNXE K PXEPHO CONNIE K PXEPHO 540 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55564 58 06-117-25 51 0007 00560 NORTH ARH OR T A S HAZER THOHAS D A SUSAN S HAZER r.'-.9 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55564 « •** 58 06-117-25 52 0005 00405 NORTH ARH Ot LAXEVXEW 60LP OF HTXA INC LAKEVXEW eOLF OF NTKA INC 855 RED OAK LA HOUND HN 55564 38 06-117-25 42 0006 OOOSB AOOKSS UNASSICNED VICTORIA ESTATES NOHEOWNERS VICTORIA ESTATES NOHEOWNERS C/0 THOHAS HAZER 560 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55564 IDa ‘<*411 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATXON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHEHT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE »«FMth8MlfTTlU s To: From: Date: Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator April 12,2000 Subject: #2549, David Lovelace, 220 Big Island - Request for Dock Access Note: This item was tabled by Planning Commission on 11-15-99 to allow the Big Island propert> owners time to review the options and hopefully reach a neighborhood consensus on a dock location. The intent was to have this resolved by mid-April. There is no consensus forthcoming from the neighborhood. The Cit> is obligated at this time to resolve this issue for the applicant. List of Exhibits A - Planning Commission minutes 11-15-99 B - Staff memo and selected attachments 11-9-99 C - Letter from James Ogland 11-12-99 D - Staff sketches: D-1: Platted access locations D-2: schematics of access points C & D E - Original plats of Morse Island Park and Morse Island Park Second Addition F - Section 10.31 Subd. 5 - RS District: Private Improvements in Public Right-of-Way G - Photos H - Draft Comprehensive Plan Language for Big Island Staff Position on Access for Inland Lots: The plat of Morse Island Park in 1887 created many lakeshore lots, a lesser number of inland lots, and an interior right-of-way system with a number of alleys, roads and public areas extending from it to the lakeshore. The inland lots undoubtedly were expected to gain access to/from the lake via the platted right-of-ways. The plat of Morse Island Park placed the two widest and most expansive public rights-of-way at relatively low points in the topography where access by foot or horse-drawn vehicles was most feasible in summer and winter. All of these right-of-ways were “donate(d) and dedicate(d) to the public use forever” on the original 1887 plat. Since most of the lots abut the shoreline, use of the interior roadway system would presumably have been primarily by the owners of interior lots, and by owners of lakeshore lots with shoreline slopes that prohibit direct lake access. The members of the general public who did not own property on the island would presumably have only minimal occasion to use the right-of-ways: nevertheless, they were dedicated for public use rather than for private use. The largest of these public access points, ‘*Bay Place ”, originally had approximately 200' of shoreline plus a lagoon. At some point prior to the 1970’s, the northerly 150’ of “Bay Place ” was apparently vacated and the vacated portions attributed to Lots 21 -22-23. We have yet to unearth records of this vacation, if they exist. #2549 220 Big Island - Dock Request Page 2 None of the road right-of-ways on Big Island have been improved by the City. These platted corridors e.vist today as undeveloped walking trails which on occasion are used for vehicular access. There is no pavement, no graded or improved road base, and some of these pathways wander outside the dedicated right-of-ways. Most right-of-way boundaries are not visibly marked e.xcept by the occasional survey pin or marker. The general public walking on the island would not generally know whether they were strictly on public or private propert>'. However, utilities (electric, phone) are generally located within the right-of-ways on the Island. Inland properties need lake access. Lakeshore property owners with inaccessible shorelines may also need lake access. The primary summer accessability to the Island is by boat. Inland lot owners need a place to land a boat in the summer. It is not unreasonable to provide a location where inland lot owners can dock a boat for e.xtended periods while they are on the Island. However, owners of lots abutting the lakeshore should not be burdened with providing this access to the inland owners. At the same time, it is not reasonable that inland lot owners should have the ability to hinder the public’s use of the right-of ways or access points. The private uses and public uses of the intended access points must be located and achieved in a manner that will avoid use conflicts. Zoning Code Section 10.31 Subd. 5 recognizes the special access needs for Big Island inland lots and establishes regulations for where and how the Island right-of-ways may be used. These regulations apply only to the RS District, hence any concern about setting a precedent for the ‘mainland’ is alleviated. The table on the next page provides a brief analysis of the capabilities and problems associated with each of the dedicated roadways which might be used for inland owner access. LMCD Regulations Impact Use of Right-of-Ways for Docking On April 10 staff discussed the use of right-of-ways for docking with LMCD Executive Director Greg Nybeck and LMCD Attorney Charles LeFevere, yielding the following information: -Any ‘existing site’ qualifies for 2 watercraft regardless of shoreline length if platted prior to 1970. -Therefore, the 90 ’ site ("C" on Exhibit D) could have 2 watercraft and the 50' site could have 2 watercraft. Technically, each of the other access lanes could also have 2 watercraft, but the width becomes an issue for meeting required dock setbacks. -A potential option is to do a credit transfer: add the widths of all City-owned accesses on Big Island and do a multiple dock situation at one site; this would allow a number of slips at the designated site equal to the total shoreline length divided by 50'. The upside is that this would allow for transfer of access rights from unusable accesses to those that are usable. The downside is that 5 or more watercraft at one site would require a multiple dock license. • Per LMCD code. For sites 50' wide or wider: side setback for a 50' long dock = 10'. For sites narrower than 50': side setback may be reduced to 5’ if adjacent dock use areas are not impacted. #2549 220 Big Island - Dock Request Page 3 Access Site Inventory •fVr.' Riyht-of-wav Key Width Comments A (N. End Lawn Avenue) 33 ’Fairly exposed, remote from most properties it could serve B (E. End Tooisit Avenue) 33'4'+ steep bank up to more level ground; there were dock sections stored at this location, apparently has been used for a private dock previously; as remote from inland lots as Site A; not suitable for vehicles C (Main Access)90 ’ +Flat, wide road right-of-way leading from shoreline to inland right-of-ways, by far the widest and historically most used vehicular access for the Island; has an informally established dirt ‘road ’ leading to the interior right-of-ways; site is more than wide enough to accommodate a small number of conforming-setback seasonal docks for inland owners while not blocking vehicular access; downside is that an old ice ridge with mature trees is along most of the shoreline, with a wetland area behind it; use of access for docking during high water might require dock sections parallel to shoreline to avoid climbing over the ice ridge D (Bay Place Lagoon | 50 ’ + Access) 3-4 ’ lakeshore bank, not suitable for vehicular access but appears to have potential to accommodate a small number of conforming-setback docks; walking access to inland lots very feasible; this appears to be the most likely site for docks for inland owners on the south end of the island E (Meadow Lane East Extension) 20’10-15 ’ bank at shore, not suitable for vehicular access and would require a substantial stairway system to be usable for pedestrian access F (Meta-Comet Ave S ith End) 33 ’Fairly level at shoreline, climbs steeply once Lakeview Avenue is reached; plat maps unclear as to whether right-of-way currently extends to shoreline; although original 1887 plat road does not extend to shoreline, 1922 replat shows shoreline closer to road than original, and current County plat maps suggest shoreline may extend into right-of-way; may have so.ne potential as a vehicular access for properties at the south end of the island F-2 (Massasolt Avenue \ (33) South End) G (Massasolt Avenue | 33' West End) According to original old plats and current plat maps this right-of-way does not extend to the lakeshore. Steep but relatively pedestrian-friendly access point; not usable for vehicles, some potential for perhaps one inland-owner dock, historically has provided walking access primarily for the abutting property to the south ___ H (Meadow Lane Alley) 16 ’Narrow right-of-way capable of vehicle access; gentle slope rising from shore has suffered severe erosion from recent over-use and abuse; functionally too narrow to have a dock that meets minimum LMCD/City setback requirements while still maintaining usability for vehicles; capability for vehicular use should be maintained for service or emergency use, however, the regular use of this site for vehicles needs to be curtailed and erosion control measures taken. #2549 220 Big Island - Dock Request Page 4 Discussion Staff spent an afternoon on the Island in late March to view the access locations. Photos were taken and an attempt was made to determine the boundaries of each of the two larger accesses ("C" and "D" on Exhibit D-1). Staff was unable to locate comer pins, hence the City has hired a surveyor to mark these access boundaries. We anticipate he will be out on the Island the week of April 10-14; no word as of this writing. However, the comments in the table above are based on our inspection. Only two of the eight platted access locations, C and H, are readily suited for motor vehicle access (across the ice in winter or from a barge in summer); the others have topographic limitations, and in the case of "F" there remains a question of whether the right-of-way reaches the shoreline. Accesses A and B are relatively remote from all but the northerly inland lot (Scheftel, parcel 3 on Exhibit D-1), and would not seem to provide a reasonable access point for the Lovelace site (parcel 2). Access C is wide enough to handle docks for each of inland parcels 1 and 2 without limiting vehicular usage when necessary. The only issue at access C is that due to the ice ridge between the shore and the wetland behind it, a dock section parallel to the shore may be necessary to provide walking access to the flat landing area (see Exhibit D-2). Access D (Bay Place) is similarly wide enough to handle two docks for the inland lots. The shore has a slight rise so a low stairway would likely be needed. There is no visibly defined walking corridor within this access, but rather it appears to be maintained as lawn for the cabin on inland parcel 3. Access D is used by the owner of parcel 3 for a dock via City Resolution 2038. Access D could provide suitable dock access for additional inland lots 4 thru 8, although more than 2 docks or slips may require special LMCD approval. Access E would require development of a 10-15 ’ high stairway, and therefore is not readily functional as a dock site. Access F has some potential for access, but is relatively remote in both distance and topography from the only inland lot it might serve. Access G has a steep but pedestrian-friendly path leading to the cabin on the adjacent property to the south, but is remote from most of the inland lots that might need dock access. Access H is the narrowest of all platted accesses in Morse Island Park and cannot functionally support a dock while still providing emergency or occasional vehicular access at the same time, and would also not meet LMCD dock setback regulations. Staff would not support provision of a dock at access H for this reason. Finally, for the same reasons the City ordinances for the ‘mainland’ prohibit accessory structures on lots without principal structures (i.e. security, site control, and maintenance) it is appropriate to have assigned dock access points located as near to the inland lot they serve as possible. #2549 220 Big Island - Dock Request Page 5 Staff Recommendation It has been staff s intent to not only reach a conclusion on the Lovelace request but to provide some direction for future access requests. Based on our review of the access sites, the topographic and other limitations of each site, and the locations of the inland lots which may request access in the future, staff recommends as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Inland parcels 1 and 2 (Scheftel, Lovelace) should be allowed dock access at Access C. Inland parcel 3 should continue to be allowed a dock access at Access D. Inland parcels 4 thru 8 should be assigned future access at Access D if they request it, subject to LMCD regulations. Inland parcel 9 could be ser/ed by a dock at either Access D or Access E; E is closer but presents more topographic difficulties. Accesses A, B, F, G, and H do not readily lend themselves to providing dock access to inland lots and should therefore remain dock-firee. Access H has a recent severe erosion problem which needs to be addressed, and may result in gating or closure of that access by the City for all but emergency and incidental service vehicle uses. I have also included a draft version of the proposed Comprehensive Plan language discussing Big Island for your review - it may add to your understanding of Big Island issues. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval per staff recommendation. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Recommend something other than staff recommendation. Table for further information. ORONO planning conlmission MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 A (#11) #2549 DAVID LOVELACE, 220 BIG ISLAND, DOCK PERMIT, 10:50 p.m. -11:28 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. David Lovelace. Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a dock permit to access an inland lot without lake access. City Ordinance allows Installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way when such dock has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council. Not more than one season dock will be approved for access to any one property. In reviewing and approving this permit, the City Council shall consider the width and topography of the right-of-way. the number of property owners requesting dockage at that location, the plan of the proposed dock, and conformance with City and LMCD dock regulations. The City Council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit. Weinberger stated the City Council has preliminarily reviewed this application and recommended one area on the east side of Big Island that could potentially serve as access to the inland landlocked properties. This particular location has been established as an area for potential dock permits to be granted for inland property owners simply because no other access exists elsewhere. Currently there are two inland properties that currently have dock access to Lake Minnetonka; with the dock being located in the right-of-way and having been in use since 1986. Weinberger stated permits are 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 ccuse by the Council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon v/ritten 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 PlD's, that are actually inland on Big Island. Not all of the lots on Big Island are buildcble lots. Only a few actually are developed with a dwelling on the property. The total number docks potentially, including the one that currently exist, would not exceed four or five individuals who could potentially request dock access. The property in this case is flat enough and could sustain the type of access being requested in this case. The dock access would be located in an area approximately 90 feet wide, v/hich is probably the only area on the island which will be able to sustain future dock access and allow for access by the other iqiand property owners. Weinberger stated the City Council has previously granted a lot area variance for this property to permit the Applicant to construct a seasonal dwelling on the property. The property consists of 4.3 acres in size and is landlocked. Weinberger noted there is a platted right-of-way that goes directly from the access and is recognized as a road. Some minor grading and maintenance of this road has occurred in the past. The City has not performed any of the maintenance in the past and does not have an interest in assuming that responsibility at the present time. Page 22 ORONO PLA.VNING COM>nSSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (^1^2549 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 tne 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 tut have not been combined into a larger tax parcel. Potentially the individual lots could be sold to several owners that may request access In the future. 3. The permit approved by the City Council permitted a dock in favor of property located at 230 Big Island. A condition of approval was any other requests for docking at the Bay Place site would cause the permit to be immediately revoked. 4. The City Council has reviewed this item with Mr. Lovelace and has provided direction for the Applicant and Staff. 5. The following are uses permitted on Big Island: Season?', dwellings, with some accessory structures being permitted on the land without a principal structure. Weinberger stated he would be available fcr 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 favcr of this dock access, particularly when the location of the road and swamp have net been properly identified. Lovelace indicated the dock access being proposed is a substantial distance from his property, but his main concern Is obtaining access to his property and not necessarily the location of the dock. Chair Hawn commented that unfortunately due to the location of Big Island, It Is difficult for the Planning Commission members to view the site. Lovelace stated the other landlocked property owners have the right to request dock access and the City Council is attempting to accommodate those possible future requests as well with this proposed dock location. Lindquist commented he would like to have a survey done of this area to determine the exact location of the road and the property lines. Uran stated City Staff needs to review the site duri.ng the spring and summer months to determine the location of the wetland. Tom Egan stated there presently are posted signs saying no vehicular traffic on the Inland roads. Gaffron commented that the City is aware that there is vehicular traffic on those Inland platted roads, but that the City is faced 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 inquired whether another area is available for dock access should this proposed 90 foot area not be suitable. Gaffron suggested that the Big Island property owners arrive at a workable solution amongst Page 23 ORONO planning COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (ji;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 lime 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 staled 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 properly 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 properly 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 COM>nSSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 {U2S49 David Lovelace. Continued) Gaffron indicated he would be willing to work with the Big Island property owners on this matter and to obtain the necessary information from the LMCD. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2549, David Lovelace, 220 Big Island, until April to allow the Big Island property owners time to resolve this matter. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #2547 KIMBERLI AND WILLIAM ABBOTT, 470 BIG ISLAND, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES, 11:29 p.m. -11:30 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were not present. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #2547, Kimberli and William Abbott, 470 Big Island, due to the absence of the Applicants. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#12) MIKE HILBELINK/JOHN VOGT, 3850 WATERTOWN ROAD, CLASS III SUBDIVISION Mike Hilbelink. Applicant, and John Vogt. Applicant, were present. Weinberger this is a sketch plan review with the Applicant proposing to subdivide a 21 acre parcel into a three lot rural residential development. The proposal would require, one, approval of a private driveway for a property to serve a three lot development where a road would typically be required for a three lot subdivision: two, variances to approve a subdivision resulting in a bam to be located within a required side yard adjacent to street setback; three, septic sites to be reviewed and approved by City Staff; and four, approval of a subdivision with an outlot dedicated to a riding ring in favor of proposed Lot 2. Weinberger stated the property lies within the RR-1A zoning district, which has a five acre minimum lot size. The major issue in this subdivision relates to a platted driveway and the location of an oversized accessory structure. Lot 3 has the required frontage along Watertown Road, with Watertown Road having been defined as a collector street. Staff has concerns regarding direct access to Watertown Road. If a private road is constructed within Outlot A, the lot would 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 Watertown Road. V. Weinberger stated some of these issues relating to road access can be resolved with City Staff. In addition, the bam, if developed with an access outlot or a private road, would require a variance to remain on the property. The barn 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. V/einberger noted the bam encroaches into the 75 foot required setback. Weinberger stated the standard requirements would need to be complied with as they relate to Page 25 TO; FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner November 9,1999 SUBJECT: Request for Dock Access 220 Big Island Exhibits A B C Big Island Address/Ownership Map Enlarged East Area Map ^ ^ Q Fnlai^ed West Area Mao Resolution No. 2038 TI> ^ ^ City Council Minutes (August 25, 1986) Approving Resolution No. 2038 ■)A Summary of Request David Lovelace is owner of the property located at 220 Big Island. The property is an inlarid lot without lake access. Mr. Lovelace has applied to the City of Orono for a dock permit per Municipal Code Section 10.31, Subdivision 5 (C). The City Council has preliminarily reviewed this item. Please refer the to the enclosed City Council Minutes from October 25, 1999. On April 12,1999 the City Council granted a lot area variance for the property located at 220 Big Island to permit David Lovelace to construct a seasonal dwelling on the property. As of the date of this memo the City of Orono has not received a building permit. The property is 4.3 acres in size and is land locked. The access to the lot is via any of the undeveloped public roads. A major issue for the property owner is dock access. This property is one of several lots on the Island that potentially will request dock rights. Municipal Code Section 10.31, Subdivision 5 (C) 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 seasonal dock will be approved for access to any one property. In review and approval or denial of such permit, the 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 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dock regulations. The Council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit. Permits are not required for any person to walk on or over any platted public right-of-way or any platted public park when such use is made without altering the natural state of the land. No pemut shall be required for any person whose property abuts a platted public right-of-way or a platted 02J^9 David Lovg/ace 220 Big Island 11/15/99 Fagt I public park to control weeds or brush, seed, sod, mow or other^v^se maintain said right-of-way or park in a neat and presentable manner. The Code states permits issued are valid for one year, 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 thirty days prior to the anniversary date. Any formal requests for permits on Big Island require the public hearing with the Planning Commission. Notices are handled similar to notices for conditional use permits and require a 350' mailed notice to adjacent property owners. The following is a list of PIDs of all land locked tax parcels on Big Island: 130 Big Island 220 Big Island 230 Big Island 240 Big Island 250 Big Island 310 Big Island 480 Big Island 490 Big Island 500 Big Island 580 Big Island 590 Big Island Developed property 23-117-23 22 0002* 23-117-23 23 0028 (Has been approved recently for a lot area variance) 23-117-23 23 0033* (Dock Permit issued in 1986) 23-117-23 23 0003 23-117-23 23 0004 23-117-23 32 0020 23-117-23 32 0046 23-117-23 32 0047 23-117-23 32 0048 23-117-23 32 0049 23-117-23 32 0062 23-117-23 32 0018 23-117-23 32 0019 23-117-23 31 0031* 23-117-23 31 0020 (Has a dock through right-of-way) Not all the lots listed above are buildable lots. Only a few actually are developed with a dwelling on the property. The issue is whether dock access can be provided for the additional lots on Big Island. Overnight camping and day use is permitted on all lets on Big Island. A total of 15 lots have been identified as separate parcels that can be sold by the property owners at any time. Many of the existing lots without lake access are commonly owned, seve:^ by property owners with direct lake access. Issues for Discussion I. Should the dock rights be for property owners wi±out any other access? f^2549 David Lov€ face 220 Big Island 11/1 S/99 Page 2 2. 3. 4. 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. The permit approved by the City Council (Resolution No. 2038) permitted a dock in favor of property located at 230 Big Island. A condition of approval was any other requests for docking at the Bay Place site would cause the permit to be immediacy revoked. The City Council has reviewed this item with Mr. Lovelace and has provided direction for the applicant and staff. Please refer to the enclosed City Council Minutes from October 25, 1999. 5. The following are uses permitted on Big Island. (Section 10.31, Subdivision 2) A. Seasonal Dwellings. One family detached dwellings used for seasonal recreational use not to exceed 180 days in any one year, and not to be the owner's "principal residence" for homestead tax credit purposes. B. One family, seasonal recreational use of land without structures, or with accessory structures only, such as tent camping or day-use only. Accessory structures permitted on land without a principal structure shall be limited to one or more of the following: a) Docks conforming to Cil>- and LMCD Code requirements b) One storage building not to exceed 120 square feet in area c) Firerings or barbeque pits d) Open deck or screen house not to exceed 300 U2549 David Lovelace 220 Big Island ll/IS/99 Page 3 1 WM »• 'm mm Pitm> City of OROIXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2038__________ A RBSOLDTION PERMITTING A PRIVATE DOCK ON PLATTED UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OP-WAY BAY PLACE, BIG ISLAND WHEREAS, the City of Orono has received a request for a private dock on platted unimproved right-of-way known as Bay Place on Big Island tc serve as access to inland property; and WHEREAS, as per Section 10.31, Subdivision 3 of the Orono Cit: Code allows for the installation of a private dock on unimproved plattec right-of-way on Big Island to serve as access for inland properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a private dock is permittee on platted unimproved right-of-way known as Bay Place on Big Island t« serve inland property to Lots 19 & 20, P.I.D. No. 23-117-23 23 0033, wit. the following conditions; 1. 2. 3. 4. The installation of the dock length not to exceed 100 feet Setback from extended lot lines; 0-50 feet in length 10’ 51-100 feet in length 15' ^ Dock sections not to exceed 6' in width One boat per dock for residential use only (LMCD regulations) The permittee agrees to maintain the area in a neat an presentable manner at all times and agrees to hold^ the City harmless for ever from any and all claims resulting from actions as a result of th issuance of this permit, use of the right-of-way, or use of the dock whil this permit is in force. Should there be any other requests from inland property owners t use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties, thi permit is automatically revoked. This permit may be revoked by the City e any time for any reason in the future upon review and revocation by tr Orono Council. The property owners agree to remove all structures within 30 daj of permit revocation or termination and if no removal, agree to e assessment of the cost against Lots 19 and 20 of Big Island. The City of Orono further reserves the right to review th: permit for any reason as deemed appropriate. c Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the 25th d. of ^ugust, 1986. ATTEST; / ^ A._ . y'obiuSthy City Clerk Tim Adamsf Acting Mayor M ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25,1999 Jabbour amended his motion to include denial of the comprehensive plan amendment ^ n^uide the land use designation from two acre density to one acre density. / O Pet^on seconded the motion. ^ Mayor Jabiwur inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application. There were n^ublic comments. VOTE ON MOtK^: Ayes 5, Nays 0. -(##6) #2531 ROGER ANb^LIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTEiWYOOD ROAD - RENEWAL VARIANCES^Ri^OLUTION NO. 4367 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, t^i^rove and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4367, a Resolution Granting Renewal of Variances to Allow Remodeling and Elipansion of the Existing Residence Located at 815 Pal^enwood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#7) #2538 ROB AND TORI J.AFFRAY, 540 RESOLUTION NO. 4368 :TT avenue - VARLANCE - riint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt REl^^^UTION NO. 4368 a Resolution Granting Variances to Permit Construction of l\^ers on the Second Story of an Existing Residence Located at 540 Barrett Avenue.^^TE: .Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#8) #2541 PAUL PHILLIPS, 2140 SIXTH AVTNUE NORTH, FINAi^L.AT OF PHILLIPS WOODLAND TERRACE THIRD ADDITION - RESOLlTlO^O. 4369 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 436 A Resolution Approving the Plat of Phillips Woodland Terrace Third Addition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) REQUEST FOR DOCK ACCESS - DAVID LOVELACE, 220 BIG ISL.AND David Lovelace, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting dock access to his property located at 220 Big Island. Back in April, 1999, the City Council granted a lot area variance for this property to permit the construction of a seasonal dwelling on the property. As of today's date, the City has not '■eceived a request for a building permit from the Applicant. The property’ is 4.3 acres in size and is landlocked. This property- is one of several lots on Big Island that pctentially will request dock rights. Weinberger stated that according to Municipal Code, installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way, \%hen such a dock has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council, is allowed. Not more than one seasonal dock V Page 7 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25,1999 (^9 Request for Dock Access, Continued) will be approved for access to any one property. City Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on development of a dock policy relating to inland lots on Big Island without lake access. The Code states that these issued permits are to be valid for one year and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the City Council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date except upon wrinen notice from tl.c City to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. Weinberger stated that any formal requests for permits on Big Island do require a public hearing with the Plaiuiing Commission or the City Council and notice to all adjacent property owners within 350 feet. Weinberger remarked that die issues for the City Council to discuss tonight include whether dock rights should be for odier property owners without any other access. Some of the parcels on Big Island are held in common ownership but are not combined for ta.\ purposes into one ta.x parcel. Potentially the individual lots could be sold to several owners that may request access in the future. The permit approved by the City Council per Resolution No. 2038 permitted a dock in favor of property located at 230 Big Island. A condition of approval w as any other requests for docking at the Bay Place site would cause the permit to be revoked immediately. Lovelace stated he understands the concerns of the City Cour.cil, noting that there is currently a dock access that has been granted by the City. Mayor Jabbour commented that that dock ac -eso wed to be revoked if a new dock access is granted. Lovelace stated that he would not object to sharing this boat access with the adjoining property owners. Mayor Jabbour stated that according to LMCD code, the dock must be located 25 feet from the property line. Sansevere inquired how many boats could be accommodated on that 90 foot parcel. Mavor Jabbour stated that a minimum of six boats, which should take care of the landlocked parcels. Jabbour stated the general public has access to the lake through City-owned docks and that the City Council should recognize the present laws governing docks. Lovelace stated he was aware at the time he purchased this property that the land was landlocked and that the City has an ordinance allowing the landowner to request dock access. Lovelace stated he is requesting a permit to allow the dock access, and that an option would be to share dock access with the adjoining neighbors. Page 8 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25,1999 (#9 Request for Dock Access, Continued) GafiBron stated an issue to be reviewed is whether the roadways constructed on Big Island were intended for general public access or whether they were constructed to provide access to the properties. Gaffiron stated a number of complaints have been receiyed regarding security due to the general public utilizing those roads. Kelley commented he would be in favor of a dock at this location, with the Applicant being required to have the license renewed yearly. Lovelace acknowledged that maintenance of the dock would be his responsibility and that he would retain the appropriate liability insurance coverage. Sansevere inquired how mainleitance of the dock would be handled if there were multiple owners. Mayor Jabbour stated that a homeowners association would need to be created to oversee the dock. Jabbour suggested that a dock be provided, with a public hearing being held to enable the local citizens to comment on this issue. Lovelace staled that some of the residents of Big Island do currently sh^e docks. Lovelace acknowledged that he is not legally permitted to leave his boat at a public dock for an extended pe.iod of time. Kelley suggested that the length of the dock be limited. Mayor Jabbour staled that the dock should not exceed 24 feet. Moorse indicated that City Staff will prepare a resolution outlining the items discussed for review and approval by the City Council. ^>!A^R/C0UNCIL repof Mayor Jab^&b^m^cated that a number of meetings regarding consolidation of Long Lake and Orono have beeiwlbfc^vith issues dealing with land use currently being discussed. Jabbour stat that a member of the coJlsoWation committee pointed out that the City' Council d^s not have the authority to deny an applicatibn^^it is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances. solidation meetings.Jabbour invited the general public to attend Flint inquired what progress has been made on the Dakot^i^i^ Trail project. Mayor Jabbour stated that the October 14th deadline has been extendftc^Odavs. Jabbour stated it was his understanding the railroad will cease to operate at that Page 9 James Ogland 525 Fcmdale Road N Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 RSCSIVED Mayor Gabriel Jabbour ^ 2 joao City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway CITY Ur OnOi\'0 Orono, 55356 RE: Big Island dock pemh request#2549 at 220 Big Island. I think It sets a bad precedent to issue a dock permit for private use on pubic property. In almost all situations most propert^wners, if they want lake access, are required to pur ­ chase a lake property to do so. I dc^el that it is the responsiblity of the City to give them access even Lf the property is land-locked. It makes little difference if it is on an island, land based owners are not given this right, they must purchase their own lake shore. A 9^. I know that there are previous permits issued, and they should be f^ramathered in, but now is the time to put a stop to non-lakeshore property owners to get free iccess to the lake. Adjacent neighbors should not be expected to have inland owners using a fire lane for their private use. Tliese lake accesses were not intended for this use. If you allow this, then what is next? snowmobile route, winter car driving off the ice. I will not be able to attend the council meeting as will be out of the state. I own the lot at 200 Big Island Sincerely, James Ogland cc: Paul Weinberger . D» " / SeCr70AJ TO -TfCAV^se^ ^'<— 9^ f —>\ // JC| d\ 0 — 'THI^ I^ AJ0T"A S</AW(?V5 CoN5c-er<^T<'VU ©/oz^y . . — 1 , ■i —-7W? fs Atoy A- •— Ca O^C-y S»7()' •* •. • *: • : a;:v ^ *■•• • -••V* V**r." • -t.'.,. ,* ■' MM. ti. :• •»•*';• • • .• • • «i Fv ‘» • fepv-' y->-. V- •>* •• •;v,V*... tW-'' f<;; ;• »* ••. . 'i . ‘.. ■•'• •^V»* • -r' .• >v ' .* .^rW. . .i -.•>v .'•.•■ :?••■ ■. ■• ■■.’■>•’ *'. • • •Cti/i 1#*^ - J-<v ..X •... . > / , .* . • i« : ^ .*. * •‘ . A *•- /* ttw H« ».- :u* i.. /JJ/ ••tUO •* ^ /?. .,J»vU*-u cttuf tTi 7nJ^/jd/^ * ■^4 1 ■ OFFICE OF EtCISTEE OF DELOS, Horn :>ia Couarr. K1MUR4. / ewM, n*i u« •» • iht if. .... . .........^«jit^lilh*«flator*a ^ ... • Ofi.r exH' e-2. . • % MORSE ISLAND KARK SECOND ADDITION hBMNePlM CourSTV MiNN. Sc*le I* > ISO'cTRL Sor^' iV• *• %. A*.\ i '5 J !i »a; 3 K- n 3h f 2 ft •op 2 mI® -S •' s ‘M ■i %■c ► • vn.i ?’H Ki f:n r-1922 ‘ • •#'jm'i . F § 10.31 Subd. 5. Permit For Private Improvements Within Public Rights-of-Way. It is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or use for private purposes any platted public right-of-way, any platted public park, or any other property oNvned by the Cit\' without first obtaining a peimit from the Council, as follows: A. Inland Property Access. Persons desiring access to property located inland and not abutting the shoreline may apply for a permit to privately use and/or improve platted public right- of-way for such purpose. The permit applicant shall demonstrate and the Council shall find that there is no rezisonable alternative access available, and that the proposed improvements and/or type of use would not unreasonably affect other properties abutting the right-of-way. The Council may approve, deny or place restrictions on any such permit based upon public health, safety and welfare considerations, including without limitation the configuration of adjoining record lots, the location, width, topography, drainage and vegetation on the right-of-way and the number of existing or future property owners who may require access at the same location. Any land alterations or improvements approved shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide reasonable inland access. B. Land Alterations. Grading or physical alteration of any platted public right-of-way for any purpose including inland property' access is prohibited except when such work has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council. The permit applicant shall provide a detailed land survey of the right-of-way and appropriate engineering drawings sufficient to identify the full extent of all proposed work. Permit approval shall be subject to obtaining a grading permit from City staff, land alterations invoh'ing filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02, and all other permits as may be required by other agencies having jurisdiction. Public rights-of-way so improved shall be maintained by the licensee. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 C. Dockage on Right-of-Way. Installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way for any purpose including inland property access is prohibited except when such dock has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council. Not more than one setjional dock will be approved for access to any one property. In review and approval or denial of such permit, the 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 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dock regulations. The Council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in appro\ing any such dock permit. D. Encroachments Prohibited. No private property, buildings, structures, fences, boats, vehicles, dock parts, junk or debris shall be built, stored, parked or kept at any time within any platted public right-of-way, within any platted public park, or on any other property owned by the City except as specifically authorized by a permit issued under this Subdivision. ORONO CC 312 (4-1-84) § 10.31 E. Pennit Exceptions. No permit shall be required for any person to walk on or over any platted public right-of-way or any platted public park when such use is made without altering the natural state of the land. No permit shall be required for any person whose property abuts a platted public right-of-way or a platted public park to control weeds or brush, seed, sod, mow or otherwise maintain said right-of-way or park in a neat and presentable marmer. Persons whose record lot established by Subdivision 6 consists of tax parcels divided by platted, unopened public right-of-way may incorporate and use such right-of-way as part of their yard without a permit, provided no permanent structures are erected or maintained within the right-of-way. F. Public Use Limited. Any permit issued under this Subdivision shall be deemed to open the platted public right-of-way only to the extent necessary as established in the permit, and for the limited use of the permittee and his invitees. G. Permit Limitations. A permit issued under this Subdivision shall not grant or vest any property rights to use of the public right-of-way or other public property, or in any improvements made thereto. Permits issued under this Subdivision shall be valid for one year, shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the ...cunc.t my time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon wnrien notice from the City to the permittee at least thirty days prior to the anniversary date. H. Hold Harmless. As a condition of issuance of any permit, the applicant shall in writing release, indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant or his invitees. I. Permit Hearing and Notice. The Planning Commission or the Council shall hold a public hearing or hearings on each application for a permit. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days or more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in the legal newspaper for the City. Such notice shall contain the description of the land and the proposed use. At least ten days before the hearing, the City Clerk shall mail an identical notice to the applicant and to each of the property owners within 350 feet of the outside boundaries of the land in question. Failure of the property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission or the Council shall review the application and the statements and drawings submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained. Subd. 6. Lot Area Requirements. Within any "RS" Seasonal Recreational District, no new lot or parcel shall be created less than 5.0 acres in dry buildable lot area e.xclusive of any designated wetlands. Within any "RS" Seasonal Recreational District, the following provisions shall govern the buildability, use and/or subdivision of each existing record lot as defined and identified therein: ORONO CC 313 (4-1-84) 1. ~ I if . -viaTti aiir: •', ■ -liv ■' V «i>Mc M ® ■';5. w~" W ' vJt l’> ■■$•* V •.% • 1 '^ -y . ■ *•%• : -'-f- ’.'^r .'i i • .-.«?• "i-. I.H-- ■5i- - ^ • -: •' -.■: •=?■ 'I 'r K ^ . ■'<; /<-■ I \ r s - .9 |i:f -'r'l ■■:,':••■ *••••• * * t’’ • ' J J * * * I.. /: a’•..'=•• •• !..• ; ‘'i’Ji-'ir;- i-l/r ! -* ‘■-“’'—■Tw j£ m^-9^ -'^,* ' n - • __ ^ *~ *. • . /'2 ' f m ^ S -> rswn®:^##a®8^^ il^#i ViIkt-#''#f f»ipf If':f;V;^'ii{:fy "tv r■ j (■ l^: !v '< « V ^’l'*nS tl I prW'"' ■ fel, o, . •.» * -vji'- i ■'! ■•• r i’ . j - ■'v-^"*' ! \- ■ \ -t F-JSiWI --c~ -•••i'••• •' ' ' • ':5-* fr-v". .. *• ^ , •'• ' . P':# '• ' ■ ‘ .... -.................. W:m I i--- ■;r — * T*"” r J - • "'•••"- • - "^••^V"•. -„• • ■ — - . ., . ■ . •. ? i.--.^: ■ •. .•• - - .- j‘y.': . - 'f j:■■ ■■f:r. V' ••••f • - V'-'- '■' • ■ •*“ v*r?-*~r;sr • • ■ ■' -V •^'^■^: -T-c':* * - *1. ’, \ '•; . "J**- - ■’ .■>>—*" “ •«. *•• • * *^• • '• • * * ”*^*>^*"^^ r __ . 1. ." • • r :^* - .f uI A-'- V* ~ — -(-* ^ “^ • •' - • ■«', - -' .'•!> • "k'- ‘'--i ii'J v'j' '•< \‘‘i r . ■ ■■• ;:vm A. 'Vy\-i ' f ■ / \ • kiW''^ ■*? ».. ■• 'iy'‘ "•'■\b'^‘ ••■ '* •'•J » • ^ ■■, >c -:rr?^;V' <’<• v- - ^ 'A *;! r-z.* ‘“<rr‘ ,* --------- •* * i / ^ /■ {:■ ;•'. •••• ^ e^.J4 LAKE MINNETONKA ISLANDS Land on Big Island (including the east and west islands plus Mahpiyata Island) and Deering Island has been privately owned for meiny decades and has been used for a significant number of seasonal cottages plus a few year-round homes. The islands also contain a substantial amount of public and private park land and recreation areas. BIG ISLAND History Big Island was first called Meeker's Island for Judge Bradley B. Meeker who settled there in 1 852. W.B. Morse purchased it in 1854 and for many years thereafter it was known as Morse Island. In 1887 and 1888, two subdivisions to create small parcels were platted, Morse Island Park on the most southerly point, and Pleasant View on the west end. This resulted in the construction of a number of individual summer homes. During the early 1 900's, the Twin City streetcar lines operated Big Island Amusement Park on the east end of the island. The onset of World War I resulted in its dismantling. This 60-acre property eventually became the Big Island Veterans Camp, which is still in operation. Hennepin Parks acquired a 60-acre parcel near the center of the island about 30 years ago, and since then acquired a few small adjacent parcels totaling an additional 10 acres as they became available and as funds permitted. By the early 1970’s, approximately 50 mostly seasonal cabins existed on private parcels on Big Island. In May 1972 the Orono Village Council declared via Resolution No. 446 that "the long range highest and best use of Big Island is for park purposes", acknowledging that the provision of public services to the island is uneconomical and and unlikely to occur in the future. It was suggested that the Hennepin County Park Reserve District should administer such a park. The 1980 Orono Comprehensive Plan noted the same concerns, and again encouraged eventual ownership by Hennepin Parks. However, the City declared it w ould not condemn private property for park purposes, and therefore in 1 983 created the "RS" Recreational Seasonal Zoning District, providing development standards for continued private recreational/ residential use of the island until such time that the slow transition to a public park is complete. Tlie RS Zoning District provides specific standards and limitations for permitted, conditional and acessory uses on the island, with a strong encouragement toward recreational uses as opposed to full time residential uses which would require a greater level of services than the City can reasonably provide. CMP 3B - 39 Physical Features Big Island encompasses approximately 250 acres in area, of which approximately 50 acres is wetland. A navigable channel actually separates Big Island into two distinct islands. The shoreland ranges from flat, low wetland areas near the lake level to steep and often eroded bluffs extending as much as 30-40 ’ above lake level. The topography is hilly. The highest point on the island is 988', nearly 60 ’ above lake level, located near the south end of Morse Island Park. Soils on Big Island are mapped as Hayden loam and clay loam, typical of soils located in central and northern Orono. Beach sand soils occur in a number of flat, low areas near the shoreline. Except for scattered clearings to accommodate individual cabins or recreation areas, the island remains heavily vegetated with hardwood species typical of the "Big Woods". Services Big Island is provided with only a minimal degree of municipal services. There is no municipal sewer or water on the island, hence the use of individual septic systems and wells is common. The island is provided with telephone service and electric power via lines from the mainland. Police protection is minimally provided by the City of Orono and the Hennepin County Sheriff Fire protection is provided by the Long Lake Fire Department although response time is understandably poor due to the lack of roads or bridges connecting the island to the mainland, and access to the island makes firefighting e.xtremely difficult. Other services such as sueet repair, snow removal, inspections, and regular garbage removal are difficult, uneconomical and in some instances virtually impossible to provide to residential propen>’ located on the island. Access There are no improved roads on Big Island. A limited system of roadways and alleys was platted more than a century ago in the Morse Island Park and Pleasantview subdivisions, which primarily created narrow lakeshore lots but also resulted in a small number of inland lots not abutting the lakeshore and needing access to the lake. These platted corridors exist today as walking trails which on occasion are used for vehicular access. Since most lots do abut the shoreline, use of the interior roadway system has been primarily by the owners of interior lots, and by owners of lakeshore lots with shoreline slopes that prohibit direct lake access. Vehicular access is necessary for nearly all island properties on occasion, hence the interior roadways are an important transportation element for Big Island. Overuse of the road system by residents or the general public is of concern, since the roads are not improved. Erosion and trespass are two main issues, because the roadways are not marked and they often traverse steep slopes, especial!" where lanes e.xtend to the lakeshore. CMP 3B - 40 Big Island Issues By virtue of its unique geographic aspects. Big Island presents a number of issues that the City must address on an ongoing basis; 1. Use and maintenance of interior road system; access to inland properties; overuse by vehicles 2. Public use of interior road system, trespass on private property 3. Pressure to accommodate more year-round residential uses, with concurrent expectation of greater services 4. Uncontrolled recreational use of adjacent bays for partying 5. Provisions for safety and emergency services 6. Bluff and shoreline erosion Big Island Goals and Policies •ive- Continue to promote the eventual ownership and management of Big Island by Hennepin Parks as a ^seasonal recreational resource rather than as a year-round residential area. Hennepin Parks is the most appropriate agency for operation of such a park. The City understands that this conversion is a necessarily slow process. The City does not intend to encourage condemnation or active acquisition programs. The City does encourage Hennepin Parks to acquire any and all island property as it becomes available. Continue to allow seasonal recreational land usesand limited residential uses in the interim. Such use must be subject to strict enforcement of all performance standards and the e.\plicit understanding that the City will never be able to provide even basic public services. Maintain the natural, seasonal recreational character of the island. Provide at least a minimum level of emergency access to the island. Avoid or minimize future problems on the island in relation to sanitation, safety, fire protection, erosion, etc. CMP 3B-41 Policies: 1. 2. Existing RS District controls on development and land use will be stricth* enforced, and reinforced where necessary, to avoid potential problems related to sanitation, public safety and security, fire protection, etc. The City will encourage private landowners of island properties to protect their shorelines from erosion. Natural rock rip-rap and other natural methods will be encouraged. Development of retaining wall systems in the lakeshore area will be discouraged. The City will define specific approved access locations for individual inland Record Lots, and will establish policies and ordinances regulating vehicular use of the undeveloped roadways. Use of the undeveloped platted roadways for vehicular travel will be limited to the extent necessar>' to protect private property as well as to curtail and prevent soil erosion, tree damage, etc. Tree removal within platted rights-of-way shall be by permit only. No platted right-of-way shall be paved except that the City may improve or specifically permit improvement of designated access locations in order to maintain suitable access and limit environmental damage. The City may close to vehicular use certain platted roadways if it is determined that continued use will cause environmental harm. Island lakeshore will be maintained in a natural state. Tree removal near the lakeshore shall be as strictly regulated as it is in all lakeshore areas of the City. Deering Island Deering Island is a small (approximately 4-5 acres) privately owned island in West Atm Buy, constituting a single tax parcel and having a single owner. Many of the same issues, goals and policies pertaining to Big Island carry over to Deering Island. CMP 3B - 42 TO: FROM; DATE; Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 13,2000 SUBJECT: #2555 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit __________Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:6.65 acres Exhibits Photo of Proposed Building Planning Commission Minutes (January 19,2000) January Staff Report Application Plat Map Section 10.25 LR-IC Code Amendment Section 10.20 - R-IA District Section 10.50 Industrial District Zoning Map Existing Site Map/Survey Proposed Site Plan Survey City of Orono Wetland Inventory Hardcover Worksheet DNR Letter Sample Photo of Proposed Building Hennepin County Project Narrative Property Owners List #2535 Hermepm County 3880 Shoreline Dri\e Zoning Code Amendment Conditionai Use PermU^Variances 4/17.00 Page I Application and Project Summary: The Planning Commission reviewed a request by Hennepin County to construct a salt and sand storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The property has been used for other seasonal purposes in addition to the salt/sand operations in the fall and winter months. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has used the site for storage of milfoil hai'vesters. The milfoil harvesters have been stored in the location where the proposed salt storage building would be located, thus requiring a new outdoor storage area to be designated for the LMCD harvesters. (Please refer to Exhibit H for the proposed site plan.) A new circulation plan and parking plan has required the County to develop a stormwater management plan for the site as it is located within 1000 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka. I'le County has proposed to construct a stormwater pond on the site to treat surface water runoff and for rate control. Proposed stormwater pond would be constructed within an existing wetland area that is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). County staff has indicated 3,947 square feet of a type 3 wetland would be impacted by the project. The wetland loss for the purposes of a stromwater pond will be mitigated on-site and will exceed the 2:1 replacement ratio. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend denial of the application based on the following comments: 1. 5. The Comprehensive Plan has guided the property for residential use. The proposed expanded use is much more intense than what the property is currently used for. There was concern continued use of Ih: site impacts the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. The City of Orono rezoned the property from commercial residential in the early 1970s. Approving a Code Amendment to permit this type of use in the LR-1C district would not be in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, so it should remain in a non- conforming status. The proposed height of the building was 42' requiring a variance. The building would have been 22' taller than the existing principal building. Other sites in the area have not been explored to accommodate the salt and sand storage building. The applicants were advised to research other locations that may be feasible. January Planning Commission Minutes have been attached to this report. t^2555 Hennepin County 38S0 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit l ariances 4 17.00 Page 2 Revised Proposal: Hennepin County has reduced the height of the storage building to 20' from the 42' proposed at the last meeting with the Planning Commission. The building would be 60' X 120' in size, still requiring a variance for an oversized accessory building. The County has explored other options for the site, however to relocate the entire site is not feasible. The salt and sand that would be stored in the shed is already being stored on site, either in the existing building or outdoors. Most of the material must be delivered in the evening or overnight. The building would allow daytime deliveries. This application requires the following approvals: 1. 2. 3. A Zoning Code Amendment would allow the County Maintenance Facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district. The facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial purposes, however, that zoning changed to residential in the early 1970's, hence use of the property for the maintenance facility has continued as a legal non- conforming use. (Section 10.25) Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OHWT of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61 %) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) Variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7,200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of a!', accessory structures on this property- is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) The accessoiy building will be subject to a restrictive covenant that sU'tes the following: 1) No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may- remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may­ be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory- **2555 Hennepin County 3830 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permlt/Vartances 4/17.00 Page 3 structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the propeiTv. 5. Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). The wetland alteration will occur within a non-City protected wetland, however the wetland is protected by the WCA and will require a MCVvD permit and may require approval by the Corps of Engineers. This wetland and the wetland located over the southwest comer of the property are subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to any future property owner that the wetland will be subject to WCA regulation and/or Corps of Engineer jurisdiction. The stormwater pond shall require the County file i Conservation and Flowage Easement on the chain of title. Use of Property: The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962. the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-1 C. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, me facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility' is used primarily for winter road maintenance with a coverage area for this facility from County ’ Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. Other Public Uses of the Property The DNR has located a wash rack tor cleaning mussels off boats, trailers and other watercraft. The w ash rack is located north of the parking area and is used voluntarily by boat owners before boats are placed into Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD has used the property for storage of milfoil harvesters. The harvesters are currently stored in a parking area where the salt/sand storage facility is proposed. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will be relocated to a new- parking area that would be constructed at the northwest comer of the property. The LMCD has 4 f^2555 Hennepm County 38S0 Shoreiine Drive Zoning Code AmendmenL'Conditional Use Permit Variances 4.1700 Page 4 milfoil harvesters. The large parking area between the existing building and the south propertv* line has been used as overflow parking for vehicles and boat trailers when the public landings are full. The overflow parking would remain as a continued use. Overflow parking only occurs in the spring/summer/fall mainly on weekends not to interfere with the winter road maintenance facility operation. Use of Salt/Sand Storage Building The proposed building would be approximately 7,200 square feet, reduced from the storage available for ^.e previous proposal due to the reduction in overall size. Couniv* staff has indicated the operations would reduce noise to surrounding neighborhoods and eliminate the salt and sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wetlands. The wetlands drain into a stormsewer pipe and are routed to Lake Minnetonka. Due to the proposed buildings capacity, Hennepin County has estimated approximately 60 round trip truck runs annually would be eliminated and the salt/sand operations would occur during daytime hours. Zoning Code Amendment: The Hennepin County facility has been in operation since the early 1960s. A 1970s rezoning changed the zoning from commercial to residential, although the use has not changed over that time. The \:si has remained as a non-conforming use in the LR-IC zoning dis diet. Hennepin County has made -.n application to the City of Orono to request a code amendment that would allow a county main* .nance facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-IC district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district (please refer to conditional uses for R-1 A in Exhibit D). Staff has suggested the following amendment to Section 10.25, Subdivision 4. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. conditions: B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five b. Property shall have direct access to a Coun^ road. c. County facilities shall only be permitted a: Hennepin Countv facilities. H2555 Hennepin County 3830 Shorttin€ Drhm Zoning Codi Amindment^onditional Usi PirmUTarianca 4^37 00 Pagt 5 d. The Orono Citv Council shall reserve the rieht to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined bv the Citv Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of a code amendment to permit the use in the LR- 1 C zoning district, it would be appropriate to add “County Buildings or Facilities” to the definitions section of the Municipal Code. Section 10.02 would be amended to include ISfaV “Countv Buildmcs or Facilities” - Countv buildings or facilities shall include only those structures or facilities owned and operated bv Hennepin Countv. The Orono Code permits non-conforming uses that were actually and legally devoted to a non- conforming use to continue operation. The Code does, however, not permit the non-conforming use to be changed to another non-conforming use and/or expand the non-conforming use. Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of 12 months, any future use of structures or land shall be in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. It appears ti e non-conforming use, as proposed, would actually be less intense than the use that exists because the number of salt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60 trips annually and the salt/sand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. The operation being indoors would also result in less noise. Rezoning the Property If the code would be amended to include the Count>* facility as a permitted or conditional use in the I, Industrial district the property would also be subject to all permitted and conditional uses in the I district. The property is located in a primarily residential area that would not be compatible with many of the uses that are allowed in the Industrial district. Surrounding Properties: North, Burlington Northern Rail. South, Property to the southwest is zoned LR-lC-1 ; the southeast is zoned B-5, Commercial; site access to County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). East, The City of Orono has recently purchased the inunediately adjacent parcel zoned LR-lC-1. West, Residential property, City of Spring Park. Stormwater Management: The proposed stormwater management plan will include construction of a stormwater pond on the southeast portion of the property. The land alteration on the site and for the pond will require a permit from the MCWD. TTie County has provided preliminary plans to the City, however final ^2555 Htnmpin County 2BS0 Shonlir.i Drive Zorttng Code Amendment Conditional Use PermiVVariances 4/1700 Page 6 plans will not be available for review by the City Engineer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the permit request a condition of approval should be a submission of final rate control calculations to be approved by the City Engineer. Height and.Size Variances: The County has a plan to construct the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7,200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property to be 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,840 square feet). The site plan indicates the building would be located on the northeast comer of the property. The final floor elevation for the structure is proposed to be 944.33' which would be a peak height elevation of 964'. The Hennepin County site is located at a much lower elevation than the property that sunounds it. The average east peak elevation is 970'. Based on the elevation, the peak of the structure is lower than the adjacent propert}’. The height and size of the building is required to accommodate the storage of materials and the operation within the stmcture. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 75-250'499 s.f.386 s.f. 01%) 124.75 s.f. (25%) 386 s.f. (77%) no change to entrance 250-500'40,278 s.f.12,238 s.f. (30.3%) 12,083.4 s.f. (30%) 12,238 s.f. (30.3%) no change 500-1000'242,023 s.f.148,835 s.f. (61%) 84,708.05 s.f. (35%) 138,188 s.f. (57%) salt/storage facility, new parking area iJiJi Hifviepm County SSSO Shcriluti Drixi Zoning Cedi Amindment Condttional La Perma Variances 4/1700 Page! Recommendations: The Plannin g Commission has the following Options to consider regarding the use of the property and requests for variances to permit the site alterations and future use of the LR-IC district. A.To approve the application as presented by Hennepin County and the ordinance revisions as proposed by Staff. (The revised plan does not address the issues the Planning Commbsion had with rezoning and the guided use of the property by the Comprehensive Plan) OR B To approve variances to permit construction of the salt storage facility and a CUP to allow land alteration under the existing non-conforming use of the site, since the building will not ‘intensify ’ the use on the site. A Code Amendment would permit County facilities to operate in the LR-IC district under a conditional use permit, subject to conditions as stated in the Code. OR C. To recommend denial of the application. The site will continue to exist as a legal non ­ conforming ase. Staff Recommendation If the Planning Commission recommends alternative A to amend the code and approve variances for the structure, a conditional use permit for the use as a County Highway Maintenance facility, and a conditional use permit for land alteration on site. Approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1.A final drainage and erosion control plan is submitted by Hennepin County and approved by the City Engineer. 2.Drainage calculations are approved by the City Engineer. Drainage rates shall not be increased. 3.Final engineering details for pond construction and control structures are approved by the City Engineer. 4. Permits and/or approval by the MC WD and Corps of Engineers of grading and drainage on U2555 Htnntpln County 3SS0 Shortiint Drtvt Zoning Code Amtndmini Conditional Use Permit/Variances 417^00 Paget --- 6. 7. site. 5. The three separate tax parcels shall be combined into one lot. Any future expanded use of the property shall require a conditional use permit amendment. Such CUP amendment shall be subject to the provisions in the Municipal Code. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded on the chain of title of the property alerting property owners of WCA protected wetlands. 8. A Conservation and Flowage easement shall be granted over the stormwater pond. 9. The County facility shall remain as a site primarily for winter County Highway Maintenance. 10. All outdoor storage shall be limited to approved parking areas and screened from immediate view to residential properties. 11. The direct source of outdoor lighting shall not be visible to adjacent properties. A final lighting plan shall be submitted for final approval. 12. A restrictive covenant is filed on the chain of title stating conditions for an oversized accessory structure. 13. Building and Land Alteration Permits will not be issued until all requirements of the conditional use permit are satisfied. *2S5S HtivupUt County 3880 Shonllne Drtvt Zoning Code Amtndmtnt'Conditional Use Permit Vsrtances 4,'1 7,00 Page 9 li^ A ' •tKV.'i I/A ' • ^ -•* f-w x-r. s*^' ->u— •. -*•'—-.- -^• .. ..........................................._ 3/12/00 .................................................................. -** * ^ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 |2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) KlumSwted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved, Van Eeckfft^^t commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. Hawn inquired whel^r the ten percent slope for the driveway is an issue. Van Eeckhout stated thXis not an issue. Smith inquired whether the rribmbers of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a 24 foot roadway or seven lots whlta 24 foot roadway. Stoddard indicated he preferred the shUots. Kluth stated based upon the conditions staKtf by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce the number of lots. Weinberger stated this is another application that ^H^eed to be extended. Weinberger stated City Staff would be comfortable with sending this appnution to the City Council provided some direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions he snq^d comply with. Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the de^^per consider reducing the number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the developeS|ndicating he preferred to leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett stated the Planning ComH^ion could vote to deny this application, with clear direction on what the Planning Commissioi^^j^uld like to see occur on this application. Kluth moved. Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2551^20 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development, with a strona recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of lots within tl subdivision to six in order to comalv with the conditions outlined in the Januar^O. 2000 banner's Report'.* \z6tIE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.' (#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 8:25 p.m. > 9:20 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Guy Nijwian and Greg Chock appeared on behalf of Hennepin County. Weinberger stated the Hennepin County Transportation Department Is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The present facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial uses. However, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s. thus making use of this property a legal non-confonming use. Hennepin County has made an application to the City of Orono requesting a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-1C zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-1C district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district. Weinberger indicated the property Is presently used for salt/sand storage in the fall and winter Page 13 B r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2555 Hfinnopin County, Continued) months as well as storage by the LMCD of their milfoil harvesters. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. In addition, the DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning boats, trailers and other watercraft on this property. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will be relocated to a new parking area that would be constructed at the northwest comer of the property. Currently the LMCD stores four milfoil harvesters at this site. Weinberger stated Hennepin County is proposing to construct a building consisting of 7,840 square feet with a storage capacity of 2,000 tons, which amounts to approximately one*third of the annual mixed salt/sand usage during the winter months. The building would provide for interior mixing and loading of materials. Currently that operation is conducted outdoors. The proposed building is 70 feet by 112 feet in size, with the height of the building being 42 feet in height. A height variance would be needed since the proposed building exceeds the height of the principal building. Weinberger noted the height of the principal building is approximately 18 to 20 feet in height. County Staff has Indicated the operations would reduce the noise to the surrounding neighborhoods and would also eliminate the salt and sand runoff into the adjacent wetlands during storms. Hennepin County is estimating the number of round trip truck runs would be reduced to 60 based on the size of the proposed building. Weinberger stated the Burlington Northern Railroad exists to the north of this site, with the property to the southwest being zoned LR-1C-1, and the southeast being zoned B-5, Commercial. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has recently purchased the land immediately adjacent to this site, which is zoned LR-1C-1. The property to the west of this site is zoned residential. Weinberger stated the proposed stormwater management plan includes construction of a stormwater pond on the southeast portion of the property. The land alteration on the site and for the pond will require a permit from the MCWD. Weinberger recommended approval of this application be conditioned upon review and approval of the stormwater management plan by the City Engineer. Weinberger stated in order for a zoning code amendment to be approved, the Planning Commission should consider the following: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the *R-1A" District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following conditions: a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (5) acres. b. Property shall have direct access to a County road. c. County facilities shall only be permitted as Hennpin County facilities. d. The Orono City Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined by the City Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. Weinberger stated a variance to permit hardcover alteration is needed as well as a variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed height for a structure and exceed the defined height of the principal structure on the property. A variance is also Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) required to permit the storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on this lot. A conditional use permit is required for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. City Staff is recommending approval of Alternative A to amend the code and approve variances for the structure, a conditional use permit for the use as a County Highway Maintenance Facility, and a conditional use permit for land alteration on site. Staff Is recommending approval based on the following conditions: 1. A final drainage and erosion control plan is submitted by Hennepin County and approved by the City Engineer. 2. Drainage calculations are approved by the City Engineer. Drainage rates shall not be increased. 3. Final engineering details for pond construction and control structures are approved by the City Engineer. 4. Permits and/or approval by the MCWD and Corps of Engineers of grading and drainage on site, 5. The three separate tax parcels are combined into one lot. 6. Any future expanded use of the property shall require a conditional use permit amendment. 7. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded on the chain of title to the property alerting property owners of WCA protected wetlands. 8. A conservation and flowage easement shall be granted over the stormwater pond. 9. The county facility shall remain as a site primarily for winter County Highway Maintenance, 10. All outdoor storage shall be limited to approved parking areas and screened from immediate view to residential properties. 11. The direct source of outdoor lighting shall not be visible to adjacent properties. A final lighting plan shall be submitted for final approval. 12. A restrictive covenant is filed on the chain of title stating conditions for an oversized accessory structure. 13. Building and Land Alteration Permits will not be issued until all requirements of the conditional use permit are satisfied. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission may chose to approve the application as presented by Hennepin County, approve the variances to permit construction of the salt storage facility and a conditional use permit to allow land alteration under the existing non-conforming use of the site, or to recommend denial of the application, which will mean the site will continue to exist as a legal non-conforming use. Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock had no comment. Mike O’Connor inquired whether the height of the proposed building would block the neighbors view of the lake. Page 15 1 •. 1 . i r *. I f A ui, k ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 (#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) Weinberger stated the adjacent land is owned by the City of Ore o, which might, ossibty become park iand in the future. Weinberger stated there may be one or tw 3 resident:> <0 ti.e weft that may experience a slight impact on their view of the iake. Hawn inquired whether there were any other comments from the public. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the City had received any phone calls regarding this application Weinberger stated the City did receive a couple of phone calls. The residents were informed that the deliveries would be lessened with the new facility and hopefully would occur more during the daytime hours. Stoddard commented some consideration should be given to the fact that this facility serves the needs of the community rather than an individual business or resident. Stoddard stated he has a concern with the proposed height of the building as well as the hardcover due to the closeness to Lake Minnetonka. Stoddard indicated he would not approve a variance to height or hardcover based on the current zoning of the property and the City's comprehensive plan. Hawn stated she has a number of concerns regarding this application as well, noting that a number of variances are being requested. Hawn questioned whether this site lends itself well to this purpose, noting that the proposed use will not enhance the area. Hawn commented this is an opportunity for the City and Hennepin County to review this property and its use. Hawn stated she would like more reassurance from the County that Lake Minnetonka will be protected from sand and salt runoff from this site. Hawn commented in her view the proposed use is also much more intense than what the property is currently being used for. Kluth inquired why the height at the peak of the building needs to be at 42 feel. Chock stated the building needs to accommodate dump trucks, which necessitates the need for additional headroom and trusses. Kluth inquired whether the service area will be expanded with the new facility. Chock stated the service area will remain the same. Chock noted the facility will have the capacity to store one-third of the amount of sand and salt used over the winter months. Chock stated the present outdoor storage will be eliminated and will be converted into grassy areas. Kluth inquired what hours of operation the County is anticipating for this building. Chock stated the facility will need to operate at all hours depending on when it snows. Nygard pointed out the proposed use is basically opposite of what the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for in this area, which should be addressed. Stoddard inquired whether any underground storage tanks exist on this site. Chock stated the County does have some underground storage tanks located on the site, which are hooked up to electronic monitoring devices Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) Smith expressed a concern with the size of the proposed facility as well as the need for a zoning amendment. Hawn inquired whether the County has pursued other sites for this facility. Nowlan stated to his knowledge other sites have not been looked at. noting this is the only parcel in the City which is owned by the County. Hawn indicated she would like to see this application tabled to allow Hennepin County some additional time to explore other possible sites for this storage facility. Nowlan stated the advantages to this building include indoor storage of the salt and sand, which would eliminate the runoff into Lake Minnetonka, increased life to the salt and sand by being stored indoors, lower noise level, and fewer deliveries to this site. Stoddard commented he would like to see the height of the building kept at 20 feet, noting he would not be In favor of a height variance for anything over 20 feet. Stoddard noted he is an agreement that this is not the ideal location for this facility. KJuth inquired whether steel trusses inside the building had been considered by Hennepin County. Nowlan stated to his knowledge that has not been explored, noting that due to the salt being stored inside the facility, corrosion may be a factor into why steel was not chosen. Smith suggested this item be tabled to allow the Applicant time to explore other sites for the facility. Smith stated she also has concerns regarding the size of the building as well as the need for a zoning code amendment. Chock remarked It would be difficult for the Hennepin to meet the needs of this area with a smaller sized building. Nowlan stated the County would like to have this building constructed in time for next yea/s winter season. Nowlan stated if the application is tabled, completion of the building by that time would be questionable. Hawn stated the Applicants can either have the Planning Commission vote on this application as it has been presented tonight or to table the application to allow the County additional time to review other sites. Hawn commented in her view it appears the application will be denied. Nowlan requested the Planning Commission act on this application. The Planning Commission noted the use of the property is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City. Hawn moved. Stoddard seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2555. Hennepin County. 3880 Shoreline Drive. Zoning Code Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Variances based upon issues dealing with the City's Comprehensive Code and Zoning. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 17 Lu A. 3 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 7,2000 SUBJECT: #2555 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I /2 Acre) Lot Area:6.65 acres Exhibits A Application B Plat Map C Section 10.25 LR-IC Code Amendment D Section 10.20 - R-1A District E Section 10.50 Industrial District F Zoning Map G Existing Site Map/Survey H Proposed Site Plan Survey I City of Orono Wetland Inventory J Hardcover Worksheet K DNR Letter L Sample Photo of Proposed Building M Hennepin County Project Narrative N Property Owners List Application and Project Summary: The Hennepin County Transportation Department has proposed to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The property has been used for other seasonal purposes in addition to the salt/sand operations in the fall and winter months. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has used the site for storage of milfoil harvesters. The milfoil harvesters have been stored in the location where the proposed salt storage building would be located, thus requiring a Hennepin Couniy S6 iO Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit'yariances i/19 00 Page I new outdoor storage area to be designated for the LMCD harvesters. (Please refer to Exhibit H for the proposed site plan.) A new circulation plan and parking plan has required the County to develop a stormwater management plan for the site as it is located within 1000 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka. The County has proposed to construct a stormwater pond on the site to treat surface water runoff and for rate control. Proposed stormwater pond would be constructed within an existing wetland area that is under the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). County staff has indicated 3,947 square feet of a type 3 wetland would be impacted by the project. The wetland loss for the purposes of a stromwater pond will be mitigated on-site and will exceed the 2:1 replacement ratio. This application requires the following approvals: 1.A Zoning Code Amendment would allow the County Maintenance Facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district. The facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial purposes, however, that zoning changed to residential in the early 1970’s, hence use of the property for the maintenance facility has continued as a legal non- conforming use. (Section 10.25) 2.Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) J.Variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed height for a structure and exceed the defined height of Ae principal structure on the property. The proposed structure would be 42 feet in height. (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) and (C) (3)) 4.Variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 70 feet X 112 feet in size, 7,840 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square fc tage for accessory buildings is only the sali^sand storage facility (7,840 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) The accessory building is subject to a restrictive covenant that states the following: No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may Henneptn County 33S0 Shortlint Drivt Zoning Codt Amendment Conditional Use Permit'Variances / 19 00 Page! \ remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. In subdh ision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. 5.Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). The wetland alteration will occur within a non-City protected wetland, however the wetland is protected by the WCA and will require a MCWD permit and may require approval by the Corps of Engineers. This wetland and the wetland located over the southwest comer of the property are subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to any future property owner that the wetland is subject to WCA regulation and/or Corps of Engineer jurisdiction. The stormwater pond shall require the County file a Conservation and Flowage Easement on the chain of title. Use of Property The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constmcted. In 1962 the zoning of the property was for commercial puiposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-1 C. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezonlng, the facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. Other Public Uses of the Property The DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning mussels off boats, trailers and other watercraft. The wash rack is located north of the parking area and is used voluntarily by boat owmers before boats are placed into Lake Minnetonka. <555 Hennepin County 3380 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit/Variances I/IMO Pagiel The LMCD has used the property for storage of milfoil harvesters. The harvesters are currently stored in a parking area where the sali/sand storage facility is proposed. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters, but they will be relocated to a new parking area that would be constructed at the northwest comer of the property. The LMCD has 4 milfoil harvesters. The large parking area between the existing building and the south property line has been used as overflow parking for vehicles and boat trailers when the public landing are full. The overflow parking would remain as a continued use. Overflow parking only occurs in the spring/summer/fall mainly on weekends not to interfere with the winter road maintenance facility operation. Use of Salt/Sand Storage Building The proposed building would be approximately 7,840 square feet with a storage capacity of 2,000 tons made up of 1,000 ton annual salt storage amount and 1,000 ton salt/sand mix amounting to approximately one-third of the annual mixed usage. The building would provide for interior mixing and loading of materials. That operation is currently done on-site, outdoors. County staff has indicated the operations would reduce noise to surrounding neighborhoods and eliminating the salt and sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wetlands. The wetlands drain into a stormsewer pipe and are routed to Lake Minnetonka. Due to the proposed buildings capacity, Hennepin County has estimated approximately 60 round trip truck runs annually would be eliminated and the salt/sand operations would occur during daytime hours. Zoning Code Amendment The Hennepin County facility has been in operation since the early 1960s. A 1970s rezoning changed the zoning from commercial to residential, although the use has not changed over that time. The use has remained as a non-conforming use in the LR- 1C zoning district. Hennepin County has made an application to the City of Orono to request a code amendment that would allow a county maintenance facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district as a conditional use. The LR-IC district permits any conditional use that is permitted in the R-1A zoning district (please refer to conditional uses for R-1 A in Exhibit D). Staff has suggested the following amendment to Section 10.25, Subdivision 4. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-1 C" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. ^2555 Hennepin Couniy 38S0 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit Variances I 19 00 Page 4 conditions: B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (5) acres. b. Property shall have direct access to a County road. c. County facilities shall only be laermitted as Hennepin County facilities. d. The Oronn City Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined bv the City Council. e. Use shall he subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. If the Planning Commission shall recommend approval of a code amendment to permit the use in the LP 1C zoning district, it would be appropriate to add “County Buildings or Facilities” to the deflniticns section of the Municipal Code. Section 10.02 would be amended to include 18(aV **Countv Buildings or Facilities” - Countv buildings or facilities shall include only those structures owned and operated bv Hennepin Countv. The Orono Code permits non-conforming uses that were actually and legally devoted to a non- conforming use to continue operation. The Code does, however, not permit the non-conforming use to be changed to another non-conforming use and/or expand the non-confomung use. Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of 12 months, any future use of structures or land shall be in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. It appears the non-conforming use, as proposed, would actually be less intense than the use that exists because the number of salt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60 trips annually and the salt/sand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. The operation being indoors would also result in less noise. Rczoning the Property If the code would be amended to include the County facility as a permitted or conditional use in the I, Industrial district the property would also be subject to all permitted and conditional uses in the I district. The property is located in a primarily residential area that would not be compatible with many of the uses that are allowed in the Industrial district. Surrounding Properties Nortli, Burlington Northern Rail. South, Property to the southwest is zoned LR-lC-l; the southeast is zoned B-5, Commercial; site access to County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). East, The City of Orono has recently purchased the immediately adjacent parcel zoned LR-lC-l. West, Residential property. City of Spring Park. f^2555 Htnmpin County 2830 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code AmendmeniConditional Use Permit Variances I 19 00 Page 5 1 ids Stormwater Management The proposed stormwater management plan will include construction of a stormwater pond on the southeast portion of the property. The land alteration on the site and for the pond will require a permit from the MCWD. The County has provided preliminary plans to the City, however final plans will not be available for review by the City Engineer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the permit request a condition of approval should be a submission of final rate control calculations to be approved by the City Engineer. Height and Size Variances The County has a plan to construct the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 70 feet X 112 feet in size, 7,840 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property to be 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,840 square feet). The site plan indicates the building would be located on the northeast comer of the property. The final floor elevation for the structure is proposed to be 944.3' which would be a peak height elevation of 986.3*. The Hermepin County site is located at a much lower elevation than the property that surrounds it. The east peak elevation is 972*. Based on the elevation, the peak of the structure would be approximately 14' higher than the adjacent property. The height and size of the building is required to accommodate the storage of materials and the operation within the structure. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 75-250'499 s.f.386 s.f. (77%) 124.75 s.f. (25%) 386 s.f. (77%) no change to entrance 250-500'40,278 s.f.12,238 s.f. (30.3%) 12,083.4 s.f. (30%) 12,238 s.f. (30.3%) no change 500-1000 ’242,023 s.f.148,835 s.f. (61%) 84,708.05 s.f. (35%) 138.188 s.f. (57%) salt/storage facility, new parking area *2555 Hinneptn County 5880 Shortlint Drive Zoning Code Amendmeni Conditionai Use Permit Vcariances h 19.00 Page 6 M* hii m r Recommendation The Planning Commission has the following options to consider regarding the use of the property and requests for variances to permit the site alterations and future use of the LR-IC district. To approve the application as presented by Hennepin County and the ordinance revisions as proposed by Staff. OR B To approve variances to permit construction of the salt storage facility and a CUP to allow land alteration under the existing non-conforming use of the site, since the building will not ‘intensify’ the use on the site. A Code Amendment would permit County facilities to operate in the LR-IC district under a conditional use permit, subject to conditions as stated in the Code. OR C. To reco mmend denial of the application. The site will continue to exist as a legal non- conforming use. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends alternative A to amend the code and approve variances for the structure, a conditional use permit for the use as a County Highway Maintenance facility, and a conditional use permit for land alteration on site. Approval subject to the following conditions: 1.A final drainage and erosion control plan is submitted by Hennepin County and approved by the City Engineer. 2. Drainage calculations are approved by the City Engineer. Drainage rates shall not be increased. 3.Final engineering details for pond construction and control structures are approved by the City Engineer. 4.Permits and/or approval by the MCWD and Corps of Engineers of grading and drainage on site. S. The three separate tax parcels are combined into one lot. i^2355 Hennepin County 3830 Shoreline Drive Zoning Code Amendment/Conditional Use Permit/Varlances 1/1900 Page! * : 6. 7. Any future expanded use of the property shall require a conditional use permit amendment. Such CUP amendment shall be subject to the provisions in the Mumcipal Code. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded on the chain of title of the property alerting property owners of WCA protected wetlands. 8. A Conservation and Flowage easement shall be granted over the stormwater pond. 9. The County facility shall remain as a site primarily for winter County Highway Maintenance. 10. All outdoor storage shall be limited to approved parking areas and screened from immediate view to residential properties. 11. The direct source of outdoor lighting shall not be visible to adjacent properties. A final lighting plan shall be submitted for final approval. 12. A restrictive covenant is filed on the chain of title stating conditions for an oversized accessory structure. 13. Building and Land Alteration Permits will not be issued until all requirements of the conditional use permit are satisfied. M2553 Hinntpin County 3880 Shortling Drtvt Zoning Cadi Amndment/Conditional Use Permll/Variances I/I 9m Page 8 1• t 4 AppSeatloa # ?_ ^SS DiteRecdvtd u/xo/cf^f AaoontPiid ---------- A cm OF ORONO • GENERAL LANS DSE AFPUCATION FRdFERTY LOCATION Sht.Address 3380 Shoreline Drive S5391 Type of Applicetion to be Filed Property Idendficetion Number (PXD.) 17117233000: Storage Building Construction AFPUCANT ••Faone (home)n/A Name Uuy K. Nowlan Phone (work)612-745-7652 Adless 1600 Prairie Drive Crtv Medina Zm 55340 • OWNER Of (fifiTerent than applicant) • Phone (home)N/A Kaine Countv of Henneoin Phone (work)612-745-7500 Address 1600 Prairie Drive City Medina 2io 55340 Date Property' Acquired N/A I (do) (do not) also own die adjacent parcels of lacd. (mooth^ar) FKES - CONBlilONAL USX PEBMITS - S 75.00 For each variance requek .with CUP application _____ S175.00 Residendal Accessory Use _____^250.00 Iiutitutional (church, school, etc.) _____S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg •__$300.00 Commerdal/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and fining - designated wetland or floodplain • __ Grading and fiUing - 501 cu. yd. or more ___ Gracfing, seawall, retaining walb within 75' of likeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change firom origisil appCcation) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee IQ OTHER APPUCATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ coruultant 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 App^s Other • see Fee Schedule . (5C) -i 1 1 (57) 1 \ (51) S 1 1 i V 00)! ICO 1 ICO 1 i 100 23!.........1 c,e n09 w 77.?: fT Cf tOT 7 (I40J (54)^ J g(23) |g(22) ^rrCiT(69)» ^ 5» « (49) I #r rCF lot o '5 7; Z • ' ^ i"- ® § .. im A 73 r >5 kmM («)g )EL w;i5: -^ I «o! zs j OTERO AVE3* :a (4)(s: (4*)| {2i.^I23PS? sor» P,. f3!T^ (40)«|(39) tC: rjo V3l5e5 VAC OCC NO 27J973A :eo— __ I ?:2:r'.| —1 >—'« I. 3 (4)n • —BS d -Vi R I Oi « I ...^ '^0 S (7) ‘-JCC NO >»?T423 — 66; 75.66/ n. 1/ Ni'i C NO Si!62SS 'LO-H'7-A2-:i/ f c sec; 10.25. LR-IC ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Because of the location of the district near Lake Miimetonka, special regulations are necessary to protect that natural resource from the effects of intense development. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District. B. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to establish predictable, balanced regulations for the siting and screening of wireless communications equipment in order to acconunodate the growth of wireless communication systems within the City of Orono while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City's aesthetic resources and the public welfare. 2. Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless service antennas erected on a municipal structure may be allowed as a secondaiy use by administrati%'e permit, provided they comply with the City policy regarding the use of City-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas and provided they meet the following conditions: a. The antenna shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. b. Structural design, mounting and installation of the antenna shall be in compliance with manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. c. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. d. Antennas shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health and safety. e. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. f. Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment shall be housed within the existing structure. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping. g. All obsolete and unused antennas shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Administrator or designate. The removal shall be the responsibility of the communication provider. h. Antennas shall utilize camouflaging techniques or shall be side mounted to an antenna support structure in order that such facilities are compatible with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. i. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer that the location of the antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency spacing needs of the personal wireless service system and to provide adequate portable personal wireless service coverage and capacity to the area. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any “LR-1C" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-IA" District except that Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings oi/y. B. County Highway Maintenance Facilities, subject to the following conditions: a. Property shall consist of one tax parcel of minimum lot size of five (51 acres. b. Property shall have direct access to a Countv road. c. County facilities shall onlv be permitted as Hennepin Countv facilities. d. The Orono City Council shall reserve the right to a periodic review of the conditional use permit, to be determined bv the Cit\ Council. e. Use shall be subject to all other provisions of the Municipal Code. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any ”LR-1C" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted' accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District any 'private docks' subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. i ^ \ *•f L' >- k. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area 1/2 acre Side Yard Lot Front Side Rear Adjacent to Width Yard Yard Yard Street 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet i 0 § 10.20 SEC. 10.20. R-IA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "R-1 A" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permit. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "R-1 A" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. C. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-1 A" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Schools. Public schools and parochial or private schools which teach a curriculum similar to a public school provided no building shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District and that a fence be erected fifteen feet or more from all street lot lines where the abutting use is for open play, and nursery schools providing fifty square feet of playground space per pupil. 1. Uses Accessory To A High School. The following uses arc accessory to a High School use and require a separate conditional use permit: a. Indoor Ice Arenas. All such facilities and structures shall be located on the same tax parcel as the principal High School Use to which they are accessory. No such structures shall be located less than 50 feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Such facilities shall not be separated from the principal High School use by a public road. All such facilities shall be owned and operated by the school district, or by a non-profit organization under a land lease arrangement with the school district. The developer of such a facility, prior to final Conditional Use Permit approval by the City Council, shall demonstrate financial capability to complete construction of said facility, by providing suitable documentation that at least eighty percent (80%) of the estimated project costs are in the control of the school district or non-profit lessee. Source: Ordinance No. 145,2nd Series Effective Date: 3-11-96 ORONO CC 279 (4-1-84) 1 § 10.20 B. Churches. Churches including those related structures located on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, convents or homes' for persons related to a religious function on the same site provided no building other than a residence shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. C. Clubs, Camps, etc. Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, CA camps, church camps, or private non- profit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for any of the above listed uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot in an "R" District, and accessory structures shall be a minimum of fifty feet from any lot line. D. Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50' from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures as defined above that have been approved by the City at required public hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a conditional use permit but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards set forth in tins section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the City to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the Council. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 Source: Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series Effective Date: 5-27-97 E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. Commercial greenhouse structures shall not be located in a required yard area, and are subject further to the general zoning code requirements pertaining to accessory structures. Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 ORONO CC 280 (4-1-84) § 10.20 F. Recreation Areas. Private gun clubs, archery ranges, ski slides, provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 150 feet from any lot line. Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 G. Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments. 1) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 2) Non-rental Guest Apartments. An apartment within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, entryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 H. Planned Residential Development. Limited to detached single family dwellings only and subject to the limitations of Section 10.32. I. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, or within (250*) two hundred fifty feet of the B-3 District, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial district A duplex is defined as a two-family unit residential building. Source: Ordinance 178,2nd Series Adopted: 12-8-97 J. Apiaries. OROWO CC 280-1 (4-1-84) § 10.20 K. j\ntenna Stnieture. One independent antenna atructure with amgana or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and sen'ieing the pftaeipal t»e or 35^et^fc on the same lot and etotomarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another atnieture provided the height of the antenna stnieture does not ex ceed 6 5 feet and the antenna stfueture is set back from any let line a distance at leaat equal to the total height of the antenna gtrueture. Source: Deleted via Ordinance 161.2nd Series Effective Date: 5-27-97 L. Farms (Crop and stock). Provided that the area is ten or more acres. M. Animals. The keeping of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises. A minimum of one acre in aggregate, exclusive of one acre for the principal building, must be available for each animal umt, except as hereinafter set forth. A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. When the horses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or graidng. Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of the City Code. N. Stables and Bams - Private. The use of an accessory building for keeping animals for non-commercial purposes provided it is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the available area standards outlined in Paragraph M of this subsection. Further, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and no closer than 75 feet from the nearest lot line. 0. Stables and Bams - Public. The use of accessory buildings or land for the storage or rearing of animals not owned by the property owner or resident. Such must meet the requirements of Section 10.03, Subdivision 18. Further, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line. P. Riding Academy. Any such instruction maintained as an accessory use and conducted by the owner shall meet the requirements of Sections M, N and 0 of this subdivision and no such instruction shall occur less than 100 feet from an adjacent residence or less than 75 feet from the nearest lot line. Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series .Adopted: 7-14-86 ORONO CC 280-2 (4-1-84) I PM lllTFIIi'aa MnfTar4 ft 'll § 10.20 M. Antenna Stnietufc. One independent antenna atruetufc with antenna ef eombiftstien of antenna attached theteto, subordinate to and sefvteing the prinetpal uae er stnieture on the same let and customarily incidental thereto that is net attached to another atnieture previded fee height ef the antenna stmehife dees net exceed 65 feet and the antenna stmenire is set back from any let line a diatanee at least equal to the total height ef fee antenna atmenire. Source; Ordinance No. 177 Effective Date; 6-5 -75 Source: Deleted via Ordinance 161,2nd Series Effective Date: 5-27-97 brUl Q. Plumbing in Accessory Building. The provision of a toilet, bathtub or shower in an accessory building. Approval shall conditioned on provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from the building plumbing. Approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: 1 . The Council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The Council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed arc in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. 3. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger. 4. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. 5. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that: a. the accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allowed by City code. b. the accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained. c. the accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Source: Ordinance No. 179,2nd Series Adopted: 10-12-98 .’JJ ORONO CC 280-3 (4-1-84) § 10.20 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "R-1 A" One Family Residential District, no accessory structure or use of land shall be permitted except for one or more of the following uses: A. Garages. Private garages and parking space. B. Pools, etc. Private swimming pool, tennis courts, and paddocks. C. Home Occupations. Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling, when there is no employed assistant, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street, no signs other than those permitted in "R" Districts are present, no excessive stock in trade is stored on the premises, over the' counter retail sales are not involved, the entrance to the home occiq)ation is gained from within the structure, and the use does not adversely affect the character of the uses permitted in the district in which it is located. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance of religious rites but not for general practice of his profession when such general practice will involve the need for more than three off-street parking spaces for the occupant and visitors. D. Signs. Signs as regulated in the Zoning Chapter. E. Temporary Structures. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of constructing on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary for such constructing. F. Gardens, etc. Gardening and other horticultural uses including aviaries and decorative landscape features. G. Roadside Stands. One roadside stand offering for sale only farm products produced on the premises provided that such stand does not exceed 200 square feet in area and that it is located at least thirty feet back from the public right-of-way. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 H. Communication ReceptionTransmission Devices. 1. Accessory Antennas. Accessory antennas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVRO’s, and amateur short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory antennas that arc accessory to the principal use of the property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: ORONO CC 281 (4-1-84) L. § 10.20 a. Height. A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not excedd twenty (20) feet in height from ground level. b. Yards. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback, comer side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. c. Roofs. If vegetation or obstructions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement are^ the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized stmcture on the premises. d. Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Anteima towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizontal distance no less than the maximum height of the antenna. e. Building Permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural component data for the accessory anteima, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. f. Lightning Protection. Each accessory anteima shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. g. Electrical Code. Acessory antenna electrical equipment and coimections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. h. Color/Content. Accessory antermas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. 2. Amateur Short-Wave Radio Antennas and Towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas, may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions; a. Height. When an amateur short-wave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed 65 feet b. Yards. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and tpwers shall not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. ORONO CC 281-1 (4-1-84) 4 § 10.20 r- c. Setbacks. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shah not be located within any required setback area and shall be located no less than the height of the antenna and tower from the property line. Source: Ordinance 161,2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirt>- feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Lot Front Side Rear Side Yard Adjacent to Area Width Yard Yard.lad.Street 1 acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet 35 feet ORONO CC 281-2 (4-1-84) ir E § 10.50 SEC. 10.50. I INDUSTMAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Application. All applications for a building pennit in any "I" Industrial District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any ”1" District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Processing, Etc. Conducting aprocess, fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling operation or providing of a service as listed hereafter: 1. Apparel. 2. Artificial limbs. 3. Automobile and truck paunting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed building. The storage of automobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be within a fenced area. Open sales lots shall be subject to a conditional use permit. 4. Bakery, commercial. 5. Bicycles and toys. 6. Boats and marine products. 7. Bus, truck and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards. 8. Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and millworks, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop. 9. Camera and photography. 10. Canvas and cloth products. 1 1 . Ceramic and cloth products. 12. Ceramic products. 13. Cork products. 14. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceutical and toiletries. 15. Electric motors, generators, electric products. 16. Engra\ing and printing. 17. Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works. 18. Laundries, commercial. 19. Machine shops. 20. Metal polishing and plating. 21. Musical instruments. 22. Novelties. 23. Paper products. 24. Pharmaceutical products. 25. Products made of glass, cellophane.leather, plastic, wood. 26. Shoes and footwear. ORONO CC 352 (4-1-84) t i i1 1 —-------- . r L § 10.50 27. Sporting equipment. 28. Television, radio and appliances. 29. Tools, hardware and small metal products. 30. Warehousing. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. A. Within any "I" District, no structure or land shall be used for one or more of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Accessory structures. 2. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage. 3. Heliports as an accessory use for that property. 4. Motor fuel stations. 5. Open sales lots. 6. Outside storage. 7. Public service structures. 8. Railroad switch yards, team tracks or freight houses. 9. Research laboratories. 10. Residence necessary for security and safety in relation to a permitted use or conditional use. 1 1 . Restaurants (Class I) which are located in and mainly servicing the personnel employed in that structure. 12. Planned Industrial District as regulated by Section 10.51. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 B.-Antenna Stnieture. One independent antenna stmeture, with antenna or eembinatien ef antenna attaehed thereto, subordinate te and aervtetng the prinetpal uae er stnieture en the same let and etistemarily ineidental thereto that is net attaehed te another stnieture previded the height of the antenna stnieture dees net exceed 6 5 feet and the antenna sttueture is set baek frem any let line a distance at least equal te the total height of the antenna stnieture. (Setiree; Ordinanee Ne. 177; EfFeetive-Date: 6 ’5 ‘75) Deleted via Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 ORONO CC 353 (4-1-84) 1 § 10.50 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any ”1" Industrial District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-l"' District. Subd. 5. Area, Height, Setback and Design Requirements. A. Lot Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres, B. Building Area. Each individual building shall have a gross floor area (not including basements) of not less than 5,000 square feet when designed for a single tenant nor less than 15,000 square feet when designed for multi-tenants. C. Lot Coverage. Not more than 30% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land three acres or less in size may be covered by buildings or other structi^es. Not more than 45% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may iw covered by buildings or other structures, except that when the total building floor area on a site is contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, <iocks ™ berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60 o will be permitted. D. Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories or 40 feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. E. Building Setback and Yards. 1. Street Setbacks. All buildings and structures must be set back at least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or street which has been designated *s limited access, freeway or expressway; and 50 feet from those designated as thoroughfares, collectore, i^or secondary streets. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District there shall be a building setback from that street of not less than 75 feet. 2. Side Yards or Rear Yards. Any building or structure required by any building code adopted by the City to have openings in the rear wall, shall be erected no closer than 30 feet to a rear property line. Where rear wall openings are not required by any such code, and the rear wall has no openings, buildings or structures may be constructed to within 10 feet of a rear property line. No building or structure shall be erected any closer to a side propen>- Ime than a disumce equal to one and one-half times the average building height. Where the dismct abuts or adjoins an "R" District, the side or rear yard abutting such residential district shall be not less than 100 feet. ORONO CC 354 (4-1-84) ■1 I 3 m i/% i/% s S m X o 8 ^ 5 S om 39 3n n 1 3 iim - fT» £ r- ^L. ^u 4^ K SI s r\-h r-\ ll!1 —Ti I • l_^f -T * ■f.'tuIt. / - ‘ L II ' I , '‘-./ • *^ . .X *• ••V-r i r '.». . *• ■ ^ H ■ ^ I 'T®f ^ L ^ s-7 * .'J-.! r: iffeARyii:!'i:ii I 111 1^ !I ; . # • • •••/ li! VI* I'l'<‘n .H I*<ir-H i ♦*• 1 __^r2r~-*nr-- 4i.,,L_ ____irtr } ^ / .-j .1111 i V --------- J IV‘ V i\ V •’ V |V hV / •T ■ ■J-1 « «-H [UiMwyb.^'rwiiMig X%pm.' • A* .-; * ii!\ Miifi < •'i fl ^•1 «■ mV /»> \“- :il* S '& w* \ iI » \\.> vv, f } > <• •♦'TV ■r >'»‘. ■ ,-C >-M; se®?! '•rt ^V> \ .VJ 7r3< \ \ ♦ iX- \V* 1 .p^■pfeSSi • • .%A t i^-Vi,-'» 1V • I'L 2 5 A 3^ -2 .-.••• ?:••• :• .iis 'tM('V I » w kit .c ->-:x.r ^vM: <7 .*' 'V-:• ;V t,fea *< > 1 -V** ■::•>.•:c i • V • % •» i‘V »• w W^'i '•3 L<r-•.vi •■ ‘7'il;^ • - ■- Vx-'-s. ..V > • • V 1 iu/ 9 li-Q tL:.J ^ /•'•X ?i - ■ ^vVit • .'.'j HDCOVRxIs 1:20 PM 12/9/99 ORONO MAINTENANCE FACILITY C.P. 9990072 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET AREA SURFACE TYPE INPLACE S.F PROPOSED S.F. BIT/CONC.386 386 AREA1 GRAVEL 0 0 75-250*BUILDINGS 0 0 25% AREA COVERED 386 386 TOTAL AREA S.F.499 499 PERCENT 77%77% BIT/CONC.12,238 12,238 AREA 2 GRAVEL 0 0 250-500*BUILDINGS 0 0 30% AREA COVERED 12,238 .2,238 TOTAL AREA S.F.40,278 40,278 PERCENT 30%30% BIT/CONC.81,227 118,622 GRAVEL 67,608 19,566 AREA 3 BUILDINGS INCLUDED IN BIT AREAS 500-1000* 35%AREA COVERED 148,835 138,188 TOTAL AREA S.F.242,023 242,023 PERCENT 61%57% BIT/CONC/0 0 AREA 4 GRAVEL 782 0 1000+BUILDINGS 0 0 AREA COVERED 782 0 TOTAL AREA S.F.7,077 7,077 PERCENT 11%0% •I K Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Waters -1200 Warner Road. St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 January 5.2000 Mr. Joel Settles Hennepin County Transportation Depaitn*.ent 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340 RE: Project Notification, Hennepin County Maintenance Facility, City of Orono, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Settles: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is in receipt of your project notification for the Hennepin County Maintenance Facility project at 3SS0 Shoreline Drive in Orono. The project will affect wetland(s) located in the southwest quarter of Section 17, T117N-R23W in Hennepin County. Based on our review of the notification form, data and maps of the area, we agree that the wetland(s) are not under DNR protected waters permit jurisdiction and therefore the project does not require a DNR permit. . If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR Appropriation Permit. You are ^vised that it typically takes 60 days to process the permit application, however, dewatering of up to 50 million gallons can be processed under DI^ General Permit No. 97-0005 in approximately one week. This letter is only a notification on the need for a DNR permit for your proposed project. You should be aware that your project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations, as noted on the "Local-State- Federal Water Resource Project Notification/ Application Form". The Department may provide additional comments on your project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 772-7914. Sincerely. Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c:U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta City of Orono, Greg Gappa Hennepin Conservation District, Ali Durgunoglu Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Jim Hafner Conservation Officer Jim Konrad Wayne Barstad, Ecol. Services w/PNAF DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • I-8S3-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opponunity Employer Who Valuer DneiMiv Pnnttd on Rfcydvd Par«r Containing a Minimum ol 10% PcstCorsumar Wastt i J TYPICAL STRUCTURE >■• - . .. :.^“^-:;vr;./--. -v<:v •*.- : •- ■sg?f5^Si<A‘d\“. * ■• ■ ■'■ ■ •■■u-v-':^..^"-..^ \‘%i ♦ - *' :.--. J ' ^ * • ‘ 1 _____;|L ,1-'^ •* .. V m • • •::-••. ‘ . %.-r-.--rVvT ■"': • .• , -• • o. *- -^‘ .• •* i \ t-'.* -.-..I • . ... Ai .• ^«. • *'.. . i ’ *:* . .-N V* "^ *-. r >■: . •: *. . •• .•* ,^*'*..vV\;2ir»^ V*V* «• f^y w t ‘£T -: - "• */•"* •'••' •• : > *1 I ■, /mmHi a’ t r-2^ <* • •.- / ... r • - /'• *• * .•. / MiHMr -■ ■ *MWi^__d TV PROJECT NARRATIVE mJscjam . -r. .) r\ «.t1,<C4> HENNEPIN COUNTY MAINTENANCE FACILITY PROPOSED SALT STORAGE BUILDING COUNTY PROJECT 9990072 The Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch Gambrel type salt storage building at the Hennepin County maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive in the City of Orono. The current zoning for the property is LR-IC (One Family Lakeshore Residential District) which would need to be amended to allow highway/road usage in a residential zone. A conditional use permit would be required for the property to be used for highway/road usage. The property would be used to store veirious materials used tor highway maintenance. Five variances would need to be acquired for hardcover, accessory building size, building height, grading widiin a wetland, and grading in excess of 500 C. Y. The Building (See Typical Structure) The proposed building would be located in the northeast comer of the property with its long dimension running west to east and having one entrance on the south side. The building dimensions would be 70' W X 112' L X 42’ H with 12 ’ high retaining crib walls and one gable end roof t>-pe entra -c with dimensions of 24' W X 30’ H. The roof material would be asphalt shingles with a contir lous skylight made of corrugated translucent fiberglass panels. The framing would consist of pressure treated columns and braces with 3/8" embossed painted siding panels. Typical footings would be poured concrete 2' W X 12 ’ L X 2’ H in dimension with footing bottom located 4' below grade with a 3,000 PSI soil bearing capacity and perpendicular to the building at each crib wall support. The floor would consist of 6" thick bituminous material sloped to the entrance for drainage. The finished floor elevation would match the existing buildings floor elevation of 944.3' (NAD 1983). The interior working height would be 30'. The electrical consists of an outside service panel and Outlet located on the south end of the west wall and the source of power would be an electrical panel in the existing building located 120’ west of the storage building. Interior and exterior lighting would be provided with a motion detector photocell light fixture above the entrance and a flood light on the southwest and 'itheast building corners. The exterior lighting would be positioned and aimed as to not become a point source for the surrounding neighborhood. Building Usage The propose'^ building has approximately 7.840 square feet with a storage capacity of 2.000 tons. 1,000 ton anf* storage amount and l.OOO ton salt/sand mix amounting to approximate!) one third of the ar.nurl nixed usage. The building size would provide for interior mixing and loading ot materials eliminating the current exterior storage requirements and operations thus reducing noise to the surrounding neighborhoods and eliminating the salt/sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wetlands. The building capacity would eliminate approximately 60 round trip truck runs a year by allowing direct delivery and storage during the da^ime hours. The stored materials would provide the southwestern cities of Hennepin County with improved snow and ice control by having the materials readily available in demand quantities in the proximity ot usage. Site Modifications • tv ••• The existing property is used for other seasonal purposes in addition to the salt sand operations during the fall and winter months. The proposed storage building would be located in the northeast comer of the property which is currently used to store the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) milfoil harvesters. To continue accommodating the storage o: dne milfoil harvesters, a proposed storage area would be provided in the northwest comer of the rroperu'. The storage area would be 68' W X 141* L with an 8" deep aggregate surface. The grade of the storage area would be 0.5% east toward the existing bituminous. Tlie storage area drainage would flow east and south to an existing 18" CMP culvert which outlets into Wetland #1 in the southwes: comer of the property. The area east of the existing bituminous mat and including the storage building and 10' perimeter would be changed from a gravel surface to a bituminous surface 147' X 257 ’ L consisting of 6" of bituminous and 8" of granular material. The grade of the proposed biouuinous mat would be 0.9% toward the southeast. The drainage would flow to Wetland #3 in the soumeasi comer of the property. The proposed bituminous area would provide a stable maneuv ering arei for vehicles and a surface for aggregate stockpiling. The grading excavation necessary for the improvements would be apprrximately 400 C.Y. for the milfoil harv'ester parking area, 1,500 C.Y. for the Pond A grading, and ".000 C.Y. for the salt storage building site including the three swales and bituminous mat. The salt s*.::age building footing excavation would be additional and dependent on the footing design. Stormwater Management The building location in the northeast comer of the property is the farthest practical location from the wetlands receiving stormwater runoff from the site. This location will maximize the time of concentration allowing the turf areas to filter stormwater runoff. The existing drainage flow is to three separate wetlands located on the south side of the property. The existing wetlands are referred to as Wetland #1, Wetland #2 and Wetland #3 from west to east. The peak rate of stormwater mnoff would be limited to the predevelopment condition. The hydraulic anal> sis is being performed and will be forwarded immediately upon completion. The runoff shall be ar.alyzed for events of critical duration with return frequencies of 1,10 and 100 years which is critehc.” set by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District under Rule N. The proposed drainage closely mimics the existing with the following .T.odificaiions: • Drainage Swale 1 is 2' wide with variable depth paralleling the nors. edge of bituminous with 0.3% grade to proposed catch basin 2 located north of the existing bimminous and central to the property. • Drainage Swale 2 is 4' wide and 1' deep paralleling the north side c: the proposed storage building with a 0.5% grade to proposed catch basin 2. Catch basin 2 outlets through a proposed 15" plastic storm sewer pipe that flows to proposed catch basin 1. Catch basin 1 outlets into proposed Pond A through a proposed 15" plastic storm sewer with a CMP apron end section. • Drainage Swale 3 is 4' wide and 1' deep and parallels the east side c: the proposed bituminous mat with a 1 .5% grade to proposed Pond A. a r » The proposed bituminous mat runoff is to the southeast at a 0.9% grade. This runoff is collected by Swale 3, Catch Basin I, and proposed Pond A. Proposed Pond A outlets to Wetland U 2 through a proposed 18" CMP standpipe weir and culvert. The proposed standpipe replaces the existing which is no longer functioning as designed. The pond will incorporate the replacement wetland on the 12:1 bench area. The pond will also have a depth of 5* which wrill provide for quality as shown on the Water Quality Calculation attachment. Wetland #1 and Wetland #2 flow thru existing outlets, 30" RCP and 15" CMP respectively, to manhole 1 located in the center of the access readjust south of the entrance gate. Manhole 1 has a 30" RCP outlet that drains through an existing 700’ storm sewer system which outfalls into Lake Minnetonka. There is an existing sump catch basin 2 with a 2.25 ’ sump immediately prior to outfalling into Lake Minnetonka. Erosion and Sediment Control Temporary erosion and sediment control would be accomplished through the use of straw bales and silt fence. Silt fence would be installed prior to any construction activity. Straw bales would be placed to protect wetlands and storm sewer inlets. Permanent erosion control would be accomplished by using wood fiber blankets with seeding on those areas of exposed ground including the three proposed swales. The existing catch basin 2 has a 2.25 ’ sump to catch sediments before outletting into Lake Minnetonka. Riprap would be installed at each apron outlet. Exposed soil would be kept to a minimum and restricted to those areas of immediate construction. No unnecessary disturbance of natural soil cover and vegetation would be permitted. Wetlands A Wetland Permit application has been forwarded under a separate submittal to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Notification has been forwarded to Hennepin Conservation District, Department of Natural Resources, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, and the City of Orono. Maintenance Maintenance of the drainage components would occur on an as-necessary basis to include the drainage swales, wetlands, ponds, storm sewer, standpipe with culvert, and sump catch basin. i ff .■•••• .3 :) •li I MM DATE 11/17/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PEOPEETV INFOENATION SYSTEN PROPEimr OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. P14SM91 PACE 14 •ATCN 59S TAHPAYER NANE/ADOE 17 17-117-2S SS 9999 9S019 NORTHERN AVE ROGER ALLAN RUENL ROGER ALLAN lUCHL 9019 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN SSS94 17 17-117-25 55 9919 95019 NORTHERN AVE HAROLD R KOKESH ETAL HAROLD R KOKESCH 5019 NORTHERN AVE SPRINO PARK HN 5S5S4 17 17-117-25 5? 9919 95542 NORTHERN AVE E R T19CNLER 5 K J TXSCHLER ERIC R TXSCHLER 5042 NORTHEIM AVE SPRING PARK HN 55554 OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ABDR 17 17-117-25 59 9915* 95552 NORTHERN AVE KEITH J EHERY KEITH EHERY 5552 NORTHERN AVE SPRINO PARR HN 55554 17 17-117-25 55 9919 99577 PARK LA RANKERS TRUST CO OF CALIF NXLLXAH A ANDERSON 5577 PARK LA SPRING PARK HN 55354 17 17-117-25 55 9929 99592 NORTHERN AVE JAN H STRUCK JAN H STRUCK 5092 NORTHERN AVE SPRINO PARK HN 55504 li3 • i TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 17 17-117-25 55 9922 95091 PARK U A N HOUR ONE FARIHHA ANOEU N NOUO 5245 HINNEHANA AVE NPLS HN 55417 17 17-117-25 55 9950 95919 SHORELINE DR DOUGLAS C OAHDLE DOUGLAS GAH5LE 2999 HOUNTAXN VIEW DR ESCONDIDO CA 92927 17 17-117-25 55 9959 95924 SHORELINE OR CLARK R OLTNAN CLARK R OLTNAN 5924 SHORELINE DR SPRINO PARK HN 55594 TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 17 17-117-25 55 9949 95992 SHORELINE DR JOHN P RASTER JOHN P RASTER 2999 CASCO POINT RO HAYXATA HN SS591 17 17-117-25 55 9945 95999 DEL OTERO AVE J H RABATZ ETAL JOHN HENRY RABATZ 5999 DEL OTERO AVE SPRINO PARK HN 55504 17 17-117-25 55 9949 95929 DEL OTERO AVE CATHY JO TURNER CATHY JO TURNER 5557 BARTLETT RLVD HOUND HN 55994 •\kS‘ PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 17 17-117-25 55 9947 95954 DEL OTERO AVE NXCNttL R ERICKSON NXCNAEL R ERICKSON 5994 DEL OTERO AVE SPRXNB PARK HN 55554 17 17-117-25 55 9991 95949 NORTHERN AVE THONAS E CHRISTENSEN ET AL TNOHAS 5 LUANN CHRISTENSEN 5949 NORTHERN AVE SPRXNB PAMl HN 55504 17 17-117-25 55 9994 95919 NORTHERN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOCK ANTHONY fOLLOCK 5919 NORTHERN AVE SPRXNB PARK HN 55504 TAXPAYER 17 17-117-25 55 9995 95990 NORTHERN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOCK amtnonv pollock 5919 NORTHERN AVE SPRXNB PARK HN 55954 17 17-117-25 55 9999 95999 NORTNERN AVE OSRALD ROLAND HANSEN GERALD R NANSEN ■OX 152 SPRXNB PARK HN 55554 17 17-117-25 55 9997 92255 HAZELDELL AVE ROBIN L SHERHAN ROBIN L SHERHAN 2255 HAZELDELL AVE SPRXNB PARK HN 55504 - - mu BATE 11/17/9*HENNEPIN COUNTV PMPEm INFOMUTION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PMSMtl PACE IS 1 i •ATCH S*S OMNER NAME TAKPAVER MAME/AOM ONNER NAME takpaVer NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAKPAVER NANE/ADOR OMNER NAME TAKPAVER NAHE/MMR ONNER NAME TAKPAVER NANE/ABOR OWNER NAME TAKPAVER NANE/ABOR •AM17 17-117-2S SS ■22S4 LILAC RO T D A J L NASON TNOHAS R B JOLENE L NASON SESA LILAC LA SPRING PARK HN S5SSA 17 17-117-2S SS 1087 RSS72 NORTHERN AVE NOREEN F BENJE6ERDES NOREEN F BENJE6ER0ES U72 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 5SS8A * 17 17-117-2S SS 8088 •S874 NORTHERN AVE ROGER DALE ROGER DALE S87« NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN S5S84 17 17-117-2S SS *894 8228S HAZELBELL AVE P A BARTON 8 N K BARTON P A BARTON 8 N K BARTON SEAS NAZELDELL AVE SPRING PARK HN SSS84 17 17-117-2S SS 81S7 8S8EE NORTHERN AVE H A SCNHELING ET AL ELIZABETH N SCHHELINO P O BOX 81 S82E NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK HN 55S84 17 17-117-2S SS BISS 8S8S2 NORTHERN AVE KEITN B TRASK KEITN B TRASK S8SE NORTHERN AVE SPRINO PARK HN SSS84 10 17 17-117-ES SS 81S9 lEEAl NAZELDELL AVE DOWLAS J SIPPEL DOWLAS J SIPPEL EEAl NAZELDELL AVE SPRINO PARK HN SSSSA 17 17-117-ES SS BIAS IS918 Df! 0TE3?? AVE RICHARD S LlDERANTi: RICHARD S LIBERANTE S918 DEL OTERO AVE SPRINO PARK HN 55S8A 17 17-117-ES SS BIAS BS91A DEL OTERO AVE ZACHARY S SNANSON ZACHARY S SWANSON S91A DEL OTERO AVE SPRINO PARK HN SS38A PI 17 17-117-2S SS 81AA BS91A DEL OTERO AVE J A FRITZ 8 N S JENSEN JANES FRITZ 8 MENOV JENSEN S91B OEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK HN SSS8A 17 17-117-2S SS BIAS BS918 OEL OTERO AVE GREGORY A DAVIS GREGORY A DAVIS S918 DEL OTERO AVE SPRINO PARK HN S5S8A 17 17-117-ES SS BIAS BS9BB SHORELINE OR S H 8 P K OSNERA STEVEN N 8 PAMELA K OSNERA S9BB SHORELINE OR SPRING PARK HN 55S8A 17 17-117-2S SS B1A7 BS9B2 SHORELINE DR 0 A KLZTZKA 8 V V KLZTZXA 0 A S V V KLZTZKA S9BE SHORELINE DR SPRING PARR HN 553BA 17 17-117-2S SS BIAS BS9BA SHORELINE DR VINCENT K BURNHART VINCENT K BURNHART 9SB NAPLE CREST OR HOUND HN 5SSAA 17 17-117-2S SS B1A9 BS9BA SHORELINE OR DONALD L LANOON DONALD L LANDON S9BA SNORCLZNE DR SPRING PARK HN SSS8A V-fc'jj-yi 17 17-117-25 54 M21 •525t NOtTNiRN AVC LOIS A TONNiR LOXS A TONNiR 5RRR NOtTNiRN AVi SftlNO PARK NN 55504 50 17-117-25 55 •••2 •5000 SNORELINi DR CO OP mm NiNNiPXN COUNTY ATTN NARCXA NXLDA N/C 400 417 5TH $T N 0520 t^LS m 554«1 50 17-117-25 55 iti5 05000 SNORELINi DR COUNTY OP MENNiPXN ORONO SHOP cAi mm CO • p.s. ooo 520 NASHXNOTQN AVi S HOPKINS NN 55545 mm DATE Il/17/tf MEHNEflH COUHTY rHOfEIOV IWOKIUTHIM SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXRSSARl PAGE lA •ATCN SRS i PROP ABN OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AON PROP AON ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AON TAXPAYER NANE/AON TAXPAVN NANE/AON TAXPAYER NANE/AON OWNER NANE TAXPAYN NANE/AON SO 17-117-2S 3S MM •S090 SNNELXNE OR E J 1 N J HELD EWAN J 1 NARSNA J HELD SOTO SHORELINE N HAYZATA NN S5S91 SO 17-117-2S 3S 0015 OSOAO SNMELXNE OR DAVID UNDEHOOCER DAVID UNDEHOCKER SOAO SHNELINE DR HAYZATA NN SSS91 SO 17-117-2S S3 MOA OSOSt SNNELXNE N JOHN C CMENOWETN JR JOHN C CHENONETN HAAS RXNBSBOROWH Tt S COTTAGE GROVE NN B501A SO 17-117-23 33 9097 •3099 SHORELINE N JANET N OLSON JANET N OLSON 3009 SNORELXNE DR HAYZATA HH BSS91 SO 17-117-2S 34 9992 •3799 NORTHERN AVE LEO J SLECHTA ETAL LEO J SLECHTA 3799 NORTHERN AVE HAYZATA NN SS391 SO 17-117-23 34 9993 93779 SNNELXNE OR NARY SOHNS NATTHEH SOHNS 1001 AVOCET LA HOUND NN 33304 h so 17-117-2S S4 9994 •3799 SHORELINE DR PAUL N LARSON PAUL LARSm SOOB SHORELINE N HAYZATA NN 33391 30 17-117-23 34 ••93 93709 SNNELXNE N TONKA VENTURES LLC TOMKA VENTiXIES LLC 7709 FRANCE AVE S 0779 EDINA NN 5S4SS SO 17-117-23 34 9939 93709 NORTHERN AVE N T CARL t J K JANES N T CARL S J K JAMES 3709 NORTHERN AVE HAYZATA NN 33391 c;*. •-« SO 17-117-23 34 9931 93700 NORTHERN AVE J R RUAN • J E GUAM JOHN R DUAN 3709 NNTMERN AVE HAYZATA NN SSS91 SO 17-117-23 34 9932 999SO ADNESS PENDING HCLEN CNTY REG N AUTHNXTT DAKOTA RAIL INC 299 NORTH HILL ST FERGUS FALLS NN 305S7 SO 29-117-23 21 9910 92429 DUNHOODY AVE CALVARY NEHNXAL CHURCH CALVARY NEHNXAL CHURCH 2429 OUNHOMY AVE HAYZATA NN 33391 SO 29-117-23 22 9991 •3923 SNMELINE N C H SNXTN OSS SMITH CORTLAND SMITH 3 SUSAN SMITH S92S SHNELINE N SPRING PARK HN 35S04 SO 29-117-23 22 9992 9S9S5 SNORELXNE N J I S OEKLL JANES DAVID OEDELL S9S3 SNORELXNE N SPRING PARK HN 35S04 SO 29-117-23 22 9993 93993 SHORELINE N RICHARD AOOLPN CARLSW RICHARD A CARLSW 3993 SHORELINE N NAVARRE NN 33392 SO 29-117-23 22 99M 93093 SNNELXNE N R D JENSEN ETAL JOS RAUSCMENDMFER 3093 SNORELXNE N HAYZATA NN S3S91 SO 29-117-2S 22 9993 9S913 SHORELINE N K 0 C KRUGER KONRAD CHRISTOPHER KRUGER 40SI NANXTOU RO TONKA SAY NN 53SS1 SO 29-117-2S 22 9990 93077 SNORELXNE N T N GREGORY OTA MEGORY T N GREGORY 3 T A GREGORY S077 SNORELXNE M HAYZATA HN 33391 1: tain. RUN MTt ll/17/f9 MTCN SIf HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY IMFORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY ONNERS LIST OHNER NANI TMPAVfR MMi/AODR St 2t-117>2S 22 •Rt7 •M4t SNORELXNC DR pair: « LARSON PAUL N LARSON S077 SHORELINE OR NAY2ATA NN SSS91 OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR TOTAL RATCH StS. •••S7 » V A» ‘ REPORT HO. PMSMIl PACE 17 St 2t‘117’2S 22 tltt •2AR5 DUNMOODY AVT DRENT 0 NALTON ET A- BRENT D I JULIE • HALTwN 24tS BUNWBBBY AVE ORONO NN SSSn St 2I-117-2S 22 ttIT •242S DUNHOOOY AVE H P WITHERS I L A SANNA HZLLXAN P HTTNERS 2t2f DUNHOOOY AVE NAYZATA NN SSS9I X CERTIPY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE ANO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATXON AS XT APPEARS THXS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPXN. COUNTY BErARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATXON* TO THE BEST OF NY ILEOCE AND BELXEF. DATE • O ' 1 K 10 10 i L To:Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator April 13,2000 Subject: #2564 William Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place - Variance Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (Yz Acre) 13,030 s.f. (0.29 acre) List of Exhibits A - Notice of Council Action B - Additional Information Submitted to Council by Applicant 4-10-00 C - Staff Addendum of 4-5-00 D - Staff Memo & Exhibits for 4-10-00 Council Meeting At the March meeting. Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of this request based on excessive lot coverage. Applicant had requested that PC act at that time rather than table it for revision. After a number of subsequent discussions with staff, prior to the Council meeting applicant suggested some alternative methods for revising the nature of the deck to make it no longer definable as a structure for lot coverage purposes. Council briefly reviewed the alternatives and referred the application back to Planning Commission for further consideration. Exhibit B is a copy of the survey and the site photo from the lake side. Applicant proposes to add a retainin g wall around the north and east sides of the deck at a height and width that would technically (per Building Official Lyle Oman) allow removal of the deck railing, which currently is about 9' above grade at its highest point. Most of the deck platform is less than 6' above grade, and would be entirely less than 6' above grade once the retaining wall/terrace was built. Applicant suggests that the criteria for considering this structure as lot coverage will no longer be met once the grade is raised and the railing is removed. The code states as follows: "The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: 2.Tennis courts, patios, decks, and ail similar "open” structures when partially enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6' above grade level (if any portion of such structures extends more than 6’ above grade level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage)." If the deck is not included in the lot coverage calculation, lot coverage by the house and proposed addition becomes conforming at 14.9%. .5 #2564 April 13,2000 Page 2 Please review the staff memo to Council as well as the April S addendum, and consider these questions in making a recommendation to Council: 1.Does the existing deck with railing constitute visual bulk and massing of structure rjn; ttw extent that it should be included in lot coverage? If so, then consider questions 2 and J. However, if you conclude that this deck should not be considered as lot coverage, then either a variance should be considered and unique findings made about this particular deck, or perhaps the code should be revised, and applicant might be advised to place his project on hold until the code is changed. 2. If the grade along the east and north sides is raised by adding a retaining wall, and the railing is removed, does the deck then t.icet the intent of the lot coverage ordinance? 3.Should a CUP be granted to allow construction of a 1 '-4' high retaining wall approximately r from the side lot line to accomplish this? Options for Action 1.Recommend approval for the retaining wall / railing removal concept, with the result that a lot coverage variance is not needed, and recommend approval of variances for side setback and hardcover as well as a CUP for the retaining wall. I 2.Recommend approval of variances for the side setback, hardcover and lot coverage for the proposal with deck left as-is, stating justification/hardship for lot coverage variance, and perhaps suggesting a code revision. 3.Table for more information. 4. Recommend denial of lot coverage variance, finding none of the proposed alternatives acceptable. 5.Some other action. G<H, A CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 249-4600 APPLICATION NO. #2564 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: April 13,2000 TO:William Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances for Addition to Residence DATE OF MEETING: April 10,2000 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Referred back to Planning Commission for recommendation regarding deck lot coverage status and review of options proposed for revising it. This item will be reviewed by the Planaing Commission at their regular meeting of Monday, April 17,2000 at the Orono Council Chambers. Meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. Due to the referral back to Planning Commission, final Council action on this item cannot be completed within the initial 60-day review period which expires April 17,2000. Per requirements of Minnesota Statutes the City hereby extends the application review period an additional 60 days to June 16,2000. Please contact Mike Gaffion at 249-4600 if you have any questions. 1 i M K>•:; h\ X Vj *.# ri-^ 8T«^SS»^ »-<»> pfci. i ^ I ,. f t L^i ---------------------- ' Z ' ' > \/;r • .v-V-i'^*' '■'V' 1 '"> .::rs«rf ?■./.■. /».■( f • ‘ ^^ 7 . r; 1< . vUv-'vf ^ . '■•' .‘Vj.‘W f >. w .. v.-^ - - i-«V • ^ ’T'*r^ ”[* rr^v: . { T?V'!H * . ^ ^ ",t' wr* r^ M< t,,^ .ii !.'■., -t' i«T' ■*. »■>■.* i^:-v.. .i : vl rk-ihri^tb Jl.VAi i »V i*« 'r V> 7. i I' i •' •*. fv^r- r’*'■ o '. '7 , / . » ' r-‘^i •*; -1—,■>'.. ..•,'i ”■U M t- r( ■>:■ ■;••• • / '■ V . I..'u'y''•'•/ y ; fk . '51 .'.;■ ' ■■/'"<•' ». iSM^V-,-.-, ..:,l ■m-.. ..I fif)/dim, v-/,;:<iirH£jk'l pwifci'-ni n . '.C- ^flfL» 7 I. ¥ vyc\ ■ •■ <'■ ' V. •’•; 1: 'Xli ■ ^ ■<‘^ \ 1 U) I izsiimziMki0Ky^ ft^^Vi>/•v7^7;*r:v*,A r-• mo MX c^\<wr n^rmiz^z William S. Dampier ' of Lot 173, TAYLORS SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS ilennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED; Lot 173, TAYLORS SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me 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 & 6R0NBERG, INC. Mark Gronbero MN. LiiGronberg MN. Lie. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors. Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet Date March 23, 1990 0 : Iron marker .Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum ■ . r'4 • ' t L c-l To: From: Date: Council J^T- 4-5-00 Subject: Addendum > Additional Information The applicant has submitted 4 drawings and a brief summary depicting four potential methods for revising the lake side deck to make it no longer structural coverage (See attached sheets). I don ’t believe I would characterize these as a 'compromise ’ between staff and the applicant; nor would I consider each of the options 'mutually acceptable’. Rather, they are a compilation of the options discussed by staff and applicant as to how the lot coverage issue might be resolved. Applicant was advised that he could propose options to the Council for consideration. Staff has the following brief comments on each: Plan A - The idea of creating 3' wide planter terraces at 30" drops adjacent to the deck is appealing, and would technically eliminate the need for a handrail; but this won ’t work at the north side where the deck platform is only 3-4 feet from the lot line and 6 feet above grade. Applicant ’s proposal to replace the handrail on the north side with heavy terra cotta planters on top of the deck is problematic in that the planters themselves would have to be guardrail height (36") and spaced no more than 4" apart at any point. Lower planters relying on vegetation as a barrier will not meet building code requirements per Building Official Lyle Oman. 36" high planters intended to act as a guardrail will have the same or greater visual impact as compared to a guardrail, and might seem to be defeating the intent of the structural coverage ordinance... Plan B - It will be impossible to place fill along the north side of the deck to a level that is high enough to eliminate the guardrail requirement, due to the deck platform being 6' above grade and being only 3-4' from the side lot line. This method likely works for the lake side of the deck, but not the north side. Plan C - Same issues as Plan D - on the north side the deck platform is 6' above grade; to eliminate the guardrail requires a 3' wide terrace no more than 30" lower than the platform. It will take two 3' wide terraces out from the north side to accomplish this, but only 3-4' available to do it in... Plan D - Cut off north portions of deck platform and add terrace planters as needed being 3' wide and no more than 30" above grade. Could then add removed deck to the south side of deck where no railing would be needed. This has negative implications for applicant ’s trees and the functionality of his south side yard. Except for these concerns, staff prefers Plan D over Plans A. B or C. Other options have been briefly discussed, including lowering the entire deck to a point where it no longer needs a guardrail (although this has wheelchair accessibility implications such as requiring a ramp from the house to the deck). Another option Council might consider is granting a lot coverage variance for the deck as-is but with a condition that converting the deck to a covered porch will require further variances which are unlikely to be granted. In your discussion, keep in mind the reason for the lot coverage ordinmee: to limit the visual massing and bulk of structures on small (<2 acre) properties. Compromise with Frenchy Dampier variance request #2564 & Michael GraiTon,Sr. Planning Coordinator Mutually Acceptable Plans Plan A 1. Remove handrail from around the deck. 2. Move the planter out to 36" from the deck and raise the height of the planter to 30" from the deck. 3. Place evergreens in a planter to form the needed barrier To comply with Uniform Building Co^ table 16-B category 9 requirement of 25# lateral load & footnote 8. It is anticipated that the planters will weigh apfvoximately 225 # ea., be the required height and be in square shaped terra cota or precast stone, (the drawings show round only for clarity) DISCUSSION a. Effective decrease in the reduction of hardcover will be less than 6 inches total. PlanB 1. Remove the handrail from around the deck. 2. Use the topsoil from the addition to level the lawn and maintain the required 30 inches from the deck. DISCUSSION a. No effective increase in hardcover. b. Reduced rain runoff into neighbors yard. c. Easier mowing. d. Amount of topsoil moved will be less than 5 yards. Plane 1. Remove the handrail from around the deck. 2. Form multilevel terraces at the 30' level around the deck. DISCUSSION a. Effective decrease in the reduction of the hardcover 26 sq. ft. PlanD 1. Remove the handrail from around the deck. 2. Move the deck 6 ft. to the south. DISCUSSION a. Moving deck will risk damaging large mature tree currently 3 ft to the south. b. Will eliminate the ability to move the lawn mower, dock, and other equipment ! i of Lot 173, TAYLORS SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS Hennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 173. TAYLORS SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me 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 & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg MN. tic. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale Date 0 1 inch = 20 feet March 23, 1990 Iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. •I OT LUL I/O, l«TLur\oSPRING PARK LOTS Hennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 173. TAYL0l?S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me 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 & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg MN. Lie. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale Date 0 1• * 1 inch = 20 feet March 23, 1990 Iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. ' \ SPRING PARK LOTS Hennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 173, TAYLORS SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws cf the State of Minnesota. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. MArk S. Gronbera MN. Li'__ Gronberg MN. Lie. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale Date 0 1 inch = 20 feet March 23, 1990 Iron markero . 1 r u 11 III a I C ^ ^ 4.Bearings shown are based upon a” assumed datum.f « j bPKlNb KAKN LUIOHennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 173, TAYLORS SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me 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 & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg MN. Lie. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale Date 0 1 inch = 20 feet March 23, 1990 Iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. ' I I Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 2/15/00 2/15/00 4/17/00 -D<? ■ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 4/10/00*" ITEM NO.: t \rP II r ✓ \ • Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2564 William Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variance 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 Notice of Planning Commission Action B Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting (3/20/2000) C Applicants response letter at Planning Commission Meeting (3/20/2000) D Staff Report and Exhibits of 3/20/2000 Application: 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. TTie 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 requested variances are for: 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage: In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in tf rai the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 151a the lot area. Variance Request: To permit 2,433.2 s.f. (18.7%) lot coverage, where 2,188.7 s.f. 06.8%) exists and 1,954.4 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 (43.9%), where 5,061.7 s.f (55.4%) exists and 2.282.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. #2564 Page 2 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 permit a side yard setback of 2.9'-3.4' where 10' is required; replacement of the second story and roof continues the existing substandard side setback of 2.9'-3.4' on the west side of the house. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: Deny the application as presented. DISCUSSION The remodeling and addition will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2,433.2 s.f. (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. Prior to and after the Planning Commission meeting, City Staff discussed with the applicant options to reduce the structural lot coverage. These options include redesigning or lowering the lakeside deck by leaving a portion of the deck for direct access and ramping to a ground level deck, removing the deck and have a ramp to access a ground level deck, and ways to add fill to raise grade level. Any of these options would result in reduction of structural lot coverage and eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has not submitted any additional information, choosing to continue with the plan presented to the Planning Commission. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission ’s concerns regarding the increase in structural lot coverage. Staff recommends denial of this application as presented, but Council may wish to table if applicant expresses any interest in revising the deck to make it low enough to not be considered as structure for lot coverage purposes. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To direct staff to draft an appropriate resolution for the April 24,2000 City Council meeting. Ji CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 ZONING FILE U 2564 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 612-249-4600 ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 21,2000 TO: William Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: March 20,2000 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Denied as submitted. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council on April 10,2000 at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission.id Il ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NONUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 conditions outlined in the March 20, 2000 City Planner's Report, subject to the sl tal of more detailed landscaping, lighting, parking, grading and drainage plaji for review and approval by the City Engineer, construction of a sidewalk co tion from Olive Avenue to Shadywood and Navarre Lane, and further subjecttof^iew and approval by the Park Commission, approval by Hennepin Coui> id the City Engineer as it relates to access, with the added condition that if traffic itensifies, the southern access will be limited. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2<i1awn and Nygard opposed. Nygard and Ha^ indicated they would like to see the items resolved prior to the application pjpedMing forward to the City Council (#5) #2564 WILLIAM SCOTT DAMPIER, 3550 IVY PLACE, VARIANCES. 8:20 p.m. • 8:58 p.m. William Dampier, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Bottenborg stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit a 364.5 square foot addition to the south side of the residence and to remodel the existing residence. The project involves removing the roof, the street side deck and steps, and the second story. The first story wails and foundation will remain. The addition will replace the outside stairway and provide for an entrance through the house. The height of the structure will remain the same. This addition vrill also aid in diverting water runoff further downhill rather than into the house. Bottenberg stated variances to tot cove.'*age and lakeshore hardcover within the 75-250' of the shoreline are required. A variance to hardcover is required to permit 48.9 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed. Currently 55.4 percent hardcover exists in this area. The Applicant is also proposing 18.7 percent structural coverage where 16.8 percent exists and 15 percent is allowed. Bottenberg noted the lakeside deck is considered structure because it is more than six feet above grade. If the lakeside deck were not considered structural coverage, the proposed house and addition would meet the 15 percent limit. Page 12 r ORONO PLANNING COLMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR \L\RCH 20, 2000 City Staff is recommending this application be tabled. Dampier stated he has attempted to comply with all of the City's regulations regarding this property. which has been a frustrating and difficult process. Dampier indicated he was told these plans would be approved by Chris and Lyle on City Staff. Dampier stated Casco Point is zoned LR-1C. half acre lots, with zones B and C being allowed as much as a IS.QOO square foot structure on a two aae lot. Dampier stated according to City Codes. he is limited to 1.954 square feet, which in his view is placing an unfair burden on himself as well as the other residents on Casco Point. Dampier stated when the exception is more common than the rule, the rule should bf changed, particularly in this case. It is doubtful that any single lot on Casco Point concurs with the current City rules, with a number of homes in the neighborhood exceeding the allowable structure coverage limit. Dampier stated his neighbors have slightly larger homes than himself with detached garages. The plan before the Planning Commission tonight takes into account the environmental and the community as a whole, with the proposed reduction in hardcover being a win/win situation for all. Dampier stated he has met with City Staff on a number of occasions for the past few years, with the exact same model being presented to Lyle and Chris for their reviev/ and approval. Dampier stated he informed City Staff approximately one year ago that he wished to purchase the large m 0 oak timbers needed to complete this project, which was a long and costly process. City Staff was asked at that time whether the proposed project would be approved. Dampier stated he was told the project would more than likely be approved. Dampier stated he then proceeded forward with the purchase of the large oak timbers, which are very rare and expensive, and at this time is not agreeable to removing them. Dampier stated the addition to the existing residence will not block his neighbors' view of the lake. will improve his existing structure as well as increase the City ’s tax base, reduce the current hardcover and existing structural coverage, as well as improve the existing drainage problems being experienced on this property, which will benefit the community. Page 13 .. I fl^ienni'iimWMru ^1. fn *-r n-teiiiyrtrn J ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NHNUTES FOR MARCH 20.2000 Dampier expressed some frustration regarding his discussions with Bottenberg, noting that he was told he had to remove his existing deck in order to bring the stmctural coverage on this lot into compliance. Dampier stated there currently is no second story on the north side of the house, which in essence means that the existing second story will not be removed. Dampier stated his front deck currently is in compliance with the American Disablities Act. Dampier stated he has a different view on what should be viewed structure and non>structurat, indicating in his view Bottenberg's view of what should be determined as structural coverage is incorrect. Dampier stated the stairs in his view should be considered as part of the house. Dampier stated the existing decks on the house are in a deteriorating condition and need to be replaced^ Dampier stated the hardcover numbers for his driveway should be reduced by a substantial amount since the driveway consists of bricks laid in dirt which has a fair amount of grass growing inbetween the bricks Dampier reiterated the majority of the homes in the Casco Point neighborhood are non-conforming to the existing City Codes, and urged the Planning Commission to approve his application tonight based on the reduction in existing hardcover and structural coverage, the improvements to the existing drainage, and the increase in tax base, which is a benefit to the City as a whole. There were no public comments regarding thi? ^ pplication. -- Hawn stated a large portion of the Applicant's comments were directed tov^rds zoning of Casco Point, which the Planning Commission is not in a position to address tonight. Dampier indicated he understands that position. Hawn stated w/hat is defined as stmctural coverage and non-structural coverage is not open to debate with City Staff. Hawn stated City Ordinance stipulates certain hardcover and structural coverage numbers which must be adhered to by the Planning Commission. City Council, and residents. Hawn stated normally stairs are not considered stmctural coverage, but if a deck is located higher than six feet off the ground, it is considered stmctural coverage. Hawn stated if the Applicant were to replace the deck and reduce the height of the deck, it would not be considered Page 14 i ! ORONO PLANNING CONLNUSSION MEETING NHNUTES FOR ^L\RCH 20,2000 structural coverage. Hawn stated the major obstacle with this application is the increase in structural coverage, and an option offered by City Staff was to reduce the height of the deck. □ampler stated the deck as it currently exists today serves a handicapped member of his family. The American Disabilities Act precludes making that deck inaccessible by a handicapped person. Kluth stated City Staff or the Planning Commission is not requiring the Applicant lo remove the deck, but merely has offered that as an option to reduce the amount of structural coverage on the property. □ampler stated that he was assured by previous City Staff that this deck would not pose a problem. Hawn remarked that City Staff is not in a position to say what will and what will not be approve^y the Planning Commission and City Council. Hawn stated City Staff attempts to provide guidance to the Applicants on the rules and regulations the Applicants need to comply with. Hawn stated she would like to help the Applicant on this plan as much as possible, and one option for reducing structural coverage on the property is being reducing the height of the deck. Hawn stated she historically does not approve applications where there is an increase in structural coverage when the Applicant Is already over tne allowable limit. □ampler stated he is not in agreement with the structural and hardcover figures listed in City Staffs report Undq'uist concurred that typically the Planning Commission will not approve structural coverage over the allowable 15 percent, especially if the Applicant is already over the allowable limit. Lindquist stated the maximum structural coverage that will be allowed by the Planning Commission is what currently exi.sts on the property. □ampler stated he is willing to accept Botter.berg's numbers on the hardcover. Dampier stated he is somewhat confused because the front deck is considered structural but the rear deck is not. Nygard stated as he understands the American Disabilities Act, the handicap access itself does not count towards your hardcover. Weinberger stated the American Disabilities Act does provide for one handicap access to the home. Page 15 1 i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 with certain portions of the access not being included in the hardcover figures. Weinberger inquired whether the home presently is handicapped accessible. □ampler stated currently the home is not handicapped accessible, vrith the proposed plan providing for a handicap access. Berg inquired whether there is a survey on this property. Bottenberg stated the survey in the file is dated March, 1990. Berg stated an updated survey is always required at the time of the application. Hawn stated there stilt appear to te some issues that need to be resolved prior to approval, with the biggest issue being the amount of structural coverage being proposed. Hawn stated the Appliant will need to reduce structural coverage somewhere on the property. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission is looking for a reduction in the amount of proposed structural coverage to reduce it to the amount that currently exists on the property. □ampler expressed frustration wit.h the fact that the deck that appears to be In question now was just recently replaced, noting he is not in a financial position to remove the deck at this time. Kluth reiterated that the Planning Commission is not requiring the removal of the deck, but Is asking the Applicant to reduce the overall structural coverage on his property. Kluth stated removal of the deck Is one option available to the Applicant to reduce the stmctural coverage. □ampler stated leaving the deck aside, if he chooses to change anything on the foundation, that would be considered a rebuild rather than a remodel and then the setbacks would apply. Lindquist stated City Staff is willing to work with the Applicant on this application in order to reduce the structural coverage to what currently exists. □ampler commented that a majority of the houses in his neighborhood currently exceed the structural coverage limits. Lindquist stated the Planning Com.mission is not in a position tonight to discuss those. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would be willing to approve variances to setback and hardcover but not inclined to grant a structural coverage variance in excess of what Page 16 i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR NURCH 20,2000 currently exists on the property. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight or to table the matter. □ampler requested the Planning Commission vote on his application tonight. Motion by Hawn, second by Kluth, to recommend denial of Application #2564, William Scott Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, granting of variances to permit a 365.4 square foot addition to the south side of the residence and to remodel the existing residence due to the excessive amount of structural coverage being proposed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Dampier inquired whether the Planning Commission had read his statement of hardship on thif application. The Planning Commission indicated they have read his hardship statement. 16) #2565 PETER SCHERER, 15 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCE RENEWAL, 6:59 prm. • 9:03 p.m. Peter Schere^>Applicant, was present. The Certificate of M^HiQg and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicbnns requesting a variance renewal, with a variance being granted for lot width on September 26.1994. Th^revious owner were proposing to remove the existing house and construct a new residence on the property^^he existing house was removed, however, the new residence was not constructed on the lot. The present owner is proposing to construct a new residence on the lot that meets all setbacks in the RR-1B zoning district. The Applicant would \ tike to renew the lot width variance on this property. ' ^ Scherer indicated he was not aware the variance had expired. ^N There were no public comments regarding this application. Motion by Hawn, second by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application #2565 Peter Scherer, 15 Orono Orochard Road South, granUng of a variance renewal to Page 17 « 4 Response 1. Variance request, to reduce lot coverage from current 2S48.8.8 sq.ft, to 2480.6 sq.ft, a total reduction of 68.2 sq. ft. 2. Variance request, to reduce hardcover from 5061.7 sc t. to 4‘r58.7 s* i. 3. Side setback [please note; there is no second story on ihe north sid'? o;'the house the only difference is between the nearly flat current roof and the steep p. ch of ti •; ne w roof. 4. P pplication summary: the existing second story will not be removed [as aiu, vn oi. the blueprints] 5. Structure will be reduced from 2S48.8sq.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 typic^ 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. I 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. REi Stair 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 arc 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? B^use they don't have a roof over them? Well me 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 wo^. However, the rear deck is already rotted and has been patched countless number of times aiid 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. Wendy did not count the 576 sq.ft. Of hardcover That I 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. [15,3(K) bricks laid over dirt yields approximately H in. 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 communities have ruled. My 80+ year old Oak & Maple trees growing through my deck since 1974 are proof that this is not hardcover. Also not included is the many ft of railroad 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 been 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 I 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 ftindamental 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 conftising 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 let's make a deal. Remove this and Fll let you have that, make that smaller and Fll let you do this. Well all of those com^xomises 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, 1 would remind you that our home as all of the homes on Casco Pt. are gitistimr-non-conforming structure, the rules don't fit so we are grandfathered in. It's like Wendy isn't going to honor vdiat has been agreed to. She wants to cksign iBX house her way. 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 JlQl Wendy would rather take it, no matter what gnef or hardship that causes. -j TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner March 20, 2000 #2564 William Scott Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area:13,030 s.f. (.29 acre) Lbt 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. 1 4(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 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 fVilliam Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variances 3/20/2000 Page I 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 permit 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 west side 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 thaii 6 ’ above grade. NOTE: If the lakeside 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 Hardship: The applicant has included his statement of hardship in Exhibit C. The applicant should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Issues 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 will still greatly exceed the allowed amount. U2564 WiUiam Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variances 3/20/2000 Page 2 J 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. 4. 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 lot. 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 re\iew. 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 hrxdcover 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 #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 Coverage; 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 from shoreline 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 6 /• Application U Date Recdved ^ - i5-&€p C> Amount Paid ,67) t ?• CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change firom original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ ^ ^ ^ . Site Address r^<oJ:\/V u )AVZ/=^t~^---Tp ~~— Property Identification Number fP.l.D.1 JD-1IH' ~ ^0 A • AM fA if* inf^ltidcci OH rcoviircdi siiirvc^Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquire d ^5^___________________________ I (do) (5ojot]Lalso own the adjacent parcels of land. ^ ■ _________. I Xmonth/year) Present use of property: ^ resident!^ Zoning District: uQ-iC^ other (specify). Phone fhomel Cr>l‘2L OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ H Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $—^Q^OQo. Describe request in detail: ^PP ftTTACrifQ--------- ) (attach additional sheets if necessary):) 1 VARIANCES REQXnRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front JL Side )/ Hardcover Rear X Lot Coverage\^ • Average Lakeshore y Other (specify) A)o A/ Cn/sl compliance with Zomng Code requirements: SPP----/W^QtiiQ.-----------------------— (attach additional sheets if necessary) 6 2>l‘l/9-ccc' 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 rain. The runoff from their roofs and hardcover can overwhelm any defense I have constructed. This addition wilt allow me to divert runoff further onto my yard and allow my west lawn to deal with runoff 6. 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 rate of runoff due 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, causal 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 delaying 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 fitting 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 smicture, A solution that is in keeping with the character of the neighboiiiood, 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 nei^bor. 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 Minnetonka will have the burdon of 52 sq. ft. less to deal with. While it is not overwhelming it is an improvement. The final conunent is that this change will improve things for .... Lake Minnetonka The city of Orono's tax base My family The neighborhood The only person that will be negatively impacted is that stiq)id fool that has to do all the work and pay all the bills, and he deserves it! t (3|5) 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 1 •5 C ^ ! i r,'") ‘ N 4 . / ll )i -a i c (4b) 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. MhiR-lO-00 lOZAl FRENCHY 6124710664 P . O 2c 3//r/acco My neighborhood Out at the end of Casco point is a narrow little rood called Ivy Place. It a cull-de-sac or AmaA mmA \Im^j A ill IdirtOfh nf^VlAllC fiTidfa Wlflll llD tUmillS ^ #i J1 Ml liin Rll^l EVl ■JBJIlll 121 M ■IQil^lWW IIK&I^ | wMi I ^^7 * AWiWO ^m m dead end Very few people drive it’s fUll length, previous dead ends >^d up turning around in someone's driveway. That's on embarrassment few are willing to risk. Since we live almost at the very end of that "dead end" the only traffic we get is guests,neighbors. and a rare real-estate junkie. • t. * 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 75 ft. Setback iVom Lake Minnetonka there is NO chance that any one could ever build there. To the Northwest is Casco Cove and it's wildlife island that shields the view any of the residents might have of my home ^ile 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 does not is too small to build on, it too will 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. Lake Minnetonka is East of our home about 100 ft. from Carmens Bay. The view to the southeast is restricted by 5 large mature trees which also affords us privacy and prevents those cruising on the lake ft’om seeing into oar side and back yard. South of my 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 15ft. higher than mine. Any view out the side of his home has to look over my neighbors garage Lake Minnetonka has no universal or common Architectural style however within three lots of my home or about 150 ft. is a house with the same roof pitch that I propow. Ivy Place as well as Casco Point is dominated by 50ft Lots so most houses arc like mine in that we are too large for the lots and as such we are "Existing non-^onfortm^ structure ’* While wc don't conform to the cunent 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 the rest of Orono Wc arc after all zoned LR IC which is Vi acre lots or smaller. As most of Orono is zoned LRIA or RRliViB [lots 1 acre or larger] allowing home owners a reasonable level of self determination is not only fair it is in the best interest of the city. 1 D legal OESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 173, TAYLORS SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS. laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN I 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 marker0 : iron iiioi KciBearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. !f. O K 3, Tf %•• %• * • % • I LEGAL DESCRIPTI-ON OF Lot 173, TAYLORS SUBC O (^1^) I hereby certify tha or under my direct s registered Civil Eng laws of the State of COFFIN & GRONBERG, 1 Mark 5. Gronberg MN. Engineers, Land Surv Long Lake, Minnesota Scale Date 0 1 inch = 20 March 23, IS Iron marker Bearings shown are t ! M O !4 L -r- r.‘ a-, m f t ifi.y X k nffiff'j'rli!r^<*;!! ,1 -_J I z:: Tl / •y ilV i.. Mi r^i 1^ -‘f^f .*n 5tr«ef v/ceiO 2 is : ^1> s. ik ■ M• • tf mpF.f ^r.-/Xyr/; .* rj-.*xvjN n W-r.-w---VVS - r:r:,> Uc^T DaiL ri<^~ fJUfciH i~yrHiTniiiiiiWi>inflw II iim-s K rdBinfCr^SMjaxi0>jraftB ■■ tfonn m« • / •> tf- «*• a *. I •>! C7.-1.:=.^’ a;v5 o t^ y , •' .r* • o £ I'tt- 4V I e;r>r- \ -4 «... . .- 11------------1. 1 4', E tr ! C7n i’ ‘ § ft • • Vt« • * 4 ' !l ; i! • ■: (!• ’ ■ i:!- \: _..ii'.! ;!j wx •S«|?»iil« ? ! I ____£ Ui "Jo lJall CocfiSUCI lOM %% *fi tmm' I forf “IL yi /(Hfl »• «««N» •• «- • . •••• • •<> • •i TUI h , r •4f f •< 4 .••••• t: y I Tr r'l C T •• « 03 t •I . 1 •• *- • ~^OUHIM>T>OH Ttj ‘r K S':!** '* o % '**“ ■if. /0%, '%■ %.. ""o 'V*» 'L. 21.o P -i £ |i> «t ki '»r C o E »• i cmM^ s 1/ x> ■o s' r>5 ,.K. •’li'. li • ^ •0 — • • •* .. s HAKDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500’500-1000’ V.YfSTlNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________• X Lcostb WUih B. Garage • «» * •' • C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PatioAleck E. Landscape Uodeiialn By Plutie Or FAcic X X X I . X X X X X X X X X Q. 0±tt TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A • • n * B xlOO A. House Leo|dt WIdA B. Gayrage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patlo/Dwk F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X r> O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ B. P 6U) _S.F. _S.F. __S.F. _S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.T. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % SJF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. XlOO S.F. S.F. S.F. 56 k. ► fcr * ?^. * * • ••• • ” •• . . HAKDCOVER CALCULATONWORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 250-500’ TYTgnNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House -/c^ 6 * Leofth X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk l3. X X E. Pado/Deck X X F. Landseisie Uadetlaia By Plasdc Or Fabric O X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • /. ‘7 B . \ TTARDCOVTO IN ZONE A. House ____ * LcflgA I X X X B. C. Garage Driveway .iC X X D.Sidewalk X X E. Pado/DMk X X F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 5 n X X X O. Other Width ic.a ro 13. 30.^ 4~S it's ‘7 xlOO •r .Q. WUA nr lb 4^ «3 • ^ n TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL^g^mZ^^ 500-1000'C^) s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. - 3^ •13- • ia*7 IH 3i c IHr s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJr. S.F. S.F. S.F. I ■ ’1 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. S.F. c 1 _ S.F. ** H[ Tf t >ir> 55 / I Mer ^eDLomcAJ b-5Vc & 01>) * ' / t * \ < / r V * >' •I'I « I w * »w •* ■^.:>: .It , * y • . • » - V >.• ** - < •A" • 'i N ^ I 1 jC/^ UliTij. " sh t ( i 11 f '«. ' !l ’J'A •'/ i [. ■': • •i-‘7 ' ■ ■ ' y/>( i^- I ^'''-'Od. I i ^ I ■ ao~ll7-Jl3-4A 1+ V. 1,0 («) '187.42 14± 3 QJ^ >^*18± \ *n r^''\ *5' .. ^ \ , ^ y ’^4 4's |»/>'^<25) I^ELLY ^ '“ V 2 4^^ 3 \2 4 /> '“iSr V?^>\ V % <'® <DS»'’ 3 . V^?o6 4288667 ^(52)^^^ <^-0^3 7^1^ _ ^ , 164\V«.A7 rt65 V^o; / (w; ^>1 ^ 2Nn,ADDN ’^'’. ..- ^ . ./■«5> ^■i / .^58g, W ^ 4^ 0 ”^(55) . ' 167 ^* . 1) 16?:^ •7 f j'-ry .K.'. ;>•/ V '> ■' A //■• • *. • V HA- .~>«i/li«fr>M ««i. - unoi pypiu cut 0 400 Jkeview' .t;.‘ Coynr*.^- winnumcw SCO 31 luta ST '-4 VATUrS ORONO WIAS CM NItN ^CNRS^V OS I /ii ' - i . •■■■ •■^^ 'lie ^ i • usTua “i'r r • \' \ Stubbs :V ‘i ] _ _ f**—^ t lAn \ VATtlTOWa tOaifMIT > •SS5J X.' / niuf MCaiT tSSiS* A4 ’“ul5ft- ^ nmB> fl«M SO 0 tkomusn aid ocvwu CSUi lOMvmrcM iL^ # ........... VNfTI AIMMOa VA? ORON '*• eeo f .' A %. - \ *:• ;.•:•*/iv\"^ Skoisbtrg Para f « \|i ORONoX Arm ssJ^/T: •. /.• ; ■■ *. * * : • Smith Sicd^ood rcini DEERINO ^|C^-nd 3¥-^ <1 asa.*n Crystal Bay] S£^^ |cmi*^ »iV Poini / •LAND ------i •• • Boh/u Point > *• • " *. * ■ • ' • • Jiuntinpon Point /](*• • •*•> . .■ f SPRAY /ISLAh 1 . p^SHADY . ( / , ISLAND / liltnd • • »*A ^ i Crescent Beach ii{^O J Echo Bay JSuKtU" (hit I*U04 ) I ) I I mm Mn LIST . ra4SMn M TiWMVn Sft tt-U7*SS M Mtl M«SS MMKtS UNASSXSNEO S i MMJN IT ML TMMTEfS SS Ct-U7*tS 4Z MM MSM SSWtn UMSS] TIM HMIATA SIM SS4M MPigriw rdsniTD ump NOT rsK a LMCf NIKA SA M-117<a At MIA ASSM XVT rt l« A J MNMKt MLLXMI t tllPin SiM ZW TLACC MAVZATA m issn > TAMMVn W tf-U7-tS At M17 ASSAS Z¥V 71 CIS mi CNMUS • mi SA tA*117-ZS At M4A SA ASISA tA>il7«tS At MIA AI1MM N JMin MAVZATA HI iiSAl MAVZATA III SBSAl lAAA AnCN iTit tm jLt Ml iliu SA SA'UT'ZS At AAZ7 ASSAA m n TAIPAVIt MtV A I LVMI A SMA m 71 MAVZATA m MSAl SA 2A-X17-ZS At MSA ASM* m 71 Jt77ttV A KMA MMIttV JK77IIV A SiAS m 71 J ' 7'TOTAL lATCN BAA AAAM MAVZATA Ml USAS X COTITV 1MAT TIM 7ACTA MTMtMIftA AM AM AOCMAATI rimM 07 BMIMIATIMI AS IT ATTIAM IMS MATI Ml TM TAXATIM* TO TM MST r'.-t t'O Ul . I'V #. ■» ►.S' ** M 1 • K PERMIT RECORD Pernit Mo Date Type of Permit 3»gV TzLzIM ^fun £ ^gjs-//' 13 '/S ^^3<j lb-l-<iip h£^ ‘ < j «• j TO;Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 14,2000 #2567 Walfred Properties 2380 Shadywood Road Conunercial Site Plan Review Code Amendment Variances Conditional Use Permit Vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane and rezone to B-5 Zoning: B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Commercial Site Plan review for construction of a Snyder’s Drugstore and Medical Office Building on the Grace Baptist Church site in Navarre. List of Exhibits: A B B Draft City Council Minutes (April 10,2000) Site Plan #1 Site Plan #2 (4/14/00) Al. A2 and A3 Summan' of Council Action: The City Council reviewed the site plan for the proposed Snyder’s site in Navarre on April 10th. The Council reviewed the proposal and provided direction to the applicant. The City Council addressed the following issues; 1.Advised the applicant to reduce the size of the building to only accommodate the retail use of the property. The applicants agreed to remove the 2nd story from the building eliminating the clinic use in the structure. The benefit to the lot is a reduction in the total hardcover on the property. Exterior parking spaces are reduced from 77 to 60 on the new site plan. The Council advised the developer to increase the parking setback along Shadywood Road as required by the Zoning Code. Site Plan # 1 would have required a variance as the proposed setback was 15' where 20' is required. Site Plan #2 shows the parking setback 20’ from the right of way. The increased setback will provide an additional 5' of green space along >^2567 Wilfred Properies 2380 Shid>\«ood Road Commerctil Site Plan Review April 17. 2000 pag€-l Shady wood Road. 3.A trail was proposed on the first site plan to connect Olive Avenue to Shadywood Road. The Park Commission recommended looking at a pedestrian trail between this property and the Culver’s site. The benefit is the trail will provide a direct connection between the Olive neighborhood and the controlled intersection of Shadywood and Shoreline Drive. This provides a safer access than the northern entrance. Concerns with the proposed trail are the longer trail requires additional maintenance. The trail also would require a retaining wall along the pond. The height of the wall will be determined following submission of a grading plan for the site. For safety reasons it would be appropriate to construct a fence along the trail to prevent a pedestrian or bicyclist from falling into the stormwater pond. The landscaping plan for Site Plan #1 shows planting of trees in the green space between the parking lots. Relocating the Trail as shown in Site Plan U2 would eliminate trees from this area. 4. The building height is reduced from 30' to 23' for the site. Issues for Discussion: 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 permitted or conditional use in the B-5 District. 2. A variances are required for the following: Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L) topermithardcovr: -j than 35% hardcover in the North 500-1000' shoreland setback where 12,896 s.f. (35%) is allowed, and to permit greater than 35% hardcover in the South 500-1000' shoreland setback where 3,231 s.f. (35%) is allowed. 3.Section 10.03, Subdivision 19-21 - A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow grading within 5' of the property line. 4.Is the proposed site plan acceptable for parking and circulation, open space, lighting, building design and materials, drive thru lane, trash enclosure, etc.? 0.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. #256* WaJfred Properties 23SO Shad>A%ood Road Commerciil Site Plin Review April!7^ :000 pag*-2 6.Please refer to the attached zoning map, Exhibit D. Three small areas of the City are zoned B-5. A Code Amendment would permit or conditionally 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. The small portion of Navarre Lane is not zoned B-5 and should be rezoned. 7. All individual lots shall be combined into one parcel. Other Issues for Discussion - Site Plan I. 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. Proposed are several back lit signs that would be located on the building, and one monument sign would be located at the south entrance. II. Retaining Walls Applicant should provide grading plan to indicate the height of the walls. Cross sections should be provided. III. Landscaping Plan The revised landscaping plan will be submitted to the City’s landscaping consultant for review and reconunendations prior to Council review. IV. Pedestrian Access Is the proposed trail acceptable as shown on Site Plan #2 V. Utilities All utilities serving this site are located in Navarre Lane. Grading the pond would expose existing utility lines. The utility plan indicates the sewer line and gas line \\ill be relocated to avoid impacting or being impacted by the pond. 12567 Wilfred Properties 23SO Shadywood Road Commercial Site Plan Review Apr a 17. 2000 pagt-3 i VI. City agreed to vacate west half of Navarre Lane in prior application. VII. 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 will reserve the right, with Hennepin County, to limit access for the southerly entrance/exit to a right-in/right-out should traffic levels increase to a level creating 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 site. 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 circulation pattern for the current plan is quite similar to the earlier plans (bank/office/retail and Walgreen’s), counterclockwise 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. i2567 Wilfred Properties 23S0 Shidywood Roid Comroerciil Site Plan Review Apnl 17, 2000 pag€-4 f- ■k ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 D raft *1. #2565 Peter Scherer, 15 Orono Orchard Road South—^Variance—^Resolution No. Flint moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. _____ granting a variance to municipal zoning code section 10.28, subdivision 5 (B), Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. #2566 James Langhaus, 1366 Rest Point Road—Variance—Resolution No. Flint moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. ___ granting variances to municipal zoning code section 10.22, subdivision 2 and section 10.56, subdivbion 16 (L) (2). Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9. #2567 Walfred Properties, 2380 Shad>-r\ood Road—Commercial Site Plan Review Mr. Wally Kluse and Mr. A1 Ste__7 were in attendance as the applicants and were represented by their project engineer Rob Weiger and project architect Tom Rynen. Walfred Properties proposed to develop the church property located north of the County A i i J r ii Ivt ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 Road 15/County Road 19 intersection. They are proposing to remove the church building and construct a 2-story retail/office mixed building. The first floor would house a Snyder Drug store and the second story would be for medical office use. The application requires a Zoning Code Amendment to add “drug store” as a permitted or conditional use in the B-5 zoning district. The proposed site would include an expansion of the ponding area. The approximate size of the foundation would be 12,000 s.f The 2-story building requires 105 parking spaces with 28 located underground beneath the building. The project is within the shoreland area of Lake Minnetonka. The north 1/3 and south 1/3 of the property are both within 1000 feet of the shoreline of the lake. The application requires variances to permit hardcover to exceed 35% within these zones. The north 1/3 of the property would have 73.7% hardcover and the south 1/3 would have 62.8% hardcover. A second variance would be required for the front yard setback for the parking area. The parking area is proposed to be 15 feet from the property line where 25 feet is required. Also requested is a conditional use permit that would allow grading within 5 feet of the property lines. The pond extends off the property into the undeveloped Navarre Lane which is being 4 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 requested to be vacated at this time. The Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association owns the east 33 feet of Navarre Lane. There is a large wetland pond in the outlot owned by the Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association. Easements would have to be obtained or the outlot would have to be obtained from the Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association. Also a utility easement would have to be taken over that area. The City Engineer has stated concerns regarding the grading of the property and 2 retaining walls. One would form the edge of the pond and would exceed 15 feet in height with a portion of it under water. The other would be located along Olive Lane and would permit pedestrian traffic from Olive Lane to County Road 19. Finally, four underlying lots would have to be combined into 1 tax parcel. There are no standards in the B-5 code as to amount of permitted signage. Staff has determined that B- 1 and B-3 district standards are suitable for the B-5 zone. This allows 1 s.f. of signage for every foot of frontage along the property’ line, so this property is allowed 380 s.f of signage. The proposed signage is 350 s.f. at this time. The landscaping plan has been submitted. Green space areas would be vegetated with 20-25 trees, a row of arborvitae along the retaining wall and sidewalk, and soine screening between the residential and commercial sites. The Planning Commission had an issue with the proposed pedestrian walkway. They 1 4 jd ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ^^NUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 would like to have access to the east of the building or one that is between the two properties. However, staff supported the proposed plan because it does make the connection and eliminates the need for additional removal of green space. Existing utilities in the proposed vacated area of Navarre Lane would have to be rerouted to allow for dredging of the expanded pond area. The relocation of utilities would be the responsibility of the applicants. Staff identified 8 issues for the Council to address; 1. Confirm acceptance of zoning amendment to allow “drug store ” use in the B-5 zone as a permitted use? As a conditional use? Any specified conditions if it*s a conditional use? 2. Confirmation that Council will vacate all noted portions of Navarre Lane, and rezone the appropriate portions to B-5. 3. Confirm acceptance or non-acceptance of hardcover variances. 4. Confirm acceptance or non-acceptance of 5 foot variance to allow 15 foot front setback for parking. 5. Confirm acceptance or non-acceptance of CUP for grading within 5 feet of lot lines. 6. Discuss landscape plan and define any areas where additional plantings or screening of retaining walls may be necessary. 7. Confirm acceptance or non-acceptance of trail connection proposal in light of Park Commission suggestions. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 8. Other topics Council v/ishes to discuss. Tom Ryven of 4405 Cumberlain Court, Shoreview stated that a single wall system retaining wall is best suited to the pond, and that a tiered system would introduce a weak point They would use engineered fill in the wall. Flint asked how much the parking would be reduced if they made the building 1-story only. Weinberger stated a 1-story building would require 60 parking spaces, and they are at the maximum for underground parking. Mayor Jabbour stated that the heavy traffic on County Roads 15 and 19 places a burden on the City and the property owners to create a pedestrian friendly environment in that area. He also stated he is concerned that the applicant may not be able to proceed with their plans if the Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association won’t turn over their portion of Navarre Lane. Wally Kluse stated that he has tried to contact the Homeowners Association and his letters and calls have not been returned. He does not know who exactly to contact concerning the matter. Mayor Jabbour recommended calling Bruce Palmer. Kelley stated the building is too large for the lot. Peterson stated she agrees and has a problem with the 5 foot variance. Sansevere stated it’s double the allowed hardcover in t. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 that zone. Mayor Jabbour stated that the plan is over-ambitious for the site. A1 Ste_^?, one of the partners, stated they could reduce the building to 1 -story for Snyder Drug only. They had proposed the medical offices because they surveyed the neighborhood and found people were concerned that there are not medical facilities nearby. They have signed a lease with Snyder Drug, have obtained all the funding needed, and purchased the property. They are very anxious to proceed with the building plans. Mayor Jabbour asked if he wanted the Council to send them back to the Planning Commission so they could return with a 1 -story building. A1 Ste__stated that due to time constraints they would prefer to bring a new plan directly to the Council. Flint stated that he would have to see the plans for the new building, and that he would like to see a more pedestrian friendly layout. Mayor Jabbour asked if the Council wanted to send them back to the Planning Commission. Peterson and Flint agreed it should go back. Ryven asked for clarification of “pedestrian friendly.” Kelley stated he is concerned with the types of building materials and landscaping used, and how the building will blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. Ryv'cn stated the bricks would be the same as in the Council chambers, and the parking lot lighting would be the same as in the parking lot. J \ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 Drew explained that the pedestrian area along the parking lot would consist of an 8 foot sidewalk with a retaining wall on one side and parked cars on the other. They would prefer the parking curb to be moved further from the sidewalk and a railing placed along the sidewalk so cars cannot overhang it. He proposed a walkway along the pond that would not require stairs. It would result in the loss of 2 parking spaces, but would save some large oak trees. The proposed path would reach the street at the intersection where lights are located. Kelley asked if they didn’t change the footprint of the building, could they push it to the north, leaving more green space between them and Culver s. Ryven replied yes, they could. Mayor Jabbour stated that he liked the new trail idea and wondered if the pond could be reduced to accommodate it. Moorse stated that the nerf pond was built to protect nearby wetland from runoff. Kelley stated he would look more favorably on the application if the building is reduced in size and would like to see them do something about the front yard setback. Mayor Jabbour stated the Council was sending the applicant back to the Planning Commission. They should return with a 1-story building, parking reduced to 60 spaces, the pedestrian trail proposed by the Park Board, and remove some of the parking from the northwest comer. It was agreed that the applicant be allowed to submit the new plans on ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 Friday, April 14, 2000, and that it would apj'oar on the next Planning Commission meeting in one week so that the applicant can avoid losing Snyder Drug. The applicant agreed to contact the Homeowners Association and provide a letter granting a 60-day extension. Mayor Jabbour moved, and Flint seconded, to send the application back to the Planning Commission so that the applicant could revise the proposed building to 1- story, reduce the number of parking spaces, and increase the amount of green space. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 10. 2000 Joint Use Dock Licenses Gaffron stated they have received applications from 12 joint dock users. The docks are inspected annually. They recommend approval for all of the licenses. Kelley moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolutions through directing staff to issue joint use dock licenses to Big Island Inc, Forest Arms HA, Bohns Point/North Shore Homeowners, Fox Hill HA, Minnetonka Power Squadron, Pheasant Lawn HA, Walters Port Maintenance and Improvement Association, Victoria Estates and Kelly Cove HA (subject to completion of covenants) for the • * * * \' ' ' • ’d , II , t.4 I < -Lnai'iiiirnipct F !!li; 'itinilfM y?W[ .-■hm Ii':v;si;i1l .' " '■ M ■ t -Iii'4-;;‘.:;iT; iichi . ^ rill III ' f •• t ‘ -i;. rF-l ' rii' I vmm ; Jil! ‘ I ■ ! ifi-f fi I f :. r '■ i ' •' ! i fJ ' I 1-1 ' ' P111 mil 3 I'HKini ; EaiRBl r I \X I 3 r ! .1 Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 2/16/00 2/16/00 4/17/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 4/10/00 ITEM NO.1 Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Admu'Strator Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Item Description:#2567 Walfred Properties 2380 Shadywood Road Commercial Site Plan Review Code Amendraent/Variances.'Conditional Use Permit Vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane and rezone to B-5 Zoning B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District Application Commercial Site Plan review for construction of a Snyder s Drugstore and Medical Office Building on the Grace Baptist Church site in Navarre. List 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 - Underground Parking Plan A4 - Building Elevation Sketches/Building Sign Plan C-1 Grading Plan C-2 Utility Plan L-1 Landscaping Plan Engineer Conunents (March 16,2000 and April 6,2000) Existing Sewer Existing Utilities Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Notification List Resolution No. 4043 - Approval of bank/office/rctail use (March 6,1998) Reference Only *^2567 lyal/nd Properties 2380 Shady\¥ood Road Commercial Site Flan Revie\e ApritIO.2000 pagt-l Application Summaiy 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 with a footprint of approximately 12,000 s.f. The ground floor would be a Snyder’s Drugstore (9,050 s.f. of dedicated retail space), the second floor would contain 9,000 s.f. of office space, to be used for medical oflice and a lower level underground parking area to accommodate 28 parking spaces. The application requires a Zoning Code Amendment to add ‘drugstore’ as a permitted or conditional use in the B-5 zoning district. Clinics are a permitted use in the district. The request also includes a conditional use permit to permit grading within 5’ of a property line; variances for 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 rezoned to B-5. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the land use application on March 20,2000 and recommended by a vote of 3 to 2 to amend the zoning code to recommend approval of the site plan and approve the code amendment to allow drugstores as a conditional use in the B-5 zoning district, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. To limit the hours of operation to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The project engineer must provide a report confirming the proposed stormwater management pond meets all NURP standards. Part of the pond and grading is located off site. Applicant shall obtain drainage and temporary work easements from the adjacent property owner (Lafayette Ridge Homeowners) to permit the pond construction. 3.Utility easements shall be granted over the vacated portion of Navarre Lane, as existing sew'er, water, phone, gas, etc. are located within the road. 4. 5. Drainage and Utility easements shall be granted 10' along property lines. The Park Commission shall review and make recommendations regarding the site plan, landscaping plan and pedestrian access to Olive Avenue. 6.City Engineer must review' and approve site grading, ponding, stormw ater management plan and relocation of utilities. ^2567 Walfred Properties 2) SO Shad\^vood Road Commercial Site Plan Revie\¥ April 10. 2000 page-2 A Reauired/Allowed Existins.Proposc?d Site area:20,000 s.f.85,000 s.f. (Incl. 4 separate ta.x parcels Defined lot width:100' and vacated Navarre Lane) 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 defined 3 ’to 15’ Building setbacks: Front lot line:35’65' Re;ir 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' lone: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.) No. of Parking Stalls: Required = 1 per 150 s.f. of "net usable floor area for retail use" (Net = 9,050 s.f.+ /150 = 60 stalls required) Summary of Issues for Discussion 1. 3. 4. 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 permitted or conditional use in the B-5 District. 2. Variances are required for the following: A) Section 10.44, Subdivision 6 to permit a front yard setback for a parking lot to encroach 5’. The proposed parking area is 15’ from the property line where the Code requires 20'. B) 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, 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 10.03, Subdivision 19-21 - A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow grading within 5' of the property line. The pond and parking areas are proposed to be partially located within the dedicated right-of- way of a portion of Navarre Lane. The south half of the east 33 ’ of Navarre Lane was previously vacated in favor of the O’Sullivan property to provide additional parking area. The applicants are requesting vacation of the west half of the undeveloped ROW plus the remainder of the east half up to Olive Avenue, to provide additional land area for the stormwater pond. The east half of ROW to be vacated will accrue to the Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association as underlying owners, and applicant must arrange to acquire it from them. Currently, the ROW is used for sewer, water, phone and gas lines. The utilities may need to be relocated outsid? of the ROW based on the proposed pond location. The City Engineer is reviewing the feasibility of this. The proposed pond location suggests that applicants must further acquire additional land to the east of the ROW being vacated, or an easement for ponding purposes. The site plan indicates the pond grading and the outlet would be within Outlot C of Lafayette Ridge, ow ned by the Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association. The applicant could only construct a pond and grade if they obtain ownership of the land or are granted easements for drainage and work permits. 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 eas» (O’Sullivan’s/Culver ’s). The existing pond was constructed and designed for the ^2567 WalfrtdProperties 2330 Shady^vood Rojd Commercial Site Plan Pevie\v Aprtl 10, 2000 page-^4 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. 6. Please refer to the attached zoning map. Exhibit D. Three small areas of the City are zoned B-5. A Code Amendment would permit or conditionally 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. The small portion of Navarre Lane is not zoned B-5 and should be rezoned. 7. All individual lots shall be combined into one parcel. Other Issues for Discussion - Site Plan L 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 tLe 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 propert>' is 380 s.f. 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 Sienape - 4 ’ X 25' “SNYDER DRUG” South Elevation - 5' X 4' “One Hour” South Elevation - 3' X 6' “Photo” South Elevation - 4' X 25' “SNYDER DRUG * East Elevation - r X 16' “PHARMACY DRIVE THRU” West Elevation Total = 254 s.f. on building Monument Sion 1 - 1 O' monument sign is propert>- at the south entrance. The total advertising space is two 48 s.f. back lit faces on the sign. Total = 96 s.f. on monument Total Signage is 350 s.f. ^2567 Wal/ftd Properties 2330 Shadywood Road Commercial Site Plan Review April 10, 2 ^)0 page-5 A retaining wall potentially up to 10 ’ in height is proposed along the west propert>- line adjacent to the Ericson property. A 6' cedar board & batten fence is shown above this wall to protect the Ericson property. The proposed trail/walkway from Olive lo Shady wood is at the base of this wall. A second retaining wall east of the building forms the westerly pond wall. Some parts of this wall will be close to 20 ’ in height. The lower 2 ’ of the wall will occasionally not be visible due to the expected water level of the pond. The exposed portions of the w all appear from Exhibit I to range from r up to 14-16 ’ 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, pending additional analysis by applicant ’s engineer; making this a tw'o-tier wall has significant implications in regards to the stormwater pond size and/or the drive-thru access drivewav width.0 Council should consider to what extent vegetation will be required to screen t.he walls where they may be visible to residentially zoned properties. The landscaping plan does provide a substantial amount of plantings. III. Landscaping Plan The Landscaping Plan and Planting schedule has been attached as Exhibit K. A natural buffer of 29 Techny Arborvitae will be planted along the west property line; these appear to be above the retaining wall rather than in front of it. providing screening of the site from the Ericson property but not screening the 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 along the north property line abutting Olive Avenue. 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. IV. 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. The Park Commission reviewed this plan on April 3 and recommends a trail access located between this site and the Culver's site, along the current Navarre Lane right-of-way; the topography would seem to make such a plan infeasible... ^2567 Waif red Properties 2JS0 ShaJxM ooJ Road Commercial Sue Plan Revieu April 10. 2000 page-6 V.Utilities All utiliiies serving this site are located in Navarre Lane. Grading the pond would expose existing utility lines. The utility plan indicates the sewer line and gas line will be relocated to avoid impacting or being impacted by the pond. 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 these lines less than 10' apart. Additional “Sewer and Water Unit Adjustment Charges” equal to the 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 eind sewer/water unit determinations. 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 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 properties 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. .Ml 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 detemiination on burial of lines was further discussed prior to that applicant’s withdrawal. The City has sewer and water in Navarre Lane. If vacated, the north part of Navarre Lane would be regraded and a NURP pond would be constructed. Easements should be granted in the vacated right- of-way for utility purposes. The developer would be responsible for bringing all manholes and shutohs up to final grade and suitably finished at the surface to be approved by the Public Works Department and City Engineer. ^2567 Walfred Properties 23SO ShaJ\’^%ood Road Commercial Site Plan Review April It), 2000 page-7 Other Issues as Raised with Previous Applications City agreed 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 will reserve the right, with Hennepin County, to limit access for the southerly entrance/exit to a right-in/right-out should traffic levels increase to a level creating 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 site. 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 circulation pattern for the current plan is quite similar to the earlier plans (bank/office/retail and Walgreen’s). counterclockwise 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 approved 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 owners of the Culver ’s property. There are no excess parking stalls on either this site or the Culver ’s property, hence cross-easement parking usage is beneficial only to the extent that the “prime time’’ for the uvo users does not coincide... 4. Legal combination of the four tax parcels should be a condition of approval. Staff Recommendation There are two primarv' engineering issues to be resolved regarding the stormwater pond: the pond design is tightly squeezed into the site plan, and the pond must be built exactly as per plan in order to accommodate the design flows. Secondly, the retaining wall at the proposed height must be engineered and constructed in a manner that does not encroach toward the pond further than shown on the plan; design work to confirm that this can be accomplished has not been submitted, and will require some soils analysis work. If the wall cannot be constructed in a single face as shown on the plan but must be multi-tiered, this has severe implications for either the stormw ater pond design if the wall moves toward the pond, or the rear access driveway width if the wall moves toward the building. Similar wall design concerns apply to the nonherly wall on the site, with the trail at its base. Applicants engineer is aw are of these issues. ^2567 IValfreJ Properties 23^0 ShuJy^vood Road Comtfiercial Site Plan Review April 10. 2000 page-^ Because of these engineering issues, staff is not prepared to recommend approval at this time. Note that applicants have made a concerted effort to make this site plan work by locating a portion of the parking underground. The number of parking stalls required for this size building is a key factor impacting the site layout, along with the topography challenges and the required storm pond. It would be helpful to the applicants if Council would address as many of the following issues as possible; 1. Confirm acceptance of zoning amendment to allow “drug store” use in the B-5 zone; as a permitted use? As a conditional use? Any specified conditions if it’s a conditional use? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Confirmation that Council will vacate all noted portions of Navarre Lane, and rezone the appropriate portions to B-5. Confirm acceptance or non-acceptance of hardcover variances. Confirm acceptance or non-acceptance of 5' variance to allow 15' front setback for parking. Confirm acceptance or non-acceptance of CUP for grading within 5' of lot lines. Discuss landscape plan and define any ?.reas where additional plantings or screening of retaining walls may be necessary. Confirm acceptance or non-acceptance of trail connection proposal in light of Park Commission suggestions. 8. Other topics Council wishes to discuss. Options for Council Action 1. Table for additional information or revisions (60-day extension required) Approve with conditions (direct staff to draft appropriate resolution) Deny (state reasons) 4. Other action. 2. J. »2567 Waljrtd Properties 2380 5hady\vood Road Commercial Site Plan Revte\¥ April 10, 2000 page-9 A Application # Date Received" X /l (g 1 OP Amount Paid >S *? 7^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION / ^ Site Address ^ Pa T>pc of Application to be Filed_____ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) f Phone (home) ^ ^ J"/.^ Phone (work)__________________ Citv Zip_^j^j^j_2._<2^1_ OWNER (if different than ^plicani) Name unerent man ^piicant; J tr r if JLi^ ^Address Date Property, Acquired Cit\* Phone (home). Phone (work) Zip O tf o (month/year) I (do)((doiiot)^o own/the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - . . / , N $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application()l<»-''‘4cov>-^v _____$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 X $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (a- consultant fees) X $300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision X $350.00 Rezoning (PUD- refer to fee 6?heduU)- _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$ 100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule , ' 4 . . 1 •4^ [ 4. 5. 6. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. ___^ Completed Application Form. 2. ___^ Describe request in detail. 3. ____ 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, 348-327l)J//<^ ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ___Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ___^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 7. Xist of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This w’ould include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owTier(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 (ll" 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 infomiation has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hi^er knowledge. Applicant's signature_____Date______________________________ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date / -Tj Mppncani mus: nave an suominais into me viiy omces .ia aays ociurc me riannms v-ommission jviecung. Planning Com.mission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place arid advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ///i O’/ ^ y S*C' ~7/ ^ ///a ^/ Vi J/tr ^ ^ 1^. "5/*!^®?!^'^^^'”’^i% '»>^°) ^ (21) <lTs0_50_50 ^ ^49 ri. 18 \T‘ s^sarsorsd, ^ ,5 .5 55.5js,s'^iA 5) (64) (63) (62) | |(i^' iOU-50—5Q ■ ■ 50^ mI/S*^ 2’-; 23* «) (77) 315.32 ____ . OUTLOTA-|^*^,^^ i (55) ^ (53) ft Vn a 4 %isfy - v>V* . '•" "ic.® .rf>N ___295.6.N86*E - : 3V05NAVARRE 3 1 (45) J?S.4?4r3ST5’^'C 2 i ^ (18) , ..tSS^ S 8 00 (TO cno> r>n CN %.. 4 ■''7..N 317 Nl o«o^ 2 (32} Ohh.^ ? V •. 4*« ;■ V * 5 ,t~M 'Nt.'rt r A A&.TiBttkA'ri - .1 c § 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to anv tear lot line, 15 feet to any side lot line, 35 feet to any side lot line adjacent to street; except when abuPing or across the street from an ”R" District, no budding 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. Q Piiilriing 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 drainage . ... . , .t _____I!___.......u .lAtall ac nmtir^A Kv tVif> Pniinril and thnse nlans results in water runon causmg iiooos, erosion, oi w.. ---------------------- plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plaiis shall be reviewed b> ihe City Engineer before submission to the Planning Comimssion and Council ^ a 1 ________1___into a natural water course. Shall be reviewea o> ae engineer ociuic --------^--------------------------- for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affeeting water tmoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise .must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other appUcable regularions 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 and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential district 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 Ae "B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited m order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the futoc generation of traffic for that property in that use distnv t since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) 1 J § 10.44 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building pennit in any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Plarming Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted 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. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. W. Municipal buildings. Offices. Clinics. Art and school supply store. Book and magazine store. Office supply store. Banks, loan company, insurance company, real estate office. Barbership, beauty shop. Camera and photograph supply store. Locksmith. Hobby shop. Gift store. Glassware and pottery. Antique store. Jewelry store. Watch repair. Library. Museum. Record shop. Music store. Tobacco shop. Galleries. Pet shop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A. Within any "B-5" 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, frozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. Drycleaning store. 3. Tailor shop. 4. Pressing and shoe shine shop. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) i J § 10.44 5. & Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. Home 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 follot^ing 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 not exceed 4,000 s.f. of gross floor area. Xhc nurnbcr of incrcxncntEi pdrking spsiccs rccjuircd tor 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 d. An individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall be limited to a 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 and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure station^ elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal vdreless services an commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential serxices. Source: Ordinance 161.2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) 1 § 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 'complete 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 niinimum 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 35 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 than 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 Construction. 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: 1. 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) 1 ii. § 10.44 (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal- framed pimel 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 whh 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 plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or 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) Ill «>ii s 2 !!!! tii \\ * I r- in u • o «<3J^ 8 I © I I I I ir^ M I i I .Ml i % P ?i I I l»"'ei''9f {i ©j I f m r i !tli ill III ii9aaa33a3]393DiisaBSBaaaBBaaB ill ||H|il IIQQODDBBDIiBQQDlIBBBECCCDCtCCl isrm 8a 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene ^5 Anderlik& |\ \ Associates Engineers & Architects Bonesrrco. ffosene. Anderhk and Associates, me. ts an Affirmative Action/Bquat Opportunity Employer Principals 0::o G. Bonc.iroo. PE. • Joseph C. Anderiik. Pg. • Marvm L Sorvaia. PE. • Glenn R. Cook. PE. • RoPert G Scrunicht. Pg • Jerry A. Bourdon. Pg • RoOert JJ Rosene. PE.. Richard E Turner. Pg. and Susan M gperim. C PA. Senior Consuttancs Associate Principals: kiowatd A. Sanford. PE. • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Rooert R. Pfefferie. PE. • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskota. PE. • Robert C. Russek. A.I.A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE. • Michael T. Rautmann. PE. • Ted K.Fieid. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. PE. • Sidney P Jt^iiiiamsoa PE.. LS. • Robert F Kotsmith • Agnes V Ring • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE. Offices: Sr. Paul. Rochester. Wilimar and St Cloud. MN • .Milwaukee. Wl Wedsite w ww bonestroo com March 16,2000 ^>1^ 17 mMr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MM 55323 Re: Walfred Properties/Snyders Site File No. 139GEN-2567 Dear Paul: We have reviewed the preliminary grading and utility plan for the proposed Snyders site in Navarre. The site is located on the east side of Shady wood Road (CSAH 19) and north of Navarre Lane and Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15). We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters: 1. Overall: The scale shown on the plan set (1 ”=30’) does not agree with the dimensions shown on the drawing (sanitary sewer lengths), it appears that the drawing was plotted at some other scale. For this reason we were unable to verify such things as parking lot grades, pipe inverts, pond capacities, 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-fcet is the standard. The sewer should be relocated 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 easements will need to be acquired to construct the pond and sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer should have a minimum of 6-feet of cover or should be insulated. All sanitary and storm sewer manholes are required tc have an exterior sealing sleeve as manufactured ’»y 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 get a scalable plan. The proposed retaining walls are nearly 20-feet tall in some locations. Retaining wall design and details should be provided for review. A two tier wall design may be necessary' where wall heights approach 20 feet. Some type of barrier will be necessary abov e the wall in some locations for safety purposes. I'I UI r or OrlOiVO Drainage/Ponding: As previously stated, the proposed pond lies outside the property boundaries, the applicant should provide details as to how the pond can be constructed and how it may impact the existing wetland. The pond should be sized according to NURP standards using a 2.5-inch rainfall over the contributing drainage area. Calculations submitted used a 2-inch rainfall and should be revised. The pond will require an outlet structure capable of providing 1-foot of skimming as shown in City Standard Detail STO-8A. The pond should be constructed in accordance with City Standard Detail STO-12. Pond and storm sewer calculations should be revised and resubmitted along with a drainage area map. It is unclear where the proposed catch basin on the north side of the site drains to. Riprap should be provided at all outlets. Storm 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 n .1 w 04/06/00 11:22 Q :01/01 NO:258 ^ J Bonestroo Rosene ■ Anderlik & |\| I Associates Engineers & Architects April 6. 2000 OuAtsfreo. r?os»nt. AndcriiM «nd Aiiocl«iei« Inc. U an Affirm^tiv* Aetion/Cqu«i Opporrunity implofvr Irrtploy** Owntd Priacipaii: Ores Cj yorur.r.'t'O RE • M.«rvm L SurvalA RC • Q*0j*n 1 Coci. ft • *oo«rt O Scrvurtcrr. • ICfy A Pourdon. P$. turvit^ 4'Z Stnior Consultantt: W Rown#. Pg • Joscpn C Anrlrd V. Qf • Ci;h.«rrJ Z r*Z • SiiMn M flieritr CPA ASIOClAlP PfIncipjti: How.«rd A Sanforil, PC • KfriCh A. 0*:*''*l*h. Pv • f / |>i: , Ricn«fd W. foitzf. ft • I'Mvirt O. LOlitQlrf, PC. • PoDta C. PuX StA. A.i A. • Ma'* A h-»hica hti. • .MicnPCi T KP • ?i*tl K Field. PC • ifersnefhP Ancic^ion I't* • v.»re e Kmi*.. P.fc • ci^vtn A Afirp^t'cm MAA • Sid»t«y P WiiJiamton. pfi L.S • Anne« M rnm|. M.2iA • aii .m* nr OfftCti: Sf C'loud. Raihciter jinJ VUllmaf • MII*A'.niilir» a*l 1X%6sltt: w .vw^nnrttrfto rnm Mr. Michael Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of'Orono Post Office Box, 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55.^23 Re: Walfred Properties. Snyders Site File No. 139GEN-2567 Dear Mike: We have completed u preliminary review of the grading and utility plans (Dated 3/13/00) for the proposed Snyders siic in Navarre. The site is located on the east side of Shady wood Road (CSAH 19) and nortli of Navarre Lane and Shorulinc Drive (CSAH 15). We have not completed a final revievk' because of two engineering issues that will detennine whether the plan is constructable on this site. The items are as follow: • Ponding; The pond design is very tight. To accommodate the flows from the contributing drainage .irca thi pond must be constructed exactly as shown on the grading pl;tn and no sttiallcr. We recommend that the pond volumes be verified after construction. • Retaining Walts: This appears to be the more concerning of the two items. The wall bordering the pond exceeus 20-feei in height in some locations. A retaining wall of this magnitude requires a detailed design and soils ona1y.sls which we have not received at the lime of this vyriilng. Phil Caswell, from our structural group, perfurmed ii preliminary review of the retaining wall part of the submittal. Wc have attached hi.s comments for your review*. Our primary concern i.s tlijt if the final design of the walls requires more room to construct than is currently shown on the grading plan, then cither the pond becomes .smaller or the piuking lot und/or building arc reduced in size. As previously stated, the pond cannot be made any smaller. The developer may need to make some revuiunv to ihc site plan if tire proposed retaining walls need to be revised. Once the developer provides a buildable grading plan (or documentation (hat the cun-ent pUm is) we will complete our finut situ plan review. At thi.s lime we will address issues such as pond outlet piping, parking lot grade.s. Iniil sections, etc. Pte;ise contact me at (651) 604>486.3 if you have any que.stions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONHS rkoO. RO.SF.NI-. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. 1 Mm Kelloggi»ui» N./ Altachmont Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Pnul, MN 55113 • 65t*636'4600 • Pax: 6SI ’636*13tl • * *• h 4- > ■ !mHmwF*^- • 1/ ' •'!>¥r,>- NORTH o '// \ \ HOfm% roKE TPT^ -AREA. 1 S^16F. 3 9^32 SF. iprfgs/tQi3 PEjartg& 21Jfe5 6F. V®2 SF. 5^ ®F. 3.^29 »Jb 59.1 I ! § z Dl I H Ik I oo 'o U1 (Jl NJ •D o IS) MM MTE tZ/M/tt MTCN BM IIENNEfXN COUNTY fOOfEBTY IMFOBHATIOM SYSTEH fROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4SS401 PAGE 54 PROP AOIM OMNiR NAHE TARPAYER NAME/ADOR SO X7-1X7-25 M 0059 iSS2# NAVARRE LA PAUL J PASCUZZl PAUL J PASCUZZl SSZO NAVARRE U NAYZATA MN SSSVX SO X7-XX7-2S 44 00*0 0SS24 NAVARRE LA NXLLXAH CHAO NILSSON HXLLXAN CNAO NILSSON SS24 NAVARRE LA VAYZATA NN 55S»I SO 17-1X7-2S 44 0045 02S44 OLIVE AVE JANES S HEITZ JANES S HEITZ 2S44 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA NN S5S91 PROP AODR ONNER NAm TANPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 17-1I7-2S 44 00*4 02SS0 OLIVE AVE PAUL HACKXNNEY PAUL J NACKXNNEY 2SSO OLIVE AVE NAYZATA NN SSSn 50 17-117-25 44 00*5 02520 OLIVE AVE J T JACOBSON S L D JACOBSON J T JACOBSON OLD JACOBSON 2S2B OLIVE AVE NAYZATA NN 55541 50 17-117-2S 44 00** 02510 OLIVE AVE PATRICK N SULLIVAN PATRICK N SULLIVAN 2510 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA NN 55541 ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR 50 17-117-2S 44 007S 02514 SHAOVNOOO RO S R S K NORKRID STEVEN R A KAREN NORKRID 2514 SNAOVNOOD RO NAYZATA NN 55541 50 17-117-25 44 0074 02524 SHAOYNOOD RO RICHARD JOSEPH HAEFNER RICHARD JOSEPH HAEFNER 2524 SHAOYNOOD RD NAYZATA NN 55541 50 17-117-25 44 0075 0255* SHAOVNOOO RO JOB ERICSON JOHN C t BARBARA E ERICSON 1*20 SHAOYNOOD RO NAYZATA NN 55541 PROP ABDR TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 17-117-25 44 007* 4255* SHADWOOD RD JOMI C S BARBARA E ER» JOHN ■ BARBARA ERICSON 1*20 SHAOVNOOO RO NAYZATA NN 55541 5S 17-117-25 44 0077 0552* NAVARRE LA GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE C X CONSTRUCTION LLC 1210 BROAONAY P 0 BOX 4*5 ALEXAMMIIA NN 5*504 SB 17-117-25 44 4478 4445B ADDRESS UNASS16NED GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH7NAVARRE C I CONSTRUCTION UC 1214 BROAONAY P 0 BOX 9*5 ALEXAMIRIA NN 5*54B ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR SB 17-117-25 44 4474 42541 SHADVNOOO RO LOUISE A 0AN6ELH0FF LOUISE A OANOELHOFF 2341 SNADYNOOD RO NAYZATA NN 55541 SB 17-117-25 44 0040 4445B ADDRESS UNASSXGNED TORN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX ** CRYSTAL BAY NN 55523 54 17-U7-25 44 4044 02554 OLIVE AVE GARY L NILL OARY L NILL 2554 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA NN 55541 ONNER NANE TAIVAVER NANE/AOOR SB 17-117-25 44 4045 45544 SHORELINE OR VOVAOEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC VOVAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC P 0 BOX *5 NAVARRE NN 55392 SB 17-117-25 44 0044 00054 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LAFAYETTE RI06E NONEONNERS LAFAYETTE R106E NONEONNERS P 0 BOX 41 NINNETONKA BEACH NN 555*1 SB 17-117-25 44 0044 40054 AOORESS UNASSIOKO CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX ** CRYSTAL BAY NN 55525 #4 ’r;■ 1 RUN DAT! RATCN SM HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4SS4RI PAGE 5S S OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR M 17-117-25 AS #R7f •SARO LYRIC AVE HEWaPXN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P O ROX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN B5S2S SO 17-117-2S AS 008# 05A00 LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN 55S25 SO 17-117-25 AS 0001 OSAOO LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN 5552S OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 17-117-25 AS 0002 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO TOWN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN B552S SB 17-117-2S AS BOBS 00050 ADDRESS UNASSXCNEO HENNEPIN FORFEXTEO LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN 5S52S SB 17-117-2S AS OOOA OSAOO SHORELINE OR DALE S JOHNSON C T JOHNSON B B A JOHNSON lAUO 9TH AVE N PLYHOUTH HN 55AA7 TAXPAYER NAHR/ABOR SB 17-117-25 AS OISA OSAOS LXVXNBSTON AVE SHERYL A PATTEN SHERYL A PATTEN SAOS LXVXNBSTON AVE NAYZATA HN SSS91 SO 17-117-25 AA OOOS OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO TOWN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN 55525 SB 17-117-2S AA OOOA 025B0 SNAOYWOOO RD BRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE C X CONSTRUCTION LLC 1210 BROADWAY P O BOX 9A5 ALEXANDRIA HN 5A50S TAXPAYER MMi/AOOR SB 17-1X7-25 AA 0007 02SAA SHAOVWOOD RO brace baptist CHURCH/NAVARRE C X CONSTRUCTION LLC 1210 BROADWAY P 0 BOX 9A5 ALEXANDRIA HN 5AS00 SB 17-117-25 AA OOOB OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSXCNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN 55525 SB 17-117-25 AA 0009 02S77 SHABYWOOO RO HARCEL S DITTRICH HARCEL DITTRICH 2577 SNADYWOOO RO NAYZATA HN 55591 TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR SB 17-117-25 AA 0015 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO NEtOKPXN FORFEHEO LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY HN 5S52S SB 17-117-25 AA 0029 0225S BAYVXEW PL 0 N LENIN B C N OLSON-KOSKA 6REB LENXN/CAROL OLSON-KOSKA 2255 BAYVXEW PL NAYZATA HN 55S91 SB 17-117-25 AA 0050 022A5 BAYVXEW PL BART E POHERLEAU BART E POHERLEAU 22A5 BAYVXEH PL NAYZATA HN 55591 OWNER NAHR TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 17-117-25 AA 0051 02275 BAYVXEW PL JANES R ANDERSON JANES R ANDERSON 2275 BAYVXEN PLACE NAYZATA HN 55591 SO 17-117-2S AA 0052 00050 ADDRESS UNASSXGHED BENE AND SHERYLl BLOCK BENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK 2505 BAYVXEN PLACE NAYZATA HN 55591 SB 17-117-25 AA 0055 02505 BAYVXEN PL R H STELLXNB ETAL BENE N BLOCK 2505 BAYVXEN PLACE NAYZATA HN 55591 •• F i.*l; /. j X\ rn 1:! a u •» r^ ^V. V* j • ••* • CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 48 . A RESOLUTION GRANTING VAIUANCES TO ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16(L) ANT) 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, Thomas Dillon representing Orono Development, LLC (hereinafter *s "applicant") has an interest in the property located at 2380 Shadywood 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 Nor^westerly along the Northerly line of said Lot 5 to the Northeasterly line of the public highway running across said Lot 5 and kno%v'n as Minnetonka Lake Park and Maple Plain Road (now County Road No. 19); thence Southeasterly along the.Northeasterly line of said road to Easterly line of Lot 5; thence Northerly along the 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 pennit 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 0 4a 1. 2. 3. 4. WHEREAS, the Orono City Council makes the following findings in regard to this application: 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 1.86 acres. The development plans includd an 11.246 s.f. one-story commercial office/retail building, to include: • ‘ - 3,150 s.f. bank with drive-thru wmdow - 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 LWted Neighborhood District. Applicant has concurrently requested (ApplicaUon #232 /; an amendment of the B-5 District list of allowable conditional uses to mclude bagel and coffee retail stores, which amendment is pending. 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 -i- 200 = 26 spaces. B. 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 (incl. 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 spaces) (Requirement would still be met) Page 3 of 11 5. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 4s____ 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The site is topographically difficult to develop and wUl require significant filling and grading to accommodate the proposed improvements. The proposed site grading plans have been reviewed by staff, the City Engineer, ffie 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 pnor 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, abutting Olive Avenue to the rear and Shadywood Road (County Road 19) on the ftont. The onentauon of the building is toward Shadywood Road, minimizing any commercial appearance or activity as viewed from Oiive Avenue. The variance to allow a parking setback of 5’ along the front lot Ime where a 20’ setback is normally required, is justified by the unique shape and topograi^y of the site and the need to provide certain amenities for the development 1M combination of front parking and driving lane needs; minimum function^ depft of buiiding; drive-thru exit lane and rear building delivery access; retaiiimg 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 fte parking lot to within 5 feet of the ftont 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 (NURP) pond designed to enhance the quality of runoff waters pnor to discharge from the site. The magnitude of hardcover variance is finthw jusufied by the fact that less than 1 percent of the City’s shoreland areas are d«vo ‘ed to commercial uses, hence the overall impact of the excess hardcover “y commercial uses is relatively minor, especially when such impacU are mitigated by stormwater treatment facilities. Page 5 of 11 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 4 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 pr(yosed 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. B. C. • 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. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing existing and proposed contours, biulding locations, elevations, stormwater pond and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Plans rnim 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 Engineers February 13 corrments. Applicant shall provide confirmation as to whether gutter nmoff from Shadywood Road will be entering the site and if so that it will be adequately handled. A bvlldin<^ permit i<;^ued until tb^ Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distri(;t has approvgdJbs stormwa ter plans. 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 7 of 11 mi& CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 4 3 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 calculation 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 Zorung Code Section 10.61, Subd. 1, Subd. 3(A) and Subd. 3(D). 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 sho\%Ti on approved site plan vAW be completed to the City’s satisfaction. The City Engineer has provided a preliminary 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 % -• * • • CITYof ORONO i,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. Vce, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Nlinnesota municipal corporation, and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. mm JAMIE LGEMAR NOTARY PU8UC4UNNES0TA HBINEPIN COUNTY NtyCcnunb^coE>pli«J»n.31.2C00 II AUJlJ -A a) Notary' Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 1998 before me a Notary Public within and for said coun^, personally appeared^»Jie./£. {9 ^/liid. ti— 5gomg instniraent, andknown to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. :iKa« JAMIE LGEMAR NOTARY PU6UC4HNNES0TA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Ccflimissicfl Expires Jan. 31.2000 c C\njL±tjj^ ^ NOT^Y PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _______^day of nwa Notary Public said county, personally appeared --------------within and for said county, personally .. __________________ 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 lus (their)Jxtt. act and deed. IWPf.OPPEQA^1 NDtoyPUbfi&MkvwelQ \MwvwpliODutfy -MrOsnnWenB^JDivil,3Sa»Page 11 of 11 7 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 17,2000 #2569 W. Duncan MacMillan and William Waldron 1860 Fox Street After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit Zoning: RR*1B, One Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre Minimum lot size Application: After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit to permit excavation of greater than 500 cubic yards of fill to dredge a pond. List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H Wetland Alteration Guidelines: Pond Excavation Letter to property owner (Dated February 29,2000) Application Site Survey Plat Map Property Owners Notification List City Topographic Map City Protected Wetland Map 1 Application Summary: - Several weeks ago the City of Orono became aware of a pond that was being dredged on a property owned by William Waldren at 1700 Fox Street. The pond was dredged by the property owner to the south for a natural pond. ANALYSIS Pertinent Code Sections: Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21 require a conditional use permit for land alteration activities greater than 500 cubic yards. M2S69 W. Duncan MacMillan and William Waldron I860 Fox Street After-thC'Fact Conditional Use Permit April1 7. 2000 pagt-l Surrounding Properties: The survey indicates the land alteration is located across the east property line. Craigbank Associates is the owner of the second property this pond has impacted. Mr. MacMillan is a percentage owner of that lot. Mr. MacMillan also owns the property located south of the pond. Existing topography restricts any view of the pond from other adjacent properties or the road. Preexisting pond: A small open water pond did exist, as shown on the site survey prior to the expansion. It is not clear whether the pond was natural or was dredged. The pond was located at the south end of a non-Orono wetland. In 1974 the City of Orono defined certain wetlands that were primarily Types 3,4,5 and 6 as protected. Those wetlands identified by the City of Orono are protected and no land alteration is permitted within the wetland and the 26 ’ around the wetland. Expansion of the pond occurred in a wetland that the City has not identified as protected. No variance is required for the expansion. Conditional Use Permit Standards: Section 10.09 Standards for Granting of a Conditional Use Permit The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit as the use permit was applied for or in modified form, if on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the City makes the following findings; 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 Conditional Use is for land alteration of greater than 500 cubic yards. The land alteration has occurred in a wetland that is not an Orono protected wetland, therefore not requiring any variances 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; No fill has been placed within the wetland to change its capacity and normal water level. Staff has requested additional information regarding the grades within the pond. The depth at the pon^ edge and center had not been provided as of the time of this report. It is believed the pond has a maximum depth of 6-7 feet. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. /i^2569 W. Duncan MacMillan and William Waldron IS6OF0X Street After-the-Fact Conditional Use Pennit ApnU7. 2000 pagt-2 1 aI t Because the pond is not located in a protected wetland, no variances are required. A conditional use permit is required only because land alteration greater than 500 cubic yards had occurred as part of this project. Protective Covenant: The wetland shall be subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to current and future property owners that the wetland is subject to WCA regulation. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Applicant applies for a land alteration permit. A protective covenant is filed in the chain of title of the affected properties as an advisory to property owners the wetland is subject to WCA regulation. A final as built survey, indicating finished elevations of the pond is submitted to the City and accepted by the City Engineer. Verification a MC WD permit has been approved for the pond construction. Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. Approval of the after the fact conditional use permit, stating condtions. 2. Denial of variances, stating reasons. 3. Table, requesting further information and provide direction to the applicant. 4. Other Action. N2S69 W. Dtincan MacMillan and William Waldron 1860 Fox Street After-lhe-Fact Conditional Use Permit April17. 2000 pagi-3 !■ A GlTYof ORONO Municipal OfTices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Maillnc Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Wetland Alteration Guidelines: Excavation of Ponds 1. Excavation of ponds in upland areas (not within nor within 26' of a Type 1 thru Type 8 wetland) requires a staff-issued land alteration permit if not more than 500 cubic yards, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) if more than 500 cubic yards. Such grading may require a permit fom the MCWD. 2. Excavation of a pond in a WCA wetland that is not a City-protected wetland, will require MCWD approval as well as a City land alteration permit (and a CUP if over 500 c.y.), and may require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval. 3. Excavation of a pond in or within 26' of a City-protected wetland, will require a Variance and Conditional Use Permit approval regardless of the amount of excavation; likely will require MCWD and Corps approval; and may require DNR approval if it is a DNR-protected wetland. 4. City approval of pond excavations will take into account the applicable requirements and review considerations as defmed in Zoning Code Sections 10.55 and 10.56. 5. The City will generally not approve a Var/CUP application for a decorative pond in City-protected wetlands unless such pond is designed to meet minimum wildlife habitat specifications, which generally include: - Pond surface area of at least 2500 s.f. - 10:1 perimeter bench to a 1* depth - Depth of approximately 4-5' - Excavating a small portion of a larger wetland 6. Approval for ponds excavated in City-protected wetlands will normally require the use of erosion control measures, vegetation restoration, and the granting of a conservation and flovvage easement to the City. 7. Information required in order to make application for a Var/CUP for pond excavation includes but is not limited to: Complete General Land Use Application with fee/property owner list/plat map Property survey Wetland delineation report (must use a professional delineator) Grading plan (existing and proposed contours) Vegetation restoration plan Indication of spoil disposal site Clossary: WCA: Wetlands Conservation Act MCWD: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District DNR: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources var: variance CUP: Conditional Use Permit Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 t % \ CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Stnit Address: 2750 Kelley Partway Orano, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323*0066 February 29,2000 Waldron I860 Fox Street Wayzata, Mn 5S391 Dear Mr. Waldron: On a recent budding inspection, it was noted that there was excavation and grading occumng in a wetland. On February 14,2000, a field inspector from the city went out and took pictures of the site. The pond excavated on the property appears to also encroach on 1700 Fox Street. Typically, a five foot setback is required from property lines for any land alteration or grading. The land alteration, as performed on the property, requires permits from the City of Orono. It is also likely a conditional permit will be required. There are two options for the site. One option would be complete restoration of the impacted wetland back to its original state. The second option would be an after-the-tact condiuon^ use permit for land alteration for the pond. The following information is required m order to make an after-the-fact permit request; 1 . Complete after-the-fact conditional use permit application and $500 application fee. 2. Certified property owners list, plat map and mailing labels for all properties wth 350’ of your property. This information is available from the Hennep'm County Department of Finance. You can contact their office at (612) 348-5910. 3. Wetland Delineation Report (Must use a professional delineator) 4. Grading plan showing previous and existing contours shall be shown on a certificate of survey indicating the change in grade on the property. Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 6 * i F 5. Indication of spoil disposal site and the total amount of spoils removed in cubic yards. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) may also require a permit for the land alteration. Please contact Jim Ha&er at (612) 471-0590 to discuss the requirements of the MCWD permit process.. The next land use application deadline is noon on March 22,2000 to appear on Ae April 17,2000 Planning Commission Agenda. Attached is a conditional use permit (CUP) application form. The application must be completed and submitted pdth all information stated above by noon on March 22,2000 or the wetland must be completely restored to its original state. Failure to do either will re^t in the City initiating legal action. Please contact myself or Chris Pence at your earliest convenience to further discuss this matter. Our number is (612) 249-4600. Respectfully, Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Enclosure: CUP Application Form cc. Lyle Oman, Building OfBcial Chris Pence, Field Inspector Jim Hafher, MCWD Mrs. JohnH. MacMillan, 1700 Fox Street Duncan MacMillan, 1820 Fox Street c Application # ^ Date Received" 3 / f^/OO Amount Paid ^ S' OO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ Site Address laCO p-Qh 07"__________------------------------------- Type of Application to be Filed Q^uP 4U*. 4-^ct 3_ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OT - /1 *7~ '*• Y2—6.<?.Q.X APPLICANT Phone (home) ^"7 ^ ^ Name UJ. O/ sr\t 1 IWy\ Phone (work)___ Address I Ia. ^^iCity —Zip_S53flJU OWNER (if different than applicant) . Phone (home) j7'^ Nam e Phone (work) /Q&? fOA Citv Date Property Acquired ' Zip / _____________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERiVDTS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartn, >!nts _____$200.00 Duple.x Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use X $250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wedand 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 originaUpplication)^ a X 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 1 J ** ................................... V-. •.Cl W A L D R 0 # \ • A D D I T I 0 N \ 9 / zV. 1 JBR? ~l_^J-cSw — I FOX «TREEl . Tom Stri.tT UM*r .tCj2 i \ -•- ' • •»• m mm _ _ /cwSr W. OUNCAN IMCI«LU^ it #25'(r1 OMONO. IHNNCSOTA I TO^OCIUPNIC SUmCy %ux fMjca M& iiM-m n • ^ ^ • y r RUN OATC RS/M/Ct MTCH SRI nnr aoor OMNER NAME TAXTAVER ' NANE/ABOR SR RS>U7-2S SI RRRl RRAAB RROMN RO S ERIC N SMITH ETAL IVANETTE SMITH MS BROUN RD S lONB LAKE MN SSSSA. HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OUNERS LIST SR RS-X17-2S SI RRR2 RRA4S BROUN RO S BEVERLY SMITH SILBERMANN BEVERLY SILBERMANN ARS BROUN RO S UAVZATA HN SSSRI REPORT NO. PXAS5AR1 PACE 1 SR RS'llT-SS SI RRRS BRSRS BROUN RD S P J B T A HILL PETER J I THEXA A HILL SR5 BROUN RO S LONE LAKE MN 55S5R PROP AOOR OUNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR OUNER NANE TMPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP ABOR TAXPAYER NANE/ABOR SR RS-117-2S SI RBM R212B . POX ST C R KRANTZ ETAL CURnS R KRANTZ 212B FOX ST LONB LAKE HN S5SS4 SR BS-117-2S SA RRIS •2t4f UEBBER HILLS RD K R B S XONATIUS KERRY R XCNATIUS 2R4B UEBBER HXLLS RO NAYZATA HN S5S91 SB BSolI7«2S A2 BBB2 •IRRB FOX ST UXLLXAN L MALORON MXLLXAN L UALDRON XRRt FOX ST NAYZATA MN S5S91 SB BS-IIT-ZS A2 BB09 B1R2B FOX ST H DUNCAN MACMILLAN TRUSTEE N DUNCAN MACMILLAN 1R2B FOX ST NAYZATA MN 55591 SO B»-117‘2S 92 BBIA 99B3R ABORESS UNASSXRNED JOHN 0 S LINDA F HASSOPUST JOHN 0 R LINDA F NASSOPUST CITY CENTER SUITE MBB 55 RTN ST S MINNEAPOLIS HN S5AB2 SR RS-117-2S SA BBIS B2R9B UEBBER HILLS RO K N KRUECER I P K KRUECER TR KEVIN N KRUECER 2B9R UEBBER HXLLS RD NAYZATA MN 55S91 SR BS-117-2S A1 BOBS B17BB FOX ST CRAICBANK ASSOCIATES CRAICBANK ASSOCIATES PO BOX 9SBB DEPT 2S MPLS HN 55AAB SR B5-1I7-25 A2 BBB7 B1R4B FOX ST NILLIAN L UALDRON UXLLXAN L UALDRON IRRB FOX ST NAYZATA HN S5S91 SR B5-117-2S A2 BB12 BBAAB BROUN RD S J B B L F NASSOPUST JOHN B NASSOPUST CITY CENTER SUITE AABB SS S 4TH ST MPLS MN 55AB2 SR BS-117*23 AS BBBl BBBSR ADDRESS UNASSICNED SUAD H AZHARX SUAD N AZHARX 17A5 FOX ST NAYZATA HN 55591 SR BS-117-2S SA BBIA B2BRB UEBBER HILLS RD J 0 HOUe 1 S B HOUC JAMES D R SUSAN B HOUR 2BRB UEBBER HXLLS RO NAYZATA MN 55S91 SR BS-117-25 A1 BBQ5 BBBSR ADDRESS UNASSICNED LONORIDOE ASSOC LONORXDOE ASSOC C/0 ROBERT J THEXLER P 0 BOX 542R MPLS HN 55AAB-S42R SR BS«117-2S A2 BBBR BIRAB FOX ST JOHN C SKOOLUND TRUSTEE JOHN C SKOCLUNO C/0 BAKER NANABEMENT SB STM ST S RA9BB MPLS MN 5SAB2 SR B5-117-2S A2 BBIS BBBSR ADDRESS UNASSICNED JOHN B R LINDA F NASSOPUST JOHN B R LINDA F NASSOPUST CITY CENTER SUITE AABB SS 4TN ST S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55AB2 SR BS-117-2S AS BBB2 B1925 FOX ST J NAOSTROM ASNDONN MATSON J NABSTROM ASHDOUN NATSON 1925 FOX ST NAYZATA MN 55591 ( ^ 1 •...V * ». » f'f) Qr-Cr-ir'crJ MAR ? ■<: 7m CiiY Ui* UriONO MM BATE tmA/At BATCH sat HENNEPIN COUNTY PBOPEBTV INFOAHATION SVSTEN PMPERTV OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXASSAIl PACE 2 BMNEB NANI TANPAVCN MIHE/ABBN SB tS-ilT-SS AS BROS •OBBO BRONN RB S H J OTT B S B BTT NXCNACL J OTT BOB BRONN RB S HAVZATA NN S5S91 TOTAL BATCH 5B1 BBB19 • r.. l'\ .. I r I 2 ^4 ^I • »• W t. Z CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTEB ARE AN ACCURATE ANO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS BATE ON THE RECORfiS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTNENT OF PROPEIOV TAKATI0N« TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHLEOBE ANO BELIEF. OATEJ " ^ 1 I . .. . . . . . . . . . .. f ■ V ' ' • '- "Lv; ^'^y, - v: * • . • '■• ' / !'\ ■ 4.^ / •» *^« ^ •*-5 • * '7 v7 X'}?f f \ Kr‘ N i / ',/ /■• ,• \ ■ * Ir- ••• «* >\-’ 5:- 7- ■•."■. U '2^ f I •V H b iS'f .' lyyJM V «Sii^ ^ V :, Ac*' i -.'S'' ‘ ■ ■, . . ' u .•> > VV . ';■■ •: : - ‘.:‘f. ‘ t- . •■.• . V’ • ’: -V. , y-v,;, - -i .. <i/ > ’/t: * # •!‘-'»| i mx y' o>“ ^ ii- f:.-.v =*ii' *-■■•••< *'x -t ^ Wv - <%' L \M. Vi-^ *>«i^W-^ Pi mm JBrm ^1 m :t:^ V\'» ^ ^ \r i‘f'- ^ 'n •»' * ^ ‘ '«V *1 v' ' * ^ ^ « S I i' > V :.534kam\i^'l^ •« •■ *v ,-'A^*\ .;-,v.- TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE; RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner March 20,2000 #2570 George Stickney 2590 Countryside Drive Variances Zoning: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre Minimum lot size AppUcution: Variances to permit construction of a tennis court and 10' fence. List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Site Survey Septic As Built Original Septic Site Locations Primaiy/Altemate 14 Section Map Site Survey 2575 Thoroughbred Lane Site Survey 2605 Thoroughbred Lane Topographic Map Property Owners Notification List Application Summary: George Stickney is the applicant and owner of property located at 2590 Countryside Drive. He has applied for a variance to permit construction of a tennis court 30' from the rear property line, where 50' is required, and a second variance to permit the fence arcuno the court to be 10' in height where 6' is permitted. In the statement of hardship the applicant has stated the fence is required to be over 6' to accommodate a tennis court. ________________ ANALYSIS Pertinent Code Sections: Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D) prohibits tennis courts from being located within the required rear yard setback. In the RR-IB zoning district the required setback is 50'. $25 70 Ctorge Stickney J590 Countryside Drive Variances April1 7. 2000 pagt-l Section 10.03, SuMivision 15 (E) prohibits fences to exceed a height of 6'. Surrounding Properties: The property is located in the RR-IB two acre zoning district requiring the following setbacks for tennis courts: Front - 30’ minimum and not within the required 50' front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side - 30' minimum and not within the required 30' side yard area Rear - 30' minimum and not within the required 50' rear yard area The two adjacent properties to the north (2575 and 2605 Thoroughbred Lane) would be those most impacted by the encroachment into the rear yard setback. The tennis court is proposed to be located approximately 235’ to the residence located at 2605 Thoroughbred Land and would be approximately 270' to the residence located at 2575 Thoroughbred Lane. Surveys for both properties are attached to the report. According to the City’s most recent topographic maps the tennis court would be located about 20' lower than the two residences on Thoroughbred Lane. The elevation of the tenms court would be at 1009' and the average floor elevation of the residences is approximately 1029'. Court Location: Because the sun is generally located in either the east or west sky it has been an industry standard that tennis courts are constructed to direct play north and south. To accommodate a court on this property and properly align the court it has become necessary to encroach 20' into the rear yard setback. There is a large portion of the property that is not developed to the rear of the house that could not be used for a tennis court due to the primary mound septic system being located in that area. Accessory structures cannot be located closer to the street than the house. Based on the discussion in the previous paragraph it is not possible to locate a tennis court on the property without requiring a setback variance to the rear yard. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has addressed the hardship associated with the fence height exceeding 6' to avoid tennis balls from going over the fence, thus requiring a 1 O' fence. Locating the tennis court 20' into the rear yard setback is the only location available to accommodate a standard size court due to the M2570 George Sttckney 3590 Countrysuie Drive Variances April17, 2000 pag«-2 i septic system being located behind and east of the house. Homes impacted by the rear yard setback encroachment are located 235' and 270' from the north comers of the proposed tenms court. The court would be 20' lower than the average main floor elevation of both houses. Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. 2. 3. 4. Approval of variances based on the Statements of Hardship. Denial of variances, stating reasons. Table, requesting further information and provide direction to the applicant. Other Action. H2570 Gtorgt Stlckney 3590 Countryside Drive Variances April!?. 2000 pagt-3 A Application # ^5^ Date Received 3 {(•‘Ihe Amount Paid -^2^0 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION . ^ Site Address______CovAryj-lJ^ Ia4 Property Identification Number (PJ.D.). Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired. ^ H________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) a^so own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: k/ residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:__________________________________— _ i applicant ^ ^ Name Addres^ 2. o w vAr v Phone (home). Phone (woric)_ A City:Zip: SS~SJ' (3 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Lo^ Describe request in detail: JZ*->JTa 11 j t Estimated Constniction Cost $ (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 imdue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual prope^ condi^w prevenmig compliance with Zoning Code requirements: —CHiLCl.— ■ t L ar ea fh -^(Jt ------------------------------------------' (attach additional sheets if necessary) b4~/l7-S(3 B // .-a',.' w f.’257 r • CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GEORGE STICKNEY OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1, COUNTRYSIDE MANOR 2ND ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA S 89*5V40" E 274.53 • i • ■ • j 0 1 1 ii1 • 1i ( 11 1 1 r#.# • [V. . .V • .*.. • • \ t^CAL or pwciyqgt ? Wot t Bo€k 2. COUNTAYSCC MANQH tuO AOOfTiON • : irof* morkfr • { Irt** mor«i«r iMrViff thowf% ort dotvn. 1. I* - i . Ulto U0^f lo .tfitw IM bOufidOftM •! th« tMnw *prop«rty. .Hm tMoUto m cillUnf ,Nigt«. and prt»«M4 imUort •! fU« prppoMd Mi nil Wpo't to ooy >lNMO«OYMnls or I —, • * •v • 'Zfi- h* 4j I . • • • .K j! l«5i n I .• i*. .--irj t m Ccur\hy^ck Ck D /I £ ^aV zt/Vi -Tv •*•34' •»<r 31 ’Mt’ • T 3 3*>‘vv A i CouAiTrvfsTEi^'^^t: ■ 1 urtrai- ‘ I - rn ^il“lhr> >rnfc~lWVi~i~tfTTi ittfl J • il *Tv.*)u_-fcf Mt^wxe- .^60 m*— 3f:vi\t_.%rr'fvnc.e....V)ro«=_t.'j!*.f'tia:.) C.U- 700 00________________ • Pwcololisn TesS ■Sol Bo«. jt • B?«ch M»k Scot? Note TNi tytitm 4 lo bt CCnsIrX'ed lo (reel lh< Mmetoio Pofu'ion Con'iol Agtr^y SWnd<V(J» -WPC40B Lo<oi C>d«:nc« PRCPCRTY Luv>ta.ea. t-c< A rlv;. j g.o\u>rAvsto>^ iMAUflg- a rtiD. nCoUO Ultf co.tiT/) S-P TESTING 11^ Otiiqiwj ^ Aip-di Oote\B/J:!/£if Pm.6« 497-35S6 MN DATE tS/tS/ti V 7 MtOI Ml HENNEPIN COUNTY PiOPENTY INFORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PMSMEl PACE 1 PROP AMR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AMR M M>I17-2S 11 lElY ••Mi HANOR CIR K S NASSAUER I K B NASSAUER KERRY S A KI NASSAUER MS HANOR CIR LONO LAKE HN 5535A M •4-117-2S 11 ••!• •2S9S COUNTRYSIDE DR 0 STXCXNEY t J OLIVERIUS 0 STZCKNEY 1 J OLIVERIUS 2SM COUNTRYSIDE DR LONO LAKE HN S5S5A M •4-117-2S 11 Mil •2545 COUNTRYSIDE DR T B NICN S C E NICH THUNAS B RICH 2545 COUNTRYSIDE DR LONO LAKE HN 55S54 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ABOR SB •4-117-2S 11 ••2« •2525 THOROUCNBRED LA BRADLEY E t HARY J BARKEN BRADLEY E t HARY J BAKKEN 2525 THOROUCNBRED LA LONO LAKE HN 55354 SO •4-117-2S 11 BBai •2575 TNOROUONBRED LA ANDREN 0 ESTOCLET ANDREN 0 ESTOCLET 2575 THOROUONBRED LA LONO LAKE HN 55S54 SB •4-117-2S 11 ••22 •2425 TNOROUONBRED LA J A ERLANDSON A R ERLANDSON JOHN A • ROHY ERLANDSON 24*5 THOROUCNBRED LA LONO LAKE HN 55S54 i PROP Al OHN|R NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR IB •4-117-2S 12 •••4 •2415 COUNTRYSIDE M D BECKSTRON • K BECKSTRON DARRELL • KENHYN BECKSTRON 2415 COUNTRYSIDE DR LONO LAKE NN 55S54 SB 44-117-25 12 4415 •24S4 COUNTRYSIDE DR H TOM B A KATHERINE H URNESS TOM B A KATHERINE H URNESS 24SA COUNTRYSIDE M W LONO LAKE NN 55S54 SB •4-117-2S 14 iB44 •2555 COUNTRYSIDE Dl S A A SOMEBLY S E A A L SCNNEBLY 2555 COUNTRYSIDE DR LONO LAKE NN S5S54 OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOM TOTAL BATCH 541 •BAM I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN **• REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT OP THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OP PROPERTY TAXATION# TO THE BEST OP NY KNOHLEME AND BELIEF. 4 DATE ■■Jt ii •4 - Miiigrilfiiimt TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Aprill3,2000 #2571 Jim Ginther and Doug Ault 2739 Shadywood Road Condition^ Use Permit and Variance After the Fact Variance Zoning: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Application: Conditional Use Permit and variance to permit a ‘dock lot’ for two dock slips within Tract U, and an after the fact variance to permit expansion of a parking area constituting additional hardcover within 75' of the OHWL of L^e Minnetonka. List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G Application Existing Survey Dock Lot Ownership Plat Map Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 Resolution No. 1847 Approving Dock lot for Tract E (Sample) Letter from Zimmerman, Gay and Ogle History of Dock Lots: The dock lots are shown on a plat map atiacheu as Exhibit C. They were created as part of Registered Land Survey No. 415 (2/3/1955) in common with residential properties located within the subdivision. It was assumed at the time the subdivision occurred each lot within the subdivision would have a dock lot for storing of a boat. Since none of the dock lots were ever legally combined with the residential lots nearby they eventually were sold off separately and are held in private ownership. Several owners of dock lots applied to the City of Orono in 1985 for a conditional use permit to allow legal use of the lots without a principal structure. The Mumcipal Code has not permitted accessory structures (including doclu) to be constructed on lots without a principal building as early as 1968. #2571 Jim Ginther and Doug Alt 2739 Shadywood Road Condiuonal Use Permit and Variance After the Fact Variance March 20. 2000 pagt-! The 1985 conditional use permits were apparently only required for dock lots whose owners did not reside in the immediate neighborhood, approved the use of the lots as dock lots for Tracts S/T, R/Q, 0/P and E. Since that time the Hoffman Messer Tract U has been sold to non-residents Ginther/Ault and they have agreed to apply for a conditional use permit. The Orono Zoning Code does not have the provision of a conditional use for dock lots. The CUP was accepted by the non-resident owners in 1985 as a way of placing some limits on the dock lot usage. Issues for Planning Commission Discussion 1.Does the pre-existing use of the dock lots prior to 1968 and presumably continuous since then given new property owners perceived ‘‘grandfathered ” rights, and therefore the same conditional use permit rights given to other dock lot owners in 1985? 2.Some lots have had electricitv- and lighting added since the CUPs were approved. This lot has also. Would the addition of electricitv/liehting. etc, constitute the expansion of a noiir conforming use? 3.It is unclear how long Tract U has been used for the mooring of two boats. This makes it difficult to determine if there has been an expansion of the use based on the number of boats using the lot. Previous CUPs for adjacent dock lots only permined one boat and one parking space per dock lot. Because this lot currently has two boats and two boat slips the applicants have requested an after the fact variance to permit a parking area to accommodate two vehicles and the CUP to reflect the lot is to be used for storage of two boats. 4. Can the property, based on the size, be put to any other reasonable use, 5.The existing docks are approximately 65 ’ long. If approved new at this length, any extension of the docks would require an amendflient to the CUP. 6.Recently the City of Orono has prohibited parking on Shadv-wood which has been very controversial. Is there a created need for internal parking for this specific dock lot? Does the parking area have to be gravel? If you approve of a conditional use permit and variance for the iliis application recognizing the riparian use of these tracts as a legal non-conforming use and approving the necessary variances to allow an accessory structure without a principal structure and setback variances - consider whether the following findings are appropriate: 1 . The use of this lot as proposed will not create a hazard to the public, health, safety or welfare. 2.The present use as a riparian dock lot had been established on this property prior to official municipal zoning and controls. #2571 Jim Gimhcr and Doug All 2739 Shad>’wood Road Condition^ Use Permit and Variance After the Fact Variance Mo^ch 20, 2000 pagt-2 \ 3.The property as subdivided in the mid 50s without under apparently minimal local controls, is a unique situation requiring use but for limited dock use. 4. The property because of its physical constraints, cannot be put to any other reasonable residential use but for limited dock use. 5.A variance to allow an increase in hardcover in the 0-75* zone for parking area is justified since on street parking has been eliminated, (or should on street parking be allowed for this lot?) The recent flurry of neighborhood concerns regarding the dock lots has raised many issues related to this application. These issues can be summarized as follows: 1.General neighborhood resident concerns about parking on Co. Rd. 19. overnight stays on boats, lighting, security alarms, and a general expansion of a non-conforming situation with the concurrent perception of increased activity. 2. Non-resident dock lot owners concerns about parking needs and the need to provide amenities such as lighting and security alarms to make the dock lots usable. 3.Resident dock lot owners negative response to City’s suggestion that they permanently tie the dock lots to their neighborhood homestead properties. 4. Lack of clarity as to existence and impact of Existing easements and covenants dating back to the 1950's that may impose limits on use or require maintenance of access. Staff expects area residents will be in attendance to voice their specific concerns about this application. Also see attached letter from neighbors. Options for Planning Commission Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Table for additional information Recommend approval with condition Recommend denial, stating reasons Other action 12571 Jim Ginther and Doug Alt 2739 Shadywood Road Conditiomil Use Permit and Variance After the Fact Variance March 20. 2000 poit-3 1 ti •id Application #uDate ReceK'cd ^li$loo Amount Paid ^ Z S O ^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^73 ^ Site Address T7t>^c<T (/ ng Type of Application to be Filed C0H§ i~n___________ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) //7 C Q ________________ APPLICANT Name -L4 (home)CO^^ /' O Phone (work)_____^<i<o Address.?/Jf) X\A-i[XJM cunrii- k City J:rXC^L^e?< Zip ^ i^\jo( OWNER (if different than applicant^ Phone (home) -'^771^ Name g^ckjf^.AuH- /Xx(rt'm^ Phone (work)______^ Address (i- y\j (Ti«. <?>City Tm/ (-ctK. c> Date Property Acquired t______ I (do) fHo n^) also own the ^jacent parcels of land. Zip __(month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERi\nTS - $ 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 J 1 I • V ' V.#c » ii... 3 OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____SICO.OO Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$ 100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule 15-2000 OB: vBO EG^h M. field MOIa IFiK E125U6E:rJ3V P. 02 O^’ LEQEND : 0 o V CA)CH BASIN POVICI^ POiX HYDRANT sir.N UGIIT POST GUARD POS‘1 ELECTRIC HITTER rcET soever kor. JIM OlNTHgR tXOAL DCSTJU^TUX: "l? Tract O, Roglatered UonU Siirvay No. Alb. Flea ofR«9ifitrar Titles, Hmnnepm County^ M*nriA«otO. CKRDnCATION; wo* ^^repored by me or iino« my oiroct ouperMelon andu"J ST," s,is'>'' ..............^ ----- day oi Februory, 2000 RRfvIiied tote 6th boy of MorcTi. ?nOO HA cROCO'wCR OR ivTvyay « 472 eouore feet LANoar.ePC =» 320 cqyora feet TOTai . 790 equore feet PROPERTY - in,.VkO equere feet TUI.M. PCRCCNT mm 7SA!R NOILS? LIceneo no , 20281 «» o-a«*o on the norlnaaiti lino of Troct U wnieh 13 aaaumaj to hova o aoonno of Stouth 6B degra«« oi minute* sg aacoidH Fo»t 2. The artno uf Ihm property ohoivn iv •4t»n fe to.SOO equarc feet or O 24-42 oeree. ^ rr Y of thie aulvny to war.fy tha legaliia«. ript.on ar tn« existence uf ony aatamant or eneumbmn./.ra «•« EQAN FIELD A NOWAK SURVEYORS INC 741.*: W4*.TaT>* ©lvlEVARO • mimheapou S. MINNESOTA m±r (412) S837 TOTAc P.O; ------- 'A Pib 'l1-\P'2.3 I4 00 SK<x JIh u )oo <i 9 / «Lit:_i r\ i- ^ \ —r—^—■'•‘•. ^^5'^______ ____________ ^ ^ L / I \ \ I ai) (2-ll M 0^ ^ f» ^ Kl IX «•-<•• ; / -'., . o , A) I I WTn/*/«f* * eOiirV • C99'< .V * 'V '■ t>«t«>irnO»>, IgfitS; "ZfUSt Abo«X^ • tf*^ tWr 2tiS ^Nia*• rtudXL s i r /fU6r«. • *nw*Mi Ufa t^te&GL • *Tii«s 0^f 3Hil D im-w>*^ Av« . ^xc4n.&ioe. f.o. *oK ^co,t*ei^ti . V V."?V > <> •fit’* •» ^ / A -/ / 2^1^ SH«»/u)oo£> fr83 Suu-iwJ j Cou/.»ACf/5 't'tMirS \ wirTf»»Art sVsi:t%l 0<icce ^ s.ifej^feuJpotk SS2>2>1 • Twms a»4^ ®usoiorlfNv\5>^pV.w^i#rtiyWt^ 7^05 ch\yp^w^ Vm\ / \ /' / • *Tficr i> i)aVkl 0>’/^ 0V> vJ»iuu-2ib6 w, MAVzfcT'A 2 ri I sVfciYvxvU \ i / / / 6D»»CCf- ^icercH 77r«s 75 / ^ S’mHv •I± §10.03 B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement, which results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning district, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying under the minimum acreage, open ^pace, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any provisio^ of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 7. One Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residential Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet all required setback standards or an existing dwelling while a new principal structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 3 months, any extensions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure and such structure removed. Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. ■^1^' Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the ”R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in height Source: Ordinance 72,2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 ORONO CC 254 (4-1-84) i •# *.** * • • •i-aVV I il.i’. } o • {■/;»if'.'O • City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __________ A RBSOLUTIOH GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 WHEREAS, David C. Cook (hereinafter "the applicant") is an owner of one of the properties located at 2739 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally des­ cribed as Tracts E, Registered Land Survey No. 411 (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 A through J to permit the continued use of the property as a legal non-conforming use and, specifically, per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) seeks a variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 4 (A) to allow an accessory structure (dock) on a property that is unable to sustain a principal structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 1946. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. On August 19, 1985 the Orono Planning Commission re­ viewed this application as proposed and recommended approval based on the following findings: A) Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J): "Where, however, such a situation existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance..." The substandard tracts were created prior to formal municipal zoning and controls in February of 1955. B) The Orono Council minutes of 1958 and a newspaper article published in the Minnetonka Harold in that same year confirm that the City was aware of the existence and use of accessory docks by non-adjacent owners. ___________ Page 1 of 4 >• • "it I City of ORONO •* . U.* RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUIVIpl.L , _ 18” Urn mNO. .: '.V •' •' _____..-./ Bm C) Th© property# as subdivided in the mid 50's without the benefit of local controls, is a unique situation requirinq special consideration. D) The limited use of these tracts as proposed by the City will not create hazards to the public safety. E) The property, because of physical constraints, cannot be put to any other reasonable residential use but for limited dock use. 4. The City Council has considered this application it.eluding the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow continued use of the property as a riparian lot with an accessory dock not to be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the^ Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use perit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to permit the continued use of an accessory dock on a property that cannot sustain a principal structure hereby establish a legal non-conforming use of the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant is limited to the mooring of one boat at zero lot line dock. 2. Applicant is advised to arrange for appropriate off- street parking for the parking of one car. 3. The existing dock at Tract E measures 50 feet in length and 3 feet in width. The applicant must file a conditional use permit with the City if an increase in the length of the dock is considered at some future date. Page 2 of 4 4 City of OROINO • ^ r^i r;r • • " ‘ ' 'vf. V' ‘ . j^ m •• . •»« « J .•? -*'2i\v3 j • r .. ... - .j RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUJ^CIL ^ NO. 1847 - ^ /^r ... . 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor* 5* The undersigned applicant has read, understood and here­ by agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of Sep^mber, 1985. ATTliST: 7 allin,'City Clerk MaiyC. ButMer, Mayor Tom Frahm, Acting Mayor V , c (1) Property Owner Page 3 of 4 • .*’•••• oin-., V City of ORONO 2. » RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4 NO. 1847 J .7. ■ '.f.. - /<: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of CTz^Sc/C.1985 before me a Notary Public w^hin and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the personTs)describedinandwhoexecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC f) itAJef //f /f^ ^ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1985, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 r April 13,2000 TO: Orono Planning Commission FROM: Dick and Marlys Ogle Richard and Sue Gay Jim Zimmerman 2771 Shadywood Road 2735 Shadywood Road 2745 Shadywood Road SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application for Ault and Ginther Agenda Item # 2571 E We have a number of specific concerns, issues and questions about the speciflc property in question. We also have a number of issues and concerns about all of the non-conforming non­ resident dock lots that exist in our small residential neighborhood. To understand the issues and concerns of the neighborhood residents it’s important to re^new the histoiy of the non-conforming dock lots in the neighborhood. That background and history is as follows: Origin of the Non-Conforming Dock Lots The 20-foot non-conforming boat dock lots were created specifically and exclusively for neighborhood residents. Each non-conforming dock lot was tied to a specific neighborhood lot. The purpose of the non-conforming dock lots was to provide docks to neighborhood homeowners not on the lake, as well as to provide permanent docks to some of the homeowners on Carman’s Bay so that they would not need to put temporary docks on Carman’s Bay. Non-Resident Ownership When the covenants of the neighborhood expired, a few of the residents sold off the non- conforming dock lots to non-residents. • Over the years, a number of the non-conforming docks have been resold to other non­ residents. Earlier city documents detail that there was an agreement that when docks were sold Aere was a requirement that a 10-day written notice be provided to residents of the immediate area. This agreement was so residents in the neighborhood would have the opportunity to purchase the non-conforming dock lots from the non-residents and return them to the neighborhood use for which 3iey w'ere intended. There is no record of any non-resident owner that sold their dock providing the agreed to 10 day written notice when they sold their docks to other non-residents. i Dock Location and Numbers • We are working with the city and the LMCD using aerial photographs to determine exactly what docks and structure was associated with each non-conforming lot at specific points in time. We expect to have that research completed in the next 2 to 3 weeks. ■ What was involved with each property is critical to understanding the issue of prior use for each property. A Long History of Problems with Non-Resident Dock OwTiers • In doing background history on the non-conforming dock properties we discovered that there is a long history of recorded problems with these properties. The attached Orono city memo from 1984 states that there have been many years of complaints about the non ­ resident docks. The city cites the many years of complaints focused on theft, garbage and litter, abuses of parking, excessive num^r of guest boats, all day picnics and boat slip rental. City staff also stated that the area had been complained about as being a commercial marina. ■ Because of all the stated problems and complaints, in 1984 the city asked residents and non ­ residents to agree on covenants to address this issue. The Cit>' Council stated that they would approve a building permit for a non-resident owner (Thimesh) if covenants were developed and agreed to. Based on the verbal commitment of all the owners, approval was given to Thimesh to install his dock. Once his dock was in, he had his lawyer send a letter to the city refusing to sign the covenants Thimesh had agreed to in order to get his dock. Because of this, the covenants w*ere never signed and the problems stated in 1984 have continued and accelerated. ■ Despite acknowledging the serious complaints and problems and the city’s conclusion that ‘There was indeed a potential threat to the public health, safety and welfare" posed by the 20 foot non-conforming lots, conditional use permits were granted to 4 of the non-resident dock owners in 1985. ■ Asa neighborhood, we have documented numerous issues, concerns and complaints about the non-resident dock owners as detailed in the attached past correspondence. Intensifying and Significantly Expanded Use of Non-Conforming Dock Lots ■ Since 1985 there has been a consistent and extensive increase in use that we feel the city needs to address. ■ In 1985 the non-resident dock slips were used in the same manner as residents, which was for daytime recreational use. Boats were in the size range of 18-30 feet consistent with other boats in the neighborhood and appropriate for the very shallow and narrow lagoon where the docks are located. • In the late 1980 ’s or 1990, electricity was added by the non-resident dock owners which fundamentally changed the nature and usage of the boat docks. This addition more than any other has led to a significant intensification of use. • The addition of electricity has changed the docks from appropriate only for daytime recreation use to making them habitable docks. Large boats that can used essentially to live on require shore power, which w’as not available at the non-resident docks in 1985 viiien the conditional use permits were granted. ■ With the addition of electricity, boat size has increased substantially, and usage has changed. • Usage of the non-resident boat docks has gone from daytime weekend use to boats being used by many non-resident dock owners as weekend homes. A number of owners frequently sjiend 2 or 3 nights per week on their boats, sometimes tied up at their dock. ' The addition of electricity has also allowed the addition of a high intensity anti-crime light that burns all night. This light disturbs the peace and quiet of the neigh^rhood and also because there is bright light, it facilitates and encourages late night boating. When there was no electricity and lights, non-resident dock owners generally brought their boats in at the end of the day when there was still daylight to unload their boat. With the light in place they now frequently bring their boats in at midnight and later. The engine noise from the large boats and the talking and music is disturbing to the neighborl'to jd <4;v en the very narrow channel the boats must go through to get to their docks. ■ As detailed in 1984, abuse of parking privileges has been a serioes and perpe'ual pr.>l:’2m The agreements and the conditional use permits call for each dock o ~'er to .• e the ri;;l t') park one car per slip in front of their dock on their property. Since C x)k (one c * on resident dock owners) has essentially no lake shore, his conditional use *'ermit does ».^l grant him the right to park a car and states that he must arrange for parloiig in some other location. In return for agreeing to give Dick Ogle the right to purchase hb dock Ic vhen is done using it, Dick Ogle agreed to let Cook park on his property. ■ Non-resident owners consistently and routinely have violated their parking agreements, frequently parking two or more cars per boat slip. Overflow parking has wound up on County Road 19. This created serious safety problems both for bicyclists and walkers that use County' Road 19 as a designated county' bike path and for residents that need to use the areas that were designed to prov'ide safe deceleration lanes to exit County Road 19. • There were a number of near miss accidents with bicy'clists and residents turning off County Road 19 using the deceleration lane that were due to non-resident dock owners parking cars along County Road 19. As a result of this dangerous situation, neighborhood residents, in 1999, petitioned the city to place no parking signs on County Road 19. The city and county agreed w'ith the safety risks and put up the no parking signs. • Because the non-resident dock owmers could no longer park the multiple cars per dock in violation of their parking restrictions, they petitioned the city, in late 1999, to park along County Road 19. The City Council addressed the issue for a second time and once again concluded there was a serious safety issue that necessitated the no parking restrictions. ■ Once again, in March 2000, the non-resident dock owners have petitioned the city to grant excess parking along County Road 19 and for the third time in less than a year the City Council will address the parking issue at the May 2000 City Council meeting. • As neighbors we are very frustrated that the non-resident dock owners will not live up to the one car restriction they agreed to and that the city seems unwilling to tell the non-resident dock ow'ners that they must comply with the one car per dock agreement they made. Rental of Boat Slips • It’s clear from the 1984 Orono City memo that dock rental by non-resident owners has been a problem for many years. The memo states neighbors referred to the non-resident dock area as a marina because of the dock rentals. • For the last few years there has always been at least one dock and frequently two of the non­ resident docks that have been rented to non-residents of the area. We have made the city aware of the rental situation. • Renters create substantial problems since the neighbors hav ’e no idea w’ho should be in the area. Renters also don’t know the rules, regulations and restrictions that affect the non- conforming dock area and therefore frequently violate the rules and restrictions creating noise, parking and other problems. "1 • We have been told by the city and the LMCD that rental of these boa* docks is absolutely not allowed. Despite knowing about the rental problem in 1984 and our reiterating the rental situation in 1999 and again this year, to our knowledge the city has never taken any action to restrict dock rental by non-resident dock owners. We want the city to vigorously enforce the no rental restrictions beginning with the 2000 boating season. Docks Have Moved From Intended 1985 Daytime Recreational Use to Becoming Habitable Docks and Essentially Weekend Homes With the addition of electricity, the non-resident docks have very large boats that are essentially used as weekend homes by many of the non-resident dock owners. Shore power allows them to have the type of boats that can be used essentially as weekend homes and that ’s increasingly how the boats are used. The larger more valuable boats allowed by shore power are also attractive targets for crime and there have been numerous break-ins on the non-resident boats. Theft and crime were also referenced in the 1984 city memo. Because of the crime attracted to our neighborhood by the large, expensive non-resident boats, they have installed a high intensity anti-crime light. One of the boats, R Tonka Toy (owned by Ginther), in the past installed a motion activated burglar alarm. The alarm malfunctioned, causing it to go off at all houre of the day and night, completely disrupting the neighborhood. Since Ginther did not live in the neighborhood and we had no way to contact him, the neighborhood was disrupted for weeks until he returned from vacation and turned off his alarm system. There have been a number of instances of trees being diseased and dying or trees coming down by storm in the non-resident dock lots. Since their entire dock is in the 0-75 foot range, it is our understanding that legally these trees need to be replaced. None of the trees that were taken down or came down have ever been replaced. In 1999, a flagpole was added to one of the non-conforming dock properties. We’d like the flagpole removed since this clearly was not there in 1985 and is an expansion. One flagpole may lead to others. Essentially, the addition of electricity has resulted in the non-resident dock o\\'ners being able to use their 35 plus foot boats as weekend homes on Lake Minnetonka while^paydng $200-$300 per year in property’ taxes for the privilege of having a “second home” on the lake. SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATING TO GINTHER AND AULT We feel the above information relating to the non-conforming dock lots and the long history of problems and issues is essential in looking at the specific issues related to Ginther and Ault. Our specific issues relative to this lot and the conditional use permit they’re seeking are as follows: Two Boat Docks on One Non-Conforming Lot - It is our understanding that only one dock is allowed per non-conforming lot. If this is the ordinance in Orono, we would ask that a condition of the permit be that one of the two docks on this property be removed. Boat Slip Rental - For many years, we understand Ault has rented his boat slip. We want the city to enforce a strict no rental policy on this dock property and actively and aggressively enforce this policy. t ■ Prior Use - We understand that 1968 is the date that governs prior use. We have reviewed 1971 Heard aerial photographs that show there is ong boat shed or boathouse on this non- conforming lot. That further supports that there should be no more than one dock on this property. ■ Hard Cover Driveway - There is a hard cover gravel driveway within the 0-75 foot setback. We understand that city codes do not allow this and that no permits were ever requested or granted for the driveway. In 1999, the driveway was expanded from accommodating 2 to be able to accommodate 4 cars. We would ask that as part of any conditional use permit that the gravel driveway be removed. • Blocking of Fire Hydrant - The non-permitted driveway that Ginther and Ault have put in is immediately adjacent to the only fire hydrant in the immediate area. Frequently, four cars are parked on the gravel driveway making ea^ and quick access to the fire hydrant virtually impossible. Within the last 24 months, there have been 2 home fires in our immediate neighborhood where the fire trucks used this fire hydrant. Thankfully, it was at a time when cars were not parked immediately next to the fire hydrant, which allowed the fire department to get to the fire hydrant. We would ask that, as part of any conditional use permit, parking not block the fire hydrant. • Burylar Alarms - As referenced earlier, Ginther’s burglar alarm created major disruption to the neighborhood in the past. We would ask that burglar alarms not be allowed at this property. • Parking for Only One Car per Dock - Consistent with the other conditional use permits for the other non-conforming docks, we w ould ask that only one car be allowed to park for each dock. Since we believe there should be only one dock at this property, we w'ould request that only one car be allowed to park at any given time on this property and that that parking be in a spot that didn’t limit access to the fire hydrant and didn’t violate hard cover restrictions. • Removal of Electricity - Per the previous discussion on the non-conforming dock lots, we’d request that electricity be removed frum this property. • Noise Guidelines - Since this property is at the end of a very narrow lagoon area, we’d request strict noise guidelines be incorporated into any conditional use permit granted for this property. We’d also ask that boats not come or go from these d^ks after 10:00 p.m. on wee^ights and 11:00 p.m. on w’eekends so as not to wake up the neighbors and disturb the neighborhood. We would respectfully ask that until all of the above issues can be satisfactorily discussed and resolved that no action be taken on applicant’s request for a conditional use permit. Both Richard Gay and Jim Zimmerman plan to appear at the Planning Commission meeting. Dick Ogle will be out of town and thus unable to testify in person. We hope the above information provides some helpful background on vyhat we see as a very serious and expanding problem. We respectfully ask for the city ’s help in resolving the many issues surrounding the non-conforming dock lots. r \‘-f I 1 'ji . m i[ 3 i J-4 *#' -•\ f’ • •' 'I V. I p To: From: Dace: Thomas Frahm, Marina Ccrrjnittee Chairman Charles Kelley William Sime Jeanne A. Mabusthf Zon^no Administrator June 17, 1985 Subject: Riparian Outlots North of Narrows Bridge List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Agreement of 5/31/85 Exnibit D — Combination Papers Tracts S 6 T Exhibit C - Building Permit for Temporary Dock 6/7/24 Exhibit D - Soule's Letter Dated 6/25/84 Exhibit E - Zoning Administrator's Letter Dated 6/2£/8< Exhibit F - Casey's (Resident Ov.i.er) Letter Dated 7/10/84 Exhibit G - Inspection Notice Exhibit H - Building Permit for Hev/ Dock Tract S 6 7 Exhibit I - Survey/Site Plan for New Dock • Exhibit J - Registered Land Survey 415 & 411 Review of Application In the Spring^ of 1984, after the many years cf receiving complaints concerning the intense use and reported operation of a commercial marina v/ithin Narrows Lagoon area, Council directed staff to inspect the subject area. Staff advised Council that there was indeed a potential threat to the public health, safety a.-.d welfare in the unregulated use of these ’0 feet wide riparian tracts given the limited area of the- lagoon. The original Registered Land Survey division created the .. tracts to provide protected dock use areas for the homestead lots within that same Registered Land Survey. The covenants, dealing, with the use of these tracts have long expired and the tracts have been sold off to non-resident owners. Complaints range as follows: garbage and litter of la.-.d portion of tracts, theft, obuses of parking, encroachm.ent of dock use areas by adjacent dock owners, excessive number of guest boats stored at docks, all day picnics conducted on private property by guests, rental cf residential slips. The City’s real concern is for the potential for the congested lagoon and the alledged ccmncrcial within the LR-lB Resdential Zoning District. Status of Review accidents within • .ttal of slips At your June 6, 1984 meeting, the Orono Marino Committee was reassured by all resident and non-resident owners t.*.at they had accepted the directive of ~hc City Council and agreed to execute conevants for the limited use of their riparian tracts. Based on this verbal commitment by all owners, the chairman advised staff that they could issue a building per.mit for a temporary dock to the current owner of Tracts S S T. Review Exhibit C, the building permit speci­ fied the agreed upon standards (non-rcsidont owner) for the docks construction. The tracts were sold upon construction of the cock to John Thimmesh who refused to accept covenants that he claimed dis­ criminated against non-resident ov/ners (see Exhibit D). The agreement of May 31, 1934 , as amended at the June 6th noc'-ing, was never e>:c- cuted. m *« ’• .‘HV :.>, * • .^ • .Vi/ .*A^;/4i: 1^ *' ^ v-.^- , A',*• at,«- ^v:‘;< ^'•: rt>- '* • V * i^’- ^7:-, ^ T ^ • V ii^/'V-r* •# r,'. .*' iir^vK yjA • • .' •r? ii> * ^ *T • -'1 * • .."i: '.V;Cl m ^^yy. Ji'': Marina Conmittec June 17, 1985 Page 2 of 3 par Review Exhibit A. The following anenJnents were agreed to by ail .ies with interest: «t\Performance Standards for use of riparian tracts of resident owners (Tracts N & R, ?.LS 415) Thomas Casey and Joseph Plcischhacker 1. Dock structu:e/dock use area: a) Dock length - not to e:<cecc 55' in lenrth (length measured from shoreline at 929.4 elevation) b) Limit of 3 boats - boats not to encroach 20 feet wide dock use area. c) 20 feet wide riparian tracts do not qualify for the use of bucys in lagoon. B. Performance standards for use of riparian tracts by non­ resident owr.ars (Tracts C,?.,S, RLS 415 ft Tract E, RLS 411) James Johnson (now John Thimmesh), Paul Nutt, Dean Thomas, David C. Cook. 1. Dock structure/dcck use ar*.:a: a) Dock lo:icth - not tc e.xceod 40' in length (length measured from shoreline at 929.4 elevation) b) Limit of 1 boat over 16 feet in length - boat may not encroach defined ?C feet wide dock use area. c) 20 feet wide riparian traces do not qualify for use of buoys in lagoon. C. Performance standards for use of land tracts owned both resident and nen-resident ewners (Tracts L, M, P, (J* T, RLS 415 S Tracts D ft B, RLS 411) 1. Executed exclusive/mutual access case.monts oyer land tracts specified above in favor cf individual riparian tract owners. 2. Each land tract is to be used solely for vehicular access and/or the parking (except for Tract D, RLS 411) of 1 motor vehicle - picnicing, etc. is not allowed (owners may wish to establish other limitations on use). D. Additional recuirements cf all owners: 1. Owners agree to install a keyed access gate tc bo placed on east lot line of Tract P, RLS 411. 2. Owners agree to legally combine their individual land tracts with respective riparian tracts rpecifically Tracts 0 & R, RLS 415 and Tracts P ft 0, RLS 415 still remain to be combined. ■A Ii 4^-' v/'^ Vl ’*KS'V ’ - ■ ^'^f->J.v» >/ m vn.1 x>-- if A r* —S , \/ hf^’ ^ ' ■m’ '*I^tra i 5fX iv*. Marina Comr.ittee June 17, 1985 Page 3 oif 3 3 owne-s herebv agree to the terns of this acreer.ent and hVt, if o* thenselves, their heirs, successors . nd as- signs, hereby agree to tne A: ® the chain of title of their suojcc. p.ope..ies. In 1995 absent the executed agreenent to share in the solu-'T'he Citv rust once again ,.-Si-e*.i. , '"itv.iie f,*; •'ecessarv covenants anc as tne tion of this dilena. '■ l\.,g issued to John Thirr.nesh for a has done before, a bui Icing pern- w dock has been placed 48 foot length dock for apparently 2 »..e oo gii3^v.-idth as With the -^-rs^with a ^^Te^^r^o er^roach at 9 feet. The dock ^the necessary oont:.-*. .-n *?itn®ne\h ?TVac- has go’^^^ and installed an electricaluse, Thiia.-aesh (Tracv b) nas 90‘,..ried the cable underground cable from Cook’s doc/c (Tract c) anc j have not within Tract R,0,N and K without P^°P® . ^g.^er received a permit Thir-T.esh installed the dock without a building pe.ni . . • t ^ ^ i3*-ions within the subjectThere are other violawions u. area: . ^ t T. rius*“ be rcr.oved fror lake1. Gasoline tank within ^racw c. r.u^- inunediatly ~ Cook. vo„r-''“ brre^^Jef^rrnstJlod^ or ‘dc.t'«"in "pa« but not left on shore - Nutt. Garbage continues to be a problem on non-resident tracts. Grass is not maintained on non-rcsident tracts - potential violation c£ municipal ordir.an'-o. The Murine Cbnrr.ibte= r.usr sec thet bhc tullewin, is included in any agreement by the residents: , r.f ii"-i‘ od IsTGoon - controls for dock1. For safe navigation c. li. i»cc liiguu size and limit of boats storcc at coc..s. 2. Updated registration tt ®s " c bo-ts stored at dock and current ownership, license num-_rs o». insurance certificate for oac.. boa^. Ve-i. *> 1.' r- H V I * t •• • • . •••• Marina Cor'.r.ittee June 17, 1935 Page 3 o f 2 3. Owners hereby agree to the terns oC this acreer.ent and on behalf of thenselves, their heirs, successors .id as­ signs, hereby agree to the recording of this agreetr.ent in the chain of title of their subject properties. In 1995 absent the executed agreenent The Citv r.ust once again ask the residents to share in the solu­ tion of this* diler.-.a. v;ithout the necessary covenants and as the City has done before, a building pernit v.*as issued to John Thiir.nesh for a 48 foot length dock for app'arently 2 slips. The dock has been placed as with the others with a zero side yard setback with each slip width at S feet. The dock does not appear to encroach the dork use area- of the adjacent users. Unfortunately without the necessary cont:.-.^ .*.n use, Thimnesh (Tract S) has gone ahead and installed an electrical cable from Cook's dock (Tract £) and juried the cable underground within Tract R,0,N and K without proper authorization. 7 have not checked with Thinwesh but I would imagine he never received a permit from the State Inspector authorizing the installation. In fact, Thir-mesh installed the dock without a building permit. There are other violations cr irregulaticns within the subject area: 1. Gasoline tank within Tract E must be removed from lake immediatly - Cook. 2. Canvas top has been stored on Tracts Q S P for the past two vears — i- must be removed cr installed over dock as in past but not left on shore - Nutt. 3. Garbage continues to be a problem on non-resident tracts. 4. Grass is not maintained on non-resident tracts - potential violation of municipal ordinance. The Marina Conumittee must sec that the following is included in any agrcc.T.ent by the residents: 1. For safe navigation of limited lagoon - controls for dock size and limit of boats stored at docks. 2. Updated registration each season with the City advising of current ownership, license numbers of boats stored at dock and insurance certificate for each boat. iiA ft- AGRZEMSMT THIS AGRZEy^NT is entered into this 31st day of May, 1934 ancng James F. Johnson, Paul Nutt, Joseph F. Fleischhacker, Thomas Casey, David Cook and Richard Ogle, all of Hennepin County, -Minnesota WHEREAS, James F. Johnson is the o'--ner of Lo-:s S and T, and Paul Nutt is the o-wner of Lots 0, P. Q and R, and Joseph F. Fleischhacker is the ovTier of Lots N ani M, and Thoir.aS Casey is the o*-mer of Lots K and L; All of the above said lots arc part of Registered Land Survey No. 415 of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Dav'id Cook is the o«.*ner of Lot E, and RieV ard Ogle is the o-vner of Lots B and D in Registered Land Survey No. 411 of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and V*TIERilAS, th® above lisued Lors S, R, O, N, K and E are used for boat docks and th : ovnnrs of said lots have easement rights over the above listed Lots T, Q, P, M. L, 0 and 3 for the purposes of ingress and egress to the said lots used for boat docks. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follo-A-s: 1. That each of the above oarties vho are c-o^-ners of the six lots used for boat docks will contribute to the cost of a gate which can be locked; said gate to be placed at the entrance to Lot B of Registered Land Survey No. 411 and which will control the use of the casement that the parties hereto'have for ingress and egress to the beat dock lots. ^Inr • • • »•.••• ••• • • • I••1%V: X- •frt' r .. ,'•' • . , •. - ** .-r-’fe-‘-v ,’-• •■-- • :».■••• •• ..“T- ... *• ________itf_____' .V^';::V::.v V;- ■■• • r i ' . • ’ ' '• * ^ - • ->'. ^ ^ - • A >;*► ' ’ f. • *’ * '. * ' t- y,. , *. .* ,*• V”' . I • ■/ * . -•' ^ ^ •' ' ’. ‘.-: ^ ' . . ' ' ‘ :.'••• •• V > • ' -.*• • • A* *S ^ •% • _ • - #• ^ I ' ^ ^ A 'a •««••• •• .• • • • • • ,'An*U :W? • ••>•■ N* ' Tr if%• hi V’/* ' ;<C .‘.'^ iPk Said expense •-•ill bo distributed ar.cr.c Messrs. Johnson. ?Leischhacker, Casey and Cook so that each will bear 17 percent of the total cosr and Mr. Nuttf the ovner of tvo lots, vill bear 32 percent of the totcil coSw. I 2. Each of said o~r.ers as Listed in paragraph 1 abr/e and Richard » ► Ogle shall have a key so that each ray open the gate which tL-.e owners » agree to keep locked. I 3. Each of the o~7iers listed in ;* s\agraph 1 above agree that heI I •will keep not rore than three bonts on each of the boat docks he owns ! and said boat’s shall be of such site that they will not interfere with » • the use of the other boat lots Listed above. I 4. Each of the owners agree that boats docked or. their respective boat lots shall be owned by said owners or r.citbcrs of their families I and the ownership of such boats will be so registered. I 5. Each of the owners agree that in using tr.e acove described I j i Lots T, Q, P, M. L. D and 3 for the purposes of ingress a.nd egress I they will not perrit vehicles or property owned by thcr. to interfere I with others who have such easement rights. ; 6. Attached hereto for illustrative purposes are replicas of the Plats of Registered Lar-d Survey No. 415 and No. ‘♦11. 7. Each party to this agreement has signed one copy of this agree nent and each signed copy can be considered an original. IN v;iTNESS v.>:ereOF. each of the pvarties hereto have oxecutec this agreement as of the day and year first aoovo stated. • * '•» .** . * ' • • - . ^ . ^. •. * - • ^ ‘ '- * \' » ^ ^ ^ . 1• •'• r. ^ * . . '■ r. • I t. • *• - L j^ . • •.*■ • ..••••-> ■* ..;■ *'. ,-j- . •-.. *■ .■■^rl- '.-'*jii-^:r., : I • • i •I • I I I said expense will be distributee ar.cr.c Messrs. Johnson. Fleicchhacker, Casey and Cook so that each will bear 17 percent of the total cost and Mr. Nutt, the ou-ner of tvo lots, will bear 32 percent of the total cost. 2. Each of said o-r.ers as Listed in paragraph 1 abeve and Richard Ogle shall have a key so that each ray open the gate %'hich the owners acree to keeo locked.m • 3. Each of the owners listed in ;• itagraph 1 above agree that he • will keep not r.ore than three boats on each of the boat docks he owns and said boats shall be of such sice that they will not interfere with the use of the other boat lots listed above. 4. Each of the owners agree that boats docked on their respective boat lots shall be owned by said owners or r.cr.bors of their fa.-ilies and the ownership of such boats will be so registered. 5. Each of the owners agree that in using the abov? described Lots T, 0. P. M. L. D and 3 for the purposes cf ingress and egress II I they w’ill not permit vehicles or property owned by them to interfere 5 with others who have such easement rights. ; 6. Attached hereto for illustrative purposes are replicas of the Plats of P.egistered Lar-d Survey No. 4 15 and No. 411. 7, Each party to this agreement has signed one copy of this agree nent and each signed copy can be considered an original. IN v.*itNESS v.wEREOF. each of the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above stated. •*.f. :V '■m .•' / fL v_i ''- 7*- ': -I!..* / *,v>-A’^•. ■ *• *^*.-^^ • t .' *.*r 0* » ''' K'' ^ . • bf ,< v..'- 4 :•■ ' r -'-,' to.v^ mmW^i '«! ■.t-^ •'S % jC »*T«( m"--.I^w -;■ m- -•V.> i*v • •* ♦ cv -its../. .•; - ■' •3 V‘'. :■ M.'/' ' • »' •fevi^-v . -• ^A'y r>5iS •v®. WM •• tj •:-4> ifj :ii Vv^ j ^ /?i R^>'- -mi 10^,-: W-x ;Vt-‘ - 'f .'A>- i: *t .J Soules, McKendrick, Gurewitz. Clew S. Masnuson. Ud. Attorney* at Li^ 8C8 Fir:: Bank Plat? V/es: 120 South 6th Street MinneaDoii*. Min-»*o:a 53-^04 Telephone (612) 339 3100 June 25, 1984 iMsnwsf^ Wilii#»n A Sou^fl Jo^.n c .Mjrvtn L. Cu^tAkie W.iloni S C>tw Xfrtt N. M«?«wIOh ^’271984 CLTFof ORONfi O* Caw'll*! W-TI. f, Rot!»C''Jf^«*. Jr, Rfo'v 10 Minnetonka office* Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re:Tracts S & T, RLS 415 John Thinunesh Dear Ms. Mabusth: I an attorney for John Thinr.esh, who has purchased Tracts S & T, RLS 415 from James Johnson. This letter.is in response to your menorandum dated June 11, 1984 regarding the property and the adjoining tracts. Mr. Thirr.esh has been furnished a copy of the proposed agreement dated May 31, 1984 to be signed by the five affected property owners. Kc is willing to become a signatory to this agreement. ,er hand Mr. Thinnesh does net agree with the additional conditions in your memorandum. In particular he objects to the discrimination On the other set forth in your memorandum., in pa _ that would exist between resident ov.T.ers and non-resident owners, and to the restrictions that would be imposed on the length of docks and the number and size of boats. Mr. Thimmesh is w-illing to abide by reasonable regulations that uni-ormly applied. He therefore supports the conditions contained in the May 31 agree­ ment, and he opposes the conditions contained in the June 11 memorandum. We await your reply. Thank you for your consideration. Vours very truly. V:iLLIA.M SOULES KS/san cc: John Thimmesh M.nnetonVj Otf.ct; 207 Ridgedi!* £tat< 3*<-< Su.!<J*n;. 1'30 SnoiH Plymouth Koti. MifmctonVj. M.\* 533-SI T»le-jhoot: 612/546-2450 Bltint Ofitee: 2101 lOSih S:fe«i. 9Uinf. Vf4 55-13-:. T» »ohon»: 612/780-5.142. Si ' "r-. t V r' :*7 •f*\ •• • • mi ~':M'v.^.» I CITY . I OF I^RONO: CITY of ORONv. Post Office Bofc W*Cryr.u! Bay, Minn<soU SS323 • Municipal Office^ On t.Hc A'ortn S>iorc of Lake Sf:nnctor.ka June 26, 1984 Mr. Willian Soules Soules, McKendrick, Gurevitz, Glew & Mo'jr.uson, Ltd. SOB First Bank Place West 120 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 C't:ar Mr. Soules: On June 7 , 1984 , the City of Orono issued building perr.it No. 5310 to James Johnson for the construction of a residential dock at Tracts S and T of RLS 451 subject to the following conditions agreed to by James Johnson at a special Marina Committee'meeting on June C, 1984 : Tracts S and Tmust be combined - Johnson filed for cembinatron on June 7, 1984, see copy attached. X • SIX riparian tracts vz resiaantiai, aon-icj> Narrows lagoon that non-resident owners* docks be lirr.ited in length to 40 feet and the xooring of 1 boat over 16 feet in length. dii jLiivwxvcu w.. w..v- — agreen\ei\ _ concerned including Janes Johnson at that sane June 6th meeting. An inspection on June 27 , 1984 confirmed that a dock had constructed complying with the 40 feet length and 1 boat in excess o*. Ic feet 3.ength moored at the subject dock. The City will ^^sue no building permits for the reconstruction or alteration o*. the do^r. located on Tract S, RLS 415 until the subject agreement has been executed by all parties with interest in the six riparian tracts. i lusist; - 47j :u« ASStSSINC. AD.MIM5TKATIUN A TINaM r - 47 j 73!S ruiLIC WORKS - 4?) 735^ *- 1 • X; fT, * rj r.' m k IP i j S-v f:^y^- XTLi-3^ Kr. William Soules Page 2 June 28, 1984 I will send a copy of your letter of June 25, 1984, with this letter to the five owners. Once again, I will restate the directive of the Oro:io Marina Committee which is for all persons with interest in t)»e six riparian tracts to establish limitations on the use of the land and riparian tracts, to address specifically parking, dock, and l.jnd use limitations. The owners were responsible for drafting an agreement for the review and approval of the City. Please advise my office it there are to be additional amendments to those set forth on June 6 , 1984 , if so, the Marina Com-mittee must review and approve all amendments. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator JAM/ps pc: Mr. David C. Cook 8012 Pennsylvania Road Bloomington, MM 55438 Mr. TKomas Casey 2785 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 ' J t M Flcischhacker 2775 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Paul R. Nutt 9200 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 Dean Thomas 1500 Bohns Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Mr. Jim Johnson 26420 Oakridge Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 Edward M. Callinan 706 Second Avenue South Suite 930 Baker Building Minneapolis, MN 55402 Enclosures:Combination Paper - June 7, 1984 Building Permit No. 5310 William Soules letter dated 6-25-84 % . t. s t-dc • * • • • ht-v,.' >-. ^ .V V- ’ ;^r^- Mf'r. "s'?-!'? *cf ^ 1 ‘ ?T.:rr» ^,1 :l-.r ,- fc'v,‘‘- ?a;-- »i'-> , K^ ' ; V^ .,*» • - »'-' - vj<.-',iS: / /; V3UN •RCTECTION 13 CUR RROEES6ION CAS:’EY AND CASEY. INC. 7700wCfC.AfJ Ave so • ViNNc*VOL!S MiNf4 5X23 • ?HC n 5666 I'S* ivi.OSUWS t •** •.* , •. • • O f* I1 .•. I . :. I J kZH •’a; ' July 10, 1984 .» ' I •jj.. -I. i CITY OF ORONO Jeanne A. Kabusth City of Ororo Box 66 Crystal Bay, *CJ 55323 Be; Tracts . T of SLSA51 Ms. Mabusth, Mr. Jin Johnson v'as in ocrplete agre€re.nt vith all Imitations re^ardir.c the captioned lots. I believ-e they should be binding with Mr. ‘Ihii-.nesh, a.nd his disagreene.-\t; worked out with ttr. Johnson. All owners did agree or. all aTe.ndrc.nts. :*ay we please close tlds as agreed. Than.k jou for your tine and ooncem. ■USINISI «N0 RSRSONAl INIURRNCC c*su*nv • U7I • 7tni • h,«iTM • mutual >uno . "’-'IT '•‘V" *C>" x77»^*‘ ^:r. .• . ' . - . . .' ■ . • *. * J * * ^ j*' ,j •.* - *^, ** ■ - - ' - * *• '^ •. 1^ - • . • . • ^* % w -• • • ' • - ^ . . • V ^ c ^ ►*^*r..* " ■**. •*« ' "••A k. ^ •/• ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ’ . • .* «.— ' * . . • • 1 * .' -» • 1 ^ ' >•' t^< \ ^ ' ^ . ■:•*.#. * » ^ ‘*-' - - « * <« * •,vi^ <ir -o'^-. *c-^^.»»»■ *•■»■• ^ w>'•.. i ^.• ' '^ • *. *i.*^<*‘ V3U* »«CTfCTION 13 CUB BAOFtseiON CA^EY AND CASEY. INC. 7;oc;.oc.iN AV6 so •wi.sMeivous winn 5S423*PHCNse6«:-ri' July 10, 1984 Jeanne A. Kabusth City of Ocono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Ki 55323 Be: Tracts . T of SLS451 Ms. Kabusth, Mr. Jin Johnson vas in ocrplete agreenent with all limitations regarding the captioned lots. I teliev'c they should be binding with Mr. Ihiiriresh, a.~d his disagreenen vurked out with I*r. Johnson. All owners did agree or. all «Ti2.“«irents. “.ay ve please close tfiis as agreed. Than.k >*ou for jour time and concern. iytiNisi AMO PsnaoNAL iNsuAANce CAiuAiTy • uf§ • rini • h.-Aurn • mutual funo • '*••■•.*• %•*.•••• • • # •%• *.•••• • •»» ^ « f 5 I i I i 1 ! > I4 #•*' To:Mayor Butler Mark E. Berr.hardsor., City Administrato Orono Council Menbers Prom:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: September 3, 1985 Conditional Use Permits and Variance review for non-adjacent land owners of riparian tracts within lagoon located 300 feet northwest cf Narrows Bridge. a) #541 Paul R. Nutt b) #545 David C. Cook c) #551 John Thimmesh Zoning District - LR-13 Property - Four 20 feet wide riparian tracts located within Narrows lagoon - see Exhibit D. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subdivision 4 (A) Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) Application a) Per Section 10.24, Subdivison 4 (A) a variance is required to maintain a dock (accessory structure) on a lot without a priricipal structure. b) Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) a conditional use permit and variance is required if this non-cenforming use is to continue and, bs recognized as a legal non-conforming use. List of Exliibits Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit B C D E F G H I J Applications Property Owners Lists Plat Map Lagoon Lots - Subject Properties Record of Ownership Survey in Relation to Ownership Thir-mesh Letter Cock Letter News Article 6/12/58 Survey Tract S & T Review of Individual Applications: a) Paul R. Nutt Nr. Nutt has owned four tracts (Tracts ? & Q - 2 land tracts, and Tracts 0 & R - 2 riparian tracts) since the l,tte 50's. Review Exhibits iJ & E. He purchased them from the developer and original owner of the area even before the covenants that governed the uoe of these tracts expired in January of 1965. Exhibit I will confirm that the Orono City Council was .made aware of their sale and use by non-ad jacent land owners back in 1913. Nutt is in the process of selling Tracts Q s R to another non-adjacent tiA Knt? ►o flip 71 fl AOnllCAresident, lie has agreed to file an application for the new owner. W'' f.vt:-*- ►>*x .r: v'• I"'- •■' Jr. - r Jte • • '> *1, % w p/;: Wy- L\^'A ', ' •:\ if;, • av. •■?v: Kv:..:: fv - : -■m k ^ v; ' ».*-i;•^V:?Vtei ■■'.fi ■.i.‘'V% _k*:4r s^rs K-:- - ^ ; * • • . -•' » r# ‘VH a • Zoning Files ^941, *946 s ^951 August 14, 1985 Page 2 of 4 Tracts R & 0 »'-ave contains^ doc/.s with the others, maintain a o icw xin- :ic!; or,e Voii ioir "o^eV 16 = .% doc'I^Tz.cts'e ff"i?l’lhrnnd’’?racV/orot"c"5 d'pdrliin? space for each owr.er. J.ccess 5c thHe «ac?s are via bicv, Ople's property to the south. b) Donald C. Cook cook has owned Tract E, a riparian tract since 1979 or 1S 3 -The traot-was originally owne5^h.;_an^adiecent^ owner sold his ^'°"'est®ad lOt. wne governing the special sale but sold independently \° ‘ ^ bv adiecer.t land ownership combinations for the riparian traces o-..-c o. . owners expired in January of 1965 cook has maintained 1 boat over 16 feet I'!' dock Since his ownership. Cook/oes "O': o^wn the oo^^es ^ car. Cook does not have ^p’ ^i i y oark on County T.saC 19 but parking for one car. If this may not be an arrangemenw that citv. their use must ir. these non-conforming uses are to ^he us® of the srcoertiesno way place any unnecessary hazard o r.. - cent County Road 19, it isjliff icui t for the dc'ck has been rsrd^Lrth‘rpe%\^v^v-yrs-^t^£^sLr^^^ r^ulAT\:„‘'d'l‘„^, rrrer-trth55 i^rr^^coi^e^raSditilnel parkin., cn. County Road 19. c) John Thinmesh v eo-birecl TreTcts S S T. This Thimmesh is the current owner of ianii- until 19" 4. property remained with the original owner ^ dock that com-menced It Sas Ihe request of a " z^ro lot line dock for this year long review process. <; o ‘-oi®rtv ctuid be ov.-.ed jointly with another individual. I have ioint owrorship is impractical,limits on the use of these docks so ^oint °u ^ He understands our concern but ‘V,^° ^ s^f n evecss'of ihc 16 foot length and adjacent owner couid maintain .p beats i - hT7-»rds fc- navicaticn with.rr not encroach on adjacent dock n-.oas or "o lagoon. I suggested that the f "'’hV pa kinV ron ‘c,e^^^^^^rhd^re!',hi';\.h%'dT%r^d'ii^l=r5V'5i'hiu'£ ri?"5«r'iVn,\r V'Xi^^rc^s his original conditional use permit per Cojacx i a.^.o i • t I !i ? . < % « 1.^ > • %* f£<‘Jl-x-'.'-;r. - ... . :>k-iH,-*'-;. - y X -H >' •■ t fesi WaSt^h’ jf'r -r ..,p•'A /m Zoning Files <^941, #94t » 4951 August 14, 1935 Page 3 of 4 P.eview of Application In the Soring oi 1934 , after receiving cor.plaints concerning the intense use and reported ooeration of a corr.rr.ercia 1 cnarina within t e Karrows Lagoon area. Council directed staff to inspect the subject area. Staff advised Council that there was indeed a potentiax threat to the public safety and welfare in the unregulated use of these 20 foot wide riparian tracts (see Exhibit F) given the limited area of the lagoon. Tno original Registered Land Survey division (1954) created these tracts to provide protected dco< use area for the homestead lots wihin that same Registered Land Survev. The covenants dealing with the use of these tracts have long expired (1955'. and four tracts are currently in the ownership of non-adjacent land owners. The City was introduced to this multiple dock area in 1979 in the process of reviewing a lot area variance for a Robert Watson. It was an application involving the common ownership of two tracts of lakcshore properties. One was developed. tl»e other undeveloped. A condition of approving that variance application was that both homestead lots on the r.ainlake retain a lacccn tract for dock purposes. As a result, the current owners of Tracts M s and K & L are the only legal or conforming users of the riparian tracts. Tr.o original covenants established standards for the use of these limited properties but they are no longer in effect and many ■would require variances to cur present code. ttee had been attempting to deal 'with the six separate 'residential o'wners and" four non-adjacent owners, but c come to any agreement because of the diverse owner- ' i''gai or •jnrcsoi*'/ed status of Tracts S & T, N & N, K reVof the Norira Co.-mnittee advised each of the four main legal status or recognition of their u.se of the •.':.e Council before the cor.-.ittee could work with all greed upon use o.*’ the iaccon area. The Marina Commi owners, two adjacent found it impossible t ship pattern and the : t I. and E. The choir owners of the need tc riparian tracts from six owners on a safe Planning Commission -v.s arked to consider the following issues: 1. Can these tracts bo put to another reasonable use under the present zoning? 2. were the hardships created by the ox^r.crs or duo to circumstances unique to this p:opetty? 3. Is tlie current, use cf th.c property out of character with wh«. surrounding iagocr. neighborhood? 4. Is there a safe level of use fo: »> 2C' -luc riparian lot.- 5. Should the (act that these ncn-conforming uses existed before formal zoning have any bearing on the review - the City knew xn * 58 that these troct.s voic not owned and l*y adjacent land owners. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. • I •iJ)*T I f •.. ISesa; feV''- m‘-. ■^m • -t/S■*.'' :• zoning Files §941, =945 & §951 August 14, 1985 Page 4 of 5 6. What £orn of o-.T.ershi? is feasible for these tracts? sin?le or joint? 7. What coT.bir.nticn of boat storage is crcceptable? S’. l\«^!SvlS\\'!S^.'"in're%Vh"S'ily ana 1 u„aer U feet in c) ^2 boats each over 16 feet in length 8. Is there a special piace.-nent or pa^ttorn for^doc/c^construc^ should be considered aor these t a enclosed the survey these tracts is for the ihir—esn p.<juci.>./ to assist in your review. a) limit on dock width b) limit on widths of boat sxips dock location within 20 feet width S, tSfcts SS;.Sot qualify for use of buoys in la,oon 9. Use of land tract: :! ;ru.sS';Asira;i-;%’ii”.r users - nice, but how do you enforce? c) other l.^nd use limits? The Planning Cor.mifsion felt the °'i th^'^questions of dock conditional use porniru with riparian uses are best construction, .setbac.<s, etc. Issu.s iinit their review to the left to the Marino wa^n^^t *circcrt to recommend the non-conforming use issue. ‘ i- uod use of these tracts irilV'cV/on^crf orV^",^ us«'; 1 J.n-iJ.u^ i ' resclur ions trotted by stuff include the necessary fincUr>gs. The total membership did nx*^mombcVs%Vtocf\o °1 cf the use of those tracts. Four icnath based on the dry land the four docks to one boot o.'cr 1C- -.aiorits* further recommended thut ere. limitetions of f-ich ,>roh-.-rty. / ..j thet non-edjecert ovners n.ey only pe.k on tin-r •owner's lets or tt.ct owners m.y not pnrk or. b”; J ’.'Vt ^n corient of the .ffccte-lodjacent land owners' tracts •-itheu; the written co owner. -.■ho minority of f-t- fit '-t;'unrc.vionahic nnd utifnu.ttle.! J tfttat u-n not b.it.ud o. s...co The enclosed resolutions h.ive l-.-en .'.ratted eased or. the directives of the majority opinion. Zoning Files #941, *946 S *951 August 14, 19S3 Page 5 o£ 5 Staff further reco.T-.-nends that Council direct staff to advise all six riparian tract owners now that the status of the tracts owned by non- adiacent property owners hau been resolved that all six owners ar« to once again commence the task of drafting an agreement/covenants that would govern the use of these severely limited properties. The Marina Conunittee will bfc responsible for reviewing this agreement. l7 r 4- I ’ \ I S951Zoning Files 1941, *946 6 August 14, 1983 Page 5 o£ 5 Staff further recor.niends that Council direct staff to advise all six riparian t.-act owners now that the status of the tracts owned by non- adjacent prooerty owners hau been resolved that all six owners ar« to again commence the task of drafting an agreement/covenants that w^ld govern the use of these severely limited properties. The Marina Committee will bfe L"2sponsible for reviewing this agree.’nent. l7 V.; * n %* £~ • ■ m ^ ' • . - . *V . . *. -.o* * . . -.. ikMm '^i(- lJr\- J.A;-*!’ ul^... &■ s-v m-'' i-t'i' Vf# ••. ffu*-. AXNUTES op the planning commission meeting held august 19, 1985. PAGE 3 #941-1946-1951 2739 5HADYWOOD RD. continued Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the question is hov to deal with the non-conforming use of these properties. Mabusth noted that the City has been aware of the non- conforming use of these lots since the late 50's. Mabusth gave a short background as to when these lots were purchased by the applicants’. Mabusth indicated that because the applicants’ are non-adjacent property owners creates the illegal non-confcrr.ing use, which has been a non-conforming use fer the past 30 years. Mabusth als'^ noted that come of the tracts have been co.mbined and some have not. All three applicants indicated that their request is to be allowed to use the lots for boat dockage. In order to do this, the City must recognize them as a legal ."jon-conforning use. Rovegno questioned, since back in 1955 this use was apparently a legal thing to do, at what point did it become an illegal use? Zoning Administrator Mabusth indicated the change occurred in 1967, when the formal zoning cam.e in. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission is being asked toaddresu two things: 1) recognize these lots as a legal non-confornirg use 2) grant conditional use permits because these lots have accessory structures with no principal structure. Mr. Ogle stated that issues to be considered are that the applicants' want to change the conformity of the lots, the lots were intended for residents, parking and access problems for guests, and the problem with regulating the use and number of boats being docked. A person from the public stated that the LMCD allows one boat per 100 feet of lakeshcre and the lots in question are 20 foot lots. Tom Frahm, Chairman of the Karina Committee, stated that the Karina Committee found a problem with the number of boats and ownership of boats. Frahm stated that the real problem is that the Karina Committee felt they could not deal with the dockage problem without a legal definition of what these pieces of property arc, which is why it is before the Planning Com.mifsion. Rovegno wanted to m.ake clear the Planning C ,'.mission' n issues in this ratter which is a conditional use permit to allow an accessory use absent a principal use and variances because the lots arc sub-standard under the terms cf today’s zoning review. Rovegno felt that is what probably a reasonable use because it has been dona for over 30 years. Rovegno questioned whether these docks have permits from the I.MCD. 1 \ _ ______ • AZNUTBS op -THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING UELD AUGUST 19, 1985, PAGE 3 i ■ J •941-1946-1951 2739 5HADYWOOD RD. continued Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the question is how to deal with the non-conforming use of these properties. Mabusth noted that the City has been aware of the non- conforming use of these lots" since the late 50 *s. Mabusth gave a short background as to when these lots were purchased the applicants’. Mabusth indicated that because the applicants* are non-adjacent property owners creates the illegal non-conferning use# which has been a non-conforming use for the past 30 years. Mabusth als'^ noted that some of the tracts have been combined and some have not. All three applicants indicated that their request is to be allowed to use the lots for boat dockage. In order to do this, the City must recognize the.T. as a legal non-conforning use. P.ovegno questioned, since back in 1955 this use was apparently a legal thing to do, at what point did it become an illegal use? Zoning Administrator Mabusth indicated the change occurred in 1967, when the formal zoning came in. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to addresu two things : 1) recognize these lots as a legal non-confornirg use 2 ) grant conditional use permits because these lots have accessory structures with no principal structure. Mr. Ogle stated that issues to be considered are that the applicants' want to change the conformity of the lots, the lots were intended fer residents, parking and access problems for guests, and the problem with regulating the use and number of boats being docked. A person from the public stated that the LM4CD allows one boat per 100 feet of lakeshcre and the lots in question are 20 foot lots. Tom Frahm, Chairman of the Karina Committee, stated that the Karina Committee found a problem with the number of boats and ownership of boats. Frahm stated that the real problem is that the Karina Committee folt they could not deal with the dockage problem without a legal definition of what these pieces of property are, which is why it is before the Planning Commission. P.ovegno wanted to m.ake clear the Planning C mimission' s issues in this ratter which is a conditional use permit to allow an accessory use absent a principal use anri variances because the lots arc sub-standard under the terms cf today's zoning review. P.ovegno folt that is w’nat probably a reasonable use because it !>as been done for over 30 years. Povegno questioned whether these docks have permits from the I.M.CD. ^ M.. • ; f ‘ % •» »^ ^,•VSk '^5'*,' -\ •;.•:•'*•! • * : .• • ' x^ •'/ ■• V a ' ;• .• ■^.v*.X v a. *-::'• V I Kfcl m'-: E h^iT r Re ,•- 'jr/’;E. •.: fK-K*;-^ t t . • r. ' • ■-; fef ___11, ;.‘S'i)^ r®:# S7£<3_►. #941-1946-1951 2739 SF_^YWOOD RD. continued pS’fSSftS»i-SiS ..acustn also stated that the LMCD recotr-r.ends 50 feet of la.veshore per boat out would consider variances for a niniir.urr. o*. -0 leet for one boat. to* ^ "grandfathered” clause should pertainto _ne o^iginai owner only and not be sold off. fco.T-.ents fron the public and the public hearing was CiOsed. ^ Chairs-.an Cal’ :han felt that Mr. Ogle's statenents regarding P^rob .err.s should be considered. by Callahan, seconded by Coetten, to recommend g.a...ing the Conditional Use Permit's to use as a non- com orming use subject to no parking be allowed on property tney don t own and allowing one boat per non-adjacent lancowners. Motion, Ayes (4 ), Nays (2 ). Sime and McDonald vo.ed nay for reasons of limiting one boat per owner creates a narc snip• #945 k.J. BAUMAN 1040 TONKAWA ROAD CONDITIONTO, USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 3;53 - S:03 Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Mr. Robert J. Bauman was present for this matter. Mr. Bauman seated that he wants to clean up his shoreline area using a bac/:noe to remove tree stumps and poison ivy which requires a concitional use pormit. Mr. Lauman stated that he will comply to all of staff's recommendations as listed in their report. Asst. Zenina Adninistrator Gaffron indicated an issue regarding the drainage pipes. Kr. ^Bauman stated that there is a surface drainage probler. that ran down tc the Koeltings property and tnat the pipe is 3ust laying th<^rc now, ihe !*cextings, i060 Tenkawa Road, stated that now that the .enoc is t^*cre, there is no drainage problem. w u r gen S t ie low, 1 0 20 Tonkawa Road , stated t l;a t he cl idn * t like seeing mature trees taken down. At wa*> moved by seconded by Cccttcn, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Pern!it# subject tc applican** complying wit!' t!ic five cond tior'.s recommended by staff an^i that staff will review and work with applicant regarding the ( rai: ovje on the north lot line. Motion# Ayes (6) # Nays (0). '<h“ I “4 y..‘..A - - Febniaiy 23,2000 TO: Mr. Mike Gaffron FROM: Jim Zimmerman, Richard and Sue Gay, Dick and MarK'S Ogle SUBJECT: Resident and Non-Resident Boat Docks We understand that one of the non-resident boat owners has asked the city to revisit the parking situation along County Road 19. We also noticed that one of the non-resident dock properties is now being surveyed, and we’re concerned about what may be planned for this property. The docks along Country Road 19 w*ere set up to be resident docks for homeowners of the Pheasant Lawn Development. They were ob\iously never intended to be sold off as independent properties or rented out as rental property as is now the case. What started out in 1985 as the sale of a couple of docks for normal recreational use has grown to the point now' where we have essentially a condominium marina in our small neighborhood. It’s creating a number of problems now, and w*e have a very real fear about what could happen in the future with these properties. There is also the issue of conditional use permits vs. no permits. The dock properties break into the following three categories: • Resident Docks with No Conditional Use Permits - Olson and Casey ■ Non-Resident Docks with No Conditional Use Permits - Gunther and Ault Non-Resident Docks with 1985 Conditional Use Permits - Huber, Miegel, Wittman, Cook There are currently issues relative to all 3 of the above categories of docks. Rather than address the issues one at a time in isolation, we feel it is important to look at the total issue of the docks and look at both short and long term issues. In the short term, we want to work with the city to clearly understand exactly what the rights are of the neighborhood and what the rights are of the non-resident dock owners. Longer term, since these properties are completely non-conforming and do not fit within the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City, we would look to work with the city to bring this area into compliance with the current Zoning Codes and requirements. Detailed below is background and history on the dock area in question. In addition, there is a summaiy of current concerns about the dock area and the expanded use of the docks beyond what was in place in 1985 when the permits w'ere granted. 1 I In looking at the situation, we thought it made sense to look at it in five different ways: ■ The physical characteristics of the area in question and what is appropriate Original intent for the dock area The histoiy of what’s happened relative to these docks in the last 15 years since the Conditional Use Permits were granted ■ How the current use of the docks no longer conforms to the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit Resident docks without Conditional Use permits Specifics of each are as follows: Physical Characteristics of the Dock Area The area where the docks are located is very shallow, ranging in depth from 2-4 feet Because the area is so shallow, docks need to be 40 feet plus in length to be usable in periods when the lake is low. There b a very narrow channel leading back to the non-resident dock area. At the narrowest it b approximately 60-70 feet from the end of the dock at 2765 Shadywood to the other shore. Because of the shallow depth of the channel, the navigable area at the narrowest part of the channel leading to the docks is only approximately 20 feet wide. 4 In testifying before the planning commission in Januaty, one of the non-resident dock owners, Miegel, testified regarding the narrowness of the channel and that there wasn’t room for large boats. He stated that a 33*34 foot boat w’as the maximum that w'ould be appropriate for the area. This b smaller than a number of the boats currently docked at the non-resident docks. Due to the very shallow depth and narrowness of the channel, extremely large boab are not appropriate for the non-resident dock area. In 1985, the boats docked at the non-resident docks were much smaller than those docked there today. Original Intent of Dock Area In taking a historical look at the dock situation, it’s important to go back to the original intent and plan for the neighborhood and docks. The docks were established when the neighborhood was originally plotted. The docks were created solely for neighborhood residenb. The covenants of the neighborhood development clearly specified that the docks w’ere for neighborhood residents and the path behind the boats was to be used to bke thin^ to and from your boat, and not as a car park area. There was certainly no overnight parking envisioned or allowed. What*s Happened Since 198S As the neighborhood covenants expired, a few of the neighbors who had lakefront footage and also a dock in the channel sold the channel docks to friends. There are a total of 5 docks now owTied by non-residents. Since 1985, there has been a gradual but steady increase in the size of boats moored at the docks, the amount of boat usage, and the number of cars and amount of traffic due to the non-resident boats. The parking and safety issues became so severe this past summer that the city posted the Count)’ Road 19 in front of the non-resident boat docks as a no parking zone because excess car parking resulting from the non-resident docks created a major safety issue. • There has also been a substantial increase in the infrastructure of the non-resident boat docks with the addition, since 1985, of electricity, running water, a flagpole, burglar alarms, high intensit)’ anti-crime lights, gravel car parks and other amenities. Along with the substantial increase in boat size has come a significant change in boat usage. In 1985, the non-resident dock owners were using their boats in the same manner as the neighbors, which was for recreational boating. In the past several years, however, as new owners have come in and established ow’ncrs have purchased larger boats, the boats have come to be used for weekend or overnight accommodation. Generally, a number of non­ resident boat owners stay on their boats from Friday to Sunday. This results in cars being parked for the whole weekend. While generally boat ow’ners do not spend the night tied up to the dock, it is not uncommon for ow’ners to sleep in their boats while they are tied up at the docks. There have also been a number of instances of partying on boats and loud music on boats late at night that disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. There have been a number of break-ins on the non-resident boats. One non-resident boat o^vner put a motion sensor burglar alarm on his boat when he w'ent to the 1996 Summer Olympics. For the three w’eeks they were gone, the alarm went off many times each day at all hours. Since the dock owner was not from the neighborhood w’e had no way to reach them and instead were awakened every’ night when the alarm went off. Over the past few’years some of the non-resident dock owners have used their slips as rental property. In 1999, at least two of the slips were rented. Current Use Compared to 198.S Resolution The Conditional Use Permits w’ere granted for the four docks in 1985 based on the assumption that granting a Conditional Use Permit for docks would “not to be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City." Given the significant changes since 1985, we feel the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit no longer are valid in a number of important areas as follow’s; “Docks would not adversely affect light" - In the past few' years, a high intensity anti-crime light has been installed by one of the non-resident dock owners. In addition to the very negative message an anti-crime light communicates for a neighborhood, this bright light that burns all night is a substantial and adverse increase in light in the area. • “Nor pose a fire hazard" - In the past few years a gravel car park has been built (without permit) by one of the non-resident dock owners. This car park is immediately next to the only fire hydrant in the \icinity of the boat docks. Frequently, cars are parked for 24 hours or more directly in front of the fire hydrant. There are also frequently 4 cars in the car park preventing any easy access to the fire hydrant. Thb poses a significant increase in fire risk to the neighborhood. We also believe that the large boats with correspondingly large gas tanks that are left unattended pose an increased risk of fire to the neighborhood. The boats have been broken into. It’s certainly not unreasonable to assume that vandals could set fire to one of the boats, which could pose a serious fire risk to the whole neighborhood. • “Nor pose other danger to the neighboring properties" - The non-resident boats have been broken into a number of times. A recent article also indicated that boat crime on the lake is on the increase. The large, extremely valuable, untended non-resident boats are an obvious target for thieves and vandals. Their presence is an inritation to burglars and vandals to enter our neighborhood, where they are not likely to stop at the non-resident boats. The presence of the non-resident dock owners makes it very difficult to practice Neighborhood Watch since neighbors never know which cars belong in the neighborhood or who is supposed to be in the non-resident dock area. • “Proposed level of use" - The level of use has changed substantially since 1985. In 1985, the docks w'ere used for normal recreational boating and the boaU> were much smaller than they are today. None of the slips were used for rental propert>’ as two of the slips were used in 1999. T^ere was no electricity, water, lights, flagpoles, car parks or other amenities in 1985. The level of use is quite different than in 1985. • “Use of the property* will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the cit\'" - We’ve all been told that no other situation like this exists in Orono and that no docks are allowed without a structure. We’ve also been told that these properties are all non-conforming. We don’t understand how' in 1985 these docks would nave met the criteria stated above but they certainly would not seem to meet these criteria today. ■ “Nor will it depreciate surrounding propert\' values" - We believe strongly that the current situation does depreciate our propert>' values. There is no other place in Orono where a condominium boat marina is allow'ed to exist and that’s because it goes against the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The city mandates that only lots with structures are entitled to docks because this is the proper use of land to maximize [>roperty values and proper lakefront usage. While in 1985 an argument could have been made for these non-resident docks not harming property values because the boats were much smaller and used for normal recreation, this is no longer the case. Having a condominium boat marina with large boats, break-ins, substantial car parking, rental slips, noise, lights, etc., in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood most certainly adversely affects propertv' value. Given the city’s rationale in the 1985 resolution, we believe that if the city applied those guidelines to today’s situation, the conditional use permits would not be granted for the size boats, infrastructure, and current use of the non-resident slips. Resident Docks without Conditional Use Permits The two docks owned by residents without conditional use permits are Olson and Casey. Neither Olson and Casey were owners in 1985 w hen the conditional use permits were granted and neighbors agreed to provide access for the one car that was allowed to park for the three non-resident ow'ners entitled to park one car. Access for the non-residents to park cars has always been granted by previous owners of these properties and Olson and Casey. While no permanent easements have been put in place, we think the access issue is probably governed by the fact that it’s been done for 15 years without protest from anyone. Also, the land behind the docks is clearly a right a way to access the docks and was always set up that way. Specifically as relates to Olson and Casey’s docks, they are separate tracts on the plot map but were purchased by both Casey and Olson in a single purchase agreement and transaction when they purchased their homes. The docks and homes have always been tied together, and as neighbors we would like to ensure that they continue to stay together. If these two docks are allowed to be sold off to non-residents, it will only increase the problems and potential problems we already face. Conclusions We feel strongly that since 1985 there has been a substantial expansion of use of non- conforming properties (specifically the non-resident boat docks). The non-resident boat owners have gone substantially beyond what was approved and intended inl985. We would ask that the city carefully review this situation to determine if there is any way to bring it within the current zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. Since the non-resident docks are the only non-conforming dock properties in all Orono, at some point in the future we feel these non-resident docks wiU need to be eliminated. Given the continued expanded use, the current problems and the significant potential for much greater problems in the near future, we feel it is important to address the issue now. • At a minimum, we would ask that the city eliminate all of the expanded use since the Conditional Use Permit was granted and bring these properties back to where they were when the permits were granted. Specifically that would involve the following: — Only 1 car of parking per boat slip for the three boat slips w'hose Conditional Use Permits allow 1 car of parking. - No overnight parking. - Removal of anti-crime light. - Removal of flag pole. Removal of gravel car park. Elimination of parking that blocks the f.re hydrant. No partying on boats tied up to the docks. No overnight accommodations on the boats tied up to the docks. - Removal of electricity to docks and running w'ater. Given the narrowness of the channel and the shallow depth of the area in question, we’d also like to see boat size for the non-resident slips restricted to the boat sizes that were in use in 1985, or the 33-34 foot limit stated in the January Planning Commission meeting by one of the non-resident dock owners. Mr. Gaffron, we would like to work with you on this issue to develop solutions that protect ri^ts and maximize the quality of life for our neighborhood. It’s unfortunate that this situation exists and there probably is not an easy answer, but the issues need to be addressed and the sooner the better. Well plan to call to set up a time to meet and discuss. ' 04 1*4 00 FRI 12:25 FAX Malkerson O illiland Martin LLP Suite iboo at &t Towca 90i Mamouettc Avcn u c M I N N E A POLIS, M I N N es QT A 53A02*320b Tcl CP mONB S<2*3A4>II|| Facsimile 612-344.1414 Bmce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial (612) 344-1699 Apri! 14, 2000 Orono Planning Commission City of Orono City Hall P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323-0066 Rc: Application for Conditional Use Permit by Ault and Ginther- Agenda Item No. 2571- to be Heard by the Planning Commission on Monday, April 17,2000 Dear Commissioners: 1 Introduction I represent Dick and Marlys Ogle who live at 277 1 Shadywood Road, Richard and Sue Gay ^^ ho live at 2735 Shadywood Road and Jim Zimmerman who lives at 2745 Shadvwood Ro^. These individuals arc residents of Orono and live in single fai,.-!y homes adjacent or near to the priycrty for which Mr. Ault and Mr. Ginther are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the use of a small parcel of property for two large permstnent docks. My clients are veiy concerned about the impact of the past, present and potential future use of those docks and activities on the property on the neighborhood and related thereto, the impact m the past, present and future from the use of the other very small lots in the area for permanent docks, as will be discussed more hereinafter. I have met with my clients to review the history of the use of the above properties, the impact of that use on their properties and the neighborhood and to inspect the area involved Richard Gay and Jim Zim.ucrman and I met with City Staff recently to discuss the issues and to review the City records relating to the prior and present use of the property and docks that are subject to the present application and the related docks adjacent thereto. 0 ii02 )7srrBOM 04 14 00 FRI 12:25 FAX ©005' April J4, 2000 Page 2 I am also familiar wth some of the histor>' of the problems relating to these docks because I was the City Attorney for the City of Orono from 1973 to 1984. I have been involved in many of the dock and other riparian use issues in the City of Orono while I was City Attorney and at various times thereafter. I was involved in the drafting of most of the municipal code that presently governs land use and other activities in the City of Orono. Instead of setting forth the summary of the facts, I refer to the memo dared .April 13, 2000 from my clients to the Orono Planning Commission, a copy of which has been sent to you. My objective in this letter is to point out to you what we believe are the relevant legal principles that apply to the review of this application for a conditional use pemtit and to the multiple dock situation in that area. The factual review set forth by my clients and my legal review are preliminary in natiue because we have not had an opportunity' yet to finish the review of all City records, title records and obtain other information conccniing the historical use of these properties. II. Applicable Law. As you know, cities adopt zoning ordinances to regulate the type of uses allowed within the City to protect fjid give direction to the property owner who desires to use his or her properly and to protect adjacent property owners. A property may only be used for a use which is allowed as a permitted use or for a use for which a conditional use permit is required and one has been approved by the City. In rare cases, there may have been a use of property that was in existence before there was any zoning ordinance in effect or there is a use which was legal under the zoning ordinance when it was first initiated, but thereafter because of a change in the zoning ordinance, such a use w'ould no longer be legally possible. The above type uses are referred to generally as legal non conforming uses. Such uses may continue, but only subject to the provisions of the zoning code governing such non conforming uses and applicable judicial decisions and state statutes. Mike Gaflron has informed me that the earliest City ordinance he can find relevant to the use of docks on a lot without the principal building (a home in tliis case) was effective as of January 1, 1968, which states as follows: 31.300 Accessory Buildings. 37}»7BDNt 04U4-00 FRI 12:25 FAX 2)004 April 14.2000 Page 3 3 i .310 Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. 34.030 R-1 A: Accessory Uses. Within any "R-1 A” One Family Use District, no accessory structure or use of land shall be permitted except for one or more of the following uses: 34.039. Lake Structures. Lake oriented structures for the use of the occupants of the residence. (Similar provisions may have been in existence in prior City or Township zoning ordinances; further, research needs to be completed. As will be discussed later, a dock is a lake oriented structure.) Similar provisions were ibuud in the 1975 City zoning ordinance when it was updated at that time: 34.341 • Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-l A" One Family Lakcshore Residential bistn^:?.. the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District and ‘private docks' subject to the Municipal Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. 31.300. Accessory Buildings. 31.310 Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to w hich it is accessory. The City zoning ordinance in effect today contains similar provisions as follows: Section 10.03 Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. 375I78IW4 j ) 1 iniiithri L 04 14 00 FRI 12:25 FAX @005 April 14, 2000 Page 4 A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or siruciure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of tlic principal building to wliich it is accessory. Section 10.23 Suhd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any ”LR-1 A" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be a permitted accessor>’ use: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District and ‘private docks’ subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Thus it is clear that since at least 1968 anv dock in this residential zoning district could only be built and/or used if it were on a lot on which a single family residence was first constructed. The only possible exception to this would be for a dock built prior to 1968 if such dock were legal at that time and if thereafter the use of tlrat dock complied with other applicable law. Such a non conforming dock and use thereof (one built prior to 1968. assuming for now it was legally built prior to 1968) would be subject to other very important provisions of the zoning code which would limit its use and expansion and would in some cases temiioate that use after a specified period of time The current relevant zoning provisions are set forth hereinafter. (I have not had the opportunit>'^ to examine the prior zoning ordinances back to 1968. but I believe similar provisions were in effect since at least 1968. My comments are set fortli in parenthesis.) It is the burden of the person seeking to continue to use a non confonning use or to obtain a conditional use permit for such use to show that the person or predecessors in title complied with the following: Section 10.03 Subd. 4. Prohibitions. It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity witli the Zoning Chapter. (Wc believe th,'\t as of 1968 and at least as of 1971, there was only one dock at the property. If that is true, then a second non-conforming dock could not have been legally constructed. If the use of the propert>’ at any time after 1968 was only by one owner, then the use by multiple owners as now proposed would have been an illegal e.xpansion.) J75HTBD.M 04-r4 00 FRI 12:26 FAX @006 April 14,2000 Page 5 Subd. 5. Non-Conforming Uses. Any land or buildings which were actually and legally devoted to a non-conforming use on January 1,1975, may be continued in said non-conforming use pursuant to conditional use permit granted as hereinafter specified. A. The non-conforming use may not be changed to another non- conforming use. (As discussed above, we believe that the non-conforming use was illegally changed from at best, one dock to two docks, one owner to two owners.) C. When any lawftil non-conforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non-conforming use. (The applicant needs to show that at all times since at least 1967 there were two docks and the property was owned by two different owners.) E. W^lene^•er a iawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of Uvelve (12) months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of tins Zoning Chapter. (The applicant needs to show that at all times since at least 1967 there were always two docks and the properly was always owned by two different owners with no lapse thereof for 12 months.) F. Any lav\-fiil non-conforming use of land not involving a structure, and any lawful non-conforming use involving a structure with an assessor's fair market value upon tlie effective date of this Zoning Chapter of $3,000.00 or less, may be coi\tinucd for a period of thirty-six (36) months after the effective date of this Zoning Chapter, whereupon such non-conforming use shall cease, unless brought into confonnity with the Zoning Chapter (We believe that as of 1968, there was at best one dock on the property and the cost thereof was substantially below $3,000 and that therefore the dock should have been removed by 1971. There is no exception, that is the law. If tins provision had been first effective in 1975 when there was a rewrite of the ordinance, then tlie dock should have been removed by 1978. The Minnesota courts have upheld similar amortization 37J87BDM 04 14-00 FRI 12:26 FAX ©007' April 14,2000 Page 6 provisions. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with tliis section. The State law adopted in 1999 related to amortization only applies if tlie amortization took place after 1999, which is not the present case.) ^ H. Normal maintenance of a building or otlicr structure containing or related to a law-ful non-confomiing use is permitted, including necessary non-stxuctural repairs and incidental alternations wiiich do not extend or intensify tlie non-conforming use. (We believe that die addition of electricity, night light, flag pole and gravel parking violated tliis provision. Each has illegally intensified the non conforming use. Similarly, wc believe the second dock was an illegal intensification.) Subdivision 6. Lot of Record. C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lota not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or coiiunon ownership is not permitted without Council appro\ al. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (We believe the applicant must show that at no time since 1984 has this substandard lot been owned by any one who owned the adjacent lot. Most likely, a similar code provision existed in 1968. If so, the applicant must show' that at no time after January 1, 1968 has this lot been owned by any one who owned the adjacent lot.) ni. Tests for Approval of Conditional Use Permit. Even if the applicants can prove that they meet all of the above legal tests, which wc doubt for the reasons stated herein and in the separate memo to you, we believe tliat for the same reasons that the applicants cati not prove that they meet the standards for the issuance of a 373t7BDM • 04 1*4 00 FRI 12:26 FXX 12 00$ April 14,2000 Page 7 conditional use permit set forth in the City's zoning code and attached hereto as Exliibit A. I \\ill not repeat all of the problems related to such a use as outlined in my clients’ memo to you. We believe the City can not legally grant the requested conditional use pennit. Tf the Planning Commission decides to recommend approval of the conditional use permit at son^^ OoinL then we ask that because of the demonstrated oroblems to date that conditinnAl permit conditions include at least the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. No use of electricity. No use of night lights. No use of the dock(s) and boai(s) after 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 11 :00 p.in. on weekends. Limit of one car per dock allowed to be parked on the lot at any time. Remove the gravel parking lot. No parking next to fire hydrant. No storage on the lot of trailers, etc. Limitation of one dock. No rental of slips. The boat(s) must be owned by the owners of the lot. Limitation to one boat not to exceed the length of boat used whenever the dock was legally built if one dock is allowed; two boats, not to exceed the length of boat used whenever the second dock was legally built if two docks arc allowed. Demonstrated compliance of the dock(s) with the LMCD’s ordinance. Owner’s consent to the terms hereof and filing the permit in the chain of title. Permit is for one year only so that the City can detennine if there has been any violation thereof or if additional conditions need to be added or if the permit should not be extended thereafter. IV. Conclusion. The action by the City related to tliis application will have a dramatic impact upon my clients, others in the neighborhood and the applicants. Wc ask that the Planning Couunission not act on this application until all of the issues and questions raised by you, the staff, the applicants and by my clients and others are fully addressed and all facts relevant to the decision arc proven to your satisfaction. The City’s decision will impact this neighborhood for many years. It will set a precedent for similar situations. It is better to enter this boating season with no action on the application than to prematurely act. Under State law, even if the applicants do not agree to an c.xtcnsion, the City has 120 days to act (if the City timely notifies the applicants). The City of Orono has had a long liistory of protecting its residents from illegal docks. The City has successfully litigated to the Minnesota Supreme Court against a marina in the J7J876DM L- T"l ! 04 14-00 FRI 1^:27 FAX @000' April 14,2000 Page 8 1970 ’s to ensure such protection. The City successftilly litigated a case with some similar issues to the Minnesota Coiut of Appeals in 1994 (a copy of the case is enclosed). I realize that the City approved conditional use permits for others nearby in I98S. That action does not set a binding precedent since the facts relating to each lot and dock are so different. Also, quite frankly, I believe those permits may not be legal for many of (he reasons set forth herein. That is an issue my clients have asked me to address to the City in a future analysis once we have completed our factual investigation related thereto. Thank you for your consideration of these important issues. If you have any questions or need addition^d infonnation, please call me or my clients. My clients' telephone numbers are as follows: Jim Zimmerman Office: 612-341-1100 Horae: 612-471-0130 Richard Gay Office; 612-935-5055 Home: 612-471-1221 Dick Ogle Home: 612-471-8635 (He is in California until May, but he does receive his calls at his home number.) Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson Enclosures cc: Jim Zimmerman Richard Gay Dick Ogle 37587BDM 1 1 04 * 1-4 00 FRI 12:27 FAX 12010 % 10.09 Subd. 6. Conditional Uses: Granting of Permit. A. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit as the use permit was applied foe or in modified form, if on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the City makes the following findings: 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; 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable pcovicions of the Zoning Chapter. B. A conditional use permit may be revokabXe, may be granted for a limited time, or may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. C. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed, but nothing in this Section shall prevent the City from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. D. A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be filed with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles of the county or counties in which the City is located for record. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of the property included. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-B4 Subd. 7. Conditional Uses: Denial of Permit. The Council shall set forth contemporaneously in writing and in detail all the reasons for the denial of the conditional use permit appli*- cation. Mo application Cor a conditional use permit which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six months from the date of said denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of changes of conditions found to be valid by the Planning Commission. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: L-1-7S ORONO CC 270 (4-1-84) 1 04 14 00 1*RI 12:28 FAX CITY Of ORONO ‘S’ 6122494616 0015.04/15/00 \y : \f/c\ rtoi^^u what ia ^ - --n-iTio- ordinance or In emending anIn oneetlng ® approach la Ic^^axatlve; what le ?ovilved*io^e kind of municipal planning in which a wide S£sS^s-: s:::::;.™ 3uss«‘ etcv Ttf r-" *'•'*•“ *“*• ’ ■ Thu., . .oning authority i« less clrcut..crib.d by Judicial ov.r.ight when it act. l.giaiatiwely than when it acts in a qua.i- judicial role. still, a nunlcipal deeialonmakinB body ha. broad discretionary power to deny an application for a v.ri.nee. amUndschoab. 336 H.W.id S03, 508.09 (Minn. 1993)• The fact that a court r.vlewing the action at a munieipal body may have arrived at a different conclueion, had it baen a member of the body, doe. not lnv.lid.te the Judgment of the city offiel.l. if they acted in good faith and within the broad dl.er.tion «<eord.d them by at.tut.a and the relevant ordinance.. Id,, ae S39. In variance cases, reaeonablene.s la to bo meaeured by the atandard set out in the local ordinance- ^d. at 50B n•6. Tha city argua® that ita decieion to deny the ahared dock proposal was legislative, and that even if the daci.ien were quaai- judiclal, it Still was reasonable. The city argues that, because under the Orono city code an aeeeasory uae is limited to the exclusive uee o£ the principal supporting structure, any dock on -riliotaon'a land can be for the uee o£ the people living in e Tilloteon-0 house only. -5- 04 -14 . Oil FRI 12:29 FAX ih ©016 WH/ IJ/WU I i:5o tj . \a/d\ NO:/j*»u The parties do not make it clear whether reepondenta are seekinp a declaration that the ordinance permite the shared dock pr^oeal« or whether they aeek a variance from the ordinance aa the prdinanee doee not permit eueh a use. There is. at least a initially/ an ordinance interpretation question. The Orono city Code defines "accessory use or structure" as a "use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure bn the same lot and customarily incidental thereto." OronO/ Minn./ S lO.Oa(i) (1»84). The code also defines "use- aecessory" aa a "use subordinate to the principal use on a lot and ^J^^^^f^vely used for purposes incidental to those of the principal use." 14*,/ S 10.02(72). The code provides that: "No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is h Td.. s 10.03/ subd. 9(A). The code indicates that a dock is an aeeassory use under section 10.23, subd. 5(A), which M [ii]i^y accessory use as regulatsd In the *R-1A' District and •private doc)cs' subject to the City code and other applicable regulations Including boat storage density regulations" ss a "permitted accessory use.” Construing these provisions together, we concludet (1) a dock is an accessory use, and (2) the definition of the accessory use and the prohibition against building an accessory use before a principal use indicate that the code presumea there has to be a primery structure on the property in order for an accessory Structure to be permitted. -6- 04 14 0«> FRI 12:29 FAX m VI6CM7HOIO 0017 ’ 04/13/00 1l:b0 C3I :19/21 N0:240 Thua, building a boat dock without a primary atructure on the proplirty Would not be permlttad by tha cede. This construction explains tha denial o£ respondents* first dock proposal. At issue in this appeal is respondents' shared dock proposal. The eede makes it "unlawful for any person to engage or participate in bueiness uae or joint use without first having obtained a license therefor from the City." ItL> S S.42, subd. 2. 0 M •• The code defines "joint use" as "more than two persons joining for the purpose of using lakeshore property for swimming, bathing, fishing, docking or mooring boats, or for any other purpose." eubd. IF. In this case, Tillotson and respondents wished to use the same piece of property for docking boats. Xn addition, the code indicates that "private" docks are a permissible accessory use. The use of the dock by both Tilleeson and respondents did not seemingly transform it into a business uae. but the proposal did net call for a purely private dock for the Tillotson home. The ' • •• definition Of "use-aeeeasory* p^!;videa that it is a use Hexclusively used for purposes incidental to those of the principal use." Id.. S 10.02. eubd. 72. in this case, the principal use, the house, was Tillotson's. The accessory use, the dock, was respondents *. The use of the dock by respondents would not have been incidental to Tillotson's use of his house and the dock would not have been exclusively uaed for purposes incidental to the house. Read together, these previsions did not permit respondents' shared dock proposal. Next, we eoneider whether respondents were entitled to a -7- A 04 14 00 FRI 12:29 FAX.*•* I • wr 0\CCH'i*kb ’\b ©••IS 04/13/00 11:50 g ;20/21 NO:2/.0 VBri»nco. th« di*tricc court corroetly noted chat the ohared dock propoeal addreaoed oome of the coneems expreeaed by the city eounoiX regarding the original dock propoeal. Sue addraesir.g the concorne rateed by the firoc propoeal did not neceoaarlly addreas the concema ralaed by the aecond propoeal. Even though the ahared dock propoeal may not have had the diaadvantagea of the earlier dock propoeal, it had dlaadvane.gee all ite own. The city council properly conaideted theae diaadvantagaa in denying the variance. The broBO City Code providea chats Sr “o'rth/ SHticIpated traffic conditiona, light and air, danger of fire riik to the public eafeCy, and the affect on valuea Of SrMorty in thi aurrounding area. Before granting a SirfSnee the Council ahall hear requeeta for varianeea variance a tn« . thi* Chapter in instances iSre their etri^ct enforcement would cauae undue h?>^«»hlP because of circumsCences unique to the individual SrSS«cy under consideration, and to grant auch variances SSv whan it la demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Orono, .Minn. I io'.OB, eubd. 3A a»*i) • The cod. define# -undue hardship*i 1 The property In question cannot be * j.^^*gionabis use if used under condition® allowed by the official controla. a The Pliaht of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landovmer. • • a. The special conditione applying to the structure or land In question are peculiar to euch property or Immediately adjoining property. ♦ ♦ ♦ 11 The gran'iing of . the proposed variance will not in vay impair health# eafsty* comfort# morals# or in any -8- 04-14 on FRI 12:30 FAX CilY Oh ORONO 'S 6122494616 ■ ®oio' 04/13/00 n;50Ly:2i/2i no:240 ocher reepeet Be contrary to the intent o£ the Zonlna 6od«. I(i.. ■tlbd. 3 (A) (1). Ae the city correctly arguee, reepondents were aware when they purchaeed the property that they might not be able to build a dock without obtaining a variance becauee the property had no primary eeructure. Reepondente- plight ie at least partially their own doing, in addition, in denying the variance, the city cited the concern that it would set a negative precedent for other pieces of property,- reapondente' -hardship- was not a condition unicjue to their piece of property. Purthermore, the city reasonably coneidered the shared dock propoeal to be contrary to the aims of the toning Code. As measured by the standards set forth in the orono City Code, the city-s action in denying respondents' shared dock propos6^ was reasonable. Becauee we determine that the city's denial of respondents' second proposal was reasonable, we do not reach the issue of Whether the district court exceeded its authority in ordering the city to adopt a specific shared dock proposal. • •RAvabsad. iTune 15, 1994 *. • -9- TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:April 17,2000 SUBJECT: #2572 Steven/Karen Morkrid 2314 Shadywood Road Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C One Family Rural Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area:6,600 s.f. (.15 acre) Lbt of Exhibits A Analysis Worksheet Application Site Plan/ Survey Floor Plan/Elevations Hardcover Calculations Plat Map Location Map Photo of Property Property Owner ’s List Permit Record B C D E F G H I J Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C): Lot Coverage: In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0*1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Variance Request: To permit 1,763 s.f. (26.7%) lot coverage, where 1,763 s.f. (26.7%) exists and 990 s.f. ( 15%) is allowed. (No Change). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2, and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 500- 1000' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 2,449 s.f. (37.11 %), where 2,449 s.f. (37.11 %) exists and 2,310 s.f. (35%) is allowed. (No Change). 3. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Front Yard: The minimum requirement for front yard setback in the LR-IC zoning district is 30'. Variance Request: To permit a front yard setback of 7 for second story expansion where 30* is required. (Existing first story is T from lot line). m72 Steve/Karen Morkrid 2314 Shadywood Road Variances 4/17/2000 Page I 4. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Side Yard: The minimum requirement for side yard setback in the LR-IC zoning district is 10'. Variance Request: To permit a side yard setback of 2.4' for the second story expansion where 10' is required. (The first story exists at a setback of 2.4'). Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to remodel the second story and raise the roofline of the existing house. The scope of the project involves removing the roof and bumping out the walls of the second story, eliminating the dormers. Another bedroom will be added to the additional living space on the second story. The first story walls and foundation will remain. The roofiine will be at a different angle and slightly higher than presently exists, but still within City zoning code requirements. The existing roof is flat in several areas and the new roofline will eliminate leaking that presently occurs into the house. The structural coverage on the lot will not be changing because the footprint of the house is not changing. The existing lot coverage is 1,763 s.f (26.7%), above the allowed 990 s.f. (15%). The hardcover coverage in the 500-1000* setback area is not changing because the footprint of the house is not changing. The existing hardcover coverage is 2,449 s.f. (37.11 %), which is above the allowed 2,310 s.f. (35%). The lot is a through lot, defined as a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a comer lot. On a through lot, both street lot lines shall be fix)nt lot lines for zoning purposes. For this application, the front yard setback variance is for Shadywood Road. The house is located 7.0' from the front lot line where 30' is required. The front yard .setback from Olive Avenue does meet zoning requirements for fiont yard setback. The south side of the house is located 2.4' from the side lot line where 10' is required. The house was built prior to zoning standards being adopted. The remodeling and raising of the roofline will not change the 2.4' from the side lot line. Ruising of the roofline will not adversely affect the neighbor to the south. 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. U2572 Steve/Karen Morkrid 2314 Shadywood Road Variance 4/17/2000 Page 2 !' < . Issue! for Consideration; 1 . The footprint of the residence is not increasing. 2. The hardcover and structural coverage are not increasing. 3. The residence was built prior to current zoning standards. 4. The lot is small compared to the LR-IC zoning district standard. 5. The raising of the roofline will not adversely affect the neighbor to the south. 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances to permit remodeling the second floor and raising the roof line. ■■ *. ■-V. ^2572 Steve/Karen Morkrid 2314 Shadywood Road Variances 4/17/2000 Page 3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IC Lot Area Side Yard Setback Front Yard Setback (Shadywood Road) Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre)10'30' Actual 6,600 s.f. (.3 acre)2.4'7 ’ Structural Coverage : Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 6,600 s.f.Allowed: 990 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,763 s.f. (26.7%) Proposed: 1,763 s.f (26.7%) The structural coverage is not increasing with the remodel of the second story and raising the roofline. Hardcover Calculations; Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed hardcover 500-1000'6,600 s.f 2,310 s.f (35%)2,449 s.f (37.11%) 2,449 s.f (37.11%) The property is located within 1000' of Lake Minnetonka. The hardcover in the 500-1000' hardcover setback area will not increase with the remodel of the second story and raising the roofline. f) 4 b ( ITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received .^0-3 - 3CC - O Amount Paid < A PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3 / V S UA X> V Property Identification Number (PJ.D.) ' 7 ^//y - ^ “?________ Attach legal description to aralication if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ^^ ^ ^ __________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Pi^nt use of property: X residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District: l^(? _______________________ APPLICANTPhone rhomej l^ /'2) 4^7 / - /JZ Name Ct ^ i/ Q. y^/A Phone (work r _______- Address:';^ ?/V SCity: ________Zip: J OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:.■1 -:r. DESCRIPTION OF REQUES^ Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: - A-^g/^7 f. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width It J Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear .Lot Covoage i Average Lak<shorA^. Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or umuuql property conditions preventing compliant witfi Zonii» Code requirements: Knn rzTju Lr^i J J< /r 1^1 pro^i^ ^nditions ^venting (attach additional sheets if necessary) r :L^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 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 Hermepin 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 SVi' x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons witfi 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 otiier 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 yflUI variangc application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANTS 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 and correct to the best,of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature M Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the proper^ by City staff, consultants, agents, Conunission 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 Plaiming Commission Meeting. Plaiming Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants niitst be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ple^ m«ke arrangements to i:ave an authoru^ agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning OfF.ce of this change prior to the meeting. a CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR STEVEN MORKRID IN LOTS 15 & 16. WILEY' S NAVARRE ADDITION » \ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I rCAL OeSCRPTIQM OF PR^LiSgS : Lot 15. ond tho Northwesterly 5.00 feet of Lot 16. Wiley't Novorre Additioa o : denotes iron morker set • : denotes iron morker found Bearings shown ore bosed upon on assumed dotum. # r y O This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the tocotion of on existing house ond goroge. ond the location of ol visible **hordcover** thereon. It does not purport to show any otner improvements or encroochments. COFFIN k GRONBERG. INC WUMMUOE lOtUlKSBI I knkf cetly M srey i«i pr^mi m « mtt mf dnci sb** MHV ed M I es s dd|r ttgiriired CnI Cf^inMr od led Siritye «dv tte ton of tte Slelt of ICmtMts Ufirt S. Qre«bvg~'Bnwto(a Ucdtos Mnbv I27U 1--20* Date TW t9-4ie % tf: -£1 o. /O ■ .0 “WvC ^tS.tco'^ *4. %s\ Jt geJL ’fo"'^ 6a-)L 1\ C/Oji (^lor/^ ^ypsAfS^Aj^ Ou$^ 1^ \*r JU r-.'LV ; '■{ / CJ ifTti. K 7^f -^5 'A /D I2ac~)c o *P- 4 r <“ m. r; k'-V^V-y • .I.*:* '-V %• * . *. ir^2^ • f j 1 t •* * f j • •'*^' • I1 I 0 w /A-- 1 ■3--'J yo fTl. —'5. f*! ‘^C A N / # O f" '' T o 77 ,' v‘ /; .f,^__A *•. Ji f-SBS/ * V. --*'' N n /* /. ••- .-'V 1=^ . ''//r,i > •'..i =. t TiS t-p j ■ • 1 \o^• • •1 r 1 crru ...........-. ~ -.— a * ■j ■n' ’ ff P/^ctv I H 4>-r ■■' '7 Q § j 5j 1 ■I w 1 I TTet/e/u HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET /A /• 9 ?& SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ \ • • • • pXISTlNC HARDCOVER IN ZONE v; A. ~ House _____________ X 75-250’250.500’500-1000* 127/ Lensch WicJih X X X S . *. * -• tv.:*. s . . ' " V • ■■ . r •> * • * ; ; B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PatioADeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Z2, / ZZ ‘ Other X X X X X X X X X 3g^ HA ,. f TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B 24<ff kLOO X 100 =37, II " ypoposrn hardcover in zone House%:’;-^7?r'-’A.’‘-'''House >* . ••Xtl -V-* . • •i- f, • /s ’ ‘ - liT- • • . •X, V -** :V ‘ . • :>• ^ •* Lcnath Width B. C. Garage Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic ‘S* V. '• • ■ X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 5 NwfrMFfftr S.F. -SeuTrtftauf S.F.-CpN^fTf S.p.-oTMfR CohC S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B •F- *ii ■ :/S.F S.F. - S.F. S.F. I S.F. .V S.F. S.F. ' S.F. S.F. 'i • \ / S.F. i>..; *. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. A S.F. B % tO) 19))iJ0l 00-4< \ \ •'V3'. ( 109) ^ ,x 50:N ■#fr-<i .‘fA'‘ An • ^ zzr j^v* ^ 12 6 5) (64) ) ' <-4 23 5) (77) D 50_ Ol 5 o> (63) (62) ?> I -< $0 43. 26 ^ (79)(80) 47, 45 50 (82) ^ • en 5) 0 r> } — 12) U1 \50 .1 • I •i I 7^ I ..50 50 50 50 4R,)3 Cm}oJ 5s 4 • f fl 5 1 3j ' tis•(83)• cn • cn ^ i 50 50 50 50 50.1: in -v' r* 24^25 2D ?cS 27 26 oJ (98)• cn cn (99) 52. • cn n t DOC NO 55^'?96^3 ‘4/< *7‘fy/ 14 ^ r fi4 W - 40'^'" in y/ ’4 yv x-w V? A/^'7ir\ / ' ‘\ •-5. (8)„- .-"\6®,,. % (9) = W0S« (99) ''9' '••'v ,/4? LOT%nt ( 102) ( 100) 104. 5 J* (85) DOC MO 2737703 119 5 • • * 9^ IS ^ • i> ^•J«^•T/^0 60.72 WED PiUt I V • \ c\ I 1 ____0m0^' .* *• I 2 . . I OAHL BO^. \ Forest e ‘"•i? ^ S kogsberg Point roresi \ \ ^ /^' BRA«0V1EWU\AV|] /©' V ., . * V V Bay •Arm .-. V-. .nV\ >::-Vfc^{ . .'; • .;' ir .• • , •• --• • •' •AVT'- ^ .* • . * • ^ •* ■ ■•• • B • ■» • / M IM Wes/ORONO Arm •BOHNSiS rOlNT'o \U * ■ •■ ' S \Crystal „ s. Pornf R\ B PEERING X. J?//—' ISLAND Fagerness Point Da OTtM AKt (-V - ^ _WfiKTL„.,, J[£551lA*f V^/?-L uTlorrrATTEsh*0B**Sfn9fticy|| \• ^ \ -VTOUQUa Spring ri S\Point tMBlYfB snTTn AAMm j^^GOOSE ' :t:-1SLAND SHORELINE DI3IL iwjoi V rt t5|‘«80Co\ \ yil «• m UD0«RD SHADY ^SPRAY ' (ISUh A /^V\ /— . j.rrci r v: 5St; l> ^ I;t i: I* »f\V fm [ *1 .' mm \,[ ,<-V •» •—<»•' » • Uf .\..‘V' lir- •"-•••':sV- -.. :. •»r^j •. ';>■■■"■ \ • • k' ! ' '/A j' J i<-i ■ i r- ( <'cci r < r^ cl 'wMm m ‘ 4' y • / r ' 1 . '■ ' ' ' -. J-r‘' . / • R ; ‘/ • * • i •/ 1 ' ' V> SB®?*"- * •* *■• - . :>.' /''•"r'V 'i*- • • • » ,>• -siL.::'v>^; ;■ • *V I'tV . > *r» -V 'e • /'*•• '. . I y^ It, RUN DATE li/ll/TT lATCN BIS PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYtR NANE/ADDR 56 17-117-25 65 0002 02296 SHADYWOOD RD DAVID T PICK DAVID T PICK 2296 SNADYNOOD RD NAY2ATA NN 55591 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 56 17-117-25 65 0025 05616 LIVINGSTON AVE ROSENARY P BURNASTER ROSENARY P BURNASTER 5616 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA NN 55591 REPORT NO. P1655601 PAGE 25 56 17-117-25 65 0062 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TOWN OF ORONO CITY OP ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55525 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 56 17-117-25 65 0156 05605 LIVINGSTON AVE SHERYL A PATTEN SNERYL A PATTEN 5605 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA NN 55591 56 17-117-25 66 0005 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TOWN OP ORONO CITY OP ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55525 56 17-117-25 66 0007 02566 SHADYWOOD RD GRACE BAPTIST CHURCN/NAVARRE ADAN SMITH COMPANY 1210 BROADWAY R200 P 0 BOX 965 ALEXANDRIA NN 56506 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 56 17-117-25 66 0015 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN PORPEITED LAND CITY OP ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55525 56 17-117-25 66 0065 02526 OLIVE AVE J T JACOBSON I L D JACOBSON J T JACOBSON ft L D JACOBSON 2526 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55591 SB 17-117-25 66 0066 02506 OLIVE AVE W S NATUSXA ft X N NATUSKA W S NATUSXA ft X N NATUSXA 2506 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55591 56 17-117-25 66 0076 02526 SHADYWOOD RD RICKARD JOSEPH NAEPNER RICHARD JOSEPH NAEPNER 2526 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA NN 55591 56 17-117-25 66 0065 02566 OLIVE AVE JANES S HEITZ JANES S HEITZ 2566 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55591 56 17-117-25 66 0066 02516 OLIVE AVE PATRICK W SULLIVAN PATRICK W SULLIVAN 2516 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55591 56 17-117-25 66 0069 02500 OLIVE AVE MARGARET A WOOD MARGARET A WOOD 2500 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55591 56 17-117-25 66 0075 02556 SHADYWOOD RD J ft B ERICSON JOHN C ft BARBARA E ERICSON 1620 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA NN 55591 56 17-117-25 66 0066 02556 OLIVE AVE PAUL NACXINNEY PAUL J NACXINNEY 2556 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55591 56 17-117-25 66 0067 02516 OLIVE AVE LOUISE B DAY LOUISE B DAY 2516 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55591 56 17-117-25 66 0075 02516 SHADYWOOD RD S R ft X NORXRID STEVEN R ft KAREN NORXRID 2516 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA NN 55591 56 17-117-25 66 0076 02556 SHADYWOOD RD JOHN r ft BARBARA E ERICSON JOHN ft BARBARA ERICSON 1620 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA NN 55591 . I r . .0 ‘ * J H RUN DATE M/U/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY IMFORHATIOH SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5A01 PACE 2A •ATCH 5*0 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 17-117-25 AA 007A C25A1 SHADYWOOD RD LOUISE A GANCELHOFF LOUISE A CANGEIHOFF 2SA1 SNADYWOOO RO WAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-25 AA 0080 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TOWN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 5B 17-117 •25 AA OlOA 02508 SHADYWOOD RD PHYLLIS HENDERSON PHYLLIS HENDERSON 2500 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA NN 55391 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 58 17-117-25 AA 8107 «:?50A SHADYWOOD RD t;?-» IO ALLEN BORCHARDT r.AMO ALLEN BORCHARDT 250A SHADYWOOD RO NAfZATA HN 55591 TOTAL BATCH 508 00022 III f•V 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, DATI PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date Type of Permit H’ 73 6V. 6u . H OOi/'u/ 3HSl>/'77 6/|/i4C.£' 3S«7 Sr-77 G/y2AG£ h^-yt /y)£CN. Hi/ff (lii^/ytcnrL. ^ <egAigy<»nf /05'SJU 7-3o-n TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner April 17,2000 SUBJECT: #2573 David and Marti Blodgett 1380 Rest Point Road Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:14,500 s.f. (.33 acre) List of Exhibits A Application B Description/Hardship Statement C Survey D Plat Map E Location Map F Photo of Property G Property Owner’s List H Permit Record I Fence handout provided to applicant Pertinent Code: 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 15 (C): Non-Encroachments: Fences which do not exceed 3 '/a feet in height; fences not over six feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is required, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crown of the road, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than two feet from any lot line. Variance Request: To permit a 6’ fence in the defined rear yard where 3.5 feet is allowed. Application Summary’; The applicants seek approval of a height variance for a 6' privacy fence located in the rear yard of a lakeshore lot that does not abut a major thoroughfare. Rest Point Road is not a “major thoroughfare ”. As the fence exceeds the allowed 3.5' height, the code requires that it meet the rear yard setback of 30'. The applicant has designated on the survey the area requiring variance approval, a section beginning from the street lot line and continuing along the south east side lot line. The fence along the street lot line will not e.xceed 3.5 ’. Posts and some of the fence boards have aheady been installed. The City Building Official asked the applicant to cease all work until the necessary variance approvals were received. #2573 David/Marti Blodgett Variance 4/17/2000 Page / Neighborhood History; • Ini 989 a height variance for a 6' fence was granted to the properu' owner at 1374 Rest Point Road. • In 1996 a height variance for a 6-61/2'fence was granted to the property owner at 1375 Rest Point Road. Both these variances included higher than allowed fences along Rest Point Road and side property lot lines. The property owner at 1380 Rest Point Road will be in conformity along Rest Point Road, but not along the side lot line, thus requiring the variance. Statement of Hardship ; The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration ; 1. Variances were approved for 6' fences on two other Rest Point Road properties. 2. The fence will not block any lake views. 3. The fence is consistent with other fences on the street. 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Comments; Staff has reviewed the handout provided to the applicants and understand why they were confused. These handouts have been pulled and will not be provided to residents until they are corrected. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a height variance to construct a fence. H2573 David/Marti Blodgett 1380 Rest Point Road Variance 4/17/2000 Page 2 Fi Application # ^ Date Received Amount Paid J 2S 0 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fe^ $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address fiFD KfSj Po/-/r Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 0 7^//7-tJL*? ? ? 0 0 0^7 _______ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired OcX, !^^C>_______________^_____________^(month/year) I (do) (d^^t) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: >C residentid ___^other (specify)___________________ Zoning District: L- ___________________ APPLICANT Phone (home )P2' 2-^19^ Name A Phone (work )^/>g>3y/-^c;^r-^ Address: f City: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work).) Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction C^^st $ ^S!) Describe request in detail: ^£Cj^7£rcfjr^___________________________ r; (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width ^ Setback: X Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore y Other (specify) HARDSfflP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: _____________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to he considered complete; -^0 ___ Completed Application Form ___ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you ^must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center. 348-5910). ^ '^Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11” for . reproduction. ^ ' Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. 5. ___ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/z” x 11"). 6. ___ 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). 7. ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ^^Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature /^s /■ ^Date Applicant must have all submittals into the Citv offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plaruiing Commission .Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 'ieo Kar rriu^f De>SCKii^r/c;A/ Of ^^/c/rr y^/?^ - /^€Ou^ST/^y/c “T"0 co-^ST'^t/cr ’ ^7~ /fx/ F^'tc'\>7~ ^/ep<r 3o' sff ^'tcH ST'^e^~77 A'C'fTT/ia/ri/' Co-'i^pi 0/= -r?^ %^/S> /S 6 d^) tf% ^(.ooccnr, ti /^csr • /'j. A^/e.y 0/fj/\/<i /TV fT^i^Y /*ix 6 NS) -r feifVCS C^^/C^cr€0 COOiO ^^fr/:^ ^cco-^a/ii/c T"© c/Ty /^fc<fc^f/i.'^s P^oi^/a^v 7><r cjt -Y' L^/<esrfjttT corf o>^/— /''Tjo ^ — Co''jL/r ‘ (.K^ CotA>C^^ Lot ) 5^€'rr - ^^M7~ OaJ l2-'/3'79 " O/’oi^O JAjljOCcrf^'^ fCKfcC />^/jr**u<rZ Ldw^r- as A^<r u^^s 40'V C Coryj7y(^(C/^,. CcrfAj,^/>7C0 /i ^ 3 aT ^ r’A^TT ) Af\/0 G S/O^ />« /C<f CoLAr/ij/V^ . 1 j'X"pc^T ^n/T) f^/)Mfn7C SiS~~ -"'•v J"v- • .V f)f\/D Co/^ncrCO^ T/i^ /'y^sAccrc/<. /^AJO €’}^^CA>>veO -Tf^'9^ 'THf^C /f J€T (S^U< 6 A 3'^ //r D-'J AAo^fr S,^C *-^A-a ^^0^ Jr/?C€X - PosT^ ^aa/^7</c ro o^/ fMp 30'' j,ac xCf/i^ctc F't^'^ srracr /vi'vX.nf ra-f^A CA6i/'C €^)^^O^SC,/a •^'ti Aci/cT ACC9^0/^(> T) j CC /^y Tiff c "TACF^ y/,As A/o AfF>iA/cf’^ cAAPA^*'^A/A(T Y'*'(a SCT v^.v* <? yv^V CTt>^/t/c>i i->9AiCSt'^i-7r Oo7. / ACF/a^c CXS fAlTA FtuP f(€c (/AS'^K'C jAWt<^ Af Aa/A acts tFAh^ (co.y^j>c) /s € s /s r’fy^yT H^/Cff^ H//7-A ou< /Uf/Q/r6^‘^J ' F4^af. CiTf '/f p^ {51 £) 7mi’FC FO^^C u/o<Jca /i/‘>/ /jCvc-t< /^/uc^ l^y^u/s K^oUciP F/f^/(/C F^ii//>cy F(/-i a/^/c^<sz^'ts * tl ‘“ » ^^5.% \ \ ?*«»»« 0 /w • ■^*’1 - * ‘ •■ « •'•'■ tUlMf "« Jr! •:? :^5.t j>"-;t> 9^0.16 941.Tfr A ^o I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 6 and westerly ^0 feet of Lot 7, subdivision of Lot 14, REST POINT PARK,'* Hennepin Gouty, Minnesota, And of the location of all buildings. If any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if 3ny, from of on said land. As surveyed by me this 20th day of May, 1987. D': -^yx Thomas 5. Bergquist Registered Land Surv6>^ Minn. Lie. No. 7725 \ \ \ 913.86. AO', VT^ Vv\v - Lok« Elevi;+;on ‘928.2C.\X Jl (T' n' . A ^ jy L' 1M SOUTH ■ROADWAY • WAVZATA. MN SS3S1 TILSRHONS tia^rs-sooo •CALI^r=so' IM« "fAOt 7J TO 1 fikiMa 7700-7 * CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DON RUSSELL r t>%ni-A3 4C0 CHIPPEWA U THAIS END CM OROM< lAYSOE . OFOm CM 0 A/ 0 HIGH EILEEN ST SCHRSTiNE OR " 4*I..--#* III RTN - -^'JUkc^ew* RED OAX 7 Red - i. Oak ^ i;\ vGoir*: ____|r Course ^.Gplf- .f;-’ Course WEST BRANCH RO • EAST UKE ST BAYS SCO - Norti *• t Y"jf/ A Forest w \. ■ ■tBRANOVIEWUUyE Lake j \ '■ FOX I * —...... • > • •••:*. ■*? j -• • Ik • . ' *.• • *K. • f ^ . * • — ‘ ‘ r .*" . .■ V- \ '•W « ••• k ' • *:> -^5 :! Arm .rt:. M ^o4mi : erg Point s@ \ /< 'i f.’ *• .*• • etUMt^ *tT^ |S / \ t West ORONO^s Arm \ J600 mShadjj^ood Point DEERINO • % ISUVND £& __ BUOO Crystal \ tHiaaTssTi: » (J I • /;/r-;, ^BlMH ^W ^ .- ;■• 1 i?"”i ^ ■•;i'S‘-. ^ . «j*t;sv.’;v. ' ■‘i • '«►''* .: y~-^. .r I'fl ’• ■ \ v:ym'', p' m f| ,1 . wAM j •% /w ■•' •'• I •'■^*».<2?sifi^v':. . > -%*■ ' ^W ^ 4> : V, ' • *.*v< ^ W ' ^ • v^4/^-,-.:v^vv i,J vVv.-,, ,..,: .-:w- J • 4, - • •.••^.-#^ ”~ ^/* ' > L -i r-"* »-t r/T^^ .' • - >». • ** . >.' * *■' 21 ^^ r- - -ii}'*'.,*'V -' :v».'’‘'.'‘i--'«.• -••'• r- • .*r:n-.'’,. - ii.M .f V -- ‘03 RUN DATE 12/21/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 7 BATCH 593 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR SB 07-117-23 32 0037 . 0137S REST POINT RD N B I L K 6ERLICHER MICHAEL B • LYNNE 6ERLICHER 1375 REST POINT RD MOUND NN 5S369 38 07-117-23 32 0038 01373 REST POINT RD K E ANDERSON I A K KRAMER KIRK ANDERSON 1373 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55369 38 07-117-23 32 0060 01366 REST POINT RD J K LANGHANS 8 S LANOHANS JAMES K A SHEILA LANGHANS 1366 REST POINT RD hound MN 55369 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 32 0061 01371 REST POINT LA KENNETH W i RENEE 6 E6GERT KENNETH W A RENEE G E66ERT 1371 REST POINT LA MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 33 0009 01398 REST POINT RD L K JOHNSON A C B JOHNSON LYLE K JOHNSON 2737 IRVING AVE SO MPLS MN 55908 38 07-117-23 33 0005 01396 REST POINT RD PAN WALSH PATRirx J WALSH 1390 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55369 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 S3 0006 01386 REST POINT RD J T NY6ARD A K M NY6AR0 J T NYGARD A K H NY6ARD 1386 REST POINT RD HOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 33 0007 01380 REST POINT RD DAVID K BLODGETT DAVID K BLODGETT 1380 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55369 38 07-117-23 33 0009 01395 REST POINT RD ROBERT G BREDESON ROBERT G BREDESON 15 E ST ALBANS RD HOPKINS MN 55305 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 33 0010 01905 oEST POINT RD C CAVENOLK A B CAVENDER COLLINS CAVENDER A BARBARA CAVENDER 1905 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55369 38 07-117-23 33 0011 01385 REST POINT RD D W A J L RAHN DAVID W A JODI L RAHN 1385 REST POINT RD HOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 33 0012 01379 REST POINT RD G R'BLOOM A T A BLOOM GEORGE R A THERESA A BLOOH 1379 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55369 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR TOTAL BATCH 503 00012 I • .1 ) ■) I to PERMIT RECORD Elocli H Permit No, 3<j3^ 3/Sb /(0(^ Date 6-7V /a-7S I I' 7JJ v-7b V-77 6-3-%l Type of Permit gCugR H .A>iC £l£jL P'EtnoOEl * (lisA/OifATS^ ^ • I Ofe) CITY OF ORONO Fence Regulations General: 1. 2. 3. Fences meeting height and location regulations do not require a permit. Fences must be within property boundaries, but no setback is required. The City of Orono does not require fences around swimming pools; however, property owners are advised to check with their insurance company. 4.The City of Orono does not regulate fencing materials or visual appearance of fences. Fence Height/Location Standards Maximum Fence HeightLocation Standard: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 3 6’ 6* Lakeshore Lot: Lake Yard 3 'A*Ahead of "average lakeshore setback line", except fence is allowed within 75 ’ of the shoreline Side Yard 6’Behind "average lakeshore setback line" Street Yard 3 V4’(6’ along County & MSA Funded Roads) Comer Lot: 30’ Sight Triangle Front Yard Side Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 3’ 3 W 3 W 6’ 6’ • If you have further questions regarding fences, please contact the Building and Zoning Department at 249-4600. X;\APPS\WPWIN60\WPDOCSU^ORMSUTNCE ^ , • % .. / • J o I i IM • § 10.03 EXCEPTION. Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1.500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. D. Tennis courts, pools and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory' structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area, shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: Front - 30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side - 30' minimum and not w'ithin the required side yard area Rear - 30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area Source: Ordinance 72,2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated. B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five feet of the front lot line. C. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not over 6 feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is required, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crow’n of the road, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line. D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feel, fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, fences and walls not to exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade and open off- street parking except for lakeshore lots, no fence or wall over 42 inches but not in excess of 72 inches in height above original grade may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the shoreline. Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 ORONOCC _ ..,. 256 ,.. (4-1-84)^ .7 - V S’ •t ri VN • * * * A• ^ • f . ♦ N** i TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:April 17,2000 SUBJECT: #2574 Tom Micheletti 519 Femdale Road North Variance ~ Public Hearing Zoniog District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area:106,105 s.f.(2.43 acre) List of Exhibits A Application Description/Hardship Statement Survey/Elevation Views Plat Map Location Map Property Owner ’s List Permit Record B C D E F G Pertinent Code: 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 15 (C): Non-Encroachments: Fences which do not exceed 3 Vz feet in height; fences not over six feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is required, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crown of the road, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than two feet from any lot line. Variance Request: To permit a 9 foot fence where 6 feet is allowed. Application Summary: The applicant seeks approval of a height variance for a 9 ’ privacy fence to be constructed on the property. As the fence exceeds the allowed 6’ height, the code requires that it meet the side yard setback. The proposed fence will be constructed of cedar slats and a metal gate on the street side of the house and wire with tum-buckles on the west side of the house. The fence is proposed to be 9' to match with the eave height of the house. The property is fairly isolated with neighboring properties being a golf course and DNR protected land. The applicant has designated on the survey the area where the fence will be located. (NOTE: THE APPLICANT HAS RELOCATED PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE SO THAT NO VARIANCES FOR IT ARE NEEDED!) #2572 Tom Micheletti 519 Ferndale Road North Variance 4/17/2000 Page I Statement of Hardship; The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The property is bordered by Wayzata Country Club and DNR protected land. 2. The fence will not block any views or adversely affect neighboring properties. 3. The property is wooded and fairly isolated. 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a height variance to construct a fence. #2572 Tom Michelleti 519 Ferndale Road North Variance 4/17/2000 Page 2 i CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # n ^ Date Received~^^c?^ / /O Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 5/9 Property Identification Number (PJ.D.) —* Attach legal description tt^appllcation i^wt^cluded on required survey. 7i cquired. [(^Mpucatic thelidj^M IfDate Projjgfl^^ I (doj^o no^^so own the adj^ent parcels of land. Present use oTprope^; residential ___other (specify). Zoning District: _______________________ (month/year) APPLIC> Name ^ Address . .•. Phone (home). Zip:.7 r^NER Nam Address:a Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: ---------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width / Setback: ^ Front / Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Averaae Lakeshore ^ Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_____________________________—-------- J££ ________ —---------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) JUL O _ -i v^ 1. 2. 3. / REQUIRED SUBi\nTTALS All of thg following informarion must be submitted bv the application deadline date jn Q-Cd?r-for vour application to he considered complete: Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVi' x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views Qjrovide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include .marital status) of all persons with an inters 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. 5, 6, 7, 8. 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 truA md correct >t6 |he ^est of his/her knowle®e. 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 purp[Osfs^f investiga^n ^d verification of this request, v fyiUL^Owner's Signanir;^ V * 'I Date Applicant must have*'all submittals into ‘'the City offi--. . Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. n Juli(^ A • Oc J ..rP Description of Hardship for Variance Application The current house was built at a time whence current zoning ordinances had not yet been established. The side setback on the Wes^mhmdf^ in violation of the current setback requiryn^nts but will not be changed. The current garage on the South side of the property# also 4|R^lation of the current setback ordinance. The expansion of the garage and back entry on the South side will require a further variance. The position of the current house on the property creates a hardship that makes a further variance necessary for the expansion of the garage and rear entry to the South. Expansion of the garage and driveway to the East is not possible due to a steep grade change. A variance will also be required for the fence on the South and West of the Property. The deer population, a product of the DNR property to the West, has made the development of landscape around the home extremely difficult. Deer eat everything that is planted. Fencing to keep the deer off a limited area of the garden needs to be as high as possible in order to be effective against the deer. The proposed height of the fence is designed to time out with the eave height of the house. The maximum height off the ground (including the fence post) will be 9 feet rather than the 6 feet allowable height. »,■ ••»n 6 Q£>1‘ ?(CC-'cV ........................................................................................................... SETBACK PROPERTY UNE NEW DRIVEWAY ENTRY .._JADE EWSTINC TOPOGRAPHY I EXISTING DRIVEWAY ENTRY o 6|ll44-U /T\SOUTH aCVATKM f| ‘.367^- miafem' SOUTH CieVATlON lutii i/r • r Ci A i K A t \ A y Vf \ / \ r \ f \ r \ / \ /Tneastclcvatwn & 3a ffi0i0a)fiiiiif]i /T\ NORTH OIVATION vSlnE!?TJ^T ^ NORTH ELEVATIOW 'C™r tuum^ ife U !! «l:u 1^1 TCOl □sniiiiEis /T\iCST ClEVATiON yy —tiTSTTy"""* tiff ft it s 1 kyj MS&R staascr fciiTiiifcin Mil JORaNSCN/ MCHCLCTn HOUSE &EVATOB A-201 • • ^ • • • • ;ei no HfAOOVr* OOOS TR '• "fire trrf\' m ,a y 2ITM \ 'AV« ■ « >» - X W t"f^il a ---------------- itrH a V 1 ■ 1 3 ail Af 1«T« j A 1 1 0 1 nM|»w ( oucmi^ HIT kn I 2orH Lake ''•jt \ SC5P w UJ* 5: ^ ”1 ^no > r ? • ^.-i ^LTOIWOI,vr, *. \ Lake i.x.; /v^ V.1^* . •.4^ b *r \ r. ‘. ^tYfl tTH AVI N S Si ,.„^E 1S£|47 147»4 AVI I 193 LvV^ ■1 12TM 1JTR AVI I AW IITH^ # # • % • ^ LAEE no 11TH AVE N 10TH AVI I ro 800 v: tTH QUEENS LMO J3 A« «TH AVE M »fev N 17 • • c- X • <J^'-••=• u •—-*°*'*e< riV----. Biking •**i.7'^45 ■• Wayzata^^^/VjfU Country Club g'xS2* FAitH/Jn M Qunis .UI9. ' A- •! ' ■ -r^^i .% •• S 12 O . - -«rMM wifl ^ ; RUN DATE RS/20/R0 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OVNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1^35<i01 PAGE 76 BATCH 515 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR SB 36-116-23 13 6001 00036 ADDRESS UHASSI6NED STATE OP MINNESOTA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TAX SPEC BUREAU OF RE HGI 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL NN 55155 36 36-116-23 13 0002 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB P 0 BOX 151 NAYZATA NN 55391 36 36-116-23 16 0007 00517 FERNDALE RD N JUNE L JOHNSON JUNE L JOHNSON 517 FERNDALE HO N WAYZATA MN 55391 SB S6-116-23 16 0006 00519 FERNDALE RD N JULIE A JORGENSEN ET AL THOMAS A MICHELETTI i JULIE A JORGENSEN 519 FERNDALE RD N NAYZATA HN 55391 36 36-116-23 16 0009 00565 FERNDALE RD N DANIEL D DANIELSON ETAL DANIEL D DANIELSON 565 NORTH FERNDALE RD NAYZATA NN 55391 36 36-116-23 16 0015 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB P 0 BOX 151 WAYZATA NN 55391 A. 'Hj ’ SB S6-116-2S 16 0016 00036 ADDRESS UNASS16NED CITJf ^ ORONO C'. r OF OROHQ PO 66 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323 h • TOTAL BATCH 515 00007 I'i ■.. JA*.*. ^ CQ X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AM) TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TA)(ATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNONLEDOE AND BELIEF. OAT I : ». ... UMN*t»<r S/9 aJ. fdsyuicbJ^ . PERMIT RECORD Permit No sys" X5V9 j^Jsn Aojt? S”7//\ 5?S?>o ,v/</ S^°?3 Date - A>'d ^-n-9U -i-.^i-9d Type of Permit 'l/TTi /O A-ACycjLAjAyx y9r>-v-v "T //1 /y\A/i^c^ / J yt ,j£d^ /r.rJ/ozrji od A '-?7!.-,I /3 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: SUBJECT: April 17,2000 #2575 James/Jill Cornell 2145 Watertown Road Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area:87,054 s.f. (1.99 acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I Analysis Worksheet Application Site Plan/ Survey Floor Plan/Elevations Plat Map Location Map Photo of Property Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): Rear Yard: The minimum requirement for rear yard setback in the RR-IB zoning district is 50 feet. Variance Request: To permit a rear yard setback of 26.5' where 50' is required. Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to construct a 816 s.f. second stor>' addition to the existing residence. The addition will be only on top of the southern section of the existing residence, not the entire residence. The existing residence was built before current zoning standards were adopted. The residence is currently located 26.5' from the rear yard property line. The property is serviced with a septic system. The septic system is currently compliant and has a capacity for 4 bedrooms. This addition will not add to the total number of bedrooms, but rearranging them \N ithin the residence. Therefore a larger septic system is not required at this time. A detached garage was constructed on the property in 1989 not requiring variances. Structural coverage is not a concern for this property. No neighboring residences will be impacted by the 26.5' setback. U2575 James/Jill Cornell Variance 4/17/2000 Page I Statement of Hardship ; The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The footprint of the residence is not increasing. 2. The residence was built prior to current zoning standards. 3. The existing septic is compliant and built for a capacity of 4 bedrooms. 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff reconunends approval of the variance for rear yard setback. H2S75 James/Jill Cornell 2145 Watertown Road Variance 4/17/2000 Page 2 Lot Area: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET A RR-IB Lot Area Rear Yard Setback Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acre)50' Actual 87,054 s.f. (1.99 acre)26.5’ Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 27,043 s.f.Allowed: 13,058.1 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,659.63 s.f (3.5%) Proposed: 2,659.63 s.f (3.5%) g CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address *^0^0 ______ Application #23 '7^ Date Received" 3/2.2 /o 0 Amount Paid<^2 .S‘0 r:iU 3 Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) 0 /l~7 2. I 000 3 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. * . .. Date PronertY Acquired/lu^ast 1^8^______________^_____________^(month/yearf. I (do) mo n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present usFoi property: X residentid ___other (specify) Zoning District: ^___________I * :) APPLICANT Phone (home) 6/^.I Name . lArtfiSO t C g?M6LU _______ Phone (work) f y Address: City: Zip:i^2f;p£V: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work)_ .i-. Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost S_3SjX^Q_ Describe request in detail: FLCP^ AT20T10J TO WCRttM uyf ^ CAtTil (attach additional sheets if necessary) Cpo 6f fzx5TfI^i^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover X Setback:Front Lot Coverage Side y' Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PRCPF^r^ Y CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^____ v^«THiK)THf? r>/f2ge»JT ljAS ‘gxj;CT (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 3. X" 4. UK All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. X Completed Application Form 2. V Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. 5. 1^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy i'/z" x 11"). 6. 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). 7. ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT ’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/lier knowledge. Applicant's Signature S N / Date OWNER ’S SIGN/irURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date joPOwner’s Signature Applicant muitsJi^e all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. c 1 .. •comn iM er • OaMTV A lO. «s V'\-^ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JAMES D. CORNELL IN THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 3-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ^ N ^ !/\ 5«h•rL- •I tt*J?»** m ••:*» tmrnmm • if m / M -----J._________. U1 •CMCU MO ccvcn C a U iC hT --------------JL t 9TZT vr c UtM I z\ i\ / .••• S c»*32* 52- E S 62^31*33- E l> |b IgI* I 439.60 OeSCReCD 43943 ICASURED i, rufV'....J■K % trir u* c t -ir tmto '‘(j Q .... .n« ---..( tJ AS • ir* 59*32'20** S 55*32* 32- uj 2) II VI V9 LtCAL QfSOI»TCN QT A« thAt Aorl Af UiA Nortf»««»i XarlAr Al a 5J2 »••• •#»! Sawi v» a Ira *Aw" AcrAf A>m Xf<0 MATth irm Af 43934 ICASUREO 439 66 OESCR8EO OuartAT to^t^Ar Ait^ AT« I t> T*^ 5»** «#A*.a>«rv CA^«^ •«il SAA'ar* 1 T#«««AMia II? NA»t^ 23 «ttl Af JlA »<Ar-*A>V «AACr%A4 At «AAA*r I *11 'A *t«t SA mVI fro#^ Ih# *«0't^A3«l CA"^ Af OwATtAT m* 904 SACt«A 3; tfW^A C a AI A« ^^A 0mthm99X OwortAr A» AA-A 3a C*<AA 3. A Af «Y8 *S ffAt. t^Ar«A »A«t OA A ^ Sa C*«T a »AlArCA Of «39S8 *At«. ’.HO'CA HATIA AM 0 Ora«A OOroiAl A«IA tAA Coit InO Of tf« ••4 SociOA A #AiarcA »* ’Yf ij f#At; iaa «<a Coil oa a tv»^l w»a a a » «3YM ffti Ia l^A oa -»! of Oo^^vw^ r^l fAf ««^AAA OTA 0^99* A»AT Of tl»Al POr I O' *^A SAs.***«#St XortA^ S» Sa C*'AM 34. Il7 »iArt>V 23 WAtt 94M,*494 39 'aOOvA on t^A Sofct** 09 9* AA 0 YAh»**.ff ft3«7 fAAf AA»! A» t»*A SAMt^AAOt AMn^ AA^ 5a ».— A^A •• 30 *#At. 1NAn<* 4» «S -^'A* AtAt «2Y 7 f«tl to X*9 CA^tA^ Ma Af Co^f •ootf 9,090 44. tnAACi **A»»** f? C90999 2* -WXtAA C«A! CtO^ tO-O C»-'t4» ^A 32 Y S 'ft* •A'‘<t So».tn 4^ S9^9*% 45 rvw^tfA COAt 445 fC •tti lA oA^t o» %9%000^ tro H t»<* >y- 8' r*A Ho^'^-tAt Cwo»*A* A* Sa «v©<- J r«..t«.3 ••' ,or«A ae*r,« 23 aaai a » i^a Sm »»««««oai **A'#'in Oa AC'O a S AA ‘OtA-t An no o' t*“A •4A»*n»AA* 3wOr ’ A» AC 4 5a .*.— J, At A OA^t Y»3*T «A«t A a AI A» t^A COrnof •-'AfAA* t»A^A A#At 0V% 99>X 4^'** 00 4& J1 *AAt •*9^f 5s* - 3 ‘n# ;• e,« >Cf AAA* IA I^A CsAt I^A Of OAiO Sotl-On Sa <*a * a otioxA o» 30 »#a : ••a ^aa Cat* >* J ^ ar;*** potasai ’a '^a ••a * * »a a «-« Sava * a ^AtAncA a * 2'Y84 Iaa I. l^AncA Sam I** *n A n# Oa *«‘ por?«4»l tA t^A CSAt «nA A* PCC Sof An A A‘Qn<A A' ’58 * ••A'«4 f ;• t n# p>:«n 0»c*4 »A I**a «<nA A» *99 Soct-AA A OttAncA A» 23 *#•». tA#ncA %or— AC* SM* - »• ••• 1 14* »A r* »c .* '.*<''0 i tfC-tt A* ’ Y8 ’4 'tAt tA tno •I0r'» <-^a A» AM Soc!^ 3 inoncA aAAl to •■•9 PO0t f 90^000^ #•• 9 /•i.* • OonAtAf AAM 9^*0 9*0 A^e•n or A PoMd <#on or» (i*Ky-A4 at- 90w*r *9009 lA t^O« t»<A AA»^00r At ?» 00 V0 lACAtOn Af on A*'AlA«« 9009 ^0 9^ Ol^porl Ia ONAA 0*f 9f90 0009^900*<\* » 0 3A*A AAACT-OAA p'OOA'tv. 009 •*0*999. H Oaa I ««a ! cnr-vA**if 41.»>4»t ancRt ’o* COFFIN k GRONBERG, INC. E^XSU’NC Docm. LA^ 9tt ^.*a #C»!3 442 T4MA4AC* AVt><C lONC LMI. *•! !*J5* f’2-473-4 !4» • •€■*0’ oiA*r» n«4r r*m 9,0*. »iarx4To% oo 0^*0* A*t «n(A««0 tv i< OR 00U* 0* MCt B4U OMi *«*•' I *« 4 3L4« uSMBt Aoertsavwii ooociR «pokr •K w>A« ar M r4tf or moacw ^ r • *f y &CA4.E 64TT jbi MO •O-Otf Yi . V .V •i/—. ./S. . •: > vt.7 ;/ A1 - . V *:- 4 / \ • 4 *•/ *» f^.A L. • c..) \ fiR^r aco^TiAH vr^i'o"\yo ?r^‘ wiCfuMrifn«dbtiifcA I n « i ■k. V-., H t ■ *V '■ \ t,- ^ r- / ^ «• \ • ./ U r .a-x.rn-i EievArioN ky c. > .0 Oi O ^LEVATiC^sl i/i4" = I 'o- 'Ov 1: • V. ) •• • 11 o NORTH EL£\^T10N V4 “ 4 ‘0" 4' t7 a to 84.96 co b 325 N89°58'27"W 1090.85' ./ •' / j I} V' ■o/ im-.. rV %'V*‘’■ ■*•' ” ' ■." • , •. • ',< ’: . • .'ajf ■* ' -^ ‘v ;•T - I >:^ C ' 1 >I-: _ _ _ jT': • i \ / / ' 'j \ V-1 ■ ■ . . Vv • \ ;/ i/ ^ \f ' SK 'Ml -/ / ftJ .^;- f.t » n. MN BATE ASm/ii lATCN its ftOE ADM ONNER NAME TAXEAYEE NANE/AOOR sa iS-117-2S 21 ttts §2145 NATEETOIfN ED J A CORNELL 1 J D CORNELL JANES CORNELL 2145 NATERTONN ED LONB LAXE HN 55SS4 HEIOSPXN COUNTY PEOfERTY INFOENATION SYSTEM fEOfEETY ONNEES LIST sa iS-117-2S 21 tiM •2185 NATEETOIfN ED STEfNEN H OTTO STEPHEN H OTTO 2155 NATERTONN ED LONG LAEE HN 55S54 REPORT NO. PX4S54tl PAGE 42 sa iS-117-2S 21 iiU •2«li COLIN DR DOUGLAS N PEANCNOT III DOUGLAS N FEANCHOT III 2ili COLIN DR LONG LAEE HN 55555 PROP A] TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR sa iS-117-2S 21 tois •215t COLIN DE C X SNAUGNNESSY ET AL C X SNAUGNNESSY 215t COLIN DE LONG LAXE HN 55S55 sa §3-117-23 21 Itlf •••38 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED JOHN P EAELXNO Mm P EAELINO 2135 COLIN DE LONG LAXE HN 55355 sa SS-llP-ES 21 ••2S •2155 NATERTONN ED E N XANTOR t H L XANTOR E N XANTOR • H L XANTOR 2155 NATERTONN ED LONG LAXE HN 55355 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANi/ADOR sa •S-117-2S 21 ••24 •2§75 NATERTONN ED A i L PETERSON ALAN a t LOREXE J PETERSON 2S75 NATEETOIfN ED LONB LAXE HN 55S55 TOTAL BATCH 5AS ••••7 4. / • \J X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE lEST OF NY KNOMLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE s-Uo-co Xi PERMIT RECORD cP^4^ ' Permit No. '■i^S! ¥^/y Date 1-^31/ Type of Permit i-: / 7- - /c-O-ff r A ^ ^ 4^ ~zf- H TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 13, 2000 #2576 Brenshell Homes 1181 Wildhurst Trail Sketch Plan Review of a 4 lot subdivision Zoning: LR-IB, One Family Residential (non-lakeshore), 1 Acre Minimum lot size List of Exhibits: A B C E F G Application Plat Map Zoning Map Topo Map Proposed Plat Previous Plan (Zoning Application #2239) Application Summary': Brenshell Homes has filed a sketch plan for a four lot subdivision of a 6.87 acre parcel located within the LR-IB zoning district. The purposed of the review is to consider the four lot plan that includes three lots requesting varian/'es for lot width. The three lots also request direct access to Wildhurst Trail. A fourth lot with access to a driveway located in the platted, but undeveloped, Garden Lane is also proposed.______________________________ Pertinent Ordinances: 1. Section 11.10, Subdivisions 6,7 and 8 - Purpose of sketch plan review. 2. Section 10.24 - LR-1B zoning district standards. 3. Section 10.56 (Shoreland Regulations) Subdivision 16 Application Summary: The proposal incorporaces the 6.86 acre Soskin property east of Garden Lane. Access to the subdivision is proposed via direct access for Lots 1,2 and 3 to Wildhurst Trail and an access to Lot 4 via a private driveway located within the Garden Lane right of way. Garden Lane was dedicated in 1921 at a 60' width. All lots meet the minimum 1 acre requirement as sho ’vn, although this does not account for any stormwater or other easements which might be needed. Variances would be #2576 Brenshell Homes 1181 Wildhurst Trail Sketch Plan Review of a 4 lot subdivision Apnl 17, 2000 page~l required for the three lots that front on Wildhurst as they do not meet the minimum 140' lot width all new lots in the LR-IB zoning district require. It would be contrary to the City of Orono’s Comprehensive Plan and practice to grant variances to create lots that do not meet the minimum requirements in the Code. Review Comments 1.Drainage/Gradine Plan. There are two major drainageways within the property. There is a major ravine that intersects the north end of the property, in the proposed Natural Area and (Please refer to the Site Plan attached as Exhibit C). The City will require a drainage easement over this ravine. A major portion of this property drains to the south and east to a less dramatic ravine area that drains under Wildhurst Trail and eventually to the lake. There is concern about erosion on the east side of Wildhurst Trail due to stormwater flows, and the neighboring property^ owner west of Wildhurst has, constructed a minimal ponding area to reduce the flow rates which were threatening the driveway access. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure additional hardcover in the development will not further increase flow rates. Additionally, private driveway accesses are proposed on Wildhurst Trail. There is no indication how the stormwater will be directed and treated prior to crossing Wildhurst. There is a high potential for erosion. City Staff is concerned about any new access to Wildhurst Trail. It is the recommendation of Staff all access for the development is via a new road constructed by the developer through Garden Lane with a cul-de-sac serving any lots within direct access. The topography favors access from Tonkavievv. On-site grading and drainage plans must be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review at the time the preliminary plan is submitted to the City. The MCWD mil review the plans only after receiving preliminary approvalfrom the City. Grading plans submitted with the formal application must include existing and proposed 2 ’ contours. The plans must also include erosion control, building pad locations and elevation and temporary erosion control during construction. 2. Staff Recommendation Regarding Property Access. Earlier proposals on this site indicated access to the property via Garden Lane. Staff does not support direct access for the lots to Wildhurst. There are concerns with additional driveways being located on the road when alternative access is available through Garden Lane. Locating the driveways directly onto Wildhurst Trail would not allow stomiwater to be treated. The City of Orono will require stomiwater ponding that can be treated w ith aNURP pond being constructed to treat additional run off from the street and within the development. Attached to this report is a proposed lot layout from a preliminary plat application for this property in 1997. The lots were proposed to all have access from a road built in Garden Lane «2576 Brcnshcll Hoircs 1181 Wildhurst Trail Sketch Plan Review of a 4 lot subdivision April 17. 2000 page-2 to a second road ending in a cul-de-sac. Exhibit G. 3.Designated Wetlands. There are no designated City or NWl-mapped wetlands within the property. The major ravine and drainageway at the northern portion of the property is not designated on the City's wetland inventory maps. All land not used for stormwater management and road purposes will count towards dry buildable for zoning purposes. 4.Utilities. This property is within the MUSA and sanitary sewer is available from either Tonkaview Lane or Wildhurst Trail. Water supply will be provided by individual private wells. Sanitary sewer will have to be extended approximately 300 ’ north along Wildhurst if that route is used, which is probable since the sewer in Tonkaview would have to be lowered to serve the lots, 'fhe developer will bear the cost of sewer installation in addition to a per unit ovWer connection charge. The property has not been assessed for sewer. 5.Easements. The City will ask for a dedication of drainage and utility’ easements at 5' width along all internal lot lines and 10 ’ along the proposed road right-of-way. The City will ask for drainage easements over all retention areas, urainageways and storm sewers. 6.Park Impacts . This proposal may not be necessary to providing access to the Saga Hill park. Access and a parking area have been located off Tonkaview. This sketch plan application will be forwarded to the Park Commission for review at their next available meeting. Given the location of the park area, it is possible Park Commission will want land dedication rather than collecting a fee as part of this subdivision. The developer will need to know what land is to be dedicated. Land in the area of the northerly ravine is the most likely candidate for dedication. Summary of Issues for Discussion 1. Planning Commission siiould provide applicant with general direction regarding the following issues: Road system configuration, driveways vs. road access for the lots. Shall any access be permitted from Wildhurst. Public vs. private roads. Future access to adjacent lots. Whether lot width variances noted are acceptable. Address any other issues raised by staff or applicant. 2. 3. 4. s <1^2576 Drenshell Hor*cs 1181 Wildhunt Tuil Sketch P!tn Review of 1 4 lot subdivision April!7, 2000 page-} CITY OF ORONO H 6122494616 CITV OF ORONO • SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 03/20/00 17:46 0;11/18 NO:792 AppUcatioa # Dtte R«celTe*r~2ii2SIZZ Amount Paid a Plc\v\ PROPERTY LOCATION . . ^ . / Site address //g/ k/fl^Uurs'h ! ct »'! Property Identification Number (PID) 07-tn-7.% Please check one • Property____abstract or____torrens? CCZS‘ Attach legal descii; ion to appUcatioD.. _ . APPLICANT^ Name Address P-0> So)c /"2-S ’ § M i ~ ^ A City j, jU/tifi€r/y^ owner (if different than ajjrolicant) Name Arruild ^oski m Phone (home) Zip SirsfeVPhone (work) Address City (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Zip Phone (home) .Phone (work) / z Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) )tumts__i va ^hK t PROPOSAL X Number of Building Sites Division for Tex Purposes Lot Line Reanangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites O Existing Units ^ New Units PropcMwd Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Total Units Units per *7 Acres Sq. Fl Dry Buildable Land Re^endal Other (specify)________ ^4 \j i rf-nm i I ui — b- Wildhurst by Brenshel Homes 3/22/00 f—if f / . ■ ' '/ i ■'•*■• *7V’ A ... ) "it # -’ ‘ ( E ■ i o ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the foilowing members present: Chair Eiizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Jay Nygard, and Daniel Kluth. Commissioners William Stoddard and Sandra Smith were absent. The foilowing represented City Staff: Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Public Works Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Jackie Young. Park Commissioner Andrew McDermott was present. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. OLD BUSINESS (#1) #2551 THOMAS MICHAEL RANDGAARD, 2765 SHADYWOOD ROAD. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:31 p.m. - 6:48 p.m. Thomas Randgaard, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated this application has appeared before the Planning Commission on two separate occasions where no action was taken due to the absence of the Applicant. The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit a 14 foot extension to an existing dock. The dock is located in Lake Minnetonka and would fall under the jurisdiction of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. A permit was issued for the dock by the LMCD in June, 1999. 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. It is believed this dock has existed as a permanent deck prior to 1983. Weinberger stated a large boat may pose a problem due to the fact that only 70 feet exists between the proposed dock extension and the opposite shoreline. Greg Nybeck, LMCD, has stated the Hennepin County Sheriff ’s Water Patrol has reviewed the matter of the proposed dock extension and has concluded the actual dock structure does not create a navigational problem in the channel. Nybeck did concur that parking of boats on the north side of the dock could obstruct access to other docks in the channel. The Applicant has agreed that the north side of the 14' dock extension should not be used for parking of additional boats due to the navigational problems it may cause. City Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit subject to, one, the Applicant maintaining active licenses with the LMCD and DNR; two, the dock does not cause navigational problems or obstruct access within the channel per LMCD requirements; three, future replacement or alteration of the dock wilt require a new conditional use permit from the City of Orono; and four, no parking shall be permitted on the north side of the dock. Randgaard stated he would like to park boats on the north side of the dock extension if possible, noting that in his opinion there are adequate laws governing the channel. Randgaard stated he has agreed to not park boats in front of the 14 foot dock extension. Berg inquired why the Applicant is in need of a 14 foot dock extension Page 1 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 (#2551 Thomas Randgaard, Continued) Randgaard stated he currently does not have enough room for his boat. Berg inquired whether the second dock owned by the Applicant will be removed. Randgaard stated the second dock is primarily a swimming dock, noting he is unsure whether he will be putting the dock in this year. Hawn inquired whether there was a requirement that docks be limited to one per parcel of property. Weinberger stated each dock requires a permit. Weinberger noted the second dock has not been issued a permit and should be inspected to insure that the dock does not encroach into the channel or setbacks. Hawn indicated In her view the Applicant should obtain a permit for the second dock. There were no public comments regarding this application Hawn indicated to the Applicant that his neighbors did appear on a prior occasion when this application was before the Planning Commission and expressed a number of concerns regarding the dock extension as well as the number of parties that appear to be taking place on this property. Hawn stated she would like to see the Applicant take steps to improve the situation and become a better neighbor. Nygard commented the LMCO does govern how many docks are allowed per feet of shoreline. Randgaard stated he owns approximately 600 feet of shoreline, with the second dock bel. g permitted according to the LMCD. Randgaard indicated he will not be parking a boat permanently on the north side of the dock extension. Berg encouraged the Applicant to become a good neighbor. Nygard commented he personally measured the area and found approximately 75 feet between the dock and the opposite shoreline, and questioned whether the Applicant felt there would be problems with navigating the channel. Randgaard indicated in his view there should not be any navigational problems in the channel. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2551, Thomas Michael Randgaard, 2765 Shadywood Road, granting of a conditional use permit to allow a 14 foot extension to an existing dock subject to the conditions outlined in the March 20, 2000 City Planner’s Report. Weinberger stated he will assume the maximum boat kept on this dock will not exceed 40 feet. Hawn commented in her opinion the boat could not be larger than that without causing navigational problems Kluth amended the motion, Hawn seconded, to require a permit be obtained on the second dock. VOTE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Ayes 5, Nays 0. VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION: Ayes, 5, Nays 0. Page 2 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 (#2) #2543 TED EDIN, 3025 CASCO POINT ROAD. VARIANCES, 6:49 p.m. • 6:53 p.m. Ted Edin, Applicant, appeared before the Applicant. Bottenberg stated this application has appeared before the Planning Commission on two prior occasions where the application was tabled to allow the Applicant time to redesign a lakeside deck to conform more with Orono's zoning code. The Applicant has applied for variances to replace an existing second story deck on the lakeside of the house due to its deteriorating condition. The deck extends four feet from the house and is the full width of the house. In addition to replacing the deck, the Applicant is proposing to add a small section onto the deck approximately 8* by 12' to allow for a sitting area. Variances to structural coverage, hardcover in the 75*250' setback, and average lakeshore setback are required on this application. Bottenberg noted the Applicant has reduced the size of the proposed deck by 12.55 square feet, which reduces structural coverage from 23.3 percent to 23.2 percent. The Applicant is also proposing to reduce hardcover from 77.11 percent to 67.7 percent. The redesigned deck will not encroach further into the average lakeshore setback and will be - located approximately 24 feet from the property line. Bottenberg stated the existing deck encroaches 55 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Edin had no comment regarding his application. Hawn acknowledged this process has been somewhat frustrating for the Applicant, noting she is pleased with the proposed changes. Nygard and Berg stated they also liked the proposed changes. There were no public comments regarding this application. Nygard moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of this Application #2543, Ted Edin, 3025 Casco Point Road, to allow variances to structural coverage, hardcover in the 75To 250* setback, and average lakeshore setback, subject to the conditions outlined in the March 20,2000 City Planner's Report. VOTE: 5*0. (#4) #2562 CORNERSTONE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH. 850 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 6:54 p.m. • 7:05 p.m. Dave Henderson, Cornerstone New Testament Church, appeared. Weinberger staled the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit a "church” on property located at 850 Wayzata Boulevard. The property currently has an existing building that was constructed in 1966 and utilized as a religious institution. 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 the "R" Districts. The property is owned by adjacent property owners to the north who intend to lease the building to the Cornerstone Church group for an undetermined period of time thought to be two to four years. Weinberger stated a variance to the signage is required to permit a 32 square foot on the property, which exceeds the 12 square feet currently allowed under City Code. The Applicant is proposing parking for 30 cars. Required parking for a church is one space for Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 (#2562 Cornerstone New Testament Church, Continued) each four seats based on the design of the main assembly hall. The proposed parking would accommodate 120 people. If additional parking is needed, it appears the parking lot could be realigned to permit additional spaces. The Applicant has also indicated the current lighting on the property would remain. Staff has indicated to the Applicant that new lights deflecting all light down should be installed. The Applicant has further indicated they will Ibe planting additional trees over the north and east portions of the property. Weinberger noted a conditional use permit remains in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed and the use does not cease for a period of more than six months. Weinberger stated there is a concern regarding the septic system, which has been demonstrated to be non-compliant due to the three foot separation rule and must be replaced by the year 2007. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to permit a 32 square foot sign where 12 square feet is permitted to allow for easier identification of the church and service times. The proposed sign would be located on Highway 12, where there is a 55 mph speed limit. The Applicant is proposing to erect a four by eight foot wooden sign on the existing posts. A hardship exists due to the speed of traffic and the location of the church. Dave Henderson stated he is available for questions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist inquired what the plans for this property are two to four years from now. Henderson indicated he was not sure. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed sign was acceptable. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2562, Cornerstone New Testament Church, 850 Wayzata Boulevard, granting of a variance to signage and a conditional use permit to allow the existing building subject to the conditions outlined in the March 20, 2000 City Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2567 WALFRED PROPERTIES. 2380 AND 2364 SHADYWOOD ROAD, 3326 NAVARRE LANE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, VARIANCES, VACATION AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN 7:06 p.m. -8:19 p.m. Tom Reinen, Project Architect, and Bob Weigert, Project Engineer, appeared. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a commercial site plan review to permit construction of a 12,000 square foot Syndefs Drugstore and Medical Office Building on ttie Grace Baptist Church site in Navarre. Weinberger noted approximately one year ago a Walgreen s had been proposed for this site. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 12,000 square foot two story building, with the ground Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 (#2567 Walfred Properties, Continued) floor to be utilized as a Snyder's Drugstore consisting of 9,050 squar feet, and the s ond floor being designated for 9,000 square feet of office space, which is intended to be used ar a medical office. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing a lower level underg'’ound parxii i area !c accommodate 25 parking spaces. Weinberger stated currently the proposed drugstore is not a permitted or condif 'lal use in tht B-5 District. The Applicant Is requesting an amendment to allow a drugstore as a ^'«^rmitted or condi ’ional use in the B-5 District. Weinbeiger indicated two other B-5 Districts woulo t;* ***ected by this zoning amendment. Variances are required to permit a front yard setback for a parking lot to encroach five feet. The proposed parking area is 15 feet from the property line where the Code requires 20 feet. A variance to hardcover is also required to permit 27,165 square feet of hardcover in the north 500-1000’ shoreland setback where 12,896 square feet is allowed, and to permit 5,803 square feet in the south 500-1000' shoreland setback where 3,231 square feet is allowed. A variance to parking is also required to permit 96 parking spaces on the property where 105 spaces are required. Weinberger noted the pond and parking areas are located within what is now City of Orono property known as Navane Lane. The Applicants have requested to vacate the west half of the undeveloped right-of-way to provide additional land area. Currently the right-of-way is used for sewer, water, phone and gas lines. The Applicant is proposing to relocate these lines outside of the right-of-way. The south half of the east 33 feet of Navarre Lane was vacated in favor of the O’Sullivan property to provide additional parking area. Weinberger stated the proposed pond will require the Applicant acquire additional land to the east or an easement for ponding purposes. The City Engineer is also recommending the Applicant provide details as to how the pond will be constructed and how it will impact the existing wetland in the area. The pond is designed to handle the runoff from the subject lot and the adjacent property to the east. A requirement at the time of approval of the existing pond was that the pond would be redesigned at the time the church property is redeveloped. The City Engineer has reviewed the drainage and pond capacity and has determined the pond is not designed to NURP standards. Weinberger commented the City’s sign ordinances currently do not list B-5 standards. Staff has determined the uses permitted in the district ase consistent with many of the uses in the B-1 district, which permit one square foot of sign space for each square foot of frontage The total frontage for this property is 380 feet along County Road 19. with the total amount of signage permitted on this property being 380 square feet. The Applicant is proposing to erect several back lit signs that would be located on the building and one monument sign which would be located at the south entrance. Weinberger noted 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 feet in height. 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. Landscaping in this area is being recommended to screen the walls where they may be visible to residentially zoned properties. The Applicant is proposing a natural buffer along the west property line to screen the property and retaining wall. The proposed plan indicates a series of trees along the north property line, with several other plantings being proposed in the green space along Shadywood and in the natural islands in the parking lot Page 5 T* ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 (#2567 Walfred Properties, Continued) The Applicant is also proposing an eight foot wide pedestrian access to connect the Olive Avenue neightx>rhood to this 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 trait. An easement for trail purposes should be granted to the City. Weinberger noted the City did agree to vacate the west half of Navarre Lane in a prior application. Weinberger stated the City of Orono would like to reserve the right to limit access for the southerly entrance/exit to a right in/out should traffic levels increase to create a public safety concern. Normally only one driveway access is allowed for a business site, with two being proposed. The circulation pattern for the current plan is quite similar to the earlier plans and is expected to accommodate the drive-through. Weinberger stated a conditional use permit is required for grading on the property within five feet of the lot lines. The grading plan indicates the pond and some grading will occur off site. The Applicants will need to obtain the appropriate easements that would permit off site use. City Staff has some concerns with the unresolved grading issues, especially the pond size and location, with additional Information needing to be submitted by the Applicant. Staff is recommending the application be tabled to allow the engineering issues to be resolved. Tom Reinen, Project Architect, indicated they have modified the parking plan to include an additional nice parking stalls. Reinen noted the proposed building will be constructed out of brick. Bob Weigert, Project Engineer, stated they have revised their plans as it relates to the pond to allow for more water runoff storage, and in their opinion the size of the pond is now adequate to meet the water runoff demands for this area. Weigert stated they are willing to relocate the utilities out of the wetland area if required. John Ericson, 1620 Shadywood Road, inquired about the location of the sidewalk. Weinberger stated the sidewalk would be located along the edge of the parking lot near the retaining wall, which will allow for safe pedestrian traffic to this site. Ericson stated he is in support of the application, noting he would like to see this site improved. Chad Nilsson, 3324 Navarre Lane, inquired about the hours of operation for the drive-through. Wally Klus, Walfred Properties, indicated the hours of operation will be until 10:00 p.m. Klus stated they will be installing shielded lighting. Andy McDermott, Chairman of the Park Commission, indicated the Commission has expressed interest In the past in retaining a portion of Navarre Lane to provide for easy access to this area. McDermott stated he would prefer the path not deadend into Olive Avenue as well as provide access up to the intersection in this area. McDermott stated in his personal opinion he would like to see the existing building removed. McDermott expressed some concerns regarding the size and height of the building, noting that it is located close to a residential area. McDermott suggested the building be relocated closer to Culver's as well as some of the proposed parking eliminated McDermott stated the people who would frequent this building would do so on a short-term basis, and if the use of the building should Page 6 1 i i ORONO PLANNING CO^LMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR ^L\RCH 20,2000 (#2567 Walfred Properties, Continued) change in the future, additional parking could be added. Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant had a problem with constructing a sidedown down to Olive Avenue. Reinen indicated they did not. Hawn commented the Planning Commission tonight is simply reviewing the appllication, obtaining public comment, and making a recommendation to the City Council. Hawn indicated the City Council will be reviewing this application as well and making a final decision on whether it should be approved or not. John O'Sullivan commented that this is a difficult site to develop, and encouraged the Planning Commission to approve this application. O'Sullivan stated In his opinion this project wilt benefit the community and appears to be largely conforming with the City requirements. Lindquist inquired whether the second story of this building will be utilized as office space should the proposed medical use elect to go elsewhere. Weigert indicated they have more than one interested medical party for this space. Weigert stated it is unlikely in his view that this space will be used for anything but medical. Weinberger stated office use would be a permitted use within this district. Weinberger indicated the proposed parking would be adequate for office use. Berg inquired whether ample handicap parking was being provided Reinen stated they are proposing four on grade and one underground, which meets the standards for handicap parking. Hawn indicated that while she would like to see the old building removed and an attractive building constructed in its place, she has some concerns regarding the amount of hardcover being proposed for this property and the fact that this is primarily a residential area. Hawn noted this area is located within the watershed district, and the excessive hardcover and increased traffic with this project should be addressed. Kluth commented in his view a drugstore should be allowed as a permitted use for this district. Hawn stated in her view the intent of the language permitting a drug store was aimed at a small family owned drugstore rather than a large retail operation. Berg stated there appears to be more than ample parking for the building. Weinberger stated the parking does comply with the parking regulations for a building of this size and use. Lindquist noted the City has attempted to redevelop this property in the past with no success. Lindquist stated based on what he has seen in the past and tonight, he would be in support of the project. Berg stated she would like to see the stipulation added that if traffic counts are high, the second Page 7 1 ! OROiNO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 (#2567 Walfred Properties. Continued) curb cub be closed. Berg stated in her opinion this is a workable plan, with an attractive building being piooosed in place of the old deteriorating building that currently exists on this property. Weinberger pointed out as a condition of approval the four tax parcels should be legally combined. Hawn stated the application could proceed forward with some of the issues still remaining unresolved or the application could be tabled to allow the Applicant time to resolve the issues relating to the pond and trail. Weinberger concurred that there are some engineering issues that need to be resolved. Reinen indicated he has been actively working with City Staff on this application, noting in his view the engineering issues can be resolved. Reinen stated they have submitted new information today relating to those issues. Hawn stated in her opinion this application should appear before the Planning Commission again once the issues are resolved. Lindquist stated he would be comfortable either way. Kluth and Berg indicated they feel the Issues can be resolved and recommended the application proceed forward to the City Council. Hawn noted the Applicant will need to meet with the Park Commission as well. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2567. VValfred Properties, 2380 and 2364 Shadywood Road, 3326 Navarre Lane, granting of a zoning code amendment to the B-5 District, variances to hardcover, front yard setback, and parking, vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane, and approval of the commercial site plan, subject to the conditions outlined in the March 29, 2000 City Planner's Report, subject to the submittal of more detailed landscaping, lighting, parking, grading and drainage plans for review and approval by the City Engineer, construction of a sidewalk connection from Olive Avenue to Shadywood and Navarre Lane, and further subject to review and approval by the Park Commission, approval by Hennepin County and the City Engineer as It relates to access, with the added condition that if traffic intensifies, the southern access will be limited. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Hawn and Nygard opposed. Nygard and Hawn indicated they would like to see the items resolved prior to the application proceeding forward to the City Council. (#5) #2564 WILLIAM SCOTT DAMPIER, 3550 IVY PLACE, VARIANCES, 8:20 p.m. - 8:58 p.m. William Dampier, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit a 364 5 square foot addition to the south side of the residence and to remodel the existing residence 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 Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 (#2564 William Oampier, Continued) through the house. The height of the structure will remain the same. This addition will also aid in diverting water runoff further downhill rather than into the house. Bottenberg stated variances to lot coverage and lakeshore hardcover within the 75-250' of the shoreline are required. A variance to hardcover is required to permit 48.9 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed. Currently 55.4 percent hardcover exists in this area. The Applicant is also proposing 18.7 percent structural coverage where 16.8 percent exists and 15 percent is allowed. Bottenberg noted the lakeside deck is considered structure because it is more than six feet above grade. If the lakeside deck were not considered structural coverage, the proposed house and addition would meet the IS percent limit. City Staff is recommending this application be tabled. Dampier stated he has attempted to comply with all of the City's regulations regarding this property, which has been a frustrating and difficult process. Dampier indicated he was told these plans would be approved by Chris and Lyle on City Staff. - Oampier stated Casco Point is zoned LR-1C, half acre lots, with zones B and C being allowed as much as a 15,000 square foot structure on a two acre lot. Dampier stated according to City Codes, he is limited to 1.954 square feet, which in his view is placing an unfair burden on himself as well as the other residents on Casco Point. Dampier stated when the exception is more common than the rule, the rule should be changed, particularly in this case. It is doubtful that any single lot on Casco Point concurs with the current City rules, with a number of homes in the neighborhood exceeding the allowable structure coverage limit. Dampier stated his neighbors have slightly larger homes than himself with detached garages. The plan before the Planning Commission tonight takes into account the environmental and the community as a whole, with the proposed reduction in hardcover being a win/win situation for all. Dampier stated he has met with City Staff on a number of occasions for the past few years, with the exact same model being presented to Lyle and Chris for their review and approval. Dampier stated he Informed City Staff approximately one year ago that he wished to purchase the large oak timbers needed to complete this project, which was a long and costly process. City Staff was asked at that time whether the proposed project would be approved. Dampier stated he was told the project would more than likely be approved. Dampier stated he then proceeded forward with the purchase of the large oak timbers, which are very rare and expensive, and at this time is not agreeable to removing them Dampier stated the addition to the existing residence will not block his neighbors' view of the lake, will improve his existing structure as well as increase the City's tax base, reduce the current hardcover and existing structural coverage, as well as improve the existing drainage problems being experienced on this property, which will benefit the community. Dampier expressed some frustration regarding his discussions with Bottenberg, noting that he was told he had to remove his existing deck in order to bring the structural coverage on this lot Into compliance. Dampier stated there currently is no second story on the north side of the house, which in essence means that the existing second story will not be removed. Dampier stated his front deck currently is in compliance with the American Disablities Act. Dampier stated he has a different view on what should be viewed structure and non-structural, indicating in his view Bottenberg's view of what should be determined as structural coverage is Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) incorrect. Dampier stated the stairs in his view should be considered as part of the house. Dampier stated the existing decks on the house are in a deteriorating condition and need to be replaced. Dampier stated the hardcover numbers for his driveway should be reduced by a substantial amount since the driveway consists of bricks laid in dirt which has a fair amount of grass growing inbetween the bricks Dampier reiterated the majority of the homes in the Casco Point neighborhood are non-conforming to the existing City Codes, and urged the Planning Commission to approve his application tonight based on the reduction in existing hardcover and structural coverage, the improvements to the existing drainage, and the increase in tax base, which is a benefit to the City as a whole. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn stated a large portion of the Applicant's comments were directed towards zoning of Casco Point, which the Planning Commission is not in a position to address tonight. Dampier indicated he understands that position. Hawn stated what is defined as structural coverage and non-structural coverage is not open to debate with City Staff. Hawn stated City Ordinance stipulates certain hardcover and structural coverage numbers which must be adhered to by the Planning Commission. City Council, and residents. Hawn stated normally stairs are not considered structural coverage, but if a deck is located higher than six feet off the ground, it is considered structural coverage. Hawn stated if the Applicant were to replace the deck and reduce the height of the deck, it would not be considered structural coverage. Hawn stated the major obstacle with this application is the increase in structural coverage, and an option offered by City Staff was to reduce the height of the deck. Dampier stated the deck as it currently exists today serves a handicapped member of his family. The American Disabilities Act precludes making that deck inaccessible by a handicapped person. Klulh stated City Staff or the Planning Commission is not requiring the Applicant to remove the deck, but merely has offered that as an option to reduce the amount of structural coverage on the property. Dampier stated that he was assured by previous City Staff that this deck would not pose a problem. Hawn remarked that City Staff is not in a position to say what will and what will not be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Hawn stated City Staff attempts to provide guidance to the Applicants on the rules and regulations the Applicants need to comply with. Hawn stated she would like to help the Applicant on this plan as much as possible, and one option for reducing structural coverage on the property is being reducing the height of the deck. Hawn stated she historically does not approve applications where there is an increase in structural coverage when the Applicant is already over the allowable limit. Dampier stated he is not in agreement with the structural and hardcover figures listed in City Staffs report. Lindquist concurred that typically the Planning Commission will not approve structural coverage over the allowable 15 percent, especially if the Applicant is already over the allowable limit. Lindquist stated the maximum structural coverage that will be allowed by the Planning Commission is what Page 10 c i L,______ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) currently exists on the property. Dampier stated he is willing to accept Bottenberg's numbers on the hardcover. Dampier stated he is somewhat confused because the front deck is considered structural but the rear deck is not. Nygard stated as he understands the American Disabilities Act, the handicap access itself does not count towards your hardcover. Weinberger stated the American Disabilities Act does provide for one handicap across to the home, with certain portions of the access not being included in the hardcover figures. Weinberger inquired whether the home presently is handicapped accessible. Dampier stated currently the home is not handicapped accessible, with the proposed plan providing for a handicap access. Berg inquired whether there is a survey on this property. Bottenberg stated the survey in the file is dated March, 1990. Berg stated an updated survey is always required at the time of the application. Hawn stated there still appear to be some issues that need to be resolved prior to approval, vrith the biggest Issue being the amount of structural coverage being proposed. Hawn stated the Applicant will need to reduce structural coverage somewhere on the property. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission is looking for a reduction In the amount of proposed structural coverage to reduce it to the amount that currently exists on the property. Dampier expressed frustration with the fact that the deck that appeam to be In question now was just recently replaced, noting he is not in a financial position to remove the deck at this time Kluth reiterated that the Planning Comm slon Is not requiring the removal of the deck, but is asking the Applicant to reduce the overall structural coverage on his property. Kluth stated removal of the deck is one option available to the Applicant to reduce the structural coverage. Dampier stated leaving the deck aside, if he chooses to change anything on the foundation, that would be considered a rebuild rather than a remodel and then the setbacks would apply. Lindquist stated City Staff is willing to work with the Applicant on this application in order to reduce the structural coverage to what currently exists. Dampier commented that a majority of the houses in his neighborhood currently exceed the structural coverage limits. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission is not in a position tonight to discuss those. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would be willing to approve variances to setback and hardcover but not inclined to grant a structural coverage variance in excess of what currently exists on the property. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to act on his application Page 11 V i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) tonight or to table the matter. Dampier requested the Planning Commission vote on his application tonight. Motion by Hawn, second by Kluth, to recommend denial of Application #2564, William Scott Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, granting of variances to permit a 365.4 square foot addition to the south side of the residence and to remodel the existing residence due to the excessive amount of structural coverage being proposed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Dampier inquired whether the Planning Commission had read his statement of hardship on this application. The Planning Commission indicated they have read his hardship statement. (#6) #2565 PETER SCHERER, 15 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCE RENEWAL, 8:59 p.m. • 9:03 p.m. Peter Scherer. Applicant, was present. The CertiFicate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a variance renewal, with a variance being granted for lot width on September 26,1994. The previous owner were proposing 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 present owner is proposing to construct a new residence on the lot that meets all setbacks in the RR-1B zoning district. The Applicant would like to renew the lot width variance on this property. Scherer indicated he was not aware the variance had expired. ' There were no public comments regarding this application. Motion by Hawn, second by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application #2565, Peter Scherer, 15 Orono Orochard Road South, granting of a variance renewal to lot width. VOTE: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#7) #2566 JAMES LANGHANS, 1366 REST POINT ROAD. VARIANCES. 9:03 p.m. • 9:07 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. James Langhans, Applicants, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a vanance to remove a lakeside deck and replace it with a 16' by 18' addition and a 465 square foot deck for a total of 753 square feet. The addition and deck meet ail the setback requirements for the LR-1B zoning district. A variance to the lakeshore hardcover within the 75-250' setback is required. The Applicant is requesting hardcover in the amount of 29.33, with the existing hardcover being 29.37 percent. Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 (#2566 James Langhans, Continued) Langhans stated the hardcover in that area will be slightly reduced with this proposal. Langhans noted some areas of hardcover cannot be removed due to erosion problems. Lindquist noted the structural coverage on this property will remain under the allowable 15 percent limit. Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with this application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Motion by Hawn, second by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application #2566, James Langhans, 1366 Rest Point Road, granting of a variance to lakeshore hardcover to permit the removal of a lakeside deck and replace it with a 16* by 18' addition and a 465 square foot deck. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN (#8) #2563 MIKE AND RUTH FILBRANDT, 3960 BAYSIDE ROAD, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW' Mike Filbrandt. Applicant, and Tracy Ingram. Contractor, were present. Weinberger stated this is a sketch plan review. The Applicants are interested in subdividing the property Into two buildable lots. The total acreage consists of approximately nine acres of dry buildable land, with the minimum lot size being five acres in the RR-1A district. Weinberger stated there is an issue with the amount of wetlands in the area. Weinberger stated the most appropriate way to subdivide the property would be to do a lot line r: ::rrangement because three separate tax parcels exist. Filorandt stated in approximately 1979, the City Council elected to make this property five acres, with the surrounding land being zoned two acres. Filbrandt acknowledged that there is some wetlands In the area which will need to be delineated. Filbrandt stated he is looking at creating two or three lots. Weinberger stated City Staff has discussed with the Applicants the most appropriate way to subdivide this property. Weinberger stated they have considered a lot line rearrangement and a replatting of the property. Weinberger stated there currently exist three separate tax parcels which have not been combined and could potentially be sold as three separate lots. Weinberger stated it is possible that Lot A would meet the minimum five acre standard, which has not been determined at this time due to the lack of a wetland delineation. The property consists of 27 acres, 17 of which are considered to be wetland. A lot line rearrangement is not currently permitted by code the way it could potentially occur on this lot. The City of Orono has used lot line rearrangements when there are two lots that could be developed residentially to create lots that are more comparable in size with the zoning in the area. Weinberger stated a lot line rearrangement in this case would allow the number of dwelling units to increase on this property from what currently exists. The ordinance requires that there be two conforming lots, and does not allow for any flexible zoning issues such as a variance. Weinberger stated according to the way the Ordinance currently reads, the only way to legally Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 (#2563 Mike and Ruth Filbrandt, Continued) develop this property would be to replat the property, which would make it a Class III subdivision because flexible zoning is required in this instance from the five acre zoning requirement. Weinberger stated some other issues the Applicant will need to consider is the availability of acceptable septic sites for both lots, lot width, and adequate access. In order for the Applicant to accurately determine how much land is available for each lot in the subdivision. Filbrandt stated there may be some additional land in the rear tha :ould possibly count as dry land and raise the total dry buildable land to ten acres. Lindquist commented that perhaps some consideration could be given to rezoning this area to two acres. Lindquist stated he would prefer seeing two acre zoning in this area versus have one five acre lot and one four acre lot. Weinberger stated the wetland delineation will help determine how much dry buildable land is actually available. Weinberger stated they did not consider rezoning this area to two acres duelo the City's Comprehensive Plan. Lindquist stated the rezoning issue wilt need to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Berg commented in her view rezoning to two acres is a viable option that should be considered for this property. Berg stated she is unsure why this area was zoned five acres. Hawn suggested if the Applicant is unable to meet the five acre minimum, to give some consideration to requesting that this area be rezoned to two acres. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 28. 2000 AND MARCH 13, 2000 Nygard stated the City Council is continuing to pursue the Dakota Rail to Trait project. Hawn noted the Planning Commission has been requested to meet with the Long Lake Planning Commission to discuss Wayzata's Development Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan, with a meeting date scheduled for April 11 at 6:30 p.m. Hawn stated she would like the Orono Planning Commission to meet in a workshop setting prior to that meeting. Hawn commented one reason for the Joint meeting is to consider the possibility of cooperating on development that may occur along the Highway 12 corridor. (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None Page 14 i i f . ' ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,2000 (#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 22,1999 AND FEBRUARY 23. 2000 Motion by Kluth, second by Hawn, to approve the minutes of the November 22,1999, and February 23,2000 Regular Planning Commission meetings as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#12) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MARCH 27.2000 AND APRIL 10, 2000 March 27. 2000 - Berg April 10.2000 - Lindquist ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hawn, second by Nygard, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn, Chair Page 15 -♦I - > ti 1 liHiAiiMiiAl i