Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-19-2000 Planning Packet
To: From: Date: Chair Hawn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaf&on, Senior Planning Coordinator June 19,2000 Subject: June 27 Meeting of Long Lake Planning Commission The Long Lake Planning Commission is meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27 at the Long Lake Council Chambers for a presentation by and discussion with representatives of Hoisington- Koegler to review the scope of the work to be done for the joint planning study of the Highway 12 corridor. Orono Planning Commissioners are invited and encouraged to attend. Council Representative: Richard Flint 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 advisoiy body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the July 10, 2000, City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. #2595 Sharon Tapani, 781 Femdale Road North, Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). #2564 William Scott Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, Variances. (Staff: Mike Gaf&on). SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 n.m. #2588 Robert Pieper, 3995 North Shore Drhe, Proposed Subdivision Resulting in Two '/z Acre Lots. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 7:30 p.m. #2592 Mike Hilbelink and John Vogt, 350 Stubbs Bay Road North, Proposed Two Lot Subdivision. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 8:0jli}.m. «M5M James R. Johnson, 2240 Fox Street, Proposed Two Lot Subdivision. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). 8:3p^.m. ^ #2#2596 Brenshell Homes, 1 181 Wildhurst Trail, Proposed Six Lot Subdivision with Development of Garden Lane as a Public Road. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). s A A 4 #2579 James and Candace Kemna, 1110 Willow Drive South, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). #2584 Andrew and Tracy Rascher, 4705 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit and Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). #2589 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Road, Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). #2590 11. #2591 Dennis and Becky Stanton, 3325 Crystal Bay Road, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). Gina Hansen, 583 Park Lane, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Report of Planning Comrnission representatives attending Council meetings May 22, 2000 and June 12, 2000. Other issues for discussion. Planning Commission approval of minutes for April 17,2000 and May 15,2000. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on June 26,2000 and July 10,2000. ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance Meeting D ate L.t I-CH □m□ COUNCBL Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other ■» . VpPlJEi^ ^9^ THE INFORMATION llEQUECTED BELOW ;TOR OUR CTTY RECORDS. - ;• - ■ • • f, ■: - ■ •: ^ . •v i.?- •/> ’ • • . .<;>.y L-.": VX <: wV-: •< • ' - NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1 V fu .^ o RciLiyj 39^?meLfL^ At # • I I / A SKclIvy ^V~r.rtl•^ finer--------------- I 7 I'O-'C'iKill Av<_ — Pf . lAVyiHtii./l C t ‘7,00 (AnLOf-tuLsrT^L ■fii i ll._:^E2^=3^i2s in^L k)JiUL—^ ITa. 13.^ 2C?C Public A ttendance Meerng D ate - i‘t -on □ COUNCIL (3 Planning C ommission □ PARK COMMISSION □ Other L : y-'-. . ^svv.: i; PljBASE m : Oinrii IHE INFORMATION ■y'” ■ vx;.'#";: ■■i-j •V: I -REQUECTED BEIOW^FOR OUR ^:'vV-VV V * ■ V ; NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1 ' k » (L I ( lOf^ Ly\J S?r<?4 . 1 jL/ft * ----^---c----------------------- i-^-U ^^/lLy(nC f > 2.^/ 1 UJ.Clcf ^ J ^? <■ s. fLl.^/ 1 9 ll,^/ Irl ^ A « ^ ------2 5'^/Z' . d. 5._________ < ^ _______________________________________________________________________________________________— Q ____________________________________________________________________________________ Q 10. * • 11.^________■ ■■ * "* -------------------- 13..^_______- —___________________________________- 15.______________________________________________________________________ “ •IMM !► !! :x o•-H •V n i n S t X a Is n § =t I g I <0 I o> g -M g a> % wV\i — O U% 5 Ul IT t>l Ui 00 Kl 2 » c^ ?? o g 2o r;*s C/)n so•T3 P: g K* r CM •o « B Ki r •o % g K- Vs?cn 5 NO ON >o 4^ NO K>s rrl D fJ I *Vsr* »I f%* o’ I 8 I g o d3 -1o •» 09o i e Q I “ oo g4 II I I ccr IIir ft iie i* » in I ^21B; « S;s § 5T ro o (/) o ^2 S’ <» n ?2 Is l| K> Ki K>s z j: o' - IK/) B ^ a e 3% o H i r f o 3 BT O C/>or S v> HIIifii (/i I S’ I ►TJ “• -\l a f a ^ M j 2. ^ ss oacr </)cr § I O CO }?oa i”Q595o **tr 8 I* S - “ o S€tr e p » o • 8* « S' Qm er s= S* w J5If BO* J?B VI S. S 2, JT •' n o, 2 2 ff J* a 8 « tmi o s. B S*‘ecr Zl> O m ^"si Is?-s §. oBa<*Bo I a «1:3> >sIs i r*i 5 Ooe pr> I3 «% D P <* #• 2» I P I a Ulu% •5 •»1 3 Q. !T <• •o 3. 0 1 0 1 B I 3?i f <o 3nr JS» 9ssers. 6 •n s’ M ?f Sfi, i yl|S >o Hiw § >§ f o * 2oSSp?•? sa 0_jiS_ _ TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: June 19,2000 SUBJECT: #2595 Erotas Building Corporation for Sharon Tapani 781 Femdale Road North Conditional Use Permit — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 93,787 s.f.( 2.153 acre) List of Exhibits A Application Site Plan/Survey Floor Plan Hardcover Calculations Septic Plan Plat Map Location Map Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Sample Restrictive Covenant B C D E F G H I J Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.20, Subd. 3(Q): Plumbing in Accessory Building; (The provision of a toilet, bathtub or shower in an accessory building requires a Conditional Use Permit.) 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (F) (3) (b); Accessory Buildings-Plumbing: Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height, which meets one of the following criteria: b. The accessory building has been approved for a ^Plumbing in Accessory Building ’ conditional use permit. Application Summary: Applicant has filed a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory building. The accessory building will be used as a “pool house ”. It will be located next to the pool, 10' X 20' in size, and behind (north) the existing residence. The pool house will provide storage of pool equipment and include a bath^changing room with sink, toilet and shower. The applicant has been issued a building permit to begin construction of the accessory building. The building does met all setback requirements therefore the building permit was issued subject to no plumbing unless/until a CUP is obtained. ^2595 Sharon Tapani 781 Ftrndalt Road North Conditional Use Permit 6/19/2000 Page I i The property is located in the RR-IB zoning district. Orono zoning code refers to section R-1 A, (Conditional Use Permits) Section 10.20, Subd. 3 (Q) which states approval of a toilet, bathtub or shower in an accessory building, shall be conditioned on provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from the building plumbing. Approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: 1. The Council finds that the proposed use for the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The Council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. 3. The property is 2.0 acre in area or larger. The property meets the minimum requirement of 2.0 acres. It is approximately 2.153 acres. 4. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. The proposed pool house is 10'x 20' or 200 s.f An accessory structure of this size is to be located 10'from the side property line. The "pool house " is proposed to be located 19'‘20'jrom the property line as shown on the survey (Exhibit B). It is not located closer to the street than the principal structure and does not exceed the height of the principal building, therefore is considered as conforming. 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 of 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 dwelling under any circumstances. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Stplis; The existing septic system was built for a 5 bedroom residence, installed in April, 1999 and is up to code. The “pool house ” is not adding bedrooms, and septic inspector Chris Pence has concluded that the existing septic system is adequate. Hardcover: While the property is within the 500-1000' zone from Lydiard Lake, it meets all hardcover limitations. #259$ Sharon Tapani 781 Ferndale Road North Conditional Use Permit 6/19/2000 Page 2 (• Items for Discussion : 1. Docs Planning Commission find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood? 2. Does Planning Conunission find that the proposed fixtures are in keeping with the intended use as a pool house? 3. Does the property owner confirm acceptance of the restrictive covenant being placed on the chain of title placing conditions on the accessory building? Staff Recommendation ; Staff recommends approval for a Conditional Use Permit for plumbing in an accessory building for property located at 781 Femdale Road North based on the structure meets the requirements established by the Municipal Code for an “accessory structure with plumbing” CUP subject to the following condition: The property owner files the appropriate restrictive covenant on the property for an accessory building with plumbing. i U2595 Sharon Tapani 781 Ftmdale Road North Conditional Ust Permit 6/19/7000 Pagei f\ Application # Date Received Siiljtt Amount Paid ~S CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOC^ION Site Address 7o) . fJOlOH . Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) TJin ~ 11 ^**2 1/ 00/"Z APPLICANT Name_j Address Phone (home) ^ne (work) 7TI - WJ? If" Phone (home) ^1OWNER (if different than applicant) Name i _____________ Phone (work) SV7"*7l?V-^/0^ Address 7 r/ . KJ‘ Citv~~ QjLc>^ Zip ^5"^^ f TTb^Si ^P--l£ Date Pro I (do) Acquired (month/year) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application \ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use ____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore 05 PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee iL\J OTHER -APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals _____Other - see Fee Schedule CQ 6129755345 *:• irf FROM : Panasonic fax system phone no. : 6129755345 05 13 CO 17:59 EPOir-i. ELDG -IGRP - *'129755345 May. 13 2000 07:10PM PJ 1*0. .tiC C02 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners Lis: of ov^mers wjthir(350^ must obtain this list, labels and map from HennepinC^ A-603, Government Center, 148-327 n. H O ) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 8. 9 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 prop>oted contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of ail persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current o\vner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements) As an addendum to this applicationi 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 (ir* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCLTVffiNTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Proper.y Owner must sign this application Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff; ____ Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE 'fhe applicant hereby ogrees to provide all Information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agreea^irpty^ddiiional fccs,;(«t«f!Nime not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual c.’^enses incur^ in fcviev'^fibi^f^ppUcation, and cenifies that ihe information supplied is true and coirecl to the besVofm^gr knowledge. Applicant's signature Date ^OWNE^ SIGNATURE Tfie own« hereby ncknowledges and agrees to this application and ftuther authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes ^^^vestigation^ verification of this request. Owner's ^ __________Date . J3/^OVt) 7 Applicant muit have all into the Cir> ofTiccs 25 before the Plannins Commission MtetiAg. Planning Comnr.tssicn Meetings ara held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be preset it ill scheduled review mtetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to aiund i scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to hive an authorized agent sttend in your place and advise the B'jildirg II Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. l^ridr:-;, liHlh |!|lI i sunjJ i f\w . ©SLe^TicH i*«oM htJUSto ©g«ufe,v{*~ng>-i f<za^ ffcoi—0 SrUfc.v«^TICH U U ' Wg Q(a si « 2*<s 0.0 < H 0»Mtr:&dli. OiitifliiMa;. r li rm ("Xp\D \i O FROM : COFFIN & GR0NB6RG • # FAX NO. : 612 473 4435 bROT/^5 t^UlUbfNdt TAPA^^i /f f//^ May. 17 2000 03:lOPM F2 .5"'/7- 2.0 o o 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 = ife.3^ i affz. ■ ^O.A» S.F. A S F. '6 % *• -. PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘ A House, •• ^ S.F. Ltn||th wieth X X X SF. SJ. SF. .• • • i B. Ctrege C. Driveway S.F. *^54! 9 ‘.-A «Vs. X X S.F. S.Fv D. Sidewalk *t^5 "s'X X 106^sF.-”TRA»t'' S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X SF. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain • By Plastic Or Fabric X X X SF. S.F. S.F. G. Other X + 1^727 PnswtfD TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •• D'• :*K 100 -m S.F. A SF. 9 3sr^0 AiLot^€o « • FAX NO. : 612 473 4435FROM I COFFIN & GRONBERG pma inu. • oic; arj a*4j ttaoTAS tSyfuoiNd C— HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ICLEONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500’ i Nay. 17 2000 03:ilPN F3 S'- ^1-Z.GOO SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___ Ufigth 5. Garsge C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck • • • ♦ F^IeUndicapc Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X Q. Other total Hardcover in zone TOTAL property AREA IN 201^ A ____________ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House L«»|ih B. Oarage C. Driveway • • a. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck. F. Landscape Undertain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 Other I6S't TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE widun XlOO - Width 500-1000<Sipoo + \ S.F. S.K. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F 5-F- As ^5.F. Bpi (,% ^ L' _S.F. -S.F. S.F. .S.F. _S.F. S.F. Is.p." K •w • • 4 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. -ii ^st s.T-"r{^L' mb «• m ^•m B ___________ XlOO “ S.F. A S.F. B 78 / > r ^ ^ / .-I acre * 4 »• •D V \ 1 RUN DATE RS/IA/RR MTCN sn HENNEPIN COUNTY PROfCRTT INFORHATIOH SVSTEH property omners list REPORT NO. PXAS5A01 PACE 1 PROP AOOR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR U 2S>11R>2S AA 0t02 •0045 PERNOALE RO N ST EDWARDS EPXSCL CM ST EDWARD THE CONFESSOR EPXSCOPOL CHURCH •4S FERNDALE RO N HAYZATA HN 55591 Sa 25-118-25 AA OOOA •0058 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HXLDUR P HOLLANDER HXLDUR P HOLLANDER 1744 DUPONT AVE S HPLS HN 55A05 58 25-118-25 AA 8M7 •9225 HOLLANDER RO L N NEUHANN ANN HACNXLLAN L N NEUHANN t N N HACNXLLAN 225 HOLLANDER RO HAYZATA HN 55591 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 58 25-118-25 AA 0911 99295 HOLLANDER RD D L KELSEY 8 C L KELSEY OAVXD KELSEY 8 CHERYL KELSEY 295 HOLLANDER RO HAYZATA HN 55591 58 25-118-25 AA 9912 99999 SIXTH AVE N D L DRXSCOE 8 P L 5RXSCOE D L RRXSCOC 8 P L IRISCOE 99 4TH AVE N WAYZATA HN 55591 58 25-118-25 AA 9915 99215 HOLLANDER RD W D HCKEEVER 8 N H HCKEEVER WAYNE D 8 HARY H HCKEEVER 215 HOLLANDER RD HAYZATA HN 55591 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 58 54-118-25 11 9919 994A5 FERNDALE RO N RICHARD E STRAND ETAL RICHARD E 8 JOAN N STRAND 4A5 NO FERNDALE RO. HAYZATA HN 55591 58 54-118-25 11 9911 994A5 FERNDALE RO N RICHARD E STRAND ETAL RICHARD E 8 JOAN N STRAND 445 FERNDALE RO N WAYZATA HH 55591 58 54-118-25 11 9912 99785 FERNDALE RO N N A 8 T C CULLUH JR HXCHELLE 8 THOHAS CULLUH JR 785 FERNDALE RO N WAYZATA HH 55591 TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 58 54-110-25 11 9915 997D1 FERNDALE RD N KEVIN 8 SHARON TAPANX KEVIN 8 SHARON TAPANX 701 FEMDALE RO 55591 58 54-118-25 11 9914 99745 FERNDALE RO N ROXANNE SHANEOLXNO ROXANNE SHANEOLXNO 745 FERNDALE RO N HAYZATA HN 55591 58 54-110-25 11 9914 99775 FERNDALE RO N D A 8 K J ERICKSON 8RA0LEY A 8 KAREN J ERICKSON 775 FERNDALE RD N HAYZATA HN 55591 PROP um TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 58 S4-11D-25 11 9917 99715 FERNDALE RD N RICHARD J LYNAN RXCNARD J LYNAN 715 NO FERNDALE RD HAYZATA HH 55591 58 54-118-25 11 9910 99959 ADDRESS UNASSX6NED H A 8 T C CULLUH JR HXCHELLE 8 THONAS CULLUH JR 70S FERNDALE RO N WAYZATA HH 55591 SO 54-110-25 11 9919 99950 ADDRESS UNASSXONED 0 A 8 K J ERICKSON BRADLEY A 8 KAREN J ERICKSON 775 FERNDALE RO N HAYZATA HH 55591 TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 50 54-110-25 11 9929 99950 ADDRESS UNASSICNED KAREN OELDEN FREY KAREN OELDEN FREY 10055 9TN AVE N PLYNOUTH HN 55447 58 54-110-25 11 9921 99425 FERNDALE RO N FRANCXSCUS 0 DASTXAENS FRANCXSCUS 0 DASTXAENS 425 NORTH FERNDALE RO WAYZATA HN 55591 50 34-110-25 11 9924 99745 FERNDALE RO N S A SEOLACEK 8 A H SEOLACEK S A SEOLACEK 8 A H SEOLACEK 745 FERNDALE RO N WAYZATA HH 55591 - % RUN MTt IS/14/1* ■ATCN sn HENNEPIN COONTV PROPERTY INTORHATIOH SYSTEH PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX43S4R1 PACE 2 PROP AMM OMNER NAHE TAXPAYtR NANC/ABOR Si S«-lli-23 11 Ct27 •RMl FERNOALE RD N 0 A I D L NELSON OREO A 0 DIANE L NELSON Ml FERNOALE RD N NAYZATA NN 5S391 OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR Si S«*lli>2S 12 CM2 •CTSS FERNOALE RD N H J SOHADA I N i SOWADA NXCNAEL J/NAROARET 8 tXitMk m FERNOALE RD N NAYZATA NN SSSn t* >« rr'.. T, ,.«• JS* 3i 34-110-23 11 4129 00427 FERNOALE RD N BONNIE D JOHNSON BONNIE 0 JOHNSON 427 FERNOALE RO N NAYZATA HN 5SS91 Si 34-110-23 11 0031 00429 FERNOALE RD N J R THOHAS ANA THOHAS JOSEPH R t NANCY A THOHAS 429 FERNOALE RD N NAYZATA NN S5S91 ' ■ i: TOTAL BATCH 501 00022 OF NY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. I w Permit^No:_ /c s'jcjy :<r L / ///CV //// 0 >SI'-^UGp X ADDRESS 7 //^^U A i^ PERMIT RECORD Date //'^- iS /Si. 7. 9^ /-?- /x.:l'/. 7V 3cJ- // Ji-5’-If Type of Permit /£? f7L /P^j^ y il ,f/ ^ flijihhcn^ ■/ f CITY OF ORONO COVENANT FOR LIMITED WASTEWATER PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THIS COVENANT, made and entered into this - . - - m day of ,19 , by Kevin Tapani and Sharon Tapani (husband and wife). (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants") and the City of Orono, a Miimesota mumcipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Applicants have made application to the City for the installation of limited wastewater plumbing in an accessory building on property in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, legally described as: Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 1031, together with n non-exclusive easement for private roadway purposes over Tracts H and J, said Registered Land Survey, as shown in doc. No. 1425016, Files of Registrar of Titles, Hermepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, 'limited wastewater plumbing’ for purposes of this Covenant shall include all interior wastewater piping and fixtures; and WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed Applicants' application and have found that the building proposed for the installation of limited wastewater plumbing has met the standards established within Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (F) of the Orono Municipal Code to allow installation of limited wastewater plumbing; and WHEREAS, Applicants are aware that according to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (F)(3)(B), specific conditions exist under which limited wastewater plumbing may be allowed within an accessory building; and WHEREAS, Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (F)(3)(B) allows issimce of a permit for installation of limited wastewater plumbing in an accessory building conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant and its filing in Applicant's chain of title; and WHEREAS, in order to identify all parties within an interest in the subject property, the Applicants are required to provide title information to City staff as requested. All parties with an interest in this property shall sign this covenant. Page 1 of 4 o NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THIS COVENANT AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. 3. 4. Applicants' request for installation of limited wastewater plumbing within the accessory building to include one toilet, one sink and one shower on the Subject Property is approved conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant by the City and the Applicants. The following conditions shall control the installation and use of the limited wastewater plumbing: A) The accessoiy building shall not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by City code. B) The accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a Guest House conditional use permit is obtained from the City. The accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. This Covenant shall be binding upon current and future owners of Subject Property, and shall be filed within the chain of title of the Subject Property. Fee owner(s) of the Subject Property, if not the Applicants, consent to the execution of this Covenant and to its terms, as shown by their signatures upon this document. Page 2 of 4 i CITY OF ORONO: By:. Its Mayor By:. Its City Clerk ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss« COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______________________.19___,by_________________________ the day of __and and of the City of Orono on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public APPLICANT(S): By:. By:. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (APPLICANTS) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss# COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______________________19_____. by day of and as their free act and deed/on behalf of the corporation. (husband and wife/single.'a Minnesota Corporation) Notary Public Page 3 of 4 FEE OWNER(S): By:, By:. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FEE OWNERS) ;x: r k — STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______________________, 19___by day of and (husband and wife) as their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 k 5 To:Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: \ Mike GafFron, Senior Planning Coordinator June 15,2000 Subject: #2564 William Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place - Variance Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/2 Acre) 13,030 s.f. (0.29 acre) Lbt of Exhibits A - Revised deck plan submitted, with staff sketch for clarification B - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17,2000 C - Memo and Exhibits of April 13,2000 This item was tabled at your April meeting to allow applicant time to revise his plans. No plan was forthcoming prior to the May meeting, hence the item was continued at {^>plicant’s request to the June 19 meeting. A revised plan was submitted a few days ago which includes lowering the northerly and easterly portions of the existing deck, so that no portions of the deck or its required railings will be more than 6' above grade. This is possible because the natural grade under all but the north and west portions of the deck, is only 2-3' or less below the existing deck platform. Building Official Lyle Oman and I inspected the site today and confirmed that the existing grade below the northeast comer of the ; deck drops off drastically just out from the base of the embedded tree, so this area will be lowered and provided with handrails to meet all requirements. I As a result, no portions of the proposed deck or railings will be more than 6' above grade, therefore this deck system by definition will not be included in the calculation of lot coverage. Lot coverage including the proposed remodeling and room additions will be at 14.9% (1937.5 s.f) by excluding the deck. This solution also avoids variances that would have been required with the retaining wall system that is no longer proposed. Variances Required The revised proposal brings this review back to where it was in March, absent the problem of structural coverage. On March 20 (see minutes) Planning Commission recommended denial based on excessive lot coverage, which is no longer an issue. The remaining variances include: 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. »2564 - 3550 Ivy Place June 15, 2000 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 continues the existing substandard side setback of 2.9'-3.4' on the west side of the house. Granting of the hardcover and setback variances will permit a 364.5 s.f addition to the south side of the residence and remodeling of 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 a reduction of hardcover coverage in the 75-250' to 4,468.7 s.f. (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 of the March 20* memo. Additional Discussion 1. The roof line is changing, however the height of the residence is not changing, and no height variance is needed. The foundation and first story walls will remain as existing. 2. While the 75-250' hardcover on the property exceeds the City standards, hardcover on the lot is decreasing, and the lot is small compared to the LR-1C zoning district standard. The existing house, addition and deck are all outside the 0-75' zone. 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, and no lot coverage variance is required. »2564 - 3550 Ivy Place June 15. 2000 Page 2 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width; LR-IC 5 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; Jotai Stru&ral Coverage 13,030 s.f.Allowed: 1,954.5 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,188.7 s.f. (16.8%) Proposed after deck revisions: 1,937.5 s.f. (14.87%) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline total ar^ in setbacl^' Allowed ^lia^covcr ; Existing haidMVer^' 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%) Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested hardcover and setback variances, subject to remodeling the deck as proposed so it will no longer be considered in the calculation of lot coverage. Approval should be subject to the condition that if the foundation is found to be in disrepair this will be considered a rebuild and needs to come back to the Planning Commission and Council for review. Also a new survey showing the proposed additions must be submitted before a building permit will be issued. On April 13 the 60-day deadline was extended an additional 60 days to June 16. On May 11 the applicant advised staff he would not have plans available for the May meeting and would submit plans for the June 19*^ meeting. This item will be reviewed by Council on June 26th. A Camel was a Horse designed by committee 7!'^ r>• $ /' (i‘ /;v y ' % ^ , ' fROf4r Oi£uJ I ^ // ^rP 0’»ftO 1. LoiOfc rs|f,.rr»i f O'CT ojf lo ir// /\so(}£ ioQ.'C<^Q o/j 1* i<thih'E lOlTT ^o/ fAb0'’Try7>Of^1 S'Of Dfrtr hoo'ii^icat’ioa/ re^/onuv ’7‘c rVcrAt - • r \ -- -t-'1 -• ! ---------i — , . --f— I ... .1 • • . • • • • • t — - ‘I-------- t 4------- ( i I r » ^ . t ___L . i I i. I I .. I. _• •• • •• • ...1 0 mm m • i t .. . i_ I I !... j— • • • - • • « - I * ! • • «• • • 4 THA'O, 5.' gt^LOuJ e^/5^7^)^5» f/J<W!7=t>.eA^ -T?«S ' IS TH^ /fi-eA ■-rTfAT/lAAfies i^S77^ S>ecA^^ ^ ^L/M6>; M-o^ T7f/M^i '. J .... ; |i5(Vii-7V TTf-nir /^e^A ..... .' 4 ^ 'f^e66tL€. • mm • ■-T' ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 (#2i^ Hennepin County, Continued) maneu>^ng of the trailers in and out of the building. In response^ an inquiry by a concerned citizen. Chock stated the proposed building wy|Ce a masonry styl\)uilding. Paul Larson, 3SV Shoreline Ddve, expressed concerns regarding the proposed sKpansion of the non-conforming o\his property. Larson inquired where the milfoil harvesters be stored once the building is construe Nowian stated the harXsters would be located in the northwest comer o^he lot. Larson also raised concerrW regarding noise and the amount of traf^that will be produced as a result of this operation, notiiV that this is primarily a residential ar^ and is not the ideal spot for this facility. Larson requeste^|he Planning Commission consir^placing restrictions on the operation during the nighttime l^rs. Larson commented in lys opinion the site should also be cleaned up of debris and fallen tr^s. Berg inquired whether the services would be expandec^all as a result of the new building. Chock stated they would like to store th^materiaj^nside the new facility and eliminate the after hours deliveries of salt. Nowian pointed out there are a few other biurfFtesses along County Road 15, which help shield this facility from the neighborhood, as well as j^un\er of trees. Stoddard stated in his view some coi^eration sh^ld be given by the Planning Commission to the public use of the facility. Stoddard kraicated he is r\ in favor of expanding the non-conforming use nor is he in favor of granting a ha^over variance on\iis property. Stoddard thanked the Applicants for reducing the height of the bulraing to 20 feet. Hawn stated she is in agre^ent with Stoddard, noting sh^as additional concerns regarding salt and sand runoff into the l^ and wetlands in the area. Ha\\ noted the City has made a commitment to upgrada^he residential area of Navarre and tl\) she would have a difficult time approving this applic^on. Lindquist stated b§ is not in favor of granting any variances on thiswoperty. Berg statedJ^her view this is not the proper location for this building. Lindqi^ moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend denial of Applicat^ #2555, Hennepin Coun^l^ 3880 Shoreline Drive, for a Zoning Code Amendment, Variants, Vacation, and Cqpmercial Site Plan due to the residential nature of the surrounding i^ghborhood and proposed expansion of a non-conforming use on this property, and considered an expansion of a non-conforming use. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2564 WILLIAM SCOTT DAMPIER, 3550 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES, 8:00 p.m. • 8:32 p.m. William Oampier, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated this application appeared before the Planning Commission at their March meeting Page 10 i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 (tf?.S64 William Dampier, Continued) wfnre they recommended denial of this application based on excessive lot coverage. Staff has hac a number of discussions regarding this application in which the Applicant has suggested some altenative methods for revising the nature of the deck to enable it to be defined as non-structural for lot coverage purposes. The Applicant is proposing to add a retaining wall around the north and east sides of the deck at a height and width that would technically allow removal of the deck railing, which currently is about nine feet above grade at its highest point. The majority of the deck is less than six feet above grade, and would be entirely less than six feet above grade once the retaining wall/terrace was built. If the deck Is not included in the lot coverage calculation, lot coverage by the house and proposed addition becomes conforming at 14.9 percent. A railing may be removed If the deck is less than 30 inches at the perimeter. The Applicant is proposing to raise the grade to make the deck less than six feet above grade and therefore it would no longer be considered as structural coverage. Gaffron stated construction of a retaining wall would require a variance since a section of the deck is approximately three to four feet from the property line. Gaffron otated the Planning Commission should also consider whether the existing deck with railing constitutes visual bulk and massing of structure to the extent that it should be included in lot coverage. If the Planning Commission does not feel it should be included in the total lot coverage, one option is to recommend approval of the retaining wall/railing removal concept, which would eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance. Another option would be to recommend approval of the variances for the side setback, hardcover and lot coverage for the proposal with the deck left in its present condition with the finding that there is Justification/hardship for a lot coverage variance. Dampier stated he understands the Planning Commission has the authority to recommend removal of his deck, noting when the deck was replaced he was led to believe that he was in compliance, which has since been found to be erroneous. Dampier stated with removal of the deck, he would be left with an area where the ground cover is very sparce due to the amount of shading as well as the established root systems from a number of trees in the area. Dampier stated his neighbor has addressed this same problem by placing down plastic underlayment with rock. Dampier commented he has attempted to grow grass in this area as well as experimenting with various plants and ground cover that tolerate shade well, which has not met with much success. Removal of the deck would also result in the premature death of two to three trees in the area. Dampier stated by constructing the retaining walls and planter system, he would be able to address »he drainage problems that he is currently experiencing. Dampier stated his proposal to raise the ground level addresses the issue of lot coverage and is a possible solution to his problem. Dampier indicated he is attempting to find a solution to this situation and address the concerns of the Planning Commission. Lindquist inquired whether the proposal by Dampier was to leave the deck as is, remove the railing, and construct a regaining wall system with planters. Dampier stated it is. Hav/n noted the Applicant is proposing to build up the ground elevation which would make the deck less than six feet off ground level. Danpier stated the railing is above six feet, with only the northwest corner of the deck consisting of approximately one square foot being over six feet in elevation. Page 11 • 1 (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) Stoddard commented he likes the efforts the Applicant is taking to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage. Stoddard inquired whether the deck could be shifted over to the left and brought down lower to address some possible safety issues due to elimination of the railing. Dampier stated his only access to the lakeside section of his property is through a narrow section that exists In that area. Dampier stated he has already lost two trees as a result of the big storm that occurred in this area several years ago and he would like to avoid losing additional trees. Stoddard suggested the Applicant consult with an arborist about the placement of fill in the area of the trees. Dampier stated he has spoken with a landscape architect who has indicated the trees will survive with the amount of fill he is proposing in this area. Hawn commented in her view raising the elevation of the ground level is a contrived solution and defeats the purpose of the ordinance. Hawn stated In her view the amount of mass being suggested with this latest proposal Is actually greater than what currently exists and would also place the mass closer to the adjoining neighbor. Hawn suggested the Applicant consider a two-level deck with a stairway. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to have a map depicting the proposed changes to the deck and ground level. Dampier inquired whether the Planning Commission would have any objection to the deck being removed. Hawn indicated she would not. Dampier reiterated if the deck is removed, he would be left with bare ground level in this area. Hawn stated it Is her feeling the Applicant could still have a deck in this location. Lindquist inquired whether a portion of the deck could be removed. Dampier stated he would rather remove the entire deck than a portion of the deck. Dampier stated if the deck is lowered, he will be endangering some of the trees in the area. Dampier stated due to the costs he has already incurred, he is committed to this project, noting he would be willing to remove the deck if there was no other choice. Lindquist stated it appears the Planning Commission is looking for the Applicant to eliminate at least a portion of the deck, noting the planter system does add more mass to the property. Berg commented in her view the Planning Commission should take Into consideration what the Applicant will be left with if the deck is removed. Hawn stated in her view an acceptable plan can be reached. Dampier commented in his opinion he has compromised on this proposal as much as possible. Lindquist remarked the Applicant will need to readdress the issues relating to the deck once more. Berg stated the Planning Commission does not have the ability to design a deck for the Applicant. Berg stated the Applicant will also need to look at the impacts the removal of the deck will have on Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) drainage and landscaping. Dampier stated in his view his neighbor would rather not have the deck removed due to the erosion and water runoff problem that will be created. Stoddard commented he is in favor of the Applicant having a deck, but he would prefer the north side be brought in somewhat to eliminate safety concerns. Hawn recommended the Applicant redesign his deck. Hawn stated she has a concern regarding the size of the pianter system being proposed. Stoddard indicated he is okay with Gaffron’s recommendation on this project Lindquist stated he also is okay with Gaffron's recommendation. Hawn stated she would like to see the amount of mass being proposed reduced rather than increased. Hawn stated in her view It appears the members of the Planning Commission ^uld like to see the deck brought in from the north somewhat, but that the Applicant needs to submit a revised drawing illustrating exactly what is being proposed. Nygard indicated he is in agreement with Gaffron's recommendation. Dampier pointed out if the deck is considered structural coverage, he would not be entitled to have a deck. Hawn stated she would like to see the height of the deck as low as possible, with the planter system being as low as possible as well. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like to have his application tabled. Dampier indicated he would like it tabled. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2564, William Scott Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2567 WALFRED PROPERTIES, 2380 and 2364 SHADYWOOD ROAD, 3326 NAVARRE LANE AND ADDRESS UNASSIGNED (17-117-23 44 0078), ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, VARIANCES, VACATION AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN, 8:33 p.m. - 9:03 p.m. Tom Reinen, Project Architect, and Bob Weigert, Project Engineer, were present on behalf of Walfred Properties. Weinberger stated this application appeared before the Planning Commission at Its March meeting and before the City Council at its April 10th meeting where direction was provided to the Applicant. The Applicants originally were proposing a two story building, with the first floor being a retail Snyder Drug operation and the second floor being clinic use. with 28 underground parking stalls. The City Council provided some direction to the Applicants and requested this matter be reviewed Page 13 i » 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 Dbtrict: Lot Area: LR-IC 13,030 s.f. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (Vj Acre) (0.29 acre) ____________________________________^ ^ X' List of Exhibits A - Notice of Council Action B - Additional Information Submitted to Council by Applicant 4-10-00 \ ^ \/ VC - 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 -A, revision. After a number of subsequent discussions with staff, prior to the Council meeting applicant suggested some alternative method 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 sur\'cy and the site photo from the lake side. Applicant proposes to add a retaining 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: ^.i side 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 all 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%. / 1i i' ■-». u. #2564 April 13,2000 Page 2 Please review the staff memo to Council as well as the April 5 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 to the extent that it should be included in lot coverage? If so, then consider questions 2 and 3. 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 meet the intent of the lot coverage ordinance? 3.Should a CUP be granted to allow construction of a l'-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. 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. . I ©CW, 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. Thu item will be reviewed by the Planning 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 Conunission, 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 Gaffron at 249-4600 if you have any questions. • %\ \v \-..rp; . i/'—r-%^'\[.\ jy^-K/ ' m -ri_-S»<lf»T'~—— • r;~ ...............■^...- '• \ I^Jl ^ » , t ‘ ''■* - ** W *' ^ ^i,--,,lSi^: !.:j ^ ' —--I ■! ■ . - . . ^1 ' o..., •••-v;V’SV''“».. K'««.. f /• '■•k.i,.;:.. - V v"c> ;. \ / •; '"' '' -v w^i: J l-i. ■^y^^irrr:»*n^'nr*rr’, »»^' Ij V. l V I '1 ' :,,,:^-r .-, J.-r:.«>-.V^'i ■‘-i-...i'™' •& If V.•.>-:i^3P- *. 'c i .V.' ' ^ ' ^ A'-#. • ' 1‘r' V ' i I * I 1* 1S£.^5^II^S iS0jp <7T -r,.-*; \>T.S \ f l\ » v;i ^ • •‘K .4# of Lot 173, TAYLORS SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS flennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYEDl Lot 173, TAYLORS SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS. I hereby certify that thisor 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 wmi Scale Date 0 1 inch = 20 feet March 23, 1990 Iron markerBearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. ' I•*.% 1 m, c-i To: From: Date: Council Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator im4-5-00 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 appHcaiit; nor would I consider each of the options ‘mutually acceptable’. Rather, they aie a ccmpilation 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' wdde 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 B - on the north side the deck platform is 6' above grade; to eliminate tlie 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 nortli 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 frmctionality 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 ordinance: to limit the visual massing and bulk of structures on small (<2 acre) properties. Compromise with Frenchy Dampier variance request #2564 & Michael GrafTon^Sr. Planning Coorxlinator 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 wei^ approximately 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. Plane ]. Remove the handrail from around the deck. 2. Use the topsoil from the addition to level the lawn and mail 30 inches from the deck. DISCUSSION a No effective increase in hardcover. b. Reduced rain runoff into neighbor's yard. c. Easier mowing. d. Amount of topsoil moved will be less than 5 yards. lin the required 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 t-’i- j of Lot 1/J, imtluk;5 ouDUi»« 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 laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. MArk <; Gronbero 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 marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. h*.’ ,, - - OT LOt l/Ot iniLurvo ^ * w . w.wSPRING PARK LOTS Hennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYEDl Lot 173. TAYLOl^S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS. registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark Rronbero MN. Li'nui .X X,. 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 " # • 30-2 Ur LUt 1/%/f -- - - - - - - -- -SPRING PARK LOTS Hennepin County, Minnesota // ♦I 00 CO E^isfln^ hou«e. JO-2 9 VVWV WVW VV V VWVVNNgi > * ■M-;^Ji :'' M#Ei L.' V‘,'V’ »• >J {% " ! [• ' *' 'V' ' vi-'!-’l p-w Tk j.? 1a *Xi >/vj •• •••y •• •••^ # # / Ol 9i LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYEDl Lot 173, TAYLORS SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK, LOTS. registered^Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Marif <; fironbero MN. Liin.r. .. ................ No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale Date 0 1 inch = 20 feet March 23, 1990 Iron markerBearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. ^' I i 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. Lie.No. 12755 Engineers, Land’Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale Date 0 1 inch = 20 feet March 23. 1990 Iron marker V* ■ \ Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. •U. Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 2/15/00 2/15/00 4/17/00 v\^|0 .e<> \<c- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 4/10/00 ITEM NO.: 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-IC 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. Tlie 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 di\ erting 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 total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Variance Reque.st: To permit 2,433.2 s.f. (18.7%) lot coverage, where 2,188.7 s.f. (16.8%) 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. (48.9%), 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 pre?“nted. 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 reconunends denial of this application as presented, but Council may wish to table if applicant expresses any interest in revising th*? 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. CITY OF CRONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 612-249-4600 ZONING FILE # 2564 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION 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 Commbsion 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. 1 ♦ I i rtnrtK4(t rtnrirthuii •LI •Utlt •]|K1 [•m*]iwiTtrac^«•TWtI*W4«ilW r«r«rm*Timvi«iiirt ORONO PLANNING CO.NLMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MKRCH 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 allovi^ed 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 commoii than the rule, the rule should be changed, particularly in this case. It is doubtful that any s ngle lot on Casco Point concurs with the current City rules, with a number of homes in the neighborhood exceeding the allowable Siructure 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. Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ^U^’UTES 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 bnng 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-stmctural, 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 tlie existing City Codes, and urged the Planning Commission to approve his application tonight based on the reduction in existing hardcover and stru;:*u-)l 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 Ccuncil, 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 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 ------ ORONO PLANNING COM>USSION MEETING NUNUTES FOR MARCH 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. 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. Kluth 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 approve^y the Planning Co.mmission 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 liste^l 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 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 access to the home. 4 Page 15 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. Dampier stated currently the home is not handicapped accessibie, 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, 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. Dampier expressed frustration with 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 structural coverage. Dampier stated leaving the deck aside, if he chooses to change anythi.'.g 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 Page 16 . ? i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 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. Oampier 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 6, Nays 0. Oampier inquired whether the Plarjning Commission had read his statement of hardship on thisr application. The Planning Commission indicated they have read his hardship statement, 16) #2565 PETER SCHERER. 15 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCE RENEWAL. 8:59 p^. - 9:03 p.m. Peter Scherehs^plicant, was present. The Certiricate of M^HiQg and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Appliclmt^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^^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-1 Zoning district. The Applicant would 'ike 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. X X Motion by Hawn, second by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application #2)S65, Peter Scherer, 15 Orono Orochard Road South, granting of a variance renewal to X Page 17 III 1 1. 2. 3. 5. Response 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. Variance request, to reduce hardcover from 5061.7 sq.ft, to 4468.7 sq.ft Side setback [please note; there is no second story on the north side of the house the only difference is between the nearly flat current roof and the steep pitch of the new roof. Application summary: the existing second story will sgt be removed [as shown on the blueprints] Structure will be reduced from 2548.8sq.fr. to 2480.6sq.fr. iMuea 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 typical for the neighborhood. Most Casco Pt. lots are similar size or smaller{refer to plot map RLS No 477} 6. It's astonishing that a person in such a responsible position in city government would dare to suggest that a structure that is in compliance with the law be brought out of compliance. 1 refer to the Americans with disabilities act That deck is in compliance, it is wheel chair accessible. Options for Actioii 1. A survey will be provided after construction to show any changes. The current survey provides all the required information. 6. RE; Staff Recommendations: The deck as it is complies with the Americans with disabilities act Staff recommendations could make the city libel if her recommendations are followed. Wendy is simply wrong in her assessment of what is and what isn't structure. Her contention that the stairs and rear deck are somehow not structure is incredulous. My entryway door is 8 fr. above ground level. The stairs are required to enter my house. [ ho ever, if Wendy will free jump 8 fr. I might be willing to discuss not counting them] By v\ hat logic could you consider these stairs as not part of the structure of this house? Because they don't have £ roof over them? Well the lakeside deck has no roof yet it is properly considered structure. Wendy is also wrong in assuming the front [lakeside] deck is on the table. Recently the deck was repaired with pressure treated wood. However, the rear deck is fJ.*cady rotted and has been patched countless number of times and approaches the dang<;rous 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.fr. Reduction in structure. Wendy did not count the 576 sq.fr. 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.fr. [15,300 bricks laid over dirt yields approximately Va in. of grass and moss growing between them, the bricks are 8x3=1 lin.x .75=126,225 sq.in. Whichis876sq.fr.]. 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 l^n confused from the start of this process. She looked at plans and an exact scale model that showed only the addition and modifled area and wrongly decided that I was planning to tear the whole house down. Evrry time we contacted each other she was conftjsed. Clariflcation only seemed to cause her to And 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 I'll let you have that, make that smaller and Fll let you do this. Well all of those compromises have already been made with Lyle and Chris. This house is typical of the neighborhood, if anything it is smaller than many homes in the area. As for meeting your formula, I would remind you that our home as all of the homes on Casco Pt. are cibtiBg-non-conformiBy structure, the rules don't fit so we are grandfathered in. It's like Wendy isn't going to honor ^^t has been agreed to. She wants to design ffiy: house h££ 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 NO! Wendy would rather take it, no matter what grief or hardship that causes. ■| sr TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner March 20,2000 SUBJECT;#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) List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K Analysis Worksheet Application Letters from applicant Site Plan/Survey Views Hardcover Calculations Photos of Property Plat Map Location Map Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) -Lot Coverage - In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot 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 (I.X2) - 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. i^2564 iVilliam Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variances 3/20/2000 Page / 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 than 6' above grade. NOTE: If the lakeside deck was not considered as suijctural 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 Concer n; 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. #2564 William Dampier 3550 Ivy Place Variances 3/20/2000 Page 2 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. Options for Action; 1. Recommend approval of the variances to allow the addition and remodeling with the condition if the foundation is found to be in disrepair this will be considered a rebuild and needs to come back to the Planning Commission for review. Also a new survey showing revisions be submitted to City staff for approval before building permit will be issued. OR 2. Advise tlie applicant what other possible revisions will make the application approvable, and table the application. 3. Other. Staff Recommendation; Staff recommends the application be tabled. While meeting with staff, the applicant did mention the lakeside deck will need to be replaced sometime in the future. Because replacement of the deck will in itself require a setback and hardcover variance, Staff feels the structural coverage and hardcover on the lot would be better addressed if the addition, remodeling and lakeside deck were reviewed concurrently. (NOW). Lowering this deck could eliminate its lot coverage status and result in no need for an overall lot coverage variance (^2564 William Dampinr 3.^50 Ivy Place Variances 3/20/2000 Page 3 {I 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 iabi ■ . 6 •i Application # Date Received - l5~^CC >O Amount Paid / 67) 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 Aftei-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address *^<0 T\J^/ W/kTF ___r±/J— Property Identification Number fP.I.D.'l .JO- H'l'^ mm ••Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired TDC/^ -----------------------^(month/year) I (do) (^^tlalso own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: Y residentid ___other (specify)— Zoning District: -1C-______________________________ APPLICANT,. , rN ^ Phone (home ) Name OOorr U^/^PjPA Phone (work) ^(2 J7Z1=. Addre:s SSS’OJlOV PlACf_________ Citv: tOAVT-AT/l-------Zip: 5^371 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ___________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). H Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail: fXTTAfrifQ --------------------------------- •*.7 * 1:)(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED . V r r. Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover _2L_Lot Coverage C'Q Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore i ^ y Other (specify) /JoA/ CnAf HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: AnACH^Q— ------------------------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) J Z>/l/9-ccc- Hardship 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 will allow me to divert runoff further onto my yard and allow my west lawn to deal with runoff. 3. 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. G. 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 entry way steps thus eliminating those potentially dangerous outside stairs completely, thus ending any the possiblity of a lawsuit, caused by slippery or washed out steps. Previous attempts at correcting the existing hardship. The first attempt at correction of preventing heavy rainfall from flooding the ground floor of my home involved the removal of any hardcover in an attempt to absorb the runoff from my neighbors. That FAILED because the amount of water was too large for the amount of land available. The second attempt at diverting runoff involved recontouring the land to divert runoff further downhill. Due to topography involved that FAILED, because the area involved remained too flat to effectively drain water away from the area consequentially a heavy rainfall resulted in flooding of the ground floor of my house, with the resulting disgusting mess to clean up. The third attempt at a nonstructural correction FAILED, that was to dig a diverter trench into the landscape. The trench simply filled up and the resulting overflow did the damage, ariy increase in size of the trench was at best a delaying action rather then a true solution. A tiench of sufficient size to contain all of the run off from my neighbor would have been unsightly as well as dangerous. The fourth attempt at a nonstructural correction FAILED when a swale was added to divert the water further downhill. A large enough swale to divert the runoff caused my lawn mower to scalp the lawn until it no longer acted as a swale. The scalped lawn just speeded up erosion Others attempts at resolving some of the other issues include reroofing the house, and 4 times replacing the steps.. The only solution that will provide relief is something that includes a dam running East to West long enough to divert the runoff at least 16 feet to the West and allow the increase slope at that point to take runoff and naturally disperse it onto the West lawn. That dam would be formed when the foundation was poured for the new addition. Don’t you love elegant solutions? An eyesore could be created in an attempt to resolve the flooding problem. Some equally ugly solution such as rolled roofing could be used to resolve the roof drainage problem, and the regular wash out of stairs could be resolved with a large cast concrete stairway. Ugly? Absolutely but needed! Or you can accept a elegant solution that reduces hard cover and reduces structure, A . t. solution that is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, A solution that would not be visible to most people. The view from the lake is obscured by Three large mature trees [and when construction is done two additional trees as well as bushes will be added]. Both neighbors on either side of my house have homes further toward the lake then mine so their view is not affected in any way by this solution. In addition the neighbor behind me has a view over my home and as there will be no increase in height of my house his view will also be unaffected. His primary view of the lake is to the north into Casco Cove, any view he has to the East {into Carmens bay} is over the garage roof of my 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, ^th the structure and hard cover will be removed! Thus with this change Lake Minnetonka will ha\e ihe burdon of 52 so. ft less to deal with. While it is not overwhelming it is an improvement. The final comment is that this change will improve things for .... Lake Minnetonka The city of Orono's tax base My family The neighborhood The only person that will be negatively impacted is that stupid fool that has to do all the work and pay all the bills, and he deserves it! c (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 L r r • rr* 4 - a ■■ . /• N /■>••• ■ ■■ 1 I! • f • s S’? i •’ • « - • rJ 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 BI,BT, BXUV, & BZXX. Conforming to UBC 17-5, room comer bum test. (4l6) S 5 •- •} L \ ■)V, V, ,"-v V* • A r 4 • / m MAR'-IO-OO 10:41 AM FREHCHY e 1 24T 1 0«i.e4 P . 02c 3iihcfdcco My neighborhood Out at the end of Casco point is a narrow little road called Ivy Place. It a cull-de-sac or dead end. Very few people drive it’s full length, previous dead ends wind up turning around in someone ’s driveway. That’s an embarrassment few are willing to risk. Since we live almost at the very end of that "dead end" the only traffic wc get is guests,neighbors, and a rare real-estate junkie. To the west of our home,across the street is a large shrub line,overgrown with grapevines and dense foliage. As that area is within the 73ft. Setback fVom 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 while affording me an interesting and peaceful view of nature. Directly north 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. As most of the area falls in the 73 ft. 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 ttecs which also affords us privacy and prevents those cruising on the lake from seeing into our 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 15 ft. 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 130 ft. is a house with the same roof pitch that I propose. Ivy Place as well as Casco Point if dominated by 50ft. Lots so most houses are like mine in that we are too large for the lots and as such we are ''Existing non-conformn^ structure" While wc don ’t conform to the cuncni 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 sttouid what wc do impact the rest of Oronr V/c are after all zoned LRIC which is ‘/a acre lots or smaller. As most of Orono is zoned LRIA or RRl^VH [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. b 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 Civ 1 Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN i GRONBERC, INC. rtark S. Gronberg MN. Lie. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale Date 0 1 Inch s 20 feet March 23. 1990 Iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. W. O Tf A JL. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF Lot 173. TAYLORS SUB O (^1^) I hereby certify tha or under my direct s registered Civil Eng laws of the State of COFFIN & GRONBERG. I Hark 5. Gronberg MN. Engineers, Land Sur\ Long Lake, Minnesotc Scale Date 0 1 inch = 20 March 23, 1 Iron marker Bearings shown are o 1/ : i L -f» m ':')r l ■ .. • •• ,o:) b J-J 5+f€e+ \/c«i.C) --------->. Q> ,JpS7 LI Ail ' m ■ 4" ‘ > n S ;': (< '• .-.' / .I ' ’"-T ' ^ I ^ \i ^ %i-.. /• e.-n 'f r-‘i ii''^ X. % / 6; Rr Ct&& SiDtoU t'’ Cil*< wctt "!« •# W..1 ' +^>“ 1*41 tMmtfc » s;.t^f V I I i I - 1 F-- j__. .n ----------1 ■X rMT«MS) It* nl«| uT' SiDI. VIttW 6^fI^ Sl»M«S il'»l3’ S«irft<HtS>tii-1 vJ»<H 0‘'*5 T» tcA«rt AttM UUMA 1’ fLOOft !■» 5^ LI) / lJaIL OricCSStCtifiM 'U.itM- fiffv A^. »,4‘ / Ni t ■ yfli y -• ^1 I twi ^ -V '>/ M »« ••-•«> (I • ) -1 C ' ♦ / ’■ c I t[‘■.r . ^ - I L • . •'*^OUNtk#kT»OI»l I I C C7 * 1 oz: o »3L 6\V^ ' •<', \. • -frV' o 21o P»- f m € M Cl -Ir C -o E: »<« KO 5 fv >■ HAEDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 75-25Q' 250-500’500-1000 ’ F.YT5mNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________ X Leoffh VidA X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paclo/Deck F. Landsca|)e Underialn By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A n +. B <HCO xlOO PROPOSED HARDCOVira IN ZONE A. House ____________ X Leogih Width B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/DKk X X F; Landscape Underialn By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ __ + B .xlOO ■¥/f'C r 61^) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % •* . . HAKDCOVER CALCULATION \VORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 250-500’ r.yiSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 6______ x . a Leofth B. Garase m * • C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Uaderiain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X • 3 iL* o X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ic I. '7 +. B . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House /'J_____ X Leogth I B. Garage C. Driveway X X X .ici jiiLc. D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck T, Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric \b‘ 5 n X X X X X X X X X O. Other Width IC^ r*o {<% •30.^ '7 0 1 xlOO wuih Ur -^5 5C.oL .P-b r. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B .XlOO soo-iodo■ ' r (^1^) S.F. S.F. • S3 S.F. ss S.F. .:«S.F. * , • • .07 • S.F. S3 - 3T-S.F. * •15,- • S.F. S3 S.F. •ia'7 S.F. S3 ..S.F. •IM As‘S’S.F. B S.F. ms.• S.F. S.F. / •/S.F. 0137 S.F. % • S.F. ms OOT'S.F. S3 S.F. S3 .S.F. S.F. S.F. SI - A7'S.F. S.F. • •m •• c .S.F. S.F. s.S.F. <4 S.F. S.F. S.F. • • S.F. • Mut-.S 7 • __S.F. 0 «tf'^rU77; 55 A B (VlkT C.0Cx«il71CAj L-- Vo 0 ^ ■ i 1^.w'M^m •r' iim ' ' • if I', -x-tar ,. - V • n .w 1 I5ii!l y/CT.^' 'vvv^r 5 .< ■ * "J-.Vi** f ^/ .y /j»»a'5.v: ui“,-:' . : / i \ /'^ -'•‘^'^vv ^•' ' i- »l ••':»* / '~ - r .■—= / ' * • i»i'- \ . ■x-*,'A KS^Koit' ,1 I »i-! >; *viaa::sjKta:^sar^:^^ ;K"w-^w| l\i i-,0-. ' ■c^ •'--'••"-'V^Sa^'*^ 'll \ ((. i 11 < . (A '/ • « .t y/A j. , r,ACd. WM m , ^ 4«.^% I ■' =r^a=::^s •r ~rr*=Trrrrjtr»ri rrj —'J*.-;: r —*. •ri* -*. if ^j jat 3 --------------------- iV: • •% t ?. j'-. /. r' I ^.> • » i («\-: ; m 1 • *'»' WStSBlmtitmmm:ri\ 'm\±\ n'l ^ _ j ., ; .; . i I <h% L ^l -l l':±;|. i .2 r.' « i/><Vjflti*t>kVvw.>- >.w» - '<■-.,> . ^* • V * I ^ ^0-117-^5-40. 7^ Uo ^ /VEST®*^^® 187.42187:42 ' p^') « V«. 12* " P2) ..,-f/ Is^I fO § p 2(35) ^ ^ _^PD * ^ B^ei ■ w i?^06-75A,.^s'> (25) KELLY ^ \ > (26) >5^' ^ ,§> 9MC \ , 's 3 VOI (5^, ^ 2NQt,ADDN O) “ I* Hf^f ,06 ^ / •>(52) ^1> <V°^ ^jSET« <288567, TJj^ .Ci cv>;s> 164 7-^ AT ^1 V ^159^ o \ (^2) ' ^156^ -<e> t&. ^v ,3.1 3t^‘ 4“^ %*’ '' K^^• -0o "o> '^!i55 .■ ^iP. .6^“* /.f • 'N •4» • • ^ */« I ^ /I / /»'* • • •*> J s unni o>om on 0 $ %•1 ... 400 -ikeview -"Colf -. Coutst IwtTimeii Ro T j 8C0 V EMtII ST noir ■AHATA ORONO CO^Pfl- ill It HOOOIf Of AONAJIOSu^OO ■ 3U NIC It ^CNCSTtU OR "" k V. . f. ^* ^ • USTUI t . . fc \ ■ Stubbs A • • • • • ^ WATINTOmi M CO^ *® 0 TNOAOUJN 410 ^ tOMtlUIT ► 2 OCVWU CO UN LOMV1CW cn 3 ••••••••••• MfivvvwR* •» lit/..?!•**••*** 2 •.......... ^---- Line AJOICOON VAT •ATI Bl NO ^ VNni *3a 400 roi %w ORONO \ Non /f?X -i NoerVaberi .*• V OAHLNO. C :• •, V;-.,*ra Maxwell. .e ^ / V • - •* -1--------Bay * ■;.*• v\\ <VI ’ * ' . ' ri - • , :-VV>VV.C.-^!:'J • V B aCfl mt" 2 \ J West •OHRSi fOVT ORONO Arm (i n DEEWNO rctT ISLAND •* Crystal9 \ % • * i40({ -«* *5?^ •“or**^1 Bay] Bay Faint At I ...V "'02V-... ;; . Bohm foi« Crystal Bay - •■ ■“ . Smith B ty-'".- n ... •* . .* ■ ‘7,v-'. •*■■.' . * • .• . : • .- r. . X•’ ..'. ‘ f*^MINNETONKA ofayateBay ISLAND SPRAY 1 -vSHADY . U#.>. ISLAND^ t 1 Jtuntington Point A Islind i2eoo ISUh • • Ot^ ^n Crescent Beach Crown / aim Echo Bay, ^MNUtt ' X MUM IV MAuantti A Gik Isliod ••• > ) > > MM MTE tt/14/M MTCN §m NEIMinN COUMW fMOfltTr rMftm TAIPAVIII M 2t>117-2S 42 Mtl •MM ABOMSS UNASSHNC1 s L KMrtm IT AL TM8TEES JMKt M luniNr 71M MAVZATA M.VD SM2* TAMMVft M M>U7-2S 42 ••17 •SSM IV7 PI CIS pns SM» m PLACf MmTA Ml sssn TAMPAVn W 2^-117-2S 42 ••27 •SM2 IW PL • A 0MXS10BCN CT AL M2V A A LVMI A CMU SMA IW PL MAV2ATA Ml SSS91 mpoMiATim smol IS LIST KPOrr MB. P14SS441 PASf 4« U 2A-117-25 42 AAPA •••? 1 .'MKss ^■assI^Mnl NEM ..PIM FIMPEZTED LAW LABI NIKA as 24-I17-2S 42 ••!• •SIM IW PL Ml C J BANPia WILLIAM S DAW HI SSM IW PLACt MAVZATA Ml IfSn S« 24-117-2S 42 APU ASMS IW PL A N JEHtrr CTAL AKfMM N JBMTT SS44 IW PL MAVZATA Ml SSSn as 2A-117-2S 42 SAIT •SSS4 IW PL TtS CAPSA 19S4 EMKMATM AVK ASBfN MILLS Ml SS112 as 2A-117>23 42 ••S4 •SMS IW PL JWFSCV I BfSSA MAIMCMV JilTMV a BfSSA SAWC—Y SMS IW PL MAVZATA Ml 1SS91 TOTAL BATCM SM ••••• Z CfSTlPT THAT TW FACTS If PMSStNIIB ■cmiBirATiai op nrcMiAnMi as it SP TNI MDSMPIM CSISIW fSPABIMENT IP OP MV fMPMPSSt AIM BtLlfP. HVP&lA m AOCMBATf AMS IMMf IMZS BATf CM TNI PSSPfBfV TAKAT1MI« TO TMina Qd % s t -■•K. PERMIT RECORD Permit Mo. Ml_ Date Type of Permit Mil \1^2S=12=l mil 39 Hi V.r3* -7</0 5 'Siun TjiLrl 'bo £ </-/5t-7</ 75 Lt_l3_ls. Mil I6l-^L (llJYUrTl-/,~t C . J TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner June 9, 2000 #2588 Robert Pieper 3995 North Shore Drive (Sandy Beach Property) Class II Preliminary Subdivision Public Hearing Zoning: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 Acre Minimum lot size Application: Subdivision of one acre parcel of land into two 'A acre lots. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Preliminary Plat Layout Building Setbacks Drainage Map Proposed Site Drainage Map Property Owners Notification List Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) - Lot Standards for LR-IC zoning district Section 11.03, Subdivision 24. "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code or half-acre, whichever is less, (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the flood plain elevation for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or flood plain area. #258S Robert Picper 3995 North Shore Drive Class II Preliminary Subdivision June J9, 2000 pagr-l J Application Review The applicant has recently purchased the Sandy Beach property and intends to subdivide the 1 acre lot into 2 residential lots. Previously the property had operated as a camp and is currently being used as rental cabins. Five cabins on the property are being used as rental dwellings. Upon completion of the plat the applicant would remove all the cabins and parking areas and build a home on Lot 1 (lakeshore lot) and sell Lot 2 (non-lakeshore lot) as a residential building site. Because the properties are located on a 90 degree curve along County Road 19 (North Shore Drive) driveway access to both lots independently is not the best alternative. The property owner has discussed the issue with staff and would have a shared driveway access into Lot 2 immediately to the east of the property line. Locating the driveway access any further to the west would place it very close to the sharp curve. We have not received grading plans for the access as of the date of this memo. Prior to approval of the preliminary plat it is advised the final grading plan for the driveway be approved by the City Engineer and Hennepin County. Prior to the City approving a final plat it would be appropriate to have the cabins removed from the property, or establish a schedule for removal. The applicant should provide information relating to removal of the cabins. Grading/Drainage A culvert exists from the northeast comer of Minnie Avenue and North Shore .Drive running under North Shore Drive to the Sandy Beach property. The culvert has been plugged and is not flowing at this time. The culvert is holding water back on the Minnie Avenue side of the road creating a large pond after significant rainfall. The culvert should be reopened and allowed to flow back across to the Sandy Beach property. The primary impact would be on Lot 2 as the water would flow through the building site. To save the building site on Lot 2 a drainage ditch should be constructed to divert the flows into an existing drainageway between the culvert and the road. The City Engineer has commented a 20' drainage and utility easement along North Shore Drive would be adequate to handle the regrading and drainage. An updated grading plan should be submitted for review prior to Council review of the application. The drainageway would eliminate concerns regarding drainage towards the building site on Lot 2 and properties farther to the south. Some land correction would be required once the cabins and parking areas are removed. Lot Standards Lot 1 is the proposed lakeshore lot, which would have lake access. Lot 1 meets the area and width requirements for newly created lots in the LR-IC district. The building area is located above the 931.5* 100 year flood plain. A residence can be constructed meeting the 932.5' regulatory flood protection elevation (lowest floor must be at least 1 foot above the 100 year flood elevation or 3' above the OHWL). ii2588 Robert Piepcr 3995 North Shore Drive Class II Preliminary Subdivision June /9, 2000 pagf-2 4 The lot would access through a shared driveway over Lot 2. The minimum setbacks for the property would be 30' from the road right-of-way, 10' from interior lot lines and 75' from the lakeshore of Lake Minnetonka. It is possible to build a house on the property not requiring variances for hardcover or structural coverage. Please note the site plan indicating the building pad on the property, attached Exhibit D. LMCD Code would permit 3 dock slips for the owner of Lot 1 as the property has approximately 170' of lake frontage. The LMCD permits 1 dock slip for each 50* of frontage. Lot 2 does not have lake access, but is located within the Shoreland Overlay District. Lot 2 meets the area and width requirements for newly created lots in the LR-IC district. Nearly the entire building area, within the setbacks, is located above the 932.5' contour. A residence can easily be constructed to meet the regulatory flood protection elevation. A driveway access permit will be required from Hennepin County for drive access to C.R. 19. Once the subdivision is approved, all existing access points shall be removed. A portion of the existing property is located within the Hennepin County right-of-way and shall be dedicated for that purpose on the final plat. Lot Dimensions Lot Summaries:Total Acres Acres Required Lot Width Required Lot Width Proposed Loti .5 Ac..5 Ac.100'170' Lakeshore Lot 2 .5 Ac..5 Ac.100’188.5'Road Total 1.00 Ac. Yard Requirements Front Lot Lot Area .5 Acres Front Yard 30 feet Lakeshore 75 feet Side Yard 10 feet Rear Yard 30 feet Both lots meet all requirements for subdivision. #258S Robert Pieper 3995 North Shore Drive Class II Prciiminar> Subdivision Jii/ie 19, 2000 pap-i 3 ►Easements 1. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat 20' along North Shore Drive and 5' along interior property lines. 2.An easement and maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the final plat for the shared driveway access. The easement shall describe the area required to accommodate both lots. Park Dedication Fee Staff recommends the property owner pay a Ptirk Dedication fee for one new lot rather than offer land for a park dedication. Before Preliminary Plat approval the City Assessor will calculate the market value of the property. The Park Dedication fee is equivalent to 8% of the value of the lot, with a minimum fee of $2,‘)00 and a maximum fee of $4,900. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plans and to proceed to the July 10,2000 City Council meeting for preliminary approval subject to a grading plan being submitted for the drainageway and driveway areas and Hennepin County approving the driveway location for two lots. Hennepin County has been asked to comment on this plan. Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval of the preliminary plat and forward to the Council, with conditions. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table, requesting further information and provide direction to the applicant. Other Action. ^2588 Robert Picpcr 3995 North Shore Drive Class II Preliminary Subdivtsioii Jum 19, 2000 pagt-4 Application it ^ S S Date Received s' /;? Amount Paid__< 0 A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 3Pf\'^ Property Identification Number (PID) \~~l 5-3^ QOOn Please check one - Property____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. applicant . ^ . Name_SA=5sAiijLfi Address > yvJL ;=K City _______Phone (home) V 1 X-liT/ (j Zip ^a “^^fFhonelwork) *) 0 7-^7 1 } OWNER (if diffluent than applicant) Name ^ Address City__ (attach list if more than one) Zip Phone (home) _ Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District / Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. p^unit^___ Other (specify) PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) ^ Subdivision for New Building Sites _________ Existing UnitsNumber of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) New Units Total Units Units per / Acres W Ft. Dry Buildable Land ____Residential _________Other (specify)_________ \ : ] ;( •• //7-ci3-33 __242J. Rf65| / / ri* / -u .. I ' *"« ^ o«<R> 1^2 S X *^84) S! * ±44M^ ■^(81 Q (28)(27)— w 0®°f8(?V5 ® <2«) i “'A'f ;li3 ’ * (30) 12: 11 10S,;^ .S t* 8'^ 1^ i«l (87) —^ ^(4^B(4ie(43°S ’s^ifu4i, SO Spi m' so "50 50 50 1^ 2oi 21^ 23^ (SO)(«5)l -"I SO so /4» ___1^B9 tfV w.T^ ■■ ?l4.i8vA«ST \ TRACTB (24) mK (23) MJT mr>- (21) 2827J 14 (20) «nr- 26JT (19) fs. 12 (18) ___25flLB ^3/ “^'8 4K ------^ 28 (32) ”1L^‘in 8 (31) 18 t 405 i 75 7520028 (30)g m < 1 1 - s S73 1 \405s'*•> ^ ^(2*» y 30 11 (17) 28.1,8 m O^ S 27 (27) / s:// / /I l-'l] 7-ck’3-«?^ /y . . / 4 • % ••4 . •' ■,/ B i £ J LA LA LA LA 2 7^ :> N) O roo 04 04 04 w c s Cs> in (• s> o Ul sO c 0 Ll-----------------------— / K) 1 z:/ O A Ui CP o ^ :u -H ^ X N3fr-O 1 Z 1:c• m O ^ 1 , y j ^1 z ^___________________________________ 04 04 04 oi Minme/Ivb ^ve RUN DATE tS/21/l«HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S5A01 PAGE IS •ATCH StA PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SO GS-117-2S 3S *074 •15SG NORTH ARN DR NAR6ARET PELTOLA NAROARET PELTOLA ISSt NORTH ARM DR HOUND HN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0087 03883 CHERRY AVE PAUL E I NARY J TAYLOR PAUL TAYLOR 3883 CHERRY AVE HOUND HN 55364 38 17-117-23 22 0003 03845 NORTH SHORE DR PATRICK O’FLANAGAN PATRICK O’FLANACAN 3845 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 38 17-117-23 22 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LYNN 8 FAITH CHRISTINE LYNN 8 FAITH CHRISTINE 3425 NDRTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 38 17-117-23 22 0087 03425 NORTH SHORE OR L 8 F CHRISTINE LYNN R CHRISTINE 3425 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 38 17-117-23 22 0004 03445 NORTH SHORE DR H RICHARD ZUCKHAN H RICHARD ZUCKHAN 1814 DUPONT AVE S HPLS HN 55403 38 17-117-23 22 0022 01685 CONCORDIA ST T L PALN SNA PALN TNOHAS L PALH 1685 CONCORDIA ST WAYZATA HN S534I 38 17-117-23 22 0024 01687 CONCORDIA ST J N GEHRING/K REINKE 6EHRING JOHN 8 KRISTIN GEHRING 1687 CONCORDIA ST WAYZATA HN 55341 38 17-117-23 22 0032 01680 CONCORDIA ST L 8 D SE80K LINDA D SEBOK 1680 CONCORDIA ST WAYZATA HN 55341 38 17-117-23 22 0034 03405 NORTH SHORE DR HOWARD R ALTON III HOWARD R ALTON III 1635 CONCORDIA ST ORONO HN 55341 38 17-117-23 22 0040 01635 CONCORDIA ST HOWARD R ALTON III HOWARD R ALTON III 1635 CONCORDIA ST ORONO HN 55341 38 17-117-23 22 0043 01675 CONCORDIA ST HELEN K TRAINOR NEIL J 8 BARBARA L TRAINOR 1675 CONCORDIA ST WAYZATA HN 55341 PROP ADDR OWNER NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR TOTAL BATCH 506 00030 TJ •» • % if RUN DATE tS/Zl/tt BATCH 5«« HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SB tr'lir-RS AA BtOS MBBS NORTH SHORE DR CHRISTINE L WOOD CHRISTINE L HOOD ABBS NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 5b36A SB 07-117-23 AA OOOA 0AB09 NORTH SHORE DR P S t E A LUZAICH PETER I ELIZABETH LUZAICH ABBA NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 5536A PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR SB B7-117-23 AA B077 BABAl NORTH SHORE DR DBS HCCURDY DALE J HCCURDY ABAl NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 5536A 38 B8-117-25 S3 0030 BB03B ADDRESS UNASSI6NED 6 R LANDBERO 0 H R LANDBERO GALE R I MARIE R LANDBERO ISAS MAPLE PL HOUND HN 5536A PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR SB BB-117-2S S3 0032 BBBS8 ADDRESS UNASSICNED 0 R LANDBERO B N R LANDBERO OALE R B NARIE R LAIffiBERC ISAS HAPLE PL HOUND HN 5536A 38 08-117-23 33 BB33 0B03B ADDRESS UNASSIONED 8 R LANDBERO B H R LANDBERO OALE R B MARIE R LANDBERO ISAS HAPLE PL HOUND MN 5536A PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR SB BB-117-2S 33 BOSS BBBSB ADDRESS UNASSIONED 0 R LANDBERO B N R LANDBERO OALE R B MARIE R LANDBERO ISAS HAPLE PL HOUND HN 5S36A 38 0B-117-2S 33 00A8 0SB98 NORTH SHORE DR ROGER ORANNING B WIFE ROGER ORANNING 3898 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN SSSBA PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SB BB-117-2S 33 BOOB B15AS MINNIE AVE DIANE LEE DUNLAP DIANE LEE DUNLAP ISAS MINNIE AVE HOUND HN 55S6A SB 08-117-23 S3 0067 BS9S0 NORTH SHORE DR R BOOTON B M HOLCOMBE RAOUL BOOTON/HOLLY HOLCOMBE 3950 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND MN 5536A PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SB BB-117-2S S3 BB69 BS9BB NORTH SHORE DR LEAN MARIE VICKERNAN LEAH N VICKERNAN S98B NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN SSSBA SB 08-117-23 S3 0071 01570 NORTH ARH DR MARY K RICE NARY K RICE 1S70 NORTH ARM OR HOUND MN SS3BA IP. A • 0 / i* REPORT NO. PIA3SA01 PACE lA 38 07-117-23 AA 0005 0A017 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN F THEOBALD ETAL JOHN F THEOBALD A017 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN SS3BA 38 0B-117-2S 33 0031 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIONED G R LANDBERO B N R LANDBERO GALE R B MARIE R LANDBERO ISAS HAPLE PL MOUND MN SS3BA SB 08-117-23 S3 OOSA OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIONED 0 R LANDBERO B N R LANDBERO GALE R B MARIE R LANDBERO ISAS MAPLE PL HOUND HN SSSBA SB 08-117-23 S3 00A9 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSIONED D H ENCLUND ETAL COL B MRS D N ENCLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 SB 08-117-23 S3 OOBB 03970 NORTH SHORE DR TIMOTHY L ZWART TIMOTHY L ZWART 3970 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND SSSBA SB 08-117-23 S3 0073 OISBO NORTH ARM DR PATRICIA M LAWLESS PATRICIA LAWLESS 15B0 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN SSSBA -.V.•• —* '* V - A •*• ♦ .A* .. •> •S . B TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner June 9,2000 #2592 John Vogt/Mike Hilbelink 350 Stubbs Bay Road North Class II Preliminary Subdivision Public Hearing Zoning: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre Minimum lot size Application: Vogt/Hilbelink have proposed a lot split of an existing parcel located at 350 Stubbs Bay Road North. The applicants have proposed a front^ack lot subdivision requiring greater zoning standards for Lot 2 which would not have direct access to a road. Please review Exhibit I, Ordinance 122, Second Series, defining standards for the creation and use of lots which do not abut a public or private road. Lbt of Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 Application Site Survey/Proposed property lines Legal Description City of Orono Wetland Inventory Map Plat Map Zoning Map Septic Review by Chris Pence, On Site Systems Manager Property Owners Notification List Ordinance 122, Second Series - Front/Back Lot Standards Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 - Lot Standards for RR-IB zoning district Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 - Standards for the creation and use of lots which do not abut a public or private road. 1 02592 John Vogt/Mike Hilbelink 3S0 Stubbs Bay Road North Class II Preliminary Subdivision JuM 19. 2000 pagt-l Section 11.03, Definition 24. "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way. All rural lots must comply with the City's on-site septic system provisions of the City Code. Application Review Applicants propose a two lot subdivision of a 14.23 acre property owned by Albert Draves. The property is located on the east side of Stubbs Bay Road. The subject property is located in the 2 acre zoning district and is guided by the proposed Comprehensive Plan for rural residential use. The property is not located within the MUSA. An existing residence is located on proposed Lot 2. The new building site would front on Stubbs Bay Road. The applicants have not submitted a grading plan to indicate the location of the driveway to serve the new building site. Access would be available from either the road or access outlot. Front/Back Lot Standards Back Lots are lots that do not front directly to a public or private road. Lot 2 is a back lot and would be required to meet 150% of lot standards for lots in the RR-IB district, except lot width which is only required to meet the zoning district standard. Lot Summaries:Total Acres Acres dr>’Lot Width Required Lot Width Proposed Loti 4.01 Ac.2.37 Ac.200'381.64' Lot 2 * developed 10.22 Ac.4.95 Ac.200'524.85' Total 14.23 Ac.7.32 Ac. Yard Requirements Front Lot Lot 1 Lot Area Front Yard Side Yard/Adj. to Outlot A Side Yard Rear Yard 2.00 Acres 50 feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet •2592 John Vogt/^like Hilbclink 350 Stubbs Bay Road North Class 11 Preliminary Subdivision Jim€ i9. 2000 pat*-2 1 Back Lot Lot 2 Lot Area Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 3.00 Acres 75 feet 45 feet 75 feet * Both lots meet all requirements for subdivision. Outlot A Outlot A is created as an access outlot for a private driveway to serve Lot 2 and potentially Lot 1 . The back lot would continue to access via the existing driveway. It would be appropriate to increase the width of the Outlot an additional 10' to the south to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening from the building site on Lot 1 . The site plan indicates the outlot ’s southern boundary following the existing driveway. Screening shall be required along the south side of the driveway to protect the building site. Staff has recommended to the applicant it would be appropriate to plant trees south of the driveway to form a natural buffer between the drive and Lot 1. Easements and Covenants 1.Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat 1 O' along exterior property lines and 5' along interior property lines. 2.Drainage easements shall dedicated on the final plat and conservation and flowage casements shall be granted for all City of Orono protected wetlands. Orono protected wetlands are those indicav.'d on the Wetland Inventory Map attached as Exhibit D. 3.Wetlands on the property, but not identified in the Wetland Inventory Maps by the City of Orono, but which are under WCA methods shall be subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to property owner that said wetland is subject to WCA regulation and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. 4.Covenants shall be filed on the chain of title for each lot as an advisory to future property owners that a primary and secondary drainfield site exist on the property and are protected. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plans and to proceed to the July 10,2000 City Council meeting for prelimin.jy approval. 1(12592 John Vogt/Mike Hilbelink 3S0 Stubbs Bay Road North Class II Preliminary Subdivision Jww 19. 2000 pagt-3 Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval of the preliminary plan and forward to the Council. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table, requesting further information and provide direction to the applicant. Other Action. #2592 John Vogt/Mikc Hilbclink 350 Stubbs Bay Road North Class II Preliminary Subdivision Junt 19. 2000 poit-4 _____^ Application ft Date Received /I'Kc 'OO Amount Paid 3CO,oO A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Property Identification Number (PID) //^ ______ Please check one - Property abstract or ____torrens? / Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Nam e ^ sJa^V/l' I/lj OT ___ _ Address (3 OcrH^^ U/d<^cy> O/?. Phone (home) JtlklLs^ 7 City ORpyiO __________Zip J$35^Phone (work) 4^76 3 f' OWNER (if different than applicant) Nam e ____________________________ Address .'^ST>A'e %7ZtSSS Phone (home) ORcryiO . /ylAj S Zip$33-^hone (work)City (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / "7. .3-^ Acres Dry Land C:,*7 ( Acres Wet Land Present use (check) Present Zoning District /V. ^3 Acres Total, all parcels Y Residential; no. of units__/ Other (specify)_________ TTR-ITS PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites / __Existing Units __New Units Total Units Number of Building Sites 7 Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ^___Units per____Acres ,3^ Ft. Dry Buildable Land yC Residential ________Other (specify)_________ V rs::. • f ;?)*v s7 % ' * "x ^ ^ >• •' t in \J^ v/o. • • • \ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeosl Ouorter ol Section 32, Township 1 18 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Nor th of a line drown from a point on the West line of srjid Norltiwesl Quartet of the Soulheasl Quartet distant 693 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Northwest Ouor ler of the Soulfieast Quarter to a point on the Eost line of said Northwest Quarter of tfte S'lujttieast Ouor ler distont 603 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, except the North 220 feet of the West 890 feet thereof o : denotes iron marker _____*996--denotes existing contour line, NOTE-taken from city mops Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obovo described property, the location of an existing house and building, end the proposed location of a proposed dividing line thereon. It does not purpor t to show any other improvements or encroachments. jiAfA S /S./? * Ae/>€S - •• ^ttccuA/A^ /fo40 /» r- !■■■' ■ ^ \ *•••** •a * vv:..*- V,- U P w ■ '• • I------------- •Mi" V ; ■■ . v^.;. VJV V mam rf m ,620;. 2 / i -' Jm / • . '•y//^^ .>• r-*. «».. sT •••• •*.>//'•• »> •.’' - - • . r vi.i •A>.‘. :t^i^.j \ •% II i'fe.i'.* ' VP ■^m Mv.' " • • \ ■', V hlL^l ,;Vv4-nr;n v^, ' TT7 .'t ■ . ./r. i/Tmm; - ;i' noag^u i/l, ^ i.-«4 t ?lli s>' ' ' -**“V t . / V j • » s ► < i . i!'V;l •M • ■“ '*• “•, .i^. . - *•••• ^ . w ■* ' *- .......^** .. ” .* .. {■ • » * Vr*-‘ «r'.t-. •• . A'rt* • . li’fK \ *• ' ^,?»y . •'«, 4 # • r /. •(/>..'-w- '•fi* »/.v- '“• .V -.'/. 1,^ “Vi ••• S ‘Vf ji xcrr - I-. n . '<■ t’ M i: J ■■•. • '•■ — • 'VI*' ■-cVVv: - .^’.Vv :^/' V.' '. I'?;*'. I . v\ - iWtV ■:v:y'V-'^ .M\ :■ .■;-. . '^'V /. ■■/ * ,' *.m /. I • r •V'/-. - •■• . •\{H ,.'.• V'V, <••,.; A".' •>• »•. i.' \ A C ' ' —. • V. • 1 4 . *» iV- ' ■<* '•* if* ."••'’•• ^ .*•;•?*• •‘: I- : . fe-l' • m • * K Vj7'>;^h H lv*: n£j> ^:.-:.5Vt,i E<^L* % ..v5T? V • •‘.■ ■v;?iV»;''''''" f .11 o Tf ♦•■ ;i TO:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administralor/Planner FROM: Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:June 2, 2000 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2592, Mike Hilbelink Subdivision. The property in the proposed subdivision requires the use of individual sewage treatment systems. Soil borings and percolation tests were performed by Rusty 01son’s--Soil and Percolation Testing on May 15,2000 to identify primary and alternate drainfield sites on the existing lot and the new lot.. The septic system at 350 Stubbs Bay Road North (existing lot) has been defined as non-compliant by the City of Orono due to the fact that the drainfield does not meet the three-foot separation requirement to the seasonal watertable. The septic system was recently inspected on September 16, 1999 by City Staff and found to be functioning adequately at that time. Two septic sites have been designated. Both septic areas appear to meet all the minimum standards set by the State and the City cf Orono.. The proposed design for the new lot has been designed to show room for two five-bedroom mounds (primary and alternate sites). This design will not require any variances to the State or City code. The design meets all the minimum requirements of the State and City codes. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision. Prior to any building permits being issued for a residence on the new lot, the City will need a more complete design showing specific home location, septic tank location and pump requirements. The City requires the drainfield sites be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration on these lots 6 • RUN DATE 05/09/60 • HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PACE BATCH SOB PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 32*11B‘23 13 0003 009B0 STUBBS BAY RD N TODD H 1 DONNA H CAUSE TODD 0 DONNA CAUSE 400 STUBBS BAY RD LONC LAKE HN 55550 38 32-118-23 13 6004 00440 STUBBS BAY RD N FREDERIC P RIEDEL FREDERIC P RIEBEL P 0 BOX 194 LONC LAKE HN 55354 38 32-118-23 24 0003 00485 STUBBS BAY RO N R C JOCMIHS 8 S J JOCMIHS ROBERT 8 STEPHANIE JOCHIHS 485 STUBBS BAY RD N LONC LAKE HN 55554 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 3B 32-118-23 31 0001 00385 STUBBS BAY RO N PAMELA F CRECORY PAMELA FROST CRECORY C/0 HOLLYBROOK 0 CO 704 2ND AVE S R400 HPLS HN 65402 38 32-118-23 31 0003 00355 STUBBS BAY RD N JEANETTE LOUISE MORSE JEANETTE LOUISE MORSE 355 STUBBS BAY RD N LONC LAKE HN 55354 38 32-118-23 31 0005 • 03740 WATERTOWN RD CATHARINE A CRAM CATHARINE A CRAM 3740 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 32-118-23 41 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED ROBERT T LIRID ROBERT T LUND 4100 50TH ST W R2100 EDINA MH 55424 38 32-118-23 42 0001 00400 STUBBS BAY RD N RICHARD N STUBBS RICHARD N STUBBS 400 STUBBS BAY RD N LONC LAKE HN 55354 38 32-118-23 42 0002 00350 STUBBS BAY RD N ALBERT W DRAVES JR 8 WIFE ALBERT W DRAVES JR 350 N STUBBS BAY RO LONC LAKE HN 55354 • PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 32-118-23 42 0003 00200 STUBBS BAY RD N C J 8 0 H BOLLIS CHRISTOPHER 1 CAIL BOLLIS 200 STUBBS BAY RO .N LONC LAKE HN 55556 TOTAL BATCH 502 00010 « ^enrvrw TUAT TUP FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUESotSeS.?!!! JTiKSS.”™ « it Aff»« T«II WTE^OH ™ MCO.W THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TARATXOH, TO THE DCS MY KNOWLEDCE AND BELIEF ' [OOO w OF OF DATI crAifincni wr RfARPi ----------------- ^lolnooo BV S!.Civ O:f /•** i • • •I CODE AND SUBOTl^ON CO JSSlC 0* PKV^™ »0*» AN toe city council of orono ordains as follows : - in anH \funicit the CIT I v-r*----- ion 11 03. Subdivision 2 are eauu -7 — e,aoa U.u ^ the corridor is merely ^ easement ove aa "easement back lot’. hcea, ____ ,,/hirh an outlot has been- "casement oac. • .oc-FronC - A lot abuniog a public or private road, ac. planed for access to a bade lot. . .' _ • , code Sectiod 10.03 is amended by adding SECTION 2. Municipal noning Subdivision 27 which sbaU read as foUows:,sion 27 which shaU read as touows. c * d 07 Special Standards for Back Lo*,s Created 5^•o(iivision that received L defmed u? S section winch were created as following preltminary subdivision requir‘d in Section 11.31. Subdtvts.on special requirements m addinon to the st-coar 5* of the Orono Subdivision Code; A. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as foUows: 1. Lot area shall be 150f. of the zoning district requirement. Lot width meamred pardlel “Street yard setback line o£ a lakesno • setback line of a Tfront yard for aW district width cequuenieat. The OT -t y oudot back lot wul be a yard sjarung lots shaU meat corridor ends and the lot „ *0 lakesbore setback the lot width standard ‘ line, and at the street yard setback Une. Ordinance #154, Second Series (Adopted December 9, 1996) - An Ordinance Extending An Interim Moratorium On The Granting Of Building Permits, Land Subdivisions, Rezoning Applications, Conditional Or Special Use Permits, Variances Or Other Authority Relating To The Siting Of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities And Structures In All Zoning Districts In The City Of Orono Ordinance #156, Second Series (Adopted March 24, 1997) - An Ordinance Extending An Interim Moratorium On The Granting Of Building Permits, Land Subdivisions, Rezoning Applications, Conditional Or Special Use Permits, Variances Or Other Authority Relating To The Siting Of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities And Structures In All Zoning Districts In The City Of Orono Ordinance #158, Second Series (Adopted May 12, 1997) - An Ordinance Adopting An Interim Moratorium On The Granting Of Building Permits, Land Subdivisions, Rezoning Applications, Conditional Use Or Special Use Permits, Variances, Or Other Authority Relating To Adult Uses In All Commercial And Industrial Districts In The City Of Orono Ordinance #159, Second Series (Adopted May 12,1997) - An Ordinance Extending An Interim Moratorium On The Granting Of Building Permits, Land Subdivisions, Rezoning Applications, Conditional Or Special Use Permits, Variances Or Other Authority Relating To The Siting Of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities And Structures In All Zoning Districts In The City Of Orono For total accuracy the user should enquire of the Citv Administrative Offices as to ordinances not included. J. 1. The depth of the required street yard or from yard shall be 15055 ■ of the zoDing district fitoot yard requiremeot. i The reouii- d side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shaU be 150S if the zoning district yard requirements. The required lierhore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zomng discricc lakeshore yard requirements. B. Dimensional stmdards f« front lots^ VS^eV wid“ Id sTtb"ldr “side yard of the front lot adfarent r^ access outlet shall be equi-ralent to the side street yard requiremeat for ±at zoning discricc. C. Access requiremeats. Access oudots shall be 30' tainifnum width, and sh^ be wde ^o“i to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screemng without eacroaching on neighboring propemes. In aoprovmg frontAjack lot divisions, the City may require both front lot and back share a driveway access wit^ the a-cess outlet if CouncQ decermine' that creating an additional access to the existing street wiU be a potenaal sarety hazar . Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 from th side or rc2X lot lines of adjacent lots Ho more chan cwo residences may be served by a drive ,v ay local within an access oudoc. Ho access cutlot may be planed abutting an adjacent ^ e.xcept when the intent is to combine the two access oudots for creadoa of a public or private road meeting City stan D. Screening requirements. j. 4. 5. 1.Drivewavs constructed in access outlets sh^ nfthe^Cicy « screened'by fencing or vegeadon at the "o all points to the rear of the required street yard of ^ as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights mto yard of adjacent lots. 9 yard 0^= t LJLto of vcbick toadlighcs too tho side or roar yarda of adjacent lots. E.r^trrr.o=^ corr s-tiTS requirements: 1. mirmres within a bade lot snaU be allowed no closer ^“lO-'Io a noigdboridg proporry's sido or roar yard. ck-jii rnt be pllowed within the required street Accessory structures y^d of a front lot vard of a back loc aor wuto ^ which abuts the street yard ol a back lot. J. NO accessory structure shaU be allowed within an access ouUot. SECTION ----------. - deleted and the following language substituted Orono Municipal code Sec-ion 11.31. Subdivision 5 U hereby ruase substituted in its place. anu uiw ^ ^ V, • tors acc-ss to loG. and front/'badc lot divisions.Subdivision 5. Double frontage loG. access • /-______—l/i^pe cV A Double frontage lots. Double » avoided except where ne«»^ ^^C^come'specific disadvanuges development from tranic anena-s ui of topography and orientation. B Access from any anenal roanway. driveway access from access e.xc!usively from an ar.enalroadway_ adjoining lots, the any anerial roadway may be ^ ^ combined access drive Council may require that such loG be roadway. Where possible, in order to limit possible trafric hazard on requiring vehicles driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoio q to back into trafric on any anerial roadway. private toad. Such oudot shaU not^ ^f*!^bivisioas shall adhere to either the back or front lots. Frontfriaclc lot subdi the following standards: ( J • « 1. Applicabilicy. wiSat rcqoiSg “ “« *' ““ °' ** oudoc access corridor is excluded. b. •C nr/>iarV: lot divisions may be us.*id for individual "lot but no. bo us-d wbou subdividmi a large ^cel’into oumecous lots u creatioa of a bade lot‘s noQvemeoce to the developer rather than supported by unioue sice faccors. A c.A froat/badt lot division shall not be aUowed when ^y fvUtinv residence on a neighboring proper^_ *’ °A .or-ss oudot is located nearer its anected side lot to a 'distance equivalent to the zoning district reouired front yard depth. A Dimensional standards for ba.k lots shaU be as follows; Lot area sbaH be 150f. of the zoning district requirement.a. b.Lot width measured paraUel to the front or sheet lot line at r ro?tthe rear of tne rronc y«uu a ... ^gguijenient. fora^rbacit lot wiU be a s^ing where the narrow access ontlot comdo^euj^ •and ±e lotlegins. Uheshore bac^ts width standard at the snoreto. a the laKesnor line and at the street yard setback to. c.The deoth of the required sheet yard or front yard shall of die zoning district front yard requhement. ■ d.The required side yard and ‘^'^^jjauhe^nts. shaU be 150?. of the zoning ^“ 5 ““ . ,ot shai’shaU be 150?. of the zoning d^=t y- The required lakeshore yard of a rnest the zoning distnet lakeshore y J. for front lots. A front lot created as part Dime^ion^ s shall meet all zoning district area. ;"o\ “o d:c accc. oadoc sbaU be e,.iva.eac .o .be side Sffeet yard requiiemect for diat zoomg disme.. 4. Access requirements: a.s“ rri’r. s^ree^g without encroaching on neighboring properties. b.In anorovin'^ front/back lot divisions, the City may requirw ■nar bot front lot and back lot share a driveway access “.Lir^e ac«ss oedot if Cocrtcil de«^s .bat ere. an additional access to tbe existing stre-t v,iU b- a pot safety hazard. No more .ban rwo residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outiot. e.No access outiot may be excent When the intent is to combme the two access ou i f^Sn of a public or private road meetmg Cry Standards. 5. d^e screening requirements and accessory structure sundards Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. 6. Tbe requiremeam ^d stantods of to those front/back lot divisions whicn rec-ivc y approval after January 1, 1994. imm mm ^ ^^ * SECTION 4. Adopdoo and publication. This “““^^upon'^pubbeau Pioneer and the Inker newspapers and shall become etiecuve unmed.are.y upon p ^rmr :k§ MilliTii rtriiri*rtHTTt nfUTm Mtfsrt iT««t ^IiV5R1 I •JIJKHSI iJtJiHtira rimre •nun rtiifliTti niiiara ?4iii.wriR iT«IHir i»j • W^tj 111 • I PJ rocni [•rtimifsit^ •liiiiimt]rijTiri] Lot Configurations: Lot Required Actual-Dry Actual-Wet Total Acres Lot Width Required Lot Width Proposed Lot 1 2 acres 2.70 Acres 1.14 Acres 3.84 Acres 200 ’365’ Lot 2 2 acres 2.53 Acres .42 Acres 2.95 Acres 200'256’ Lot standards: Back Lots are lots that do not front directly to a public or private road. Lot 1 is a back lot and would be required to meet 150% of lot standards for lots in the RR-1B district, except lot width which is only required to meet the zoning district standard. The City has on a number of past applications allowed the use of wetland areas for the third acre of a back lot. Approximately 0.30 acre of wetland is being used in this case to meet the acreage requirement. No area or back lot variance is needed. The surveyed areas noted above reflect the recent wetland delineation, not the prior Conser\'ation and Flowage Easement granted in 1977; there is actually more area defined as wetland today than in 1977 due to State and Federal delineation methods now being used. Yard Requirements: Lot Area Front Yard Side Yard/Adj to Outlot A Side Yard Rear Yard Front Lot Back Lot (Lot 2^(Lot 1) 2.00 Acres 3.00 Acres 50 feet 75 Feet 50 feet N/A 30 feet 45 Feet 50 feet 75 Feet Both lots meet all requirements for subdivision without the need for area, width or setback variances, Septic: Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager, has reviewed the septic sites and has determined both the primarv' and alternate drainfield sites meet all City and State standards. The site evaluations was completed by S-P Testing. Inc. The existing sites located on Lot 2 are conforming systems and would not be impacted by the subdivision. H2594 Jim Johnson 2240 Fox Street Class II Subdivision June 19. 2000 Page 2 Outlet A: Outlet A is created as an access outlet for a private driveway to serve Lot 1 and Lot 2. Access outlots are required to be a minimum of 30’ wide to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. Outlet A is 109' wide and no additional screening is needed. Lot 1 Driveway Wetland Crossing: The existing Lot 4 was created as part of the subdivision of Bill Kelley ’s Land in 1977. At that time a flowage and consen.ation easement was dedicated over the wetlands as shown on the City ’s protected wetland maps, e,\cept that a 50' corridor on the west side of the property was purposely not included in the easement to allow for future driveway access to the future back lot. The City Engineer at that time approved the legal description, but no comments appear in ihe application review record regarding this intent. In April. 2000, the Building Official granted applicant a permit to continue the driveway to the back lot. The back lot is accessed off the existing driveway as shown on Exhibit J, and crosses the delineated wetland at a width of 20-30'. It required less than 500 cubic yards of fill, therefore a Conditional Use Permit was not needed. However, the driveway permit may have been issued prematurely, because although the driveway crossing is not subject to the easement conditions, it is still subject to Orono’s wetland ordinances, MCWD and Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations, and this is a DNR-protected wetland. There are some exemptions to the WCA regulations under which this driveway may fall, and this is for the MCWD to determine. While the City would likely not be in a strong legal position to ultimately deny a permit to fill for the purpose of creating access to property, the approval process should be completed. Therefore, a condition of preliminary plat approval should be that the City reviews and approves a wetland filling variance, and applicant should be required to provide approvals (or approval waivers) from each of the affected agencies with wetland jurisdiction. Wetlands: As noted above, the existing flowage artd conservation er semenf was dedicated when the underlying property was originally divided ofl' in 1977. The property owner has had the wetlands recently delineated on the properly. Current delineation boundaries sliglitly differ from the original conservation and flow ago easement h> undaries. The flowage and conservation easement should be amended to reflect the new' delineated boundaries. U2594 Jim Johnson 2240 Fox Street Class // Subdivision June 19. 2000 Page 3 Easements and Covenants: I 1. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat 1 O' along the westerly exterior property line (a 5' easement exists per prior plat). Ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the north, south and east boundaries shall be dedicated if they are not already in place per the prior plat. A drainage and utility easement 5' either side of the boundary between Outlot A and Lot 2 shall be granted. No drainage and utility easement along the boundary between Lots 1 and 2 is necessary since this boundary is completely in the wetland. 2. The delineated wetland in the northeast quadrant of Lot 1 which is not identified in the City of Orono Wetland Inventory Map, but which is subject to WCA regulation shall be subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to property owner and future owners that said wetland is subject to WCA regulation and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. 3. Covenants shall be filed on the chain of title for each lot as an advisory to future property owners that a primary and secondary drainfield site exist on the property and are protected. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following: 1. Creation of drainage and utility easements as noted above. 2. Amendment of existing Conservation and Flowage Easement to reflect new delineated wetland boundaries of the Orono-protected wetland. 3. Covenants to be created for protection of drainfield sites and as advisory for WCA non- Orono wetland. 4. Applicant to provide permit approvals or exemption certification from the other agencies with jurisdiction over wetland filling for driveway crossing. 5. City engineer to comment on driveway crossing plan, City to approve a wetland variance for the driveway crossing. 6. Lot 1 subject to standard park dedication fee. 7. Plat subject to all other standard platting requirements. This item woulu proceed to the July 10, 2000 City Council meeting for preliminary plat approval. U2594 Jim Johnson 2240 Fox Street ClasK I! Subdivision June 19. 2000 Page 4 Application # ^5^ ^ Date Receive<r -S/n io~S Amount Paid J' 0 ^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address Z‘2.4-0 *St 'R6L€-'T Property Identification Number (PID) /)2-ll7-2Z 3 2. Ooo<j Please check one - Property X abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application. L<9-r- ,n>L-OCKl KC lL€.V*S LAA jD APPLICANT ^ Name ^ OoffAJSoaQ___________ Address P-P»4-0 City ^!>hc€, . /^V_______ _______Phone (home) ZipkSy^Phone (work) - "" OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address City__ Phone (home) . Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL 1.4 SA Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ ______ Division for Tax Purposes ______ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) X' Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites I i Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per ^ Acres 1 1 (> o 0 Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land % Residential _________Other (specify)_________ '‘1 MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified E^operty Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list firom Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this anpHoation, p^ase attacj* a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature c _____»_______________Date ^ftT/QO___________________________ MpiIMUM ^UTERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if applicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement aniiettcr of Credi^ / tit Zoning Official's Signarare f ■ —_____________ Date * ll'f/ot I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I. II & 111) S250.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I &H) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III. Preliminary' Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change fi'om original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from origm' < application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/Iineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 Totals )(^ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rtiral subdivision applications) $50.fl0/per lot x JL new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit I /CO The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. /O /P Applicant's Signature 0\s net's Signature _ Date —OO Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Oftlcc 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 Plarming 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. U/L- vy V-/I \f ^1 HENNEPIN COUNIY. MINNESOTA • • . • ->.V » LgCAL OtSCft^teN or PffCMSCS : Ul 9o<li 1. 9Ll KCUCY* S LAND «• j d«not«t iro<» #.w:litf ^tnoUa contour lint, mtor> tto Ifvtl dolum th^mn or« bottd upon on ossumcd dolum rr*-M tffmi §0f»^t**90 #r 0**4 »0^) ’(hit turvty inttndi It #>ow th# Ooundoritt of Iht obowt dtscriOcd proptrly, Iht locotion of «*itt«n9 houit. ond Ih# propostd looolion of o propotfd tntffon II dots not purport to iho*» ony olher improvtmenli or tncroocnmtnif. '» h! I . * y y ' ' y . J? “**-^7 r.t v'/v/x:" x'«>. Ji 11 i ! i' ...^ : < >iJ'!/ i'ssr? H'ni/ ; f / / :' / ' f < h:lr. ‘ \ 'v. >-y—. A^«v *««•»• I 0.29 t 044*! ^ \ , --------------^ \ \ I k ^ '•’-----^'^\\\ I ^ \\\\ »\\ '* > Locc or^«"• ' \ T^/' \ /^y ■f - MJ*—-*•^ .••• "r^/ • J riow/ut and CONS£» VAION CAStm Nl ifiiV t-.Y V\ PROPOSED ^.-DIYIDINO ^ yjyES'tTii^ir.r Z M -rrr=l^-=r%- \I' 115 : AC TOTAt IA3 ! AC Ofrr ' I I A KSr, ‘ ' ' " » \..V •• ' / t '' •*'s ' /' v>.--- r» ' ' I ; ^ I I f''* \ ht' \ V '>r^l [ \\ 2 I I > ^ I, ’ ' 'sL'fVA. ' \ ^ ' \ — “t L *r. •’ . ntoo LgGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 4. Block 1. BILL KELLEY'S LAND I ■1 denotes iron morker ^ —9€t —— : denotes existing contour line, mean sea level dolum Beorings shown are bosed upon on ossumed datum. Tsr/tk * 9.Pf£4nts This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, the locotion of on existing house, ond the proposed locotion of o proposed dividing line thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvensents or encroochmenls. -4 0 W:-m 03-H7-AS (121 mm (9) iTTii mrmo\t 112.5 icr mmww \ (121 I 1701 S \ (12)A A I K«l l’*i nwsivisim .4 111 “ ^ /r (S) nlr:l A V /y £ I [ F TO:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner FROM: Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:May 26, 2000 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2594, Jim Johnson Subdivision. The property in the proposed subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Soil borings and percolation tests were performed by S-P Testing, Inc. on April 24, 2000 to identify primary and alternate drainfield «tes on the north lot. The septic system at 2240 Fox Street (existing lot) has a compliant mound septic system. The septic system was recently inspected on May S, 2000 by City Staff and found to be in compliance at that time. There also is an alternate site designed for the property. It was designed by Hakanson, Anderson Associates, Incorporated on May S, 1987. This design still meets all current State and City code requirements. The proposed design for the north lot has been designed to show room for two five-bedroom mounds (primary and alternate sites). This design will not require any variances to the State or City code. The design meets all the minimum requirements of the State and City codes. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision. The City requires the drainfield sites be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration on these lots im i y t id ^^<^a:h 'ti ?<’S. iJir^^^^.-»y<»<''«^«'<'*»w*>^/>i«v.'fWl i •% wv>:..v>ViV.',sM-•.••JjKj.-'fvAvV V > »' ••.*• » •r Ai'i mmf- k*'.l,V .Vrii'-fV; .♦^ •» i*.'re. > '»:;»• >i A^'^ •. r •• 4 • 4».»m. ^vti’•^v: ♦ ' 4 ^aI'X /*m I AwV - A ' Xf'Tt T •'•vV >■ . ,__________ '•i^ ^ T»l A; I'isar:; -.vjM]m l4lss 0,r--. *:< i»^'rAi ym ^!iiv5l!»rJ4!*i|7[5^^ 2-^ ’ " a>>. 131= ,v, -s;Kjf •i.r. • -'•'• «t r.* » • •• L >*N7*srV.*i '**.> • •/'i V/* / . •■ -i' < *' - *ViV • •'* /•■'/'• V i. V i* cV'K^' fc%iyiy«. ■;;<“•;••*'<• .'Tv ■•v.^;* V ’VV'-v^ 'v *'t- •! R%T \ . ;, \ - « / «. ^. 4 . t W 'V ,>i . Vli; *• • o » . iOi. »>.• >.<'■ “#- •» ^ '• I ». S/f /;'i |. M A<Wr4 » 4V *. > c’7.'5rt V.»r,». > is/i'. 7f‘‘' /'7r'u\ ■'.'' •' i • *.' • l\^4M \ " • ■. • » i *. j: ®A-.i |,;; •.. i;*.!/ •* •*.•.•♦ - V V V ** 114. '.'V? . ■ "S' ■ I .’•*wv i.<% HEftH' fj WmAvgii * LUiVfV f \ • V Vk' '1 rS.l« i>y-4\ •v*V* V :*•'.. ■'« : Silt; ■t‘\ iV\ \v-> ••'is. *'f •.\' ■ • '. -n • ' i "'I -i^vgA ^ m »*''.t '-1 Ay 0* M •i V* •♦..»»•: •! <4. I •7 f>* V,: kV tiMBynii /:(•: t **• M •:\i try S5?JJu .4* -M I I #4 L‘* -. V- •» ■•’•>.,',1'. ;■■'*•. IS I. /•: «V ••, yfv^'.IT ^ « Vv MM MTE •V2E/tt MTCN n« TAKPAVER NAHC/ABDR TAMPAVfR NANE/AMM U tS-117-tS RS CAM m«C AA1N60QN MAY N P SMIMffRONWX ET Al MARC P MfXNOTROWSRX A RCTN t MnONTKONSKX RMA ARXN680N NAY LONB LAKE HN Sf SS« M t9-I17*2S SI AMS AttRA FOX ST 0 A EIRECKE ETAL REORRf A ERRECKE EISA POX ST LONO LAKE HN SSSSA HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATXON SYRTEH PROPERTY OMNERS LIST 30 AS-117-2S 2S AA14 AA4AA NXLLOM RR S ARTHUR A EOXTN NELSON ARTHUR A EOXTN NELSON AAA HXLLOH OR S LONO LAKE HN SSSSA SO AS*X17-2S S2 AAA9 A22AA FOX ST J R A H L JOHNSON JANES R A HELEN L JO 22AA FOX ST LONO LAKE HN SSSSA REPORT NO. PXASSAAl PACE 4A I ‘ . so AS>iI7*2S SI AAAi AAAAS RRONN RD S ERXC N SHXTN ETAL XVANETTE SMITH A4S RROMN RO S LONO LAKE HN SSSSA SO A9-1I7-2S S2 AA19 A2SAA FOX ST E CUNNXNOTON A K CUNNSNOTON E OUNNXNOTON A K CUNNXNOTON 2SAA FOX ST LONO’LAKE HN SSSSA w TAXPAYER NANE/ARRR TAXPAYER SO AS-I17-2S S2 AAXA A220A FOX ST N R KANLER/N R NXTHUN KAHLER RXCNAEL R KAHLER A NARY R NXTNUN KAHLER 2209 FOX ST LONO LAKE HN SSSSA SO AS-117-2S SS AAAA A227R MERRER NXLLS I A THERESA R JOHNSON SETS MERER NXLLS RO NAVZATA HN SSS91 SO AS-I17-2S SS AAA2 A2S2S FOX ST ALVXN H LAMOOERO ETAL ALVXN N LANOOERO JR P 0 SOX 0 LONO LAKE HN SSSSA SO AS>117-2S SS AAA5 A22AS MEROER NXLLS RD STEVEN A PERSONXUS ET AL STEVEN A PERSONXUS 22AS MERRER NXLLS RD NAVZATA HN SSSAl SO AS-117-29 SS AAAS A220S MEROER NXLLS RO DAK PEDERSON DENNXS 0 A KAREN L PEDERSON 220S MEROER NXLLS ROAD ' NAVZATA HN SSSAi SO AS-117-2S S4 AAA2 A2IM MERRER NXLLS I NAROARET A OERNUNDSEN HAROARET A OERNUNDSEN 210S MERRER NXLLS RR MAVZATA NN SSSn > TARPAVH SO AS-I17-2S SO AAAO 02X00 MEROER NXLLS HO IRMIN N RXTCNXE JR A NXFE SRNXN N RXTCNXE JR 2X00 MERRER HXLL RO MAVZATA HN SSSn SO A9*117-2S SA AAA9 A21AA NEOOER NXLLS i SARA N NOOS SARA N NOOS 21AA MEROER NXLLS RD NAVZATA HN SSS91 SO AS*I17-2S S4 AAIA A212A MERRER NXLLS RO 0 S JOHNSON SNR JOHNSON S S JOHNSON A N R JOHNSON 212A MERRER NXLLS RO NAVZATA HN BSS9X TAXPAVn total ratcn SIA AAAIS f. I C% 'f-! •• a If ■‘Hlu t ■Wti-' JV 'A * • - •-» i"* ■1 ' ♦ #• - ! ( ORDINANCE NO. _HL_. ®COND SERIES • an ordinance to NOT^X r^l^tic OR PRIVATE ROAD the city council of ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: _ — - • • Code Sectioa 11.03 the I ________«^art hv another lot and •ction 11.03, onoaiviaiuu A. ■Lot-Back- - A lot Wi«»Uy cotridot. Such a separated which gains access to P“^ ^le cotridot is platted as an “PX!let is considered to a back l« wne^ ^ ^ as pan of the lohsack lot- when the cotridoc B plaMd «»s"^:.”^vssrsi:s'£’4^Mtridot is merely jn easement over an "cascxnctit back lot .a "eascmcot oaciL iwi. . Lot-Ftonf - A lot abutting a public or private toad, across which an outlet has been platted for access to a back lot.ror acecaa hw • --------- .T • Sectioa 10.03 is amended by addmgSECTION 2. Municipal Zonmg Code Subdivision 27 which shall read as foUows: Subd. 27. Special Standards for Back ^oV^^ivi^^ *»t received Charmed in ^ -bject to ,the _ fo.l-|^„defined in this section wiuv.u -------- - subject to the following n*^nn subdivision Codct special ^------- 5 of the OroQO Subdivision Code: A. Dimensional standards for back lots shaU be as foUows: Lot area shall be 150f. of the zoning district lequitement. a • 1 Lot width measured paiaUel to *e y*^saeet yard setback line of a^tot 1^ setback line of a ^«yarf « front yard for any Si^^^wS ra“r^* *srerk*ioS- S*s:^“^boreto. at the lakeshot. setbac line, and at the street yard setback Une. ■i ’ r I .. tark^e-^-vttmi V..l^ Pi K '1^ ‘ 7 1^- *1 »> • I » # • • B. D. 3 Tht depth of the required street yard or front yard shaU be 1505S • of the zoning district front yard requirement. A The reouircd side yard and rear yard depths for bac^ots shall be IMS loniiig dinrict requirements. Uie reqju^ |4«hoce yard of a lalceshote back lot shail meet the zonmg district lakeshore yard requirements. • -I for front lots. A front lot created as part of a DimeMio^ s ^ ^ zoning district area, width and “xcepf^rs^ required side yard of the front lot ad*«nt Tthe access outlet shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. C. Access requirements. 1.Access ouUots shall be 30’ minimum width, and shaU be wide enough to accommodate t^ge. snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properues. 2.In approving frontrt.ack lot divisions, te City may ^ bo* front tot and back tot share a driveway access w^^ access oudot if Counch deteimines that creating an additional »the existing street wiU be a potential safety hazard. Driveways within a back tot shall be located at least 10' from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. 4.No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlet. 5.No access outlet may be platted abutting an adjacent Ucept when the intent is to combine the two access oudots for creation of a pubUc or private road meetmg City standards. Screening requirements. 1. Driveways constructed in ^ m3y fencing or vegetanon at the dtoemtitm of ^ C^. yard of adjacent lots. I i 4 iifc ilnaiiii^irtartQnn . .t‘■■w u" of adjacent lots. E,to'f^wlng additiooal rcquirenients: A «rv ^rnicmrcs within a back lot shall be allowed no closer ‘ neighboring property's side or rear yard. 2. .hall not be aUowed within to reouiied Street r ofTb";':?.£n to requ^d rear yard of a front iot which abuts the street yard or a back lot. 3. No accessory structure shaU be aUowed within an access outlet. ^ a «SECTIONS. Orono Municipal Code SecQon 11. Jl, Subdivision 5 IS deleted and the f^wing language substituted in its place: ( ana uic Subdivision 5. Doubie frontage lots, access to lots, and frontftaclc lot di i _^ T^rc A. DOUDie irontAg's aww, -------- of topography and orientation. B Access from any arterial ^access exclusively from an attetxaltoadtwy.WMre a„ any arterial roadway may be , combhied access driveCmmcil may require that such IM servrt by a e .. r.” ....,«iLi. nnaaible traffic baraid on such roadway.__ / cLica may require that such ^ b« Where possible. in order to limit possible requiring vebicto driveways shaU be designed and ai^e^ to back into traffic on any artcnal roadway. Front/back lot subdivUions. "nag not be created, defined in this Chapter (see J^_?y in conjunction with the Front/back lot divisions shaU be ^ to the pubUc or creation of an outlot to pro>ade access ^ crediuble lot area for private road. Such ouUot shaU °^tSbSns shaU adhere tocither the back or front lots. Frontn>ack lot suboivis the foUowing standards: ( t- J K'f , ' 17. ‘ <r.(. :♦ 1. Applicability. 2. a.Frontrt)»ek lot divisions may be used when e)^g nrooertv dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot witholt re<iui^g “ variance when the area of the outlet access corridor is excluded. b.Frontn)acyc lot divisions may be used for individual "lot spU«-, but may not be iT-aricn of a back lot is mer^y a convenience to the developer rather than supported by •____unioue site factors. • • A frouirtiack lot division shaU not be aUowed wh« earing residence on a neighboring proper^ “‘"f?* proposed access outlet is located nearer its affected si^ot to than a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth. Dimensional standards for back lots shaU be as foUows: a. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement Lot width measured paraUel to the ftom or sneet lot to « fh# street vard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at Z rS^ oft C yard setback to of/ nonlal^oi* hick lot, ShaU meet the zoning district widm ”1“'“'^“: The street yard or front yard for any back ot w vard starting where the natiow access o“<lo' oortito •aTthe lot begins. Lakeshore back 1°“ width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line and at the street yard setback Ime. mast 3. 5. 6. '“1 dM« alea, • • • • ________.-1f ,^nrt»ck loc dlvUioa shaU meet all zoning diroct «a. °'^/,h^d^tbaek standaids, except that the required side yard of fdiacent to the access outlet shaU be equivalent to the 4. Access requiremeocs: a. * outlets ShaU be 30’ minimum' width, and shaU be W^^nough to accommodate drainage, snow removal a^ Z^c^S " neighboring pcopemes. • ___- • m ^A b. Tn Anorovin* frontrttaclc lot divUions. the City may requite ^af tom lot and back lot share a driveway access ^hin iteS outlet if Council determines that creating ril^didotS^esa to the existing street wiU be a potenual safety hazard. c.Driveways within a back lot shaU be loca^ at least 10 ’ tolide or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. d.No more than two residences may be served by a dnveway located within an access oudot. e.NO access outlet may be r?ra:ra?ffp ““uc”o7private road meeting City Standards. Screening requirements i^ manner such thatFrontftack lot subdivisions ShaU be designed m die screening requirements and accessory struemte Stan Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. The requirements ^ W those tontrtiack lot divisions which tecei v approval after January 1, 1994. Pioneer and A AiAhMia Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspaper* the week of 12/27/93 t'*. Jt CITY OF ORONO2750 Kelley Paikway • PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 (612) 249^600 PERMITPermit Number: Permit Type: Date Issued:P02276 User Defined4/17/00SITE ADDRESS:PID: 03-117-23-32-0009 2240 Fox StLONG LAKE. MN S53S6 DESCRIPTION: Proposed Use: Permit Class: Permit Type: Residential General User Defined Permit Sub-type(s): Single Family DETAILS: Approved per resolution ^: Separate permits required: NOTICES/REMARKS: L FEE SUMMARY:Permit Fee:$50.00 Valuation: $ 8,( TOTAL FEE:$50.00 APPLICANT:JAMES JOHNSON 2240 FOX ST LONG LAKE, MN 5S350 OWNER;J R & H L JOHNSON 2240 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN SS336 THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY REQUESTS PERMISSION TO MAKE THE REAL IMPROVEMENTS SPECIFIED AND AGREES TO DO ALL WORK IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL aiY OF ORONO ORDINANCES AND STATE OF MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. Copies: City, Applicant, Assessor, Finance Pagel Total Fee: $ Entered By: Date Received: 3/3//o 0 r-z- Permit#: CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION AH information must be submitted in full before plan review will be started. {please print all information) THE APPLICANT IS JOB SITE ADDRESS: (circle one) C QWNER>OR CONTRACTOR F^X ^T7Z£.€rr ZIP: S~S‘35 ’C NAME OF OWNER: Jaai&S ^ PHONE: (home) (work) MAILING ADDRESS: ^9^4-0 STTggerCITY: LohXr, ZIP: CONTRACTOR: CONTACT PERSON: PHONE: MAILING ADDRESS: STATE LICENSE: # MOBILE/PAGER: CITY:ZIP: ARCHTTECT/ENGINEER MAILING ADDRESS: _ NAME: : !^j PHONE: CITY:ZIP: REGISTRATION # TYPE OF WORK: New Move Addition Remodel/Alteration Accessory Structure____ Land Alteration ^ PROPOSED WORK (describe in detail): £>g u; e.u^/A-V -rhHZ.cL 4-^u^ *TZ> A-coE.^^ 3/^i< oP- PZ.cPBJirr't^^ Seg. ^ STORIES:SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR: NO. OF BEDROOMS:GARAGE STALLS: ATT.DET. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): $/^/a- C6$-r ^ ooo I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the information above is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City and with the State Building Code; that I understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permit; and that the work will be in accordance with the approve d plan. /APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:DATE: 3t>, NOTE! Parade of Homes evHUs require separate permit approval by Police Department and City Council 60 days prior to the event. Non-permitted events will not be allowed. ■i CHECK OFF LIST FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR OFHCE USE ONLY ADDRESS OR LEGAL: 22.MO _________ FED T- ■— s O^CRIPTIONOFWORK: L.ANQ AergitA-no^ C igxng/^no^^ </./*✓- ooZONING REVIEW BY building review byJY: DATE APPROVED: DATE APPROVED:A/f^ « ^ FEES TO BE CHARGED: Fees Calculated By: PERMIT Yes No PLAN REVIEW Yes No SEWER CONNECTION STATE SURCHARGE Yes No WATERCONNECnON INVESTIGATION FEE Yes No PARK FEE SAC Yes No snEINSPECnON Number of SAC* Units OTHER (specify)— ZONING CHECK LIST Zoning District: _A_«j_t2A3E£D Fire Department: PostO ce: School District: Lot Area: Sq.ft..Acres Survey Submitted:Yes Proposed Setbacks: Front (Lake): Rear (Street): ___ Adjacent Structures: Building Height: Def. Hgt.. Lot Coverage:_________ Depth Date of Survey: Grading: Staff Approval Date: H' IH Septic: Staff Approval Date: Wetland: Peak Hgt. - Oo By: ^.Q ■ Council Approval Date; By: — i j j 111 ■r X . ^1 Dri<>eu3(X3tincls Hh«re.. £nC.TEJoSlof\J r /.....;, / T-.' ,f I « \ \ \ \ " LI ''A ^ l—ll!L ^~^'-/|\-CONSERVATION----------- r“l$“ — ^ EASEMENT li 4 -'-=^I? 1 *Li25S3- >•__L_ i-8T^^ ..la-— > ............x>r^:.:i> N\\ .---*:aa'i —...................... *.* y/ / .*'X> ' V^ -----------------^*/ # / I 9S7. I I '\ ' ' II ' *. \ I # I i •------------- /69W5a" w 36^.oa':jrrrS'— STREET oT Wv‘ •,.* yi:H li ; %mmMm 'i':- .\?r ;•■•■ mm'- ORONOCOPIf cnroFOMNo lii SITE PLAN — ORAOiNG PLAN 0 APPROVECKCliii^Cui^ lOnvMnviJ □ APPROVED WITH REV^I □ OISAPPBOI /) ^ •m~eo SCALE I ^ ■ T* i V » .M. 3a-l4l so SHUTS ^ ' aa.ua loo shuts aa.i44 aoo shuts ATT’ACtfA^EMT' B -M ©UILD ia ^^ Permit A^ruCA-TlOAO 3-3f—OO a^'z-3 ifc* DRivatuAV \2' cuss S SO/^FACE e.v.ev/^ioK ^zs,o*± iSLCVATlorsl SSO.O^ -I ::'S' ■: ■■’ native CLA'i PltL Section A-A SCAvjE. : • IWCH- CUU\;e»<T AH" f5.L.e.v/A-T»ONi to CdOf^DWAnED iOlTH CiT'^ ORomo . R€Cor^-M EK/I> 3o' LOiOe. G6.0-^oR tEK FAOJ^iC *a /U-L /3£. UiffEO. NATv'Ja. PlLl^ will 14,5BP « e/^aRS£MT Vi^oarrA^ioK RaMoUCO UA/DER DRIt>£u/A»/, M* lU ^IT II »• • • 43427J 9 1 FLOWAGE AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND WAIVER OF DAMAGES THIS INDENTURE* made :~.i entered Into this IOt^ day of November* 1977, by and between William S. Kelley, Jr., a single person, his successors and assigns (herein collectively referred to as the "Grantor") and the City of Oruiio, its successors and assigns, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (herein referred to as the "Grantee"). i*n*A I!*».,* • s* •. WITNESSETH, Grantor, for and in consideration of the sirni of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, hereby covenants, grants, gifts, quit claims and conveys to Grantee the right to restrict and Grantor agrees to limit and preclude the use, improvement and development, under the conditions and covenants herein contained of the following described Land In the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: r;. f ., o • ' •• v: . •• •- That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Bill Kelley's Land, described as beginning at a point on the east line of said Lot 3, 517 feet south of the northeast comer thereof; thence north 0 * 25 * 50" west to the northeast comer of said Lot; thence south 89" 01* west along the north line of said Lot, 298 feet; thence south 4* 14* east, 384 feet; thence south 64" 06* 01* east, 304.08 feet to the point of beginning. V- .*• Also that part of Lot 4, Block 1, Bill Kelley's Land, de scribed as beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 3, 77 feet east of the northwes. corner thereof; thence south 89* 46* 91" west to said northwest comer; thence south 0* 25' 50" east, along the west line of said Lot, 517 feet; thence south 83* 06' east, 44 feet; thence north 3* 13' 25" east, 523.41 feet to the point of beginning. t:!.: • :.. . . • .V * • • ; . .* Also that part of Lot 4, Block 1, Bill Kelley's Land, de scribed as beginning at a point on the east line of said Lot 4, 310 feet south of the northeast comer thereof; thence south 0* 25* 50" east along said east line, 182 feet; thence south 82* 04' 23" west, 274.01 feet; thence north 3* 13' 25" east, 116 feet; thence north 68* 28' 03" east, 283.27 feet to the point rf Leginning. as follows: 1. Grantor hereby covenants and agrees: '1 -f a * •..• •». « k rv * • A. No structums shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, above, or beneath the Land including without limitation, fer.ces, fireplaces, steps, docks, piers, hard-cover or roads of any nature whatsoever, or any other struc ture or improvement Inconsistent with the natural state of the Land. B. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be destroyed, cut or removed from the Land except as authorized by written consent of Grantee. * C. No earth, learn, peat, gravel, soil or any other natural material or substance shall be moved or removed from the Land and there shall be no dredging or excavation of any nature whatsoever or any change of the topo- graphy of the Land without tne written consent of Grantee. CE: 13 157? * • i • * ; • ! • ki*-' •• • rl V-. V* .»» y. in< ’i% • • t- *'.■ *» • L. • • • « '* 0. No soil, sand, gravel or other substance or material as landfill 'shall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Land and no waste, trash or garbage ^.'shall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Land. E. No use shall be made of the Land.except uses, if any, which will ,,not change or alter the natural condition of the Land, and no use which would •■ttend to change the drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control,' ; :soil conservation, fish and wildlife habitat characteristics shall be made of •^■{the Land or the water situated thereon. . . s' F. Crantee may enter upon the Land for the purpose of inspection and ^•'enforcement of the covenants contained herein and to cause to be removed from the Land without any liability any structures, uses, materials, substances, or unnatural matter inconsistent with the covenants contained herein and the natural State of the Land. 2. Grantor hereby grants, gifts, quit claims and conveys to Grantee, a perpetual flowage easement and right and privilege to trespass with water over and upon any or all of the Land. 3. Grantor herein does hereby remiss, release, acquit and forever discharge, forever, the Grantee and any and all of its officers and employees of and ■ 4 any and all. claims, demands or causes of action of any kind or nature tsoever which may arise or accrue by virtue of any flowage or tres pass with water within temis of these agreements. In addition to any other remedy the Grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor does not intend that the public should have any interest in the above land by virtue of this indenture or otherwise, except as hereinabove set forth. The Grantor herein certifies that the Land herein described is free and clear of all encuot>rances. All the provisions hereof shall run with the land and shall extend to and bind the heirs, successors, representatives, grantees or assigns of the respective parties hereto. )■ STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) «•COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of November, 1977, before me, a Notary Public with in and for said County ind State, personally appeared WILLIAM S. KELLEY, by me dulyto me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say ^at he has signed the foregoing instrument as his own free THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: BRUCE R. KELLEY 2815 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota S54hS Notary Pul ---------------—■ ) • ■' I MlMr »Mue • MM Vi .f4 • cou * . t C- • • e Mne 1^. • irt • L t*- TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Conunission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner June 15,2000 #2596 Brenshell Homes 1181 Wildhurst Trail Class III Preliminary Subdivision - 6 lots Public Hearing Zoning: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre Minimum lot size Application: Proposed subdivision of one acre parcel of land into 6 one acre lots. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Preliminary Plat Layout Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan Parkland and City Owned Property around Saga Hill Paric Area Sewer Mi^ Sewer Extension Map Property Owners Notification List Sketch Plan Staff Report (April 13,2000) Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B) • Lot Standards for LR-IB zoning district Section 11.03, Subdivision 24. "Lot Area, Minimum" • Each lot shall contain the minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chq>ter of the City Code. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribe in the Zoning Chiq>ter of the City Code or half-acre, vdiichever is less, (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below die ordinary high water mark of any suriface water wetlands or areas at or below the flood plain elevadon for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or flo^ plain area. •2596 Brenshell Homes 1181 Wildhurst Trail Class III Preliminary Subdivision Jam 19, 2000 pagt-t • f Application Review Brenshell Homes has submitted a preliminary plat application for a 6 lot subdivision of approximately 7 acres of land located at 1181 Wildhurst Trail. The lots would have access from Garden Lane, which is a platted but undeveloped street. Garden Lane would connect Tonkaview Lane to Outlot A. The road is proposed as a public road to the cul-de-sac. All lots would be connected to sewer and be served with private wells. Sewer is available in Wildhurst Trail and would need to be extended between Lots 2 and 3 to the new road. The 6 proposed lots would average approximately one acre in size. Lots 2 and 3, located at the end of the cul-de-sac, do not have the required lot width for new lots in the zoning district. They would require variances for lot width. Lot S would only have 56' of frontage along the proposed road. Technically, this would require a variance as the width of the lot is narrower adjacent to Outlot A than Garden Lane. Garden Lane will only be developed to the intersection with Outlot A. The proposed access from Tonkaview eliminates a number of problems with the proposal with the sketch plan review. The Garden Lane access will eliminate driveways to Wildhurst, thus protecting the trees along Wildhurst Trail (Lots 2 and 3) and controlling stormwater runoff on site. This application has requires the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Approval of a six lot preliminary plat Construction of a road within the Garden Lane platted right of way Construction of a continued road into Outlot A Acceptance of the road as a public road Lot Width Variances for lots 2,3 and S Sanitary Sewer extension to serve the six lots from Wildhurst Trail Construction of a stormwater management pond (NURP) Approval of a private driveway to serve Lot 6 thru Garden Lane Lot Standards Lot 1 is proposed at 1.03 acres, but does not account for land area dedicated for the NURP pond. The City does not credit buildable area for land that will used as a drainageway or for storage of stormwater. A variance would be required for lot area. Lots 2 and 3 require lot width variances because they are less than the 140* required width at the rear of the front yard setback. Lot 2 is slightly under the required setback. Lot 3 is t^proximately 100* in width at the setback. Both lots are through lots because they would have access to the new road and are adjacent to Wildhurst Trail. Mature stands of trees are located between the building sites on Lots 2 and 3 and Wildhurst. Soils types in the area make it difficult for vegetation to restore itself. The trees should be protected if the lots are developed. 12596 BrensKcll Homes IlSI Wildhurst Trail Class 111 Preliminary Subdivision Jum !9. 2000 paft-2 Lot 4 would be a conforming lot and does have a buildable area that would be suitable for residential construction. Lots would have would have approximately 90* of frontage along the front property line. Garden Lane is not proposed to be constructed north of the Outlot A connection. No direct access would be available from Garden Lane. Lot 6 contains a major ravine, shown on the preliminary drawings as a drainage easement. Section 10.SS, Subdivision 1S (A) (2), "For properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area.” According to the plan the driveway access would disturb the southern edge of the ravine. The City Engineer is reviewing the impacts of the driveway location on Lot 6. On-site grading and drainage plans must be submitted to the MCWD for review. MCWD permits will be required. Garden Lane adjacent to Lot 6 would not be developed. The land across Garden Lane is part of the Saga Hill Park. The ravine is a natural feature to the area and should be protected. Review Exhibit E half-section map indicating all land dedicated as part of the park and Garden Lane. Grading/Stormwatcr Managcmcnt/Road Detaib (City Engineer Comments) Gradiny/Stormwater Management The road and most of the lots will drain towards the NURP pond shown on Lot 1. The pond outlets to the drainage ravine along the south lot line of Lot 2. There is concern about the drainage being diverted into one location before it drains to the east side of Wildhurst Trail. It is recommended by the City Engineer that all drainage be diverted to the north from the pond and drain into the ravine located in proposed Lot 6 with some form of water retention downstream before it enters Lake Minnetonka. The stormwater calculations indicate the runoff from the site would not increase, post development However, the stormwater currently drains off the property in several locations. The grading plan indicates the drainage will now all be concentrated to the south ravine and out Lot 2. The subdivider should provide a map indicating the runoff pie and post development prior to Preliminary Plat approval. It does not appear access is possible to Lot 6 without impacting the ravine. The preliminary drawings show the drainage easement turning to the south to accommodate a driveway. This would require land alteration and filling of a portion of the ravine to provide access. 12596 Bfcnshcll Homes list Wildhurst Trail Class III Preliminary Subdivision Jmm 19, 2000 patf-S j j -• ■- W''.:* I <4 Road Alignment Although curve data has not been submitted to indicate the design speed of the intersection, it appears the road would not meet the standards for speed. It would be more appropriate to have a T intersection and cul-de>sac Garden Lane rather than have one continuous road ending in a cul-de-sac. Access to lots north of the Development The road is proposed to end at the intersection of Outlot A. There is one lot north of the development that is one acre in size that could be developed sometime in the future. The only access is via Garden Lane. A road ending at Outlot A will not allow ideal access for this property, but would be better than a private drive the entire length of Garden Lane to Tonkaview Lane. Easements/Covenants 1.Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated 5' in width along interior lot lines. 1 O' perimeter drainage and utility easements were dedicated for the entire property when the underlying Heathercroft Addition was recorded. 2. 3. 4. An easement and maintenance agreement shall be recorded for the NURP pond. Drainage easements shall protect all drainageways, including the ravine areas A preservation easement should be granted over the east portion of Lots 2 and 3 to protect the trees. The trees are located on the side and top of a hill. Saving the trees would protect the hillside from erosion and preserve the natural features as a buffer between the new lots and Wildhurst. 5.If Outlot A should be a private road, an easement for egress should be granted in favor of the City of Orono. Park Dedication The Planning Commission should discuss the issue of Padc Dedication. Section 11.62 of the Subdivision Ordinance states **The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the City Council based upon the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan." Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided. The property is located across an undeveloped road from the Saga Hill Pa^. This provides the City of Orono the opportunity to determine if a land dedication would be appropriate. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this subdivision could be reasonably a(hq>table for the public purpose of Saga Hill. The Code describes factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. <2596 Brenshell Homes MSI Wildhurst Trail CUu III Preliminaiy Subdivuion Jtmt 19. 2000 pagt-4 1 The Council has the option of a cash contribution in lieu of land dedication. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the subdivider, in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the foir maricet value of the equivalent undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicated. The City shall account for such ^ds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. These funds are to be used only for die acquisition, development and improvement of public paries, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open spaces, and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes. The cash contribution is 8% of the fair market value of the properties. A minimum contribution of $2,900 per lot or a maximum $4,900 per lot would be required if the City requires a cash contribution rather than a land dedication. This item will be forwarded to the Paric Commission for review at their next meeting. Given the location of the park area, it is possible the Park Commission will request a land dedication rather than collecting a park dedication fee. Land around the northerly ravine is most likely a candidate for dedication. Issues for Discussion 1.Should lot width variances be proved for lots not meeting the minimum width requirement on the cul-de-sac? 2.The pond on Lot 1 requires credit for the drainage area to be buildable. Should credit be granted for the lot. Typically, credit has only been given for stormwater ponding areas as part of a Planned Residential Development. 3.Should the Outlot be a public road? The Comprehensive Plan suggests urban residential and urban service areas should be served with public roads. 4.Is the proposed road layout acceptable? Should two roads be provided (Garden Lane/Outlot A) or would it be acceptable to combine into one road? Should Garden Lane be extended further to the north to provide future access to other properties? 5.Would a Park Dedication be appropriate for any portion of the development due to the proximity of the Saga Hill Paric? If so >^t areas may be appropriate for dedication? 6.The road and most of the lots will drain towards the NURP pond shown on Lot 1. The pond outlets to the drainage ravine along the south lot line of Lot 2. There is concern about the drainage being diverted into one location before it drains to the east side of Wildhurst Trail. •2396 Bfcnshcll Homes I III Wildhuist Trail Clan 111 Pnliffiiiiaiy Subdivision Jvm 19. 2000 pagt-S Planning Commbsion Options for Action: 1. 2. 3. Recommend cq)proval of the preliminary plat and forward to the Council, with conditions. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table, if road or any lots are to be redesigned or realigned. Would requite amending the grading and drainage plan. Additional engineering information as may be requested by the City Engineer. Direction given to the applicant listed under Issues for Discussion. 4. Other Action. •ISMOfCMhen Homes nil WUdhmtTnil Clan III Pitliminaiy Subdivision JimtIf.JMO ---- P7-H7-AZ B preliMwary plat PROPOSED SUBDIVISION POR BRENSHELL HOMES OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. HCATHCRCROFT HENNEPM COUNTY. MNNESOTA r s, ,I : I : \ I il\ : i V I \ • V&S ' l ■ ‘...................« V W*>*. c preliminary grading, drainage & UTILITY PLAN PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR BRENSHELL HOMES OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1, HEATHERCROFT HENNEPW COUNTY. MNNESOTA HU^-uJT SCALE IN FEET TOrOORAFHY TAKEN FROM ORONO OTY HAPS Fossatc HOUSE sne . \. ......------------------------------------------- \ \ •••.yl 1/ — *•••••••••••••• ; \*. •. : I • * ;: I ^ IJ • * • ; *...... ' • I-4 \\\ — ••••■ \, V---V..f' \ \ • J .* ------------.•--------- , iiH|i 11 >-------G A ‘ R DEN Hsi-W' \ ___/I___________............................................... ..... o ^ - • • • • jmm» •• ••^ < *- «r. i % 0 ■' r SANITARY SEWER F V, .1 I «•< •6 »*1.. 3 AJm Vin-:;-. • •• # , • • • • *¥•••••*• ••• ••!•!;:•. IL..I • ••• MM MTE MTCN Ml ouNn turn TMPAVn NMM/ABN OIMf R NAM TAXPA^ TANMVn NAM/AIM SA tr'llT-AS AS tm •••M ADWKSS IMASSXflNCD cm or oooNo cm or oMMo r O OON 44 CRYSTAL NN SBS2S .SO •7-117-2S 2S M22 •fiSO ARMtSS tMMSXONtO cm or ORONO cm or ORONO r 0 MM 40 CRYSTAL SAY HN USSS SO sr'iir-ss ss oiss OOTSt TONRAVXtN LA STtVfN r A JOAN VALEK STtVIN r A JOAN VALIK 472A TONRAVXIN U NOUM HN MS4A HENNCrXN COUNTY rROTCm XHTORHATION SYSTEN FROrtm OMNERS LXST SA A7-117-2S 2S AA2A •AASA ADDRESS UNASSX6NED cm or ORONO CXTY or ORONO r 0 BON 44 CRYSTAL SAY HN MS2S SA A7*117*2S 2S AA25 tllAI NXLDHURST TR ARNOLD N SOSKXN. ARNOLD N SOSKXN OtS EDOENOOR DR HOTKXNS HN USAS SA A7>117-2S 24 AAA7 AI1A4 NXLDHURST TR D D RASNUSSEN/S J RASHUSSEN DRXAN D A SANDRA J RASHUSSEN 1104 NXLDHURST TR HOUND HN ISS44 RETORT NO. PX4SB4A1 TAOE 1 SO A7-117-2S 2S AA21 AAASA ADDRESS UNASSXSNED CXTY or CXTY or T 0 DON 44 CRYSTAL DAY HN SSS2S SA A7-U7-2S 2S AA29 AAASA ADDRESS TENDXNO NENMTXN rORTEXTED LAW CXTY or ORONO 27BA KELLEY PKNY r 0 DOR 44 CRYSTAL DAY HN USAS SO A7-117*2S' 24 AA2S A447S rOREST LAKE LANDXNO RAY D HURLEY RAY DONALD HURLEY 447S rOREST LAKE LANDXNO HOUND HN SSS44 4 r ,-r ^4' -J >. « . ■ ^ ~ -' -f' TROT ADDA ONNRR NM TANTAYRR TANTAYIR TANTAYRR M A7-117-2S 24 AA24 A447S rORSST LAKE LANDXNO RAY D NURLIY RAY D NURLIY 4471 rORRST LAKE LANDXNO SSS44 SO A7*117-2S 24 AAS4 MASS ADDRESS UNASSXONID cm or SS A7>117-2S 24 AA27 A1144 NXLDHURST TR LYLE E RANN ETAL LYLE E RANN 1144 NXLDHURST TRAXL HOUND HN SSS44 SA A7-117-2S 24 AASS AAASO ADDRESS UNASSX6HED pm or CRYSTAL DAY HN f 1S2S BO A7-117>2S 24 AAS7 A44DB rORlST LARS LANDXNO cm or ORONO T 0 DON 44 CRYSTAL DAY HN BSS2S SANTORD A NAROARfT ERXKSON 44M rORSST LARS LANDXNO m IBS44 SO A7-117«2S 24 AASA A444S rORSST LAKE LANDXNO JON D BIACRSTOM ET AL JON D DLACRSTOM 444S rORSST LAKS LANDXNO HOUND HN SBS44 SS A7*117-2S 24 AA29 AlASS NXLDHURST TR N A SCNULTX ETAL HARVSY A SCHULTZ IMf NXLDHURST TR HOUND HN SSS44 SO A7-117-2S 24 AASA AAASO ADDRESS UNASSXCNED RAD NENMSSY RXCNARD L NENNSSSY 7S2A SLOONXNDTON AVE S RXCNTXELD Ml SB42S SO A7-117-2D 24 AA4S AllSl NXLDNURST TR J A C CULLXTON JOHN H A CXNDY L CULUTON llSl NXLDHURST TR NN US44 •*/ ■UN MTI tSAr/tt iATCN m OHM* mm TAXTAVIK NAIC/AOM ONNn NAM TAXTAVtA MIC/ABM |l. MMMI NANi TAMfAVIt TARPAVni TARPAVm TAMTAVm HtlMIPZN CINMTV PROPtRTY INFORNATIUN SYSTIN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PMSMtl PAOE 2 SO t7*lI7-2S 20 EM4 •1IS4 NXLDMIRST TR NICNARL S NEAR t RRIT S NtCNaL S NEAR USA NILONURST TR NOUNO MN USM NEAR SO ST'llT-SS SI OSIS tl27« NILONURST TR J S R STASIK JANES STASIK 1270 NXLOHURST TRAIL NOUNO NN SSSOO SO 07-117-2S SI 0020 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSXONED TODD C RIRKELANO SURJ/LE ROOERT t NARn RIRKELANO 1290 NXLOHURST TR NOUNO NN SSSOO SO 07>117*2S SI OOSO 01210 NILONURST TR OARY N NELSN ETAL OARY N NELSN 1210 NILONURST TRL NOUNO NN SSSOO SO 07-117-2S SI 00S7 01200 NILONURST TR SANDRA J NXLENNORST ET AL SANDRA J HOLLENHORST t RXCNAEL J NOLLENNORST 1200 NILONURST TR HOUND NN SSSOO SO 07-117-2S SI OOSO 01201 NILONURST TR SCOTT NXCHAEL NENNESSY SCOTT N NENNEttY 1201 NILONURST TR HOUND NN SSSOO SO 07-117*2S SI OMO 01297 NILONURST TR ORAN T lUNOOLAO ET AC ORAN T LUNOOLAO 0 SHERRI J tTSLON*LUM»LAO 1297 NILONURST TR SSSOO so 07-117«2S SS 0027 OOOSS TONKAVXEN LA N SOON ANN OOON NENK SOON 0 NARK N OOON OOSS TONKAVXEN U HOUND NN SSSOO SO 07-117-2S S2 O020 OOOSS TONKAVXEN U DENNIS A NEVER OORIXS.A NEVER 0000 NORTH SNORE OR HOUND NN SSSOO SO 07-117*SS tt 0029 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSXONED OmOS A NEVER ■ENNIS A NEVRR HOUND NN SSSOO 07>117-2S S2 OOOS TONKAVXEN LA KENNETH J NXCKEV KENNETH J NXCKEV 0000 TONKAVXEN U HOUND NN SSSOO SO 07*117<SS S2 OOOS OOOSO AOORESS UNASSXOND J 0 OOLEXAL OJA ROSTAO J 0 OOLEXAL t J A ROSTAO SOOO OARTLETT OLVD HOUND NN SSSOO SO 07-117*2S S2 0000 OOOSO TONKAVIEN U JEPPREV 0 NOROSTRON* ET AL JEFFRIY 0 0 LISA K NOROSTRON OOSO TONKAVXEN LA MSOO SO 07-117-2S S2 0007 00090 TONKAVXEN LA NOS MILL NXLLIAN A DULL 0090 TOMCAVXEN U HOUND NN SSSOO ’ SO 07-117-2S S2 OOOS 00020 TONKAVXEN U TOOO R COURNEYA 0020 TONKAVXEN U ORONO NN SSSOO 'i •V TOTAL OATCN SOI OOOSS ..J >1* 0 H r 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 Lbt of Exhibits: A B C E F G ^plication PlatMiq) Zoning Map TopoMq) Proposed Plat Previous Plan (Zoning Application #2239) Application Snmmary: Brenshell Homes has filed a sketch plan for a four lot subdivision of a 6.87 aci^ 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 variances 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 incorporates the 6.86 acre Soskin property east of Garden Lane. Access to the subdivision is proposed via direct access for Lo*s 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 shown, although this does not account for any stormwater or other easements which might be needed. Variances would be N2S76 Brenshell Homes MSI WUdhuntTrail Sketch nan Review of a 4 lot subdivision Apran.2000 page-1 1 i Lb.,.lASrirt.aai nra r' 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. 2. Drainage/Grading Plan. There are two major drainageways within the property. There is a major ravine that intersects the north end of the property, in the propos^ Natural Area and (Please refer to the Site Plan attached as Exhibit C). The City will require a drainage easement over this ravine. A mtyor 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,privatedriveway 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 Tonkaview. 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 will 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 conuvvl, building pad locations and elevation and temporary erosion control during construction. 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. lliere are concerns with additional driveways being located on the road vdien alternative access is available through Garden Lane. Locating the driveways directly onto Wildhurst Trail would not allow stormwater to be treated. The City of Orono will require stormwater ponding that can be treated with 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 W2S76 Brensbcll Homes III! WildhufstTrail Sketch Plan Review of a 4 lot subdivision AprlU7,200Q page-2 to a second road ending in a cul-de-sac. Exhibit G. 3.Designated Wetlands. There are no designated City or NWI-nuq>ped 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. The developer will bear the cost of sewer installation in addition to a per unit sewer 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 S' 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, drainageways and storm sewers. 6.Park Impacts . This proposal may not be necessary to providing access to the Saga Hill park. Access and a paricing area have been located off Toiikaview. 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 M^iat land is to be dedicated. Land in the area of the northerly ravine is the most likely candidate for dedication. Summary of Issum for Discussion 1. Planning Commission should 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. 5. nS76 Bremhell Homes III! WikthufSlTrail Sketch Plan Review of a 4 lot subdivision ApriU7,2000 pott-3 i a J CITY OF ORONO 9 6122494616 03/20/00 17:46 0:11/18 N0:792 AppUcalioal A D«te Rtcttwd f/t! itP»MII • > I CITY or ORONO • SUBDIVISION APPUCATION SK«+cU Ple\v\ PROPERTY LOCATION SteiddifcM llg/k/»ldkurA4‘ hop^MeirtificitionNumbcf(PIP) 07»in*OOig ncytdmkoBe^Pioptfty____akitnctor ____torrent?{ APPUCANT A 4 A iftnsUII ik a»_A Jkmts Phone (honiel WWW 2togft¥PhoBe(woik> OWNER (if ilUfoent thin mlicut) Ntnio Ar¥%6im Additn___ Chy.____ (tflMhUitifi rtthinooe) Zip Phone (homo) . Phone (woifc) EiaSItNG LAND USE Number of Tilt Perceb Development Siie I ?mm use (check) Preienl Zoning District PROPO^ Acres Diy Lend ^les Wet Land ilyinpemeb Restdinlisl; no. ofjmiti VAeiOther (qiccUy) Number of Building Sites Division for Tex Purposes Lot Line ResnengcmehC Only (no new building sites) SMvIsion for New Building Sites O Exiitinf Units __ ¥ New Units ~ H Total Units PiopoMd Orots Density Minimum Lot Si» Pkopoeed Use (check) ___Units per 7 Acres X Sq. Ft Dry BuUdable L Residential Other fsoecifv) (n> Carden Lane ‘•m H • ' A * ^». . ^ >Q) \j» 5 ? ^ca o*S r%vli^ -m 3 (/) 1^' W ? Sifi8i ^ / / I i ~ f* 3 / 7 7• • • / . / b K» '€0 U)r-r / / Cl Oi Ais» I Si' dtai • - • V-I- ir u ■\ ' '' ■ ^ 1 / i <VL«L^ m 1 scHOca * MAOSON. mcAmfoa mi«x • viMcn lOMt ««?>u 1 1 (•i2) fM SM-tOtS ^ ^ OlW€«/OCVfLOPC« LQA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. _________APRH 1997V LOT AREAS ABEAjAE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M.000 4M00 43,100 53.000 48.000 AVERAGE 84.000 pnoiccT MiiC/SMcn nac \ GARDEN LANE SITE OnONO. MN V CONCEPT SKETCH A i4i>alfr^fci ■ thua'iiiill I [> 7 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner June 12,2000 #2579 James and Candace Kemna 1110 Willow Drive South Variances Zoning: RR>1B, One Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre Minimum lot size List of Exhibits: A B C D Revised Site Plan Elevation Views Topographic Miy) Staff Report (May 10,2000) Rcvietv of Application: The Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 15,2000 and tabled the application for variances to permit an addition to front of house and outdoor porch that would encroach further into the 50* front yard setback and into the 30' side yard setback a variance to permit an addition to the detached garage that encroaches into the 1 S' side yard setback required for accessory structures of 7SO-IOOO s.f. based on the following comments: 1.The Municipal Code has a provision that states lots in any **R” district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards or buildings within 150' of the lot and within the same block the required front yard shall not be less the average depth of existing front yards. Technically, the building would need a variance to encroach closer to the street than the adjacent buildings. The intent is to create a consistent appearance to the neighborhood, and would not allow one house to block the view of the street from another. 2.The existing residence is 41' from the front property line where 50' is required for lots in the RR-IB zoning district. Approval of variances would enhance a non-conforming building. The proposed 27' front setback (23* if covered porch is included) is less than Orono's Vi acre zone front setback standard of 30 and 1 acre f^nt setback of 35'. #2579 James and Candace Kemna 11 10 Willow Drive South Variances June 79. 2000 pat^l Revised Plan: The applicants have proposed to construct a smaller addition to the front of the house. The first proposal was for a 23' addition (including the porch). The revised plan has reduced the size of the addition to 8* plus a S' porch. The front setback would be reduced to approximately 29'. A second variance was requested to add 10' onto the back of the detached garage. The applicants have removed the garage addition from the plans. The following variances are being requested: 1. 2. Section 10 Subdivision 5(B) To permit a front yard setback of 29' where 41.1* exists and SO' is required, and also to permit the addition within the 30' side yard setback. The existing house is 8.2' from the west lot line. No encroachment closer than 8' is proposed, however the structure will be expanded within the required side setback on both sides of the house. Section 10.75, Subdivision 4 (C) In any “R” District, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within ISO feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed fifty feet. « 1 • I 92579 James and Candace Kemna 1110 Willow Drive South Variances June 19. 2000 poie-2 i CITY OF ORONO P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 PHONE:(952)249-4600 FAX:(952)249-4616 ZONING FILE #2579 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; May 17,2000 TO:James and Candace Kemna 1110 WUlow Drive South Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION;_Variance __Conditional Use Pennit __Subdivision Other DATE OF MEETING: May 15,2000 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted Approval subject to conditions noted below Denial for reasons noted below _Tabled for reasons noted below __No action required NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The Planning Commission voted to table Application #2579 to permit an opportunity to revise the proposed addition to not impact the front yard setback. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the meeting is May 31,2000 to remain on the agenda for the Monday, June 19,2000 Planning Commission meeting. If you have trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (249-4600). 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. j mm i ' kiP Orono City Counci/Planning Commission: Here is our revised request for variance apivoval: We are requesting an 8* frontal addition and a 41/2* side variance at front comer of house. This would be 8’ from the main front wall of the house, only 4* further than the current existing front door. The eight feet would not bring it out any further than the to| landing of die front stqis. Listed below are reasons why we need this frontal addition. *This is the most efficient way to remodel our home to accommodate our needs. Our current dining area is a 5’ square booth, which we are outgrowing as a family. Our living room area is also very small. * We can not add on to the back of the house for the following reasons: 1. The whole layout of the house would have to be changed, which would double the expense. 2. The well is right outside the back side of the house where the rode is. 3. The garage/driveway is angled so that we could not go straight back. The back comer of the house aligns with approx, the middle of our current garage ^Additional reasons: 1. Our daughter is visually impaired. The Orono sdiod district provides an excdlent qiecial education dqxutment. We will not rdocate her to another district. We are including (rictures which show each of these areas. In the first side view of our front door, you can see that our nei^bors front doorfroof already stidcs out further than our front door. Thank you for your consideration of these variances. CanDee & Jim Kemna 1110 Willow Drive So. Wayzau (Orono), MN SS391 i 4 idaaii 4 Z. OT Si s P. •*^88 s oBWES—J- »u- 0 4 I* w i’ tl li*^ >•. {■ '. h V..: '•-* '. \ 'Ltv CSl: i •’ • I ! •/t ••..J CiO G» R€tv\o>;€cl *9r6vv\ _S 1DE E L E VAT ION ip'**"* - -ttiL 955.6 c 100 Sc 0 Con NW1 / Til HENNE Or 0 n 0 Oo (* •^ ^ m ) Hi aerial OccO C* • ® m L, ’ hHi [. r li^ fi', 5:D TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner May 10,2000 #2579 James and Candace Kemna 1110 Willow Drive South Variances Zoning: RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre Minimum lot size Application: 1) Variances to permit an addition to front of house and outdoor porch that would encroach further into the SO* front yard setback and into the 30' side yard setback 2) variance to permit an addition to the detached garage that encroaches into the 1 S' side yard setback required for accessory structures of 750-1000 s.f. List of Eihibits: A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Neighborhood Layout and Site Topography Survey/Site Plan Site Photos Side Elevation View Front Elevation View Hardship Statement Property Owners Notification Form Application Summary: Property owners have requested variances to permit an addition to the front of the existing residence which already encroaches the front and side yard setbacks. An additional variance is requested to permit an addition to a detached garage. The addition to the garage would create a building larger than 750 s.f requiring a minimum 15' side yard setback. A variance would permit the garage to encroach into the setback._______________________ #2579 James aid CandMc Kemna I no Willow Drive South Variances Stcv 15.2000 pagi-l I. \y - — ^ 1 t0 ANALYSIS Pertioeiit Code Sections: 1.Section 10.28, Subdivision 5(B) To permit a front yard setback of 23’ where 41.1' exists and 50' is required, and also to permit the addition within the 30' side yard setback. The existing house is 8.2' from the west lot line. No encroachment closer than 8' is proposed, however the structure will be expanded within the required side setback on both sides of the house. 2.Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (E) Minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure: Proposed side yard setback: Existing: 15* T 8.5' The existing building is 24' X 24' (576 s.f.). Code requires only a 10' setback for detached garages under 750 s.f. A 24' X 10' addition would expand the building to 816 s.f. thus requiring a 15' setback. Accessory buildings greater than 750 s.f. require a 15' side yard setback. • 3.Section 10.75, Subdivision 4 (C) In any “R” District, where the average depth of at least two existing firont yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block firont is less or greater than the minimum fix)nt yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average d^th of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a firont yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed fifty feet. 1 J Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 21,247 s.f.Allowed: 3,187 s.f. Existing: 1,536 s.f. (7.2%) Proposed:2,166 s.f. (10.2%) #2S79 James and Candace Ketnna i 110 Willow Drive South Variances Mfxy 15.2000 pttgt-2 4 r Hardcover Calculations : Distance from shoreline 250-500’ 500-1 Total area in setback 14,247 s.f. 7,000 s.f. Allowed hardcover 4,274.1 s.f (30%) 2,450 s.f (35%) Existing hardcover 3,209.5s.f (22.5%) 0 s.f (0%) Proposed hardcover 3,839.5 s.f (26.9%) 0 s.f (0%) Surrounding Properties: Please refer to Exhibit C which shows the location and setback for surrounding properties. The right of way line is where the front yard setback is measured from. Homes have been constructed all setback at an average distance of 40-45* from the property line. A line is drawn on Exhibit C to indicate the average distance from Willow Drive South for each home on the east side of the road. The Zoning Code has a provision that states lots in any district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards or buildings within 150* of the lot and within the same block the required front yard shall not be less the average depth of existing front yards. Technically, the building would need a variance to encroach closer to the street than those on adjacent properties. I • It is believed the intent of 10.75, Subdivision 4 (C) is to create a consistent appearance to the neighboriiood, and would not allow one house to block the view of the street from another. The proposed two story structure would encroach 18* beyond the average distance of adjacent buildings. Garage Location: A second variance is requested to permit an addition to a detached garage. The addition to the garage would create a building larger than 750 s.f requiring a minimum 15' side yard setback. Based on the size of the existing garage the building is only encroaching into the setback by 1.5'. The intent of the ordinance to require a greater setback of 15' fbr larger buildings, is to limit massing close to property lines. Statement of Hardship: The applicants have submitted their Statement of I^Iardship attached at Exhibit O. *2579 James and Candace Kemnr I no Willow Drive South Variances May IS. 2000 patt-3 J J Primary Issues for Discussiou: 1.The typical setback for the neighborhood has been established as 40-45' from the lot line. Should a variance be approved to permit additional encroachment into the setback? 2. The garage is nearly in conformance, 8.5' off the property line, as a 24' X 24' building, however an additional 240 s.f. would require the building to encroach further toward the property line, to a setback of about 7' where IS' would now be required. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of variances to permit additional structure ahead of the existing setback due to the following: The Municipal Code has a provision that states lots in any district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards or buildings within 150' of the lot and within the same block the required front yard shall not be less the average depth of existing front yards. Technically, the building would need a variance to encroach closer to the street than the adjacent buildings. The intent is to create a consistent appearance to the neighborhood, and would not allow one house to block the view of the street from another. • The existing residence is 41* from the front property line where 50' is required for lots in the RR-IB zoning district. Approval of variances would enhance a non-conforming building. The proposed 27* front set^ck (23* if covered porch is included) is less than Orono's 'A acre zone front setback standard of 30 and 1 acre fimnt setback of 35'.) • —9 sVvxrviJL<$l Planning Commission Options for Action: 1.Approval of variances based on the Statement of Hardship. 2. Denial of variances, stating reasons. 0^ Table, requesting further information and provide direction to the applicant. 4. Other Action. • ■ #2579 Jones atd Coidace Kemna 1110 Willow Drive South Variances May IS. 2000 pagi-4 1 i i I 1 A Application U S7? Date Received •^InUo 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) Amount Paid ^ 2,S‘C PROPERTY INFORMATION V. r-r-TLO t Site Address \wCN Un\\f\u) 1)0. y xX\0 Sb'_______ Property Identification Num^r (P.I.D.> ZW QOU______________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ^_____________^(month/year) I (do)also own th^ adjacent parcels of land. Present'uaToF property Zoning District: R P?I me { residential other (specify). APPLICANT Phone Oiomel 70S3 Ktf.W\A(^ ^C(Xr\diCLC<L K^r\AC?hotie (work) i i»»rk 1 Citv: VAJouiTrctti . lYVK- ZioT^Si^ 1 OWNER (if different .than applicant) lAft l;7^ rru<: > LUvWOtv^ t>r. Sa Ifif. Name K£i Address: V) Phone (home). Zip: <>i DESCRIPTION OF REQUE^ Describe request in detail: . Estimatedated Construction Cost $i i O s;'-! (attach additional sheets if necessary)3 i VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Setback: y Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverag^' ^ Average Lakeshore r- Other (specify) HARDSfflP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or un compliance with Zoning Code requirements: . property conditions preventing _____________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) nflm 3 s 3 3 >x ® 140 |j '•3 ”) ®/\4 y vt^ » jH/5^\ 1*40 *: «2;2Jg; i« ii:^2'^* S r* 14TI I ' / V^V 17 & il40i. 5 ft le 140 S * /^ 15 ///^ U).oLiriv l)ri'. S . IZ^-^‘i/Uyy)£^~ !i> *>. ’•n.^ . Ar I '—J y 955.6 c too Sc 0 Cont NWl/ Til HENNE Or 0 n 0 0«t< of P I %«T<fV h HL aerial I» i«p *4 c••»• 0 (o(Z 4 Lot Sit-eJ x\,z*n s f. •*^88 ac'T€ S c£ A v>\N VuUO^ nv E I of Z mm ♦‘vT V^S.« V £ ■ 2 of Z \ • \. /«y^'-A.yr' -if -J .«e.'.«V. .o.3P«KaiBBas ^V«»-k»» *^«t* -*• iT '•_i ■■ dcasy C«4UkOcZ3^ fi^SEkZZ*« •j^. - >-. gm^i » I »r’ r^*»—,f r> k:c rsOBr^zirs MraeusM^ * *. V.yi . jZ ■7c: \.t^0 ^^H>v '•W'4.i ’ • ■: '5 i.i\- V' l ''i■.'vV,\ ^\, M ‘,\ ; CITY OF I ORONO ‘NOTICE -IC 5 * I 51 j I ? r •2i“ t:s rf:-N- u \ ” ‘ ij '*•'» tf l;*^ j\ <rr> (■"■' t / • •* cif^..•- u• •.! s C*;) CD (S U to <9 (S CO • • GJ fO .SIDE ELEVATION •Nl CD cn OJ 00 O z 3 00 Kl •O RONT ELEVATION <S (9 K) (9 0} ►-*a•• Ui ISJ <9 UI Ui QD £b !S o z 8Hi 1 IS L_ Kemna Living Trust Trustee’s: James Jay Kemna and Candace Ann Kemna 1110 WUlow Drive So. Wayzata,MN 55391 952-473-7053 April 12,2000 City of Orono Long Lake, MN S53S6 We are proposing to add an 18’ addition to the entire front of our house, including basement. This addition would give us a dining area, which we currently do not have. Our two children are growing fast and all we have is a five foot square node for all of our dining needs. Our variance is necessary because our neighbmhood and our property are z(Hied for two acre minimum sized lots, but our lot is less than 3/4 of an acre. Our second proposal is to extend our existing garage tO’ toward the back yard to protect and enclose all of our accessories. Eg: boats, lawn mowers, bikes, etc. This would riiminate building an additional storage building on the property, which would divide up our current large yard area we enjoy using. 'iJ \ *■**“- '..............'■ •- ~ H 4'.. i MM BATE HEtiiEfXN COUNTY PHOPCETY XHTORIUTION SVSTEN PROfErrV OMNEKS LIST REPORT NO. PX4SM01 PAOE 1 BATCH BOX OWNER NAME TAMPAVER NANE/AOOR SO 10-U7-ES M RIOS OlORB BROWN RO S S P VANDEVEIRE ET AL STEVEN D VAN BE VEXRE 1MB S BROWN RB NAVZATA NN BBSn SO 10-117>2S M OOOS tltiS BROWN RD S ROBERT BERRETT ROBERT E BERRETT loss BROWN RO S WAYZATA NN BSSRl SO lt-117-2S 20 ROM RllRB BROWN RD S JERRY L CHRISTENSON JERRY CHRISTENSON IIRB BROWN RO S WAYZATA NN BSSRl OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ABOR SO 1R-117-2S 20 RRRB RllU BROWN RB S SUZAWNi KATHLEEN LEJA tUIllON KATHLEEN LEJA lllB BROWN RO S WAYZATA NN BSSRl SO 1R-117-2S 20 RRll RIIIR WILLOW DR S C A SUESS 0 J J KENNA TRSTES JANES KEHNA/CANDCE ANN SUESS lllR WILLOW DR S WAYZATA NN S5SRI SO 1R-117-2S 20 RRIO RIRRR WILLOW OR S OLORXA K ROOKR OLORXA K ROOER (• 0 BOX 172 CRYSTAL BAY NN BSS2S TAXPAYER NAME/ABOR SO 10-117-2S 20 0017 OlllB WILLOW BR S TORO N OABRXELSON ET AL TOBO N 0 SUE E OABRXELSON Ills WILLOW BR S WAYZATA NN BSSRl SO 10-117-2S 20 OOlO Olios WILLOW OR S BETTE PERL BETTE PERL IlOB WILLOW DR S WAYZATA NN S53R1 SO 10-117-2S 20 0032 01120 WILLOW DR S JUDXTN A ORAUNKE JUDITH A ORAUNKE 1120 WILLOW DR S WAYZATA NN BSSRl SO 10>117-2S 20 OOSS OllSO WILLOW DR S SOD NCNILLXANS SNIRLSY S DORCAS NCWILLXAHS IISO WILLOW DR S CRYSTU BAY NN S5S2S SO 10-117-2S 20 OOSO 02120 CARRXAOE LA PILLAR NONES INC PILLAR NONES INC 2120 CARRXAOE LA WAYZATA NN SSSRl '‘.k i' '< TOTAL BATCH SOI 00011 •5 X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF XNFORNATXON AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION# TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHLEOCE AND BELIEF. DATE CJ) ^ \ s TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner June 19,2000 SUBJECT:#2584 Andrew and Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance/CUP *- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB 30,063 s.f. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) (.69 acre) List of Exhibits A Revised Analysis Worksheet Revised Site Plan/ Survey Revised Hardcover Calculations City Engineer’s Letter of May 23,2000 Draft Minutes Planning Commission May 15,2000 Notice of PC Action - May 16,2000 Photo of Property Location Map May Planning Co»^ mission Report B C D E F G H I Application Summary: This application was tabled at the May IS, 2000 Planning Commission meeting so the applicants could revise their proposed plan regarding lakeside retaining walls. The applicants were seeking a conditional use permit to replace two existing retaining walls and construct two additional retaining walls within the 0-75' setback. Retaining walls are considered hardcover, therefore a variance is also needed for hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. On May 19,2000, the applicants, applicants contractor. City Engineer and City staff met on site to discuss how to stabilize the existing walls and steps with minimal impact to the property. At this meeting, the City Engineer reiterated his initial observations concerning the proposed new retaining walls. The walls would require substantial grading and he recommended no new retaining walls be constructed. An additional solution discussed was to replace the existing walls in their current location and current dimensions. (See City Engineer Letter- Exhibit D). Brief Summary of Proposed Changes: • Replace the two existing retaining walls and extending the wall that is currently located behind the tree. Eliminating the t^\’o proposed retaining walls by the lakeshore. • The new retaining walls will be in the same location and approximately the same size as the existing walls. (The new walls will be constructed of Keystone, different from what currently exists). Also a slight design change locating the steps in the middle of the walls instead of at the west end reduces the amount of hardcover in the 0-75* setback area. The existing steps and walkway will be removed and replaced with sod. ft2584 Andrew/Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance/CUP 6/19/2000 Page I 1 r The project as proposed requires the following City approvals: 1.Variance for land alterations within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, 10.56, Subd. 16[J]). 2. Hardcover within 75' of the shoreline (10.22, Subd. 2; 10.55, Subd. 8, Subd. 16[L]). 3. Conditional use permit for land alteration (10.03, Subd. 21,10.56, Subd. 16 [5]). Engineering Review; The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering standpoint and recommends that replacing the existing walls is an acceptable solution provided they are the same dimension and in the same location as what currently exists. (City Engineer Letter - Exhibit D). Statement of Hardahint The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B of the May 15 staff memo. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration ! 1. Will granting of the variances and conditional use permit alter the essential character of the land? 2. Is lengthening the retaining wall behind the tree necessary to halt erosion or prevent tree damage? Applicant’s designer should be asked to define why these new wall sections are needed. 3. Other issues raided by the Planning Commission. Staff Discussion ; There are two retaining walls currently on the property. The higher (closer to residence) wall is approximately 61 V2 in length and 2' in height. The lower wall is approximately 61 Vz in length and 4' in height. The new retaining walls should meet the existing dimensions. Vegetation should be planted to limit the visible impact from the lakeshore and control possible erosion. The lengthening of the retaining wall behind the tree is inconsistent with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Perhaps the wall can be shortened on both ends and still be able to accomplish its purpose. U2584 Andrew/Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance/CUP 6/19/2000 Page 2 rf Staff Recommendation; The applicants worked with City staff to design a plan that meets City code. The current plan is acceptable to staff and staff recommends approval of variances and conditional use permit for replacement of the two existing retaining walls in the 0-75' setback area and replacement of the wall behind the tree. Staff recommends denial of lengthening the retaining wall behind the tree. The walls shall be of the same dimension and location as what presently exists. Staff also recommends vegetation be planted for screening. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances and conditional use peimit for replacement of existing walls and denial of extending the retaining wall behind the tree. 2. Recommend denial of variances and conditional use permit for replacement of existing walls and extending the retaining wall behind the tree. 3. Table foi further review or further specific information. 4. Other. id 1^2584 Andrtw/Tracy Rascher 4705 North Short Drivt Varianct/CUP 6/19/2000 Page 3 ■ •’' 1/ v-^ ¥.1 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IA Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 30,063 s.f. (.69 acre) Hardcover Calculations : Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover • Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'15,750 s.f. 0 s.f. (0%) 859 s.f (5.45%) 806 s.f (5.12%) 75-250'15,517 s.f. 3,879.25 (25%) 4,081 s.f (26%) 4,081 s.f (26%) NO CHANGE i /w ;tuW'^/ S ^ < ' '■'X' 'i'X'Vv'^l'V - --\\\\\\V\ - • •• // K'^\\\S^ "— *-----------A<__.^____( f n W^\'\V'“’ - - ' Uq %%■!' \/ X N'^VV ^ \\"^v\\^.\ y v\\\ ^Qo -o \\\'v\ N\s r N N \N \s\ N .nv Z*^ ‘ w w ^ w%^^0n X S X J '^N \ ^ N____/V fcalc: r = 20' ^\N S%v_r_ N-. X X X X V X X X UOALL gXT5MS/0WS ^\jiZ'zrtot^^^ ^TA\rr V ize\Ji^(^b> feofoL^M- ©il^TDFDO^Ti @F U88-I-00 lor txb+i»^ JEREMY BANKEN 79 un Cllfl •.•At' RXS»!.Jaif ort<Mi ' n.n% Glcol* I* - ^ ^7'?t/JA llS 4705 Norm Shore Drive uxf^noN ui I. mtdt I. tMlSlANA co.c HcMNipiM MwwicMia P»*l >WM IMM • OlXl— I Mr*ir c«r«#y »«« IM« ftm, m p*ap«r«# ky •«« My #v«cl «i4 »•( I «M • Siir««|M ««•» »• •* iM Ms MM BRANDT ENdNCBRIliQ A BURVEVINQ li'‘00 West Mirrl SIrrel. 'S*iilc 20h -t > I Iu • » U Li U O u l:>s:;:y U 'w'U U \J L_» U for JEREMY BANKEN /v9 l_gl «acA » Clip ►•Ht* *V ;'r -rsrsai..5i« 5-s.ta:.j£;^ TfW^ ' n.n% Sfcoir r • 20* feoPosAft- 4705 North Shore Drive ocmeiiQM ui I. rnmk t. I Mviif Mflijr M Mi lipM •■• ptipiwi m m§m m§ ■ <M MW «ii iMIlMKMIf tifi** Smw ««iMr tM Um 90 wm BRAMT BIIMIRilQ A BtIRV 1600 West 14>d Street. SuiU Bumeville. MN 5S306 (612) 43S-1966 aross wion5 / <l63 5' iQ.^^ b» *«•••> r*«« •V . • ' ' ‘«^c 1 >•: ^4; •'<” •*•1I pi I .V''* •••. ^•771 ^.‘»V f-pIVK liSI:::- . * .\ ...'J Q> ;<lec €/J^3/C0 hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONl: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HAtticovrn n| —3i«____ XA. House Length 75-250* ^s7. I04A 250-500'SOO-1000' Widch igrb X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk __X X E. Patio/Deck _ 3ic X X F. Landscape __ Underlain By Plastic __ X X X O. Other TO' *AL HARDCOVER fN ZONE TCr ^AI^OPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B \snsi\ PROPOSED HAitn^ovER IN A House____ Length 1C> Width B. Gan^e X C. Driveway X X O. Sidewalk X X E. Puio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G.■2SSw TOT J. HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT .L PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE —"hjlSQ_____ * B /S‘7SO X 100 Aoj\ l^\ 1^0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ST. S.F. A iS 7^0 S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. SE. S.F. S.F. i.^7S O S.F. A B 0 ■f L 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& |\ \ Associates Engineers & Architects May 23.2000 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik end Assocteces. Inc. it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Mvirvm L Sorvala. PE • Gie'“n 7 Cock. PE • Rooert G. Schument. PE. • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE D Senior Consultants: Robert W Rosene. PE • Joseph C. Andcriik. PE • Ricnaro E. Turner, P£ • Susan M. Eberlm. C PA. Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford. PE. • Keith A. Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W. Foster. PE. • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C. Russek. AI A. • .Var< A Hanson. PE • Michael T. Rautmann. PE. • Ted K Field. PE. • Kenneth P Anderson. PE. • Mark R. Rolfs. Pc. • David A Bonestroo. MBA* Sidney P Williamson. PE. L S • Agnes M Ring. .MBA • Allan Rick Sc**midt. PE Offices: St. Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester and WiUmar. MM • Milwaukee. Wl \Mrbslte: www bonestroo com Wendy Bottenberg Assistant Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Rascher Retaining Wall File No. 139-98-000 Dear Wendy: We visited the site at 4705 North Shore Drive on Friday, May 19 to review the existing site conditions and meet with the property owners and their contractor. Based on our observations, our comments dated May 9. 2000 still apply. One additional solution we discussed is to replace the existing walls. We feel that replacing the existing walls is acceptable provided the new walls are of the same dimensions and in the same locations as the existing walls. This will serve to minimize grading activity and disturbance to the existing steep slope. Silt fence should be installed prior to any construction/restoration activity to minimize sediments from washing into the lake. Any disturbed areas should be revegetated immediately following construction to stabilize the slope and minimize erosion. It may be necessary to use fiber blankets on any steeper disturbed slopes to protect the newly seeded areas until the vegetation has been established. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 65l*636-4600 > Fax; 651*636-1311 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 SmKh stated the City needs to maintain proper distances between structures In order to allow for emergency vehicle access. Beisch indlcb^ her back door is in the middle of the deck, and if the deck is reduced to the size requested, it woUVJ only leave her 19 inches to step out and go down the steps. Weinberger stated rtV^lculated to be approximately 4.5 feet wide from the edge of the deck to the house. Beisch stated she would be owy with that. There were no public comments re^q^ing this application. Beisch noted the adjoining property ownb^will be constructing a new driveway, which will drain the water towards her property. Lindquist suggested the City Engineer review th^minage in this area. Beisch inquired whether the five foot side yard setbacItvMuld be reduced. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to requi^he five feet side yard setback. Smith comiTiented that the Planning Commission appears to b^n favor of the five feet rather than the three feet side yard setback. Beisch Indicated she was fine with the five feet. Weinberger commented the adjoining property owner was attempting to utili^the existing footprint and had some other setback issues In the back yard. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #25^ 343S Livingston Avenue, granting of a side yard setback to permit construction of a one«stall detached garage to be located five feet from the property line based on Applicant s statement of hardship, and subject to the size of the rear deck being reduced to the size Indicated on the site plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. («10) #2584 ANDREW AND TRACY RASCHER, 4705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 9:05 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. Page 25 m ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May IS, 2000 Andrew and Tracy Rascher, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to replace an existing retaining wall and install two additional retaining walls within the 0-75 foot setback. Since retaining walls are considered hardcover, a variance is needed for hardcover in the 0-75 foot setback area. Bottenberg indicated the proposal would be inconsistent v^'th the City's Comprehensive Plan, with the City Engineer recommending that no new retaining walls be constructed on the site between the home and the lake. It is the City Engineer's opinion that the retaining walls can be repaired and restored with minimal disturbance to the existing slope. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances and conditional use permit for repair of the existing retaining walls in the 0-75 foot setback area, but denial of the proposed new retaining walls based on the goals and policies cited in the City of Orono's Community Management Plan. Jeremy Bakken, Builder, stated due to the slope of the back yard all the way down to the lake and the old deteriorating condition of the existing walls, in his opinion it would be more cost effective to build new walls rather than repair the existing walls. Bakken stated the amount of grading involved in the repair is equal to that which would occur with construction of the new walls. Bakken stated the existing walls are not controlling the drainage and are unsafe. Rascher commented they would like to replace the existing walls due to the fact they are very unstable and do not do the job they were Initially constructed to do. Rascher btated they would like to build some retaining walls which are more stable. Smith inquired whether they have had a chance to look at the letter from the City Engineer. Bakken stated they are not proposing to change the existing grade until they get closer to the lake. Bakken stated he would not recommend limestone walls since they need to be replaced periodically and tend to be unstable over time. Mrs. Rascher staled they are attempting to reduce the amount of erosion Into the lake, noting that currently nothing is being filtered at this point. Rascher commented the current condition of the steps are unsafe due to the nails which are exposed In the timbers and the unstableness of the Page 26 i I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 nagstone walls. Rascher stated they would like to have a safe access to the lake and remove the safety hazard that currently exists due to the fact they have a young child who will be in this area. Smith stated she can appreciate the safety concerns and the fact that flagstone steps tend to become tippy over time. Smith stated the City of Orono does want people to have safe access to the lake, but that there are some limits that must be imposed on what people can construct. Smith stated since she is not an engineer, she cannot comment on the structural issues, but that the Planning Commission tends to take into account the recommendations of the City Engineer when deciding what is acceptable. Rascher stated they ara proposing to decrease the steepness of the slope. Smith stated there are other lots in Orono with steep slopes, and that the Planning Commission must look at the recommendations of the City Engineer. Smith commented she has visited the sit 3 and is not totally convinced new retaining walls are needed. Smith stated the City likes to encourage residents to keep the area as natural as possible and to limit construction down by the lake. Smith commented the Planning Commission must look at what it will take to maintain what is existing and how to provide safe access down to the lake with a minimal amount of construction. Smith stated it is the policy of the City to stay away from a lot of terraced walls and to leave the area as natural as possible. Lindquist stated he is not capable of determining whether what currently exists Is right or whether the retaining walls should be replaced. Lindquist stated he does have a problem with retaining walls being located in the 0>75 foot setback as a general rule, and suggested the Applicants speak with the City Engineer to see if something can be worked out which will be acceptable to all panics. Lindquist stated he would be hard pressed to go against the recommendations of the CHy Engineer. Lindquist suggested the matter be tabled to allow the Applicants time to discuss this matter further with the City Engineer. Page 27 ------------- —J ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 ^ r r Smith commented that the engineering issues should perhaps be explored further, and agreed that the Applicants should perhaps speak with the City Engineer to discuss his recommendations. Weinberger stated the City Engineer will speak with the Applicant if so desired. Weinberger suggested the Applicants contact Wendy to arrange a meeting with the City Engineer. Mrs. Rascher inquired what would happen If the application Is tabled. Smith stated the Applicants would probably reappear before the Planning Commission at their June meeting if they are able to resolve the issues. Smith stated the Applicants could request additional time if so needed by submitting a letter asking for an extension of the time limit. Bottenberg indicated the 60 day time limit expires on June 19th, which is the date of the next Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Rascher requested the application be tabled at this time. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2584, Andrew and Tracy Rascher, 4705 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#11) REF J OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS APRIL 2V2000 AND MAY 8,2000 Nygard indicated he was unabtb4o attend the April 24,2000 City Council meeUng. • Smith commented she is not aware of wha,ottended the May 8th meeting. (#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Lindquist reported that Hawn and himself attended a breakfast meelJhgLon Planned Unit Developments, which tended to be geared around California rather than Minnbsqta. Lindquist stated he was disappointed with the meeting since most of the material covered did notreiate to Page 28 h' r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 612-249-4600 ZONING FILE # 2584 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMi\USSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 16,2000 TO: Andrew and Tracy Rascher COPIES: 4705 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: May 15,2000 Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. VOTE: 5 FOR AGAINST Set up appointment with City staff and City engineer to meet on site to discuss how to stabilize wall and walkway. Applicant's next meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information: Deadline for the June 19,2000 Planning Commission meeting is June 9,2000. You will be notified by mail of the meeting date and time. 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. am isBiti w tm r I / Y .V I 1^'' i i'i ill >^r 1 K'"! V P^ c'i n >-• •ij f -V’vV • ’-j • ■ ‘ ’V i p / I . 1 (i'/j'-i-yj*--j -—' * ' » * % ^ V %5»T''V “• «r » » >-A I - I.'-:!. p '.', \ \ ■ \ 1 '. ■ ! ‘ -■ t . ' . \ , < . . Ir.- , - . .» 'n ' .* V.J- >' jp ' \* ■ y ^ •' ^ (BTi^ 6' ^ 55S'-/ V7c6 ^.C ■ U t)K latc^iac idUO jiM i-w eW^ PW?i‘ I , • # /- >c>-a '■'i.'f-'Ji''^dk . y> •-'b-_n2!^2fl ;> l^.x’ - rrz^xr. ' -^ . ••»* .* —' “r;: --.'•, *J - . . -- ... ^ r - "... 4^' - - -‘: -Tr --^ \ € Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan : The 1980 City of Orono Community Management Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”) contains a number of general land use and environmental protection goals and policies with which the proposed land alteration would be inconsistent. See attached excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and views on altering shoreline areas. (Exhibit D). Engineering Review! The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering standpoint and recommends that no new retaining walU be constructed on the site between the home and the lake. It is his opinion that the existing retaining walls could be repaired and restored with minimal disturbance to the existing slope. (See Exhibit E). Statement of Hardship t 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. Will granting of the variances alter the essential character of the land? 2. Is lakeshore erosion at this site so substantial as to warrant the extensive retaining wall system proposed? 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Reconunepdation ; Based on the goals and policies cited in City of Orono Community Management Plan and opinion of the City Engineer, staff recommends approval of variances and conditional use permit for repair of existing retaining walls in the 0-75' setback area, but denial of the proposed new walls. Options for Action: 1 . Recommend approval of variances and conditional use permit for wall repairs per staff recommendation. U2584 Andre.. Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance/CUP 5/15/2000 Page 2 d f 2. Recommend approval of variances and CUP for repairs and construction of new walls per applicant’s proposal. 3. Table for further review or further specific information. 4. Recommend denial of variances and CUP for both repair and new walls. 5. Other. > 4 ■ ( . ('■ #2584 A'\drew/Traqf Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance/CUP 5/15/2000 Pag* 5 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area ! Hardcover Calculations : Pi LR-IA Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 30,063 s.f. (.69 acre) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75*15,750 s.f. 0 s.f (0%) 859 s.f (5.45%) l,032s.f (6.55%) 75-250'15,517 s.f.3,879.25 (25%) 4,081 s.f (26%) - 4,081 s.f (26%) NO CHANGE M F E.-I Application # 3^ Date Received V-V Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ---- Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) oos^ APPLICANT Name O Qyrty¥<r\ y loo^ \<-c^ Address P• O. fl oV >/ / Phone (home).^_____________ . 4'^) Phone (work) O^i ?3>-^ >t>T jii 3 -fe/// City ? aJt<^_______ Zip 5*5 3*) / Phone (home)CL» 1 ^) S’ ? fe (g.=r^isspaas-i-*-; AriHrcM »^>Cb City 6hrt^-----------------Zip_5S3^ Date Property Acquired / ^/ *i (month/year) ' I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - fy''^ $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application 5175.00 Residential Accessory Use 5250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duple.x 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* ol lakeshore Sv ; - I - ■V* PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee V\ L 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 •» ,T iMii \ Description of Permit Request Requesting Land Alteration Permit to replace existing retaining walls that are in a state of failure, add two additional walls to ease grade in back yard to give a more maintainable yard, and help with directing water runoff to ease erosion. Current walls and stairs are in a state of failure and are dangerous. A. The nails in timbers are exposed. We are concerned over the safety of ourselves, our young baby whom will be crawling and walking soon, and the potential for quests harming themselves; leading to lawsuits. B. Flagstone in stairs has become very unstable. Walking on them poses a constant threat of loosing balance or tripping over them due to their poor condition. C. Our home is on a very steep slope and it is essential to maintain the integrity of the walls to ensure minimal erosion into the lake. We are responsible homeowners who would like to keep our property in good condition with the necessary improvements. By replacing the existing retaining walls before they collapse we will be able to prevent further sediment from contaminating the lake. WiA the action of walls lower down the slope we will be able to lessen the steep grade and control water runoff speed and direction, ensuring that runoff is free of sediment before reaching the lake. We sympathize with the cities Land Alteration guidelines. However, we believe these modifications are in everyone’s best interest, especially in preserving the lakes integrity. We are prepared to add any additional planting materials to hide the retaining walls as to Sincerely, 0-&L Andrew & Tracey Rascher \ . •% *. •' ^ 5'•'a f i 4705 North Shore Drive /.9 • • • • Sfcdt: r - 20* % J • . ; • 4705 North Shore Drive KSCWnON tot 1. BMl 1. rmSTANA co^ Hmtpin Cmmlf, Ukm99oHm ■1 Plot btorinM «( o 0«n«lti von monumoni I hofoby ctrlify Ihol IMs roport oot prtportd by mo or m4m my #rotl •upor^iloion <«>d Uiot I om o dvly Rofloloroi Lon4 Sur^ior Ifio Loot ol Vio ttoto nof. wol •140 mm BRANDT ENQINEERINQ A SURVEYMQ 1600 West 143rd Street, Suite 206 Burnsville, MN 55306 (612) 435-1966 RRR_i_nn \ * gNVTRQNMENT JUNE, 1980 6.THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALL PRACTICAL METHOD OP FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza S^udy, the 208 Water Quality Management Study, and Orono's Surface Hater Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that require protection as part of the City's storm water management program. It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Hater Management Plan. 7.PROTECTION OP 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 P®**1^1* * the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations 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 '* 9.LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED PROM 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 ^D LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases *®®'**'^* otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new ®|'**'*'*^* ®* 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 con rol of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner's desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds. CMP 3-20 FNVIRONMENTAt 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 aoil 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 NATiJRAI RFSOURCE MANAGFMFNT 1. 2. 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 RETENTION OP NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OP 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 walla will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will be established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover P^f®P®ttion 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, therefore additional 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 existin<; marshes. CITJf MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER QUALITY. Salt use for winter street treatment will be minimised. Snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites where they wi 1 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. \ CMP 3-22 r I AND US£ JUNE, 1980 3. 4. 5. 6. r\r*trpTnoMPNT DENSITY HILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WIIICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AN FILTRATION SYSTEM. Orbanixation increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution qeneration and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OP FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever poss e, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease- nents for conservation of these lands. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW *®ASONABLE J^CESS, USEMW enjoyment WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. zn conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These sane 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 vsve action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 1 imuiStL JUNE, 1980 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the neturel environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS HILL 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 storage. 13. 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 pro hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LAND USP PQLICIPR 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 >i^. % J/ J Bonestroo l^osene ^ B Anderlik & |\ \ Associates Engineers & Architects May 9,2000 Sonestroo. Roscnt. Anderlik and Astoclatet. Inc. If an Affirmative Acilon/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principali; Otto G Bonestroo PE • Marvm i Sorvaia. PE • Giern 1 Cook. PE • Robert G Scnunicnt. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE. Senior Contultants: Robert W Rosene. P£ • Joseph C Anderlik. »E • naro E Turner. PE • Susan M Eberiio. C PA. Atfociate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. PE • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Robert R. Pfcfferle. PE. • Richard W Foster. PE • David O. Loskota. PE • Robeit C. Russek. A I.A • Mark A. Hanson. PE. • Michael T. Rautmann. PE. • Ted K.Fleld. PE. • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. PE. ^ David A. Bonestroo. MBA* Sidney P Williamson. PE. LS. • Agnes M P .-g. MB A. • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE Offices: St Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester arsd Wiiimar. MN • Milwaukee. Wi M^bslte: WWW bonestroo com Wendy Bottenberg Assistant Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Rascher Retaining Wall File No. 139-98-000 Dear Wendy: We visited the site at 4705 North Shore Drive today to review the existing site conditions. The area located between the home and the lake is landscaped with various short retaining walls constructed of stone and timber. Several large boulders have been placed along the shoreline. A series of stone steps provides access from the home to the lake. AH existing landscaping in this area appears to have been in place for some time. The entire area between the home and the lake is mostly vegetated with visual no evidence of slope instability. It is our understanding that the property owner wants to install a series of retaining walls between the home and the lake as shown on the plan you provided. The construction of these walls as shown on the plans would require substantial regrading on the existing steep shoreline. It has been City policy to discourage the construction of retaining walls along the takeshore and to encourage a natural looking frontage. Wc recommend that no new retaining walls be constructed on the site between the home and die lake. It is our opinion that the existing retaining walls could be repaired and restored with minimal distuibance to the exisdng slope. Silt fence should be installed prior to any construction/restoration activity to minimize sediments from washing into the lake. Any disturb^ areas should be revegetated immediately following construction to stabilize the slope and minimize erosion. It may be necessary to use fiber blankets on any steeper disturbed slopes to protect the newly seeded areas until the vegetation has been established. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg'^ Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 P-- ' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET r-i SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) KVIi^TINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE * A. House 7S-250' zsV^ 250-500’ 30% 500-1000* m Lcngith WidLh X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 3La. X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B lg tSO PROPnSFD HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X Sbci AOi~\ m \35 ISO X 100 Width lSt> aiH su4 wiS TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE lO'yx B IS1SC> -1S2SJ xlOO - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF.fi) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.•a S.F.® S.F. A S.F. Bn:;.: r:.| V- ^ ai S.F.(^ S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i 1 r'' S.F. 94*8*^ S.F^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.€> S.F. A S.F. B % HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET — 2- SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75’(75-250^250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARI[KX>VER IN ZONE 07a A. House —SSid______X «S.F.© Length Width .Siff X \L>‘X sFjm X =S.F. X s S.F. B. Garage X n:S.F.® C. Driveway X SB S.F. 6^ X C3 S.F. D. Sidewalk mo X *4 5-UO S.F^ X = ~S.F. E. Patio/Deck X ••SJF. X S.F. F. Landscape _X S.F. Underlain X S.F. By Plastic X - "S.F. 0. «*her ^ass: TOTAL HARDCOVER (N ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * B issn S0«I X too PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7.0NF. A. House _____ X AX Length Width X X X B. Gange C. Driveway X X X D. SidewgiK X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE __________ B isgn X too S.F. A S.F. B % S.F.•1 (T“TrN' I J S.F. S.F. S.F. /r ■ ■ •S.F. ‘V S.F. N SJF. 1. S.F. SJ.* • i.F. V *S.F S.F. SJ. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % i'-— /v9 LCfT AttCf* = e/«r» iw«a.t? "J y’. Ob^VfiWAV - •'■’*' ^1- SiOGW^uS ■ p«u«r»w*u;»wO<.t: i K*< v£ 7T>»<H. C3VfM« •• I c>: ■; ,'1! 4705 North Shore Drive OCSCnPIKM lot K Btodi I. 1R!STANA cove M^WHpin Counljf, IttwittA Plot btoHwQg shown o Osnoitt ron momifiionl mfe,\ I htrsbif ctrlpy Thol IMt tynwyii pion. or rtporl wos prsportd 6/ mo or lOMlir my #roct mpoK<ijqn onp thol I om o AAy hs^loroi Lontf Swrvoybr untfsr tho loot of Iho Slolo of MMwitsolo. .flt^ Ha, 0140 BRANDT ENGINEERINQ A 8URVEY1 1..O0 W.\J M5rr| ‘:iiocl, ;.«iilt.‘ 7» Burnsville. MN 55306 1 .? t "• j • ••• i j Mil II miiftn lUK DATE IS/IT/EO HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNPORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4SS4R1 PACE 1 V 1 DATCN SRI PROP AOINI ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SR R7-117>2S 32 RRR2 R1S4R REST POINT LA J H HOUTNAN A K J HOUTNAN J H HOUTNAN I K J HOUTNAN IS4R REST POINT LA HOUND NN 5S3AR SR 07<117>2S 32 RRRS 0A72S TONKAVIEW LA E R T CHRISTIANSON EARL I TERRY CHRISTIANSON 4R41 TONKA VIEW LANE HOUND HN 55St4 SR R7-117-2S 32 RRR4 R47SS TONKAVIEH U STUART V NHITHAN STUART V HHXTHAN 473S TONKAVIEH LA HOUMI HN 5SSM PROP ADDR ONNER mm TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SR R7-117-2S S2 OORT R47SR NORTH SHORE DR CHRISTINE J SCHANZENBACH CHRISTINE J SCHANZENBACH 47SR NORTH SHORE DR HN S53A4 SR R7-I17-2S S2 RR14 R47S9 TONKAVIEH U LARRY A OREENKABEN ET AL L 6REENHA6EN S V 0REENHA6EN 4739 TONKAVIEH LANE HOUND HN 5SSA4 SR R7-117-2S 32 RR14 R473I NORTH SHORE OR DENNIS A ICYER DENNIS A NEVER 44RR NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN S5S44 OHNHI NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SR R7-117-2S 12 RRI7 R472S NORTH iHORE DR J P HENRY ETAL J P HENRY 472S NORTH SHQ IE DR HOUND NN 55S»4 SR R7-117-2S S2 RRIR R47S1 NORTH SHORE DR DENNIS A NEVER DENNIS A NEVER 4RRR NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 55344 30 07-117*2S 32 RR19 •4745 NORTH SNORE OR HERNAN CRAHfORO ETAL HERNAN CRAHFORO 4745 NO SHORE DRIVE HOUND HN 55344 on %Z;hme m TMPmt M •7-117-25 •47SS MMTN JOm P»ZMY JOm PRIMY 47IS NORTH SHORE DR NN 55SM 58 •7-117-25 52 •4825 TONKAVIEW R H SHELTON 8 N L R N SHELTON 8 H L 4825 TONKAVIEW LA HOUND HN 55584 •825 LA SHELTON SHELTON 58 87-117-25 52 8828 84828 TONKAVIEW LA J R AiRAHAHSON/D A8RAHAHS0N JANES R 8 DAWN A8RAHAHS0N 4828 TONKAVIEW LA HOUND HN 55584-8851 •' -’h . c./m TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SR R7-I17-2S 32 BlZR •44U TONKAVIEH U DENNIS A NEVER DENNIS A NEVER 4RBB NORTH SNORE DR HOUND HN 55344 SB •7>I17-23 32 ••29 •••30 ADDRESS UNASSXCNED DENNIS A NEVER DENNIS A NEVER 44t9 NORTH SNORE DR HOUND NN 55344 34 07-117-23 32 003B •1373 REST POINT RD K E ANDERSON A A K KRAHER KIRK ANDERSON 1373 REST POINT RO HOUND HN 55344 Si-'i ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR L SB BT-llT-XS 32 ••39 •1S5B REST POINT RO LIS WABILL LARRY I SHARON CRABXLL 1350 REST POINT RO HOUND HN 55344 SO •7-117-23 32 ••5« •44B^ NORTH SHORE DR DENNIS A NEVER DENNIS A NEVER 44BR NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55344 SB OT-llT-ES 32 ••52 •1S15 REST POINT LA K J OROVER ASK OROVER KEVIN J OROVER AND SUSAN K OROVER 1315 REST POINT LA HINNETRISTA HN 55344 1 1 •4 MM DATt tS/17/AI BATCH Sll HEtMCPIN COUNTY PNOfERTV INFORNATXON SYSTEN PROPEKTV OWNERS LIST PROP AMR OHNeR NANC TARPAYER NANR/ADM r W PROP AMR MMER NAME TAXPAYER HAHE/ADM PROP AOM TAXPAYER NAHR/AOM SO 07-117-25 S2 00S5 00075 NORTH SHORE DR TYLER C COmXN TYLER C CORBIN 0005 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55300 SB 07-117-2S S2 0050 00705 NORTH SHORE DR A N S T X RASCHER ANDREW H S TRACY X RASCHER 0705 NORTH SNORE DR HOUND NN 55500 TOTAL BATCH 501 00020 A v> REPORT NO. PXOSSOOl PACE 2 SO 07-117-25 S2 0050 01S05 REST POINT LA JOSHUA D URAN JOSHUA URAN 1S05 RESTPOXNT LA HOUND HN S5S00 SO 07-117-25 S2 0050 00005 NORTH SHORE DR TYLER C CORBIN TYLER C CORBIN 0005 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55500 SO 07-117-2S 52 0050 00005 NORTH SHORE DR STEPHEN C S JOANNE A HARD STEPHEN C HARD 0005 NORTH SHORE OR NOUND HN 55SOO 30 07-117-2S 32 0001 01571 REST POINT LA KENNETH N I RENEE 0 EGOERT KENNETH H 0 RENEE 0 EGOERT 1571 REST POINT LA HOUM HN 55300 X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF XNFORHATXON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORM OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARfHLNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF HY KHOHLEOGC AND BELIEF. DATE^^^l^^V • t’V), rr\ ri f • . t W •Af ; I N. * u Permit No. 'XO<io !^/<1 idlB 3>>48i 98(^0 ±i_il JMl bli6^ 3o'i>J 3 mo 30S</ S^lf: / ■ypr-s /3cr'fh l^iv K PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit /h/uJ 8'3-^-0.8 9 Uj<JU (a, *^-o8 8 -/7-73 SjLoJ^ C. ■4^-/^ ~S 4 - j fe • 9o yfylu4njL4/y\.^ t ~l.lL.9<i "yiCfAjL 9jJ^o^ TtTTTT.-ftL^c V;/-6. 6 ’ <J3 £>■f MUiilat 1 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner June 9,21 #2589 WoodhUl Country Club 200 Woodhill Avenue Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Zoning: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre Minimum lot size Application: The Woodhill Country Club has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the expansion of the bam to accommodate a kitchen, storage area, bathrooms and coat room. The interior of the existing bam will be remodeled and a deck and porch will be added to the bam near the paddleball courts. Woodhill Country Club has also requested sewer connection for the bam although it is outside of the MUSA. List of Exhibits A B C D1 D2 E F G H I J K L Application Project Description Plat Map Zoning Map City Topographic Map • showing proximity to adjacent residential uses Site Plan Main Floor Plan Basement/Foundation Plan North/South Elevation West/East Elevation Transverse Section CC DD Transverse Section AA BB Property Owners Notification List 1 V2SI9 WooifilitI Counliy Club 200 Woodhill Avenue Conditional Uk Pennil Jvm 19.2000 page-1 if Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.28 Standards forRR-lB zoning district Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (C) Clubs, Camps, etc. Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, YWCA camps, church camps, or private non- profit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for anv of the above listed uses shall be 100 feet or more from anv abutting lot in an "R” District and accessory structures shall be a minimum of fifty feet from anv lot line. Review of Request The applicant proposes construction of a 19* X 52' addition to the bam located near the paddleball courts at the Woo^li Country Club. The addition would increase the size of the building from 36* X 56' = 2,016 s.f. to 3,004 s.f. The primary concern is how the use of the building will impact sum>unding residential areas. The bam is being expanded by a total of 988 s.f. which would result in no change to the use of the property. Impact to adjacent residential areas around the Country Club would be minimal. The Country Club shill be advised approvals granted with the driveway access to the property would restrict contractors to using only the enu^ce from C.R. 15. In the RR-IB zoning district a country club is allowed by a conditional use permit. Several conditional use permits have been approved for Woodhill, with the most recent being to permit construction of a pump house, maintenance building and approving access to the Club through a second driveway. Attached to this memo is a project description completed by Mark A. Albrecht. Only preliminary grades have been shown by on the plans. The City Engineer shall review the final plans prior to any land alteration and construction to ensure drainage will continue to flow in the same direction and proper erosion control measures approved. Sewer Extension Sewer is available to portions of the Woodhill property. Connection is to the Club House which is located in the City of Wayzata. Woodhill would like to connect the bam and potentially the maintenance buildings to sanitary sewer. The areas of the Country Club, in Orono, are not in the MUSA. The 2000 Comprehensive Plan update has not projected the property to be within the MUSA. Expanding the MUSA to include the Woodhill property would place property that is zoned 2 acre rural residential into an urban services area. This is contrary to the policy of the City as the City of Orono has required land zoned for rural residential development to be served by rural services. Only the City Council can approve sanitary sewer service to buildings outside of the MUSA. I' H2589 Woodhill Coun^ Club 200 Woodhill Avenue Conditional Use Permit Jtme 19, 2000 poit-2 A Only the City Council can approve sanitary sewer service to buildings outside the MUSA, hence this is an issue that should be left for Council review. (To sununarize the issue: in 1996 the City was granted by Met Council the ability to connect up to 50 existing residences adjacent to existing sewer lines outside the MUSA. The City Council established that such residences must have an existing failing system with no replacement possibilities. The Council has also considered that existing non- residential uses such as churches should also be connected to sewer when feasible. The Woodhill bam does not meet the criteria for use of the SO units because it is not a residence, and while it has a non-conforming system due to the 3' separation issue. At the same time, however, this is ftmctionally an institutional/kitchen/quasi-commercial type of use which should be connected to sewer. Staff will be recommending to Council that the bam be allowed to connect to sewer, which is on the same tax parcel as the bam and only about 400' away.) State Code requires a minimum setback to the septic tanks of 10' for stmctures. Staff has measured the tanks to be approximately 28' from the bam. A19' addition to the building would place the tanks approximately 9' from the new stmcture. This does not meet the State requirement for setback distance to the building. Most of the soil around the building has been disti^rbed due to the paddlecourt locations, driveway and parking areas, and the practice greens. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow expansion of the building by 988 s.f. and to proceed to the July 10,2000 City Council meeting subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. binal grading and erosion control plans shall be approved by the City Engineer. Access for all contractors and equipment shall use the County Road 15 entrance to the County Club. The building shall meet Fire Code protection standards. The building shall meet the minimum 10' setback to the septic tanks. Evidence of a standard septic system to accommodate the proposed use of the building or connection to sanitary sewer only if approved by the City Council. Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval of the preliminary plan and forward to the Council. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table, requesting further information and provide direction to the applicant. Other Action. »2$S9 Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Avenue Conditional Use Permit JuiH 19. 2000 pagt-3 r> A Applicarion U Date R«*rei\‘ed _ ^J^/c f Amount Paid ^3^0- lO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address X DO ^ Type of Application to be Filed C.\JL^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name \^e,r7 \ Phone (home) .W Address C. A y rx \ Phone (work) ^ A City Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work). Address Citv Zip, Date Propert)' Acquired _______________ I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$125.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg X $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 S** V I • • PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee I •I % OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+• consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____SI00.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule t • '/ Jj 9m I iTi r* n IT? •Jii t)fl •II ir« •1 r» iliBO ir^i •IH f'.li •ii4r« •itf'.rii 00^1 1 1 ro I ^>1 rtrip.! •itp.ivtyr«i •K*TtIi< f 1 lit] 14 i«r«•hT«r«i iiinniiiT*^ It CililtW-iil t> ll • •ii¥tr«ItU^t [•Wtl B UNEXCAVATCO SU ONGRAOC CXlSTtHGSIC lAQLROOII Cl CXISItfCUlfCXCAVi ICOSIAB ONGRAOC A BASEMg NT F OUNDATI ON aK\.\ NfcWrXTjR ANDWiNtk W »♦ «*♦ ♦«♦ ♦» ^O- MO MO «« 0:0 <0* MO <--0 »0 *;•> •>*♦ ->eO M* «M MO MO <00 MO <v'>> «<• «0 <0> OOO 0<0 0<O OM 000 MO -X' < >00< >0C< XM VOX KM >CO< HO< >O0< OM VM >-?0( O0< OM >M« ‘■■■< 00. OOC XO< >O0< 50O' K>^ )0*< y>x X« KO< OM >CM XKy OM >00« KO< >M< OM VM V*M SOUTH . t ibiXi;!'.•.. 1. .. Sa Lo-U 5fiB£3»a^UK^i£-iai.''.fflR^ 1'; V.'; iiWu,*': r-jt; ■ j. ..■.. •■ r, WDau^aocisru-aiiinaiEs^ , fiKi<tiTCiat*aiy!iiScwju«a»flaiBiw»i!^ BaS£23Rara«JKrfiiSasflB^5MH^^ SIMmiwm i •»v.’;i^s2aiws5a;^:s5 (‘Tt'jrrjtrt; Y' V^L s^iSWMnNi ^0^*o00<B0<<0000000*0000000*004000000000« »N 4m>««(>)0< -o«>**O0M »«im:<5fi 0<<4 000 0<0 MO «4 MO OM 000 <40 0«0 MM VM MM *Mc>VM :<4 -MOMWMOOtr Mi . W, A/x M4 OOO «»0 4«* 0«# 4«» i . ■5 ■ iji; . ,1 ' i f ’j ■ It’ . :i. > . ‘ r •!» j* '1N*'*'*] t. i .'■■ . ! .1.. ■ i. /ji «>MO*M>««OMO0MX«CM«r-^ M >«M >*0( >«M •<>>« »c^ »0<y^ WEST RUN DATE M/1V99 BATCH BIB ONNiR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP A1 OWNER NANE TAIVAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNPORNATION SVSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PZ4SS4I1 PACE 2R SO I2-I17-2S 11 IMS ••ISO AOORESS UNASSX6NED BURLINBTON NORTHERN RV ONE SANTA PE RR CO PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX BA1IB9 FORT WORTH TX 70101 30 I2-117-2S 12 Mil 00200 WOODHXLL RO MILL COUNTRY CLUB lOHXLL CNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHXLL RD WAYZATA HN 5SS91 30 02-117-2S IS 0005 OinBO EDOEWOOO HILLS VARTKES H EHRANJIAN VARTKES H ENRANJXAN lOBO EDOEWOOD HILL RD WAYZATA HN BBS91 SO 02-117-23 IS 0000 00322 WOODHXLL RD J L CONNER I 0 J PAULUCCI J L CONNER • 0 J PAULUCCI 201 1ST ST W SANFORD FL 32771 30 02-117-23 13 0005 00520 WOODHXLL RD J L CONNER 0 0 J PAULUCCI J L CONNER 0 0 J PAULUCCI 201 1ST ST N SANFORD FL 32771 SB 02-117-23 IS 0000 0031B NOODNILL RD N W NCOUIRE INN NCOUXRE H N NCOUXRE INN NCOUIRE 31B NOODNILL RO WAYZATA HN BB591 9^ 30 02-117-23 13 0007 00030 AOORESS PENOINO NOODNILL COUNTRY CLUB NOODNILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 NOODNILL RO WAYZATA NN BB391 30 02-117-23 19 0001 00905 EDOEWOOO HILLS RO T A I C A CUSICK THONAS CUSICK 90S EDOEWOOO HILLS RO WAYZATA HN 55391 31 02-117-23 21 0005 01235 LYNAN AVE C P PESEK I R H PESER C PAUL I RAE H PESEK 12SB LYNAN AVE S WAYZATA NN S5591 i SO 02-117-23 21 0009 01235 LYNAN AVE C P PESEK I R H PESEK C PAUL I RAE N PESEK 1235 LYNAN AVE S WAYZATA HN SS391 30 02-117-23 21 0007 01230 WOODHXLL AVE NICNAEL 0 WOOD JUDY 0 I NXCHAEL D WOOD 12S0 UOOONXLL AVE WAYZATA NN 55391 31 02-117-23 21 0009 00190 ORONO ORCHARD RD S REED LARSON REED LARSON 190 ORONO ORCHARD Ml S WAYZATA NN 55391 30 02-117-23 21 0010 00100 ORONO ORCHARD JOSEPH H ROKKE ETAL JOSEPH N ROKKE 100 ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATA NN 55391 RO S 30 02-117-23 21 0027 01275 LYNAN AVE H 1 I E T NCNILLAN HOWARD I ELIZABETH NCNILLAN 127B LYNAN AVE WAYZATA HN 5B391 31 02-117-23 21 0021 00190 SNITH AVE TNONAS C HUNT THONAS C HUNT 190 SNITH AVE WAYZATA HN B5391 SO 02-117-23 21 0029 OOliO SNITH AVE N N I N K NXCOLL HATTHEW N I NARY K NICOLL 190 SNITH AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 30 02-117-23 21 0030 00030 ADDRESS UNASSXONED NXCHAEL D WOOD NXCHAEL D WOOD 1230 NOODNILL AVE WAYZATA NN 55391 SO 02-117-23 21 0035 00030 ADORESS UNASSXONED 0 HARC WHITEHEAD ET AL STEVEN KLEXNENAN SOlO TRENTON U N PLYHOUTN HN 55991 RUN DATE M/19/tt DATCN BIT HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATiON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S5AR1 PACE 2S PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SO 02-117-ES 21 OOSO OOOSO AOORESS UNASSX6NED 0 NARC WHITEHEAD ET AL 0 NARC WHITEHEAD SOS W FULLERTON PKWY CHICAGO XL 000X4 50 02-117-25 24 0000 012S0 WOOOHILL AWE UNITED HEALTHCARE INS CO UNITED HEALTHCARE INS CO 1250 NOODHILL AVE NAYZATA NN 55S91 SO 02-117-25 24 0004 01200 WOOOHILL AVE CON NAXLE CHARLES W 0 HARU C HAILE 1200 WOODNXLL AVE WAYZATA HN 55S41 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SO 02-117-2S 24 0012 0124S WOOOHILL AVE • L STORCH OSS STORCH OERLAO L I SMELLY S STORCH 124B WOODNILL AVE NAYZATA HN BS541 SO 02-117-2S 24 0015 OOOSO ADDRESS UHASSXGNEO LUCY C MITCHELL ET AL LUCY C MITCHELL 1255 WOODNILL AVE NAYZATA HN SSS41 * SO 02-117-25 41 0002 00405 EOOEWOOO HILLS RO NARY JEANNE V BOWEN NARY JEANNE V BOWEN 5501 RUN RON NAPLES FL 54102 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SO 02-117-25 41 0005 01045 EOOEWOOO HILLS RO R J REITN JR ET AL TRUSTEES FREDA C KEXTN 1045 EDCENOOO HILLS RO NAYZATA NN 55541 SO 02-117-25 41 0004 OOOSO ADDRESS UHASSXGNEO NCLEOD CNTY REO RAIL AUTN DAKOTA RAIL INC 25 ADAMS ST N HUTCHINSON NN 55550 SO 02-117-25 42 0002 01055 EOOEWOOO HILLS RO D ELDREDOE JACKSON XXX ET AL D E I K K JACKSON III 1055 EOOENOOO HILL RO WAYZATA NN S5S41 TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SO 02-117-25 42 0005 00450 WOODNILL RO R P PETER ROSENOERO ET AL C P PETER ROSENOERO 1 CECXLU N ROSENOERO 450 WOODNILL RD NAYZATA HN 55541 50 02-117-25 42 0004 01045 EDOEWOOO HILLS ANNE L RXTZ ANNE LARSEN SIMONSON 1045 EOOEWOOO HILLS RO WAYZATA HN 55541 50 02-117-25 42 0005 00525 WOOOHILL RO J L CONNER 1 0 J PAULUCCX J L CONNER B 0 J PAULUCCX 201 1ST ST W SANFORD FL 52771 TAXPAYER NANE/ABDR SO 02-117-25 42 0004 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSXGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY ISIS STN ST S E SUITE 514 MPLS HN 55414 50 02-117-25 42 0004 00050 AOORESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1515 5TH ST S E SUITE 514 NPLS NN 55414 50 02-117-25 42 0011 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSXCNEO CITY OP ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55525 OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 02-117-25 42 0012 OOOSO ADDRESS PENOINO WOODNKL COUNTRY CLUO WOODNXLL COUNTRY CLUO 200 WOODNILL RD WAYZATA HN 55541 50 02-117-25 45 0024 01145 FERNDALE RO W BRADLEY C BOWMAN II BRADLEY C BOWMAN XI 1145 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA HN 55541 30 55-110-25 54 0015 01250 LYMAN AVE 0 NARC MNXTENEAO ET AL 0 NARC WHITENCAO SOB W FULLERTON PKWY CHICAGO IL 40414 41-C% rt (O V f*. .V \ s t MM MTE M/lt/it ■ATCH It9 HENNEPIN CbvHTY PROPERTY INFORNATXON SYSTEN PliC*ERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S54R1 PACE 24 PROP ADOR ONNfR NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP ABOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ABM OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ABM TAXPAYER NANE/ABM TAXPAYM NANE/ABM TAXPAYER NANE/ABM SB SS*1IB-2S S4 BB14 BlttB LYNAN AVE JOHN R HUNSXCKER ET AL JOHN Q HUNSXCKER I22f LYNAN AVE NAYZATA NN 5SS9I 38 S5-X1B-2S 4S ••24 •1244 LYNAN AVE NANCY N CORNWALL nancy N CORNWALL 120V LYNAN AVE WAYZATA NN BSS41 SB SS-I1S-2S 4S ••2B •I17t LYNAN AVE RtCNARO R A LYNN R PHILLIPS RICHARD R I LYNN R PHILLIPS 1I7B LYNAN AVE WAYZATA NN BSS91 SB S5-1IB*2S 4S BOZy •••SB AOMESS UNASSXCNEO 0 C A E 0 NOGEN DONALD C A ELEANOR D HOCEN 74SB BELLAXRE AVE DUBLIN OH 4SBI7 SB SS-1IB-2S 44 •••• •••SB ADDRESS UNASSXBNEO HENNEPIN FORPEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND FM SALE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ONLY 99 •I-117-2S 22 •••! ••499 WAYZATA BLVD W CITY OF WAYZATA CITY OF WAYZATA ••• RICE ST WAYZATA HN 5SS9I 99 n-lIT-ZS 2S AARZ ••Ml CO RD NO IB nooonil cntry club NOOBNXLL COUNTRY CLUB 2AB HOOMILL RD NAYZATA NINN BBS91 99 •1>1I7-2S 24 RAAS ••491 CO RD NO IB NCLEOO CO REO RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC 2B AOANS ST N HUTCHINSON HH BBSSA 99 •1-1I7-2S S2 •••! ••••i CO RO NO IB NOOBNXLL CNTRY CLUB NOOBNXLL CNTRY CLM It* NOOBNXLL RB NAYZATA NINN BBS91 99 Ol-llT-ZS S2 AAAZ ••B91 CO RO NO IB tLL CNTRY CLUB [LL CNTRY CLUB 299 WOODNILL RD NAYZATA NINN BBS91 » ' • j» • • • » 99 91-117-2S S2 •••• ••499 NILLSIM M N NILLXAN • mON MAD ZITON 499 NILLSIM M W NAYZATA HN BBS9I 99 •I-1I7-2S S2 ••29 ••700 HXLLSIM M W CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH ET CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH 799 HILLSIM M N NAYZATA NN SBS91 Mr/ SB SB-1I0-2S 4S ••24 •••SO ADDRESS UNASSIONEB BURLXNSTON NDRTHERN RY B N S SANTA FE RR CO PROPERTY TAX MPT PO BOX 94I0B9 FORT WORTH TX 74141 SB SS-IIS-2S 4S OASO •••SO ADDRESS UNASSISNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY HN SSS2S 99 01>117-2S 2S OOOl ••401 CO RO NO IS WOOONXLL CNTRY CLUB WOOOHXLL CNTRY CLUB 2B0 WOODNILL RO WAYZATA HN SSS91 - 99 0I-117-2S 24 0004 •9401 CO RO NO IS BURLXN8TM NMTNERN INC B N I SANTA FE M CO PROPERTY TAX MPT PO BM 941009 FMT NORTH TX 74141 ■y*.: 99 •1-117-2S S2 0007 •0S02 HILLSIM LA JOHN N 0 JUDITH C FANSLER JOHN N 0 JUDITH C FANSLER S02 HILLSIM LA WAYZATA NN SSS91 99 02-117-2S 11 OAOl •0200 WAYZATA BLVO N WOODNILL CNTRY CLUB WOOONXLL CNTRY CLUB 200 WOODNILL RO NAYZATA HN BSS91 \S. •/ ^ 4^ MM BATE M/19/9* BATCH BBT PtOf ADM BNHBB NAME TAXPAVEB NAHE/ABIW BMP ABDB ONNEB NAME TAXPAVEB KAHE/ABBB T9 B2-n7-2S 11 TTM •■B«T HAV2ATA BLVB M Cmr OF HAVZATA CITV OF HAVZATA Ail BICE ST HAVZATA HN SSSTl 99 92-117*2S 91 tTM ••iV9 HILLSIDE DO H CNBISTOFNEH R VOLLRATH ET AL CMRISTOFNER R VOLLRATH 700 NILLSIBE OR H MAV!:ATA HN 55391 HENNEFXN COUNTY PROFERTV XNFORHATION SYSTEM frofertv ohners list T9 •2-117-2S 91 TStl •97TT NILLSIBE DR H CHRISTOFNER R VOLLRATH ET AL CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH 700 HILLSIDE DR H HAVZATA HN 55591 99 S5-110-2S 99 •••• 99509 HAVZATA BLVB H cm OF HAVZATA cm OF HAVZATA 999 RICE ST HAVZATA HN 55591 REPORT NO. PI9SS991 PACE 25 99 92-117-2S 91 9997 99799 CO RO NO 15 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY ISIS 5TH ST S E sum S19 M LS HN 55919 TOTAL BATCH 599 99959 .1 O'. ' n t A* '' .•I- jy Z CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MV KNOHLEBCE AND BELIEF. DATE •ARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BES1 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner June 19,2000 SUBJECT:#2590 Dennis and Becky Stanton 3325 Crystal Bay Road Variance ~ Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 4,956 s.f. (.114 acre) Lbt of Exhibits A Analysis Worksheet Application/Applicant Letter Site Plan/ Survey Plat Map Hi: Icover Calculations Photo of Property Location Map Property Owner ’s List Permit Record B C D E F G H I Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 15: Non-Encroachments: Uncovered porches 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. Variance Request: To permit the patio to be located at the lot line where a 2* setback is required. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l): Hardcover in 0-75’: Within 0-75' of the shoreline there shall be no hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 1,512 s.f. (55.0%) of hardcover where 1,592 s.f. (57.9%) exists and 0 s.f. (0%) is allowed. (These calculations reflect th epaved road excluded from the calculations). 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250*: Within 75 250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 643 s.f (64.95%) hardcover where 707 s.f (71.4%) exists and 247.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to remove the existing deck on the rear of the residence and concrete sidewalk on the southwest side of the residence. The existing deck is rotting and located within the Dakota Rail right-of-way. The {q>plicants wish to replace it with a brick paver patio within their property lot lines. The portion of the existing deck located within the property line is 170 s.f The proposed patio is 170 s.f -2590 Dennis^Becky Stanton 3325 Crystal Bay Road Variance 6/19/2000 Page / The concrete sidewalk is located on the southwest side of the residence and is 80 s.f. It is in poor condition and the applicants wish to replace it with grass to help with drainage. The sidewalk is located in both the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas. The removal of the sidewalk will result in a decrease of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area to 1,512 s.f. (55.0%), where 1,592 s.f. (57.9%) exists and 0 s.f. (0%) is allowed. The paver patio and removal of sidewalk will result in a decrease of hardcover in the 75-250' setback area to 643 s.f. (64.95%), where 707 s.f. (71.4%) exists and 247.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. 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 structural coverage on the lot is not increasing, and hardcover is decreasing. 2. In 1994, the property owner at 3345 Crystal Bay Road was granted a “0 setback” variance to allow a shed to be located at the rear property line and outside the Dakota Rail right-of-way. 3. The City does not have authority to grant approval to replace the deck in its current location because part of it encroaches into the Dakota Rail right of way. Applicant has no other location feasible for a patio, and the proposed 170 s.f. patio is not excessive in size. 4. The lot is extremely undersized for LR-IC. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow the applicants to remove the concrete sidewalk and to remove and replace the existing deck with a paver patio. Options for Action : 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Other. H2S90 Dennis/Becky Si anion 3325 Crystal Bay Road Variance 6/19/2000 Page 2 Ji ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; LR-IC Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) Actual 4,956 s.f. (.114 acre) Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 4,956 s.f.Allowed: 743.4 s.f. (15%) Existing: 785 s.f. (15.8%) Hardcover Calculations; Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75' (road included) 2,750 s.f. 0 s.f (0%)1,592 s.f (57.9%) l,512s.f (55.0%) 75-250’990 s.f 247.5 s.f (25%) 707 s.f (71.4%) 643 s.f (64.95%) > . £> Application Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIAPiCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fe^^^50.0(^ ($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 C Property Identification Number rP.l.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prnperty AcQuired ^ f ^4____________________________ I (do) ^ n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present uSe^n property: residential ___pother (specify)_________ Zoning District: __________________________________ .(month/year) APPLICANT L* STA tJtDAO Phone (home ’! *41 ^ Name D6>AAlS H CTAKiTbli________ Phone (work) Address: ^ (Ld City: D_______Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ^0 mm d Construction Cost $ ^«aoo ‘Va~y«oo^ sgV i,»i4u A UAu( et»»t.r-_________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Lot Coverage C-J Rear Average Lakeshore- J Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult} or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: UtJuSu MJUL^ ll>V_______ tttCiCiS UntwrTe ^ Cl otwL-htrv- (attach additional sheets if necessar}')itional €Q 1^- ■r I"', H'v. * o’^‘i £/i • 4 f r--fr r/- r ' ' ' ^iw^!^^:-v.r/ '"O '' • » • V / =^-- . • y *r'^>; ■' ^n * 0TU.VJ.^=L__1. Ll-ij . B ^ I »r n'l ^bV\i : L •Vi*-’:/-, “-^v - jg ^^W.;.iv-.--^ I PERMIT RECORD Permit No. Sl'SL.to Date Type of Permit K^tOaj. ^ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i/So Cf<9-1'^ Kxhifiri V ___________md ^ <?^IO 3-)l -^“7 (^cp£a U. I i II TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: June 19,2000 SUBJECT: U2S9\ Gina Hansen 583 Park Lane Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) 9,500 s.f. ( .219 acre) List of Exhibits A Analysis Worksheet Application/Applicant Letter Site Plan/ Survey Hardcover Calculations Plat Map Photo of Property Location Map Floor Plan Property Owner ’s List Permit Record B C D E F G H I J Pertinent Code Secti^ s 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): Side Yard Setback : The minimum requirement for side yard setback in the LR-IB zoning district is 10*. Variance Request: To permit a side yard setback of 3* for a second story expansion where 10' is required. (Existing first story on the north property line is 3* from the lot line). Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to change the use of a 4* x 18' section of the existing covered deck and adding a second story to the back (street) portion of the existing residence. The scope of the project involves removing the roof, changing a 4' x 18' section of the deck (south side) into living space, extending the deck (outside) wall up to a second story which will be over the back portion of the existing residence. The second story addition will be approximately 255 square feet. The first story walls and foundation will remain. The roof line will be higher than presently exists on the back portion of the residence, but within City zoning code requirements. Average lakeshore setback is not an issue with this application. Background: The plans and description of the request reflect this proposed addition plus another on the street side of the residence. After reviewing the application, staff discussed hardcover calculations and structural coverage on the lot with the applicant. Explaining to the applicant the hardcover calculations were not changing, however the structural coverage on the lot was increasing #25P/ Gina Hansen 383 Park Lane Variance 6/19/2000 Page ! ti j and already over the allowed 15®/o by city zoning code. The applicant decided to go forward with the second story addition and the deck conversion to living space, but not the addition to the back side of the residence. This eliminated variances for hardcover and lot coverage. The attached proposed floor plans submitted will change; however they were included in the report to depict the changes to the south side of the residence. The structural coverage on the lot will not be changing because the portion of the deck being changed into living space is currently covered and considered structure. The existing lot coverage is 2,064.16 s.f. (21.7%), above the allowed 1,425 s.f. (15%). The north side of the house is located 3' from the side lot line where 1 O' is required. The house was built prior to zoning standards being adopted. The remodeling and raising of the roof line will not change the 3’ from the side lot line. The hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback area is not changing. The existing 0-75' hardcover is 391 s.f. (20.7%). The hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is not changing. The existing 75-250' hardcover is 3,749 s.f. (65%). 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 structural coverage on the lot is not increasing, a portion of its use is changing. 2. The hardcover calculations in 0-75' and 75-250' setback area are not changing. 3. Will the partial second story obstruct the view or light and open space enjoyed by adjacent properties? Plaiming Commission should consider whether raising of the roof line will adversely affect either adjacent neighbors. 4. There are areas of landscaping with plastic underneath that should be removed to lower the hardcover calculations in the 75-250 ’ setback area. Applicant has already removed a large section of hardcover on the south side between the deck and property line. (See survey). 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. #259/ Gina Hansen 583 Park Lane Variance 6/19/2000 Page! J 1 • i Staff Recommendation: Staff makes the following recommendations; If Planning Commission concludes that the impacts on the neighborhood are minimal, a recommendation for approval of the variance for side setback should be conditioned on the existing foimdation be inspected by a structural engineer to determine if it is able to handle the additional weight of the addition before applying for a building permit. Options for Action; 1. Reconunend approval of variances. 2. Reconunend denial of variances. . Table for additional information. 4. Other. #2591 Gina Hansen 583 Park Lane Variance 6/19/2000 Page 3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Areat Structural Coverage: Hardcover Calculations; A LR-IB Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 9,543 s.f. (.219 acre) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 9,500 s.f.Allowed: 1,425 s.f (15%) Existing: 2,064.16 s.f (21.7%) Proposed: 2,064.16 s.f (21.7%) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75 ’3,750 s.f 0 s.f (0%)391 s.f (10.4%) 391s.f (10.4%) 75-250 ’5,750 s.f 1,437.5 s.f (25%) 3,749 s.f (65%) 3,749 s.f (65%) Application # |Date ReceKed S h 9/CCCITY 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 AlK Amount Paid y C Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Ct~ H7-23 4-i 004-1 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. C (^5I>UV^. Date Property Acquired ________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not ) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residentid ___pother (specify)______________________ Zoning District: L^'iB___________________________________________________ APPLICANT Name Gllfifl Address:^3 VihiY. UlOC' Phone (home ) ((^^2}47^^14-74 ____ Phone (work ) City: CyP^O_____ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: ilWciC^ldd.____________________r-*J (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ^ Setback: ___Lot Width Front ^ Side Hardcover Rear ;k s_ -?J ^ Lot Coverage <55^ Average Lakeshore VO C Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: . __________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) A DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTCurrently, the home has 1 legal bedroom, I full bath and a 'A bath. We are expecting our first child and need to expand the living spaces. The current proposed plans would allow for 3 bedrooms (4 with an egress window in the basement), 1 full bath, 2 - V* baths and a 'A bath. The proposed plans provide for approximately 720 additional square feet (233 for both the basement and first floor and 2S5 for the second floor) without the addition of any hardcover. General: Currently, the home is a I 'A story. The current proposed plans are to remove the existing roof on approximately 'A of the house (street side) and convert to a full two story. Additional details are listed below. South Side: The current proposed plan includes either an extension of the existing basement or a crawl space approximately 4 ’ wide and 18' long. This would replace an existing deck with footings, which is under the current roof line. In other words, it does not include an extension of the roof. There is no addition of hardcover, just replacement. The decision to utilize a full basement or crawl space is a financial one. This is a very tight area and the excavation costs for a full basement may ^ exceedingly high. V ^ast Side (Street): The current proposed plan includes an extension of the existing basement of I Approximately 5’ wide and 34 ’ long. This would provide an entry, small porch, 'A bath as well as ^ ( Y bathroom and closet for the main floor bedroom. The extension of the basement is currently /landscaped with rock underlain with plastic. This extension would be basement and first floor only with a shed roof. There is no addition of hardcover. Just replacement. Other things to consider: The existing well needs to be abandoned and a new well installed. The current well is at least as old as the home, which was built in 1969. Currently, there are four vendors working with the state and providing a quote. The state has reviewed the lot and possibilities. They have provided a proposed plan which will require a successful pressure test of the sewer line. This test is being conducted on May 15*. If the pressure test cannot be successfully completed, the current plan is to replace the sewer line to the main with PVC to enable a success^l pressure test. The existing well pit is located in the landscape on the east side, which is propped to be new basement. To further complicate matters, there is no accessibility for a drilling rig to the lake side of the home. This issue will be resolved prior to any building permit requests. The current central air conditioning unit is ammonia and also needs to be replaced. The pad is currently installed on the east side and the proposed plans are to leave it in the same place (or within feet). 10 ’ separation between buildings - The plans include a front porch near to the left of the entry way. I have not included this on the survey with the proposed changes because it does not allow for 10 ’ separation between the home and the garage. If there are any alternatives (i.e., sheetrock and fire rated doors) which would allow for this porch, please advise. A If- ' • 4 HARDSHIP/DESRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONSThe existing structure of the home only provides for one legal bedroom. The lot is long and narrow. We have developed plans, which will allow for additional bedrooms and square footage without increasing the hardcover. We have attempted to remain in compliance with all other requirements to the maximum extent possible.The survey shows the foundation size of the home but the roof line actually extends beyond Ae foundation on the south side as there is a walkway. I have included pictures to provide additional details. The plans include a front porch near to the left of the entry way. I have not included this on the survey with the proposed changes because it does not allow for 10’ separation between the home and the garage. If there are any alternatives (i.e., sheetrock and fire rated doors) which would allow for this porch, please advise. We have also removed a large area of hardcover on the east and south side to help control erosion and runoff towards the lake. This area is shaded in blue on the survey. \.y 3 • •••t« •haedcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’250-500’ TYTgriNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Liafih Wlddl X X X B. • Garage • .^ 5____ .• • ••• C. Driveway - ■ ■ • __t£L ___ D. Sidewalk E. Paclo/Deck Ab iioA .^4l\sirte? • F. Landscape II Underlain By Plastic Afy Or Fabric AoA =^A X X aa*5 X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A A n^.^.»4L> + B . 1^0. PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House *70- _____ X /kXM Lsa|ib WMA X X X B. Gsfage • C. Driveway o23t.4 66 X X D. Sidewalk 60 I X X E. Paiio/Deck A") laktSUClO f£Uih£id e:> X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric L L ■ ■ • 1 L X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total = 3 ^.166 * !«.' 500-1000 . t) a i:i^n.3(e S.F. S.F. • S.F. B S.F. •• 655. a C/1•••• . • •■757.^*S.F. «,S.F. SS 60 • 0 S.F. m •S.F. :^oo S.F. /6/.6 ------S.F. B 56 SJ. S.F. B _S.F. • ■i S.F. • 3>'7A9M(^S.F. f:.'V5boo S.F. B bs• L I41-3tt>SE. S.F. B S.F. ■■S.F. S.F. 7«7.5 S.F. B S.F. 60 S.F. •• • •S.F. 500 • •• S.P. B /6/.60 _S.F. 53 S.F. B /I ^S.F. B A'lD S.F. A B I S.P. _S.P •» • © (43)«15*71^ 13\^ 12 T \ » ELM, ST (85) „ oil, •^6)^7^/ ^(46)12 1;-^>4)<^Vk 1 10 01(48)i^co/ i 14-5 %3 1-N WES OL1 20- 17.^ *'®ToniVi 30.25 \ or ■. • ir> -i Jr .5- ;■ I dt-fL I I D'CK Ir ^ '■-[Dc^C’c . ^ ^VL. r J w • V r wr , 1^"* ►r** ■•/ • *• .♦ • i‘ '.*». \ iC lL rtcK U li s..tiri OjjfXt: - v,\/MI iTo cl clc'CN MEDINA .... ..’%•;•• *-•:-• .** •i- •-•.»•. . ;. 1 •V/". •- r-rf*- V'.*- • ^ ^ i -‘Ci •'.‘^ I * 1** • '•• • • jM • . • t * ^ ^ ••. ',- ••• •^^•9 1 ♦ Aw. • *— • ...:,• .*■-•• iT.-y. S ^;: -• n .^•* *1 • - - • -.* ••• % ,.rfr • *,.' * .'••< •. / • . r. -• ♦■sv.Ctcatti• • • » luiO 600 CHIPPEWA LA 5 •• s i I ia.cin ST S *^. 5 y*----"■' lg/<? •I ^ I •uaiT WAHATA S LA SCHHSTINC OR r / r :• • • ‘f • V I • ▼ . • •• . • • *. ».•• \ ' '.OiUUU^ V .'; •.. *■ V •; ■* f . I WATEA POX I. • . • * • 4 • % ^ \ * •. •• ; .> : ••:! • :} -i Mam • ^« • • . < Mctxwi _ _ * N I i i (§>HQQFPLAN •C4LC; l/4*-|'^-<i’ #■0) -«• \y •• j‘ r. if “A %'J 1J • • •k • \ « TO f” .2 I# Fr ''r% *<i,^1 #r I »•. # I .; ’ } <_ : { f N 1 1 1 \ If ft If 1 l-J 1 \ M) 1 0 /.ililj •• •T*v7-k: •* * r -c V • •. t • FIRST FLOORMeMMrt/riv^Pj^(fWfl)SW^ ti '■*. If’O // > ; >.«.v tVi A\ ^tia t.7 • • B 7 -zy / ^ /w r::*f * »: • « tv* _ :v ' i. -■ • A vivf-.i■'•*:*• ■ KflSi'li = = PFIgI EXlSTlNfi WAI I NEU WAI I . r . • (^YSEcond floor pun (■ \0^ iOiii iy4*-r-^* —re---------------- ARCHTRACT HK i/MJVSBirjSBSZDiBiVl AmnoN SSJMmctAKSonowatjor. 5SS50 LROOFAFLOnPPf^ A2.«M 4+ * • m • 9 ^ » ■ ‘* .. «r. 'i .' ;t - s. r;\' • **. . ........ -- •••*. • •* - *,. • fCV SKYLIGHT HATCH •. • * * • ‘ •* ••* .*• ♦ • * • • v“ *... • «•« ~ .• I ♦ . * / • ♦ • i rev FROST F ELEVATION (^Tf^ 9<V^ \t\/SCMJL l/4--r-0' II / [■ RUN DATE M/Za/tt MTCN StS OMNiR NAME TAXRAVER NAHE/AOOR PROf AOOR OWNER NAHi TAXPAYER NANE/AOUR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAIK/AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR HENNIfZN COUNTY PROfEIITY INFORItATim SYSTEN PROfERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PZ^SMfl PACE 11 sa iS-117-2S A1 tRtl •tRSO ADDRESS UNASSIONED RICHARD R RUDO RICHARD R RUDO *•7 PARK LA LOND LAKE NN 5555A O0M56 66-117-23 61 66559 PARK LA JANES A NULVANNY JANES A NULVANNY 559 PARK LA L0N6 LAKE NN 55356 666536 66-117-23 61 66567 PARK LA AUDREY OVERiY AUDREY OVERBY 567 PARK LANE LONG LAKE NN 55356 36 66-117-23 61 6666 66577 PARK LA USE L DUENOW [BE t DUENOW 577 PARK LA LOND LAKE NN 55356 36 66-117-23 61 6667 66563 PARK LA DINA R NELSON DINA R NELSON 563 PARK LA LONG LAKE NN 55356 666636 66-117-23 61 66661 PARK LA SHANE R i KRISTINE N RUDD SHANE R 1 KRISTINE N RUDD 661 PARK LA LONG LAKE NN 55356 666936 66-117-23 61 66665 PARK LA CHARLES A SCHALL 1 CHARLES A SCHALL 665 PARR LANE LOND LAKE HN 55356 WIFE 36 66-117-23 61 6666 66166 ELN ST T P CARROLL 6 S K CARROLL THONAS PETER CARROLL 6166 ELN ST LOND LAKE NN 55356 666636 66-117-23 61 66596 PARK LA S E 6 S N DURDER SCOTT E i SHANNON N BORDER 596 PARK LA ORONO NN 55356 666536 66-117-23 61 66566 PARK LA HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323 36 66-117-23 61 6666 66566 PARK LA HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323 36 66-117-23 66 6665 66669 NINNETONKA HOLD LA S V SWANTEK 6 P D SWANTEK TR STEPHEN I PATRICIA SWANTFK 669 NINNETONKA HOLD LA LOND LAKE NN 55356 661636 66-117-23 66 66636 PARK LA R D ANDERSON 6 N L RICK D ANDERSON 1 NANCY L ANDERSON 636 PARK LA LOND LAKE NN 55356 ANDERSON 36 66-117-23 66 6617 66667 PARK LA R RUDO 6 K ROOD RICHARD I KATHLEEN RUDD 667 PARK LA LOND LAKE NN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 565 66616 JJ (C^ r -i S V-'•V •>1 iiiiAtai Permit No. *>57 1.L3: SLIJ3. VV/7 km ‘/Y34 //S7z 5"?3 }^cjc ^6u,^j: cv PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit <3- Z^"- fc3 ^ A ^ .4 •• A / • 0\Sm» \ V-Pl r^gPAi/t 5ggj>^&g /»DO/TiOyJ 6- /04 LiA?:^J.__j^yiiT^ i» sM^eT€6c*r Pi£CJ-t 1 M.€1SUS£.C. I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15. 2000 draft ROLL: The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chair Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Jay Nygard, and William Stoddard. Commissioners Elizabeth Hawn and Daniel Kluth were absent. The following represented City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Barb Peterson was present. Acting Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2569 W. DUNCAN MACMILLAN AND WILLIAM WALDRON. 1860 FOX STREET, AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:31 p.m. - 6:43 p.m. Mark Buetow, Caretaker for the MacMillans of 1860 Fox Street, appeared. Weinberger stated the City became aware in February or March that there had been excavation of a pond located on 1700 Fox Street. The pond was actually constructed by the properly owner to the south in a cooperative effort between the two property owners. The survey indicates the pond is actually located across the east property line, with Craigbank Associates being the owner of the second properly this pond has impacted. Weinberger stated an after-the-fact conditional use permit is required, with no variance being necessary lor the pond since it is not located within a City protected wetland. Weinberger noted some portions of the wetland are possibly located within an area considered to be Type I wetlands, which does require a wetland permit. Typically the Watershed District will review these applications following preliminary approval by the City. Y/einberger stated since the land alteration Is greater than 500 cubic yards and the dredging occurred over a property line, a conditional use permit is required. Weinberger indicated since the area has been dredged and not filled, the pond will not impact drainage in the area. Should the City approve the conditional use permit, the wetland shall be subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property to serve as an advisory to the current and future property owners that the wetland is subject to WCA regulation. City Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant applies for a land alteration permit. 2. A protective covenant is filed in the chain of title of the affected propedies as an advisory to propedy owners that the wetland is subject to WCA regulation. 3. A final as built survey indicating finished elevations of the pond is submilled to the City and accepted by the City Engineer. 4. Verification that a MCWD permit has been approved for the pond construction. Page 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moiulay, May 15, 2000(#2569 Duncan MacMillan, continued)Mark Buetow. 177 Meadow Lane. Long Lake, indicated he has been employed by the MacMillans for the past 11 years as their caretaker. Smith inquired whether he wished to add anything to Staffs report. Buetow indicated this project was basically a beautification project to clean up the area. Smith inquired whnt future plans the applicant has for this area in terms of how it will be maintained and what type of vegetation will be planted in this area. Buetow stated the Applicant would like to keep this area fairly natural, with some steps being taken to prevent the banks from eroding. Buetow indicated they are willing to work with City Staff prior to commencing any future work in the area. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would be wrilling to enter into an agreement regarding the vegetation in this area. Weinberger stated typically the City allows the natural vegetation to restore itself in the area, which a majority of it has. Weinberger indicated the granting of easements in the area would also protect it from future vegetation removal and land alteration. Smith commented the City of Orono likes its residents to have a respect for the natural environment and to avoid the placement of rocks along the banks. Smith inquired whether the Applicant would have any problems with the conditions listed in the report. Buetow indicated he was fine with the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Stoddard inquired what the City's policy was concerning Item 5 under the Wetland Alteration Guidelines. Weinberger indicated the pond has been constructed in a low area located within the wettands and probably does not meet all the criteria. Stoddard commented he does not understand how they can excavate a small portion of a larger wetland. Weinberger slated the wetland is a non-protected wetland as defined by the City of Orono. City Staff will need to check with the Watershed District whether they have any issues with this pond. Gaffron stated the City generally will not approve a conditional use permit for a decorative pond in a City-protected wetland unless such pond is designed to meet minimum wildlife habitat specifications. Gaffron staled since this is a non-protected wetland, the guidelines would generally not apply to this pond. Stoddard requested that Item 5 be reviewed in the future. Smith encouraged the Applicant to keep this pond as a natural vegetative area, Buetow indicated he does not have a problem with that. Page 2 iiiifr^I a I ^ ii ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000(#2569 Duncan MacMillan, Continued)Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2569, W. Duncan MacMillan and William Waldron, 1860 Fox Street, for an After>the*Fact Conditional Use Permit to allow for after-the*fact dredging of a pond in excess of 500 cubic yards, subject to the four conditions outlined in the April 17, 2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#4) #2578 DAVID AND LORRAINE LUNDBERG, 900 DAKOTA AVENUE - VARIANCE, 6:44 p.m. - 6:52 p.m. David and Lorraine Lundberg, Applicants, appeared. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg staled the Applicants are proposing to construct a 26 by 26 two story garage addition to the existing residence. The addition will consist of a two stall garage on the first floor and a master bedroom and bathroom on the second floor. The proposed addition will tie into the existing first and second story floor plans with the bedrooms located on the south end of the residence. The proposed garage addition will use the existing driveway. Bottenberg noted the property is serviced with sewer and a private well, which dictated the locations of the garage addition. The well is located on the north side ol iiie house and the sewer line runs parallel to the driveway. The adjacent resident to the south is approximately 60 feet from the adjoining property line. The prooerty is located within 1000 feet of Long Lake. Bottenberg stated the addition will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 6.6 percent, where 4.5 percent exists and 15 percent is allowed. The addition will also result in a reduction of hardcover coverage in the 500-1000 foot setback area to 12.5 percent, where 12.6 percent exists and 35 percent is allowed. A variance to the side yard setback is required to permit a side yard setback of 11 feel where 30 feet is required. City Staff is recommending approval of the variance for side yard setback. Lundberg indicated they currently have a one car luck under garage and one bathroom. Lundberg stated they would like to construct the addition to accommodate a growing family. Smith inquired what will happen to the shed that exists on the property. Lundberg stated the one shed in the back will be removed. Lindquist inquired whether a letter from the neighbor has been submitted on this application. Lundberg staled Tim and Julio Harrison dkl .sign and submit a letter to the City. Bottenberg concurred that Tim and Julie Harrison did submit an acknowledgement letter. Smith indicated the letter from Tim and Julie Harrison acknowledges that they have had an Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000(#2578 David Lundberg, Continued)opportunity to review the planr- for the proposed improvement and understand this letter is not requesting them to approve or oi^approve this project but merely to confirm to the Planning Commission and City Council that we are aware of the plans for this project.There were no public comments regarding this application.Smith commented that the Planning Commission cannot conclude that the neighbors are in support of this project but are merely acknowledging that they are aware of the proposed project. Lundberg stated he has spoken with his neighbors regarding this project. Lindquist stated he would like a letter in support of this project before the application appears before the City Council. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2578, 900 Dakota Avenue, granting of a side yard setback to permit the construction of a 26 by 26 foot two story garage addition to the existing residence, subject to the submittal of a letter in support of the project by Tim and Julie Harrison. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2579 JAMES AND CANDANCE KEMNA, 1110 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH - VARIANCES, 6:53 p.m. -7:10 p.m. James Kemna, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit an addition to the front of the house and outdoor porch that would encroach further into the 50 foot front yard setback and into the 30 foot side yard setback and variances to permit an addition to the detached garage that encroaches into the 15 foot side yard setback required for accessory structures of 750 to 1000 square feet. Weinberger indicated the lot consists of approximately one-half acre in the RR-1B zoning district, which has a minimum two acre lot size. Weinberger stated tne addition to the front of the residence would bring the front of the residence approximately 22 feel from the roadway. The entire addition and existing house is within the 50 foot front yard setback and the 35 foot side yard setback. The additional 240 square feet that is proposed would change the footprint of the building to over 750 square feet, which requires that the building must meet the minimum setback to the property line of 15 feet. The variances being requested would permit a front yard setback of 23 feet where 41.1 feel exists and 50 feet is required, and also to permit the addition within the 30 foot side yard setback. The existing house is 8.2 feet from the west lot line. No encroachment closer than 8 feet is proposed. The second variance is to the side yard setback to permit a building over 750 feet. Code requires a 15 foot setback for buildings over 750 square feet. The 24 by 10 foot addition would expand the building to 816 square feet, thus requiring a 15 foot setback. The third variance required would be to permit the building to be located closer to Willow Drive than the average distance of the properties located around it. The intent of the ordinance is to keep the buildings in a conforming look within the neighborhood and not block the view of the adjoining residences by having a residence located closer to the street. Weinberger noted the lots in this area are smaller in size and generally do not meet the front yard setback. This encroachment into the front yard setback would result in a Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 (#2579 James Kemna, Continued) residence significantly closer to the street tl-an the residencr" 'jrr jnditig it. Weinberger stated the proposed addition would not exceed what is allowed for structural coverage and meets the hardcover requirements since the property is located within the '■horeland setback area. The Applicant has indicated a hardship due to the growing demands of his family and the need for additional living space as well as the proposed location of the addition being the most logical place for the addition. City Staff is recommending denial of the variances to permit additional structure ahead of the existing setback due to the encroachment into the fro.it yard setback and enhancement of a non-conforming building. Kemna stated he is proposing to construct the addition onto the existing residence iri order to allow room for a dining area, which his present residence does not have. Kemna stated his daughter is visually impaired and is in need of a lab setup at ho<rm;, and due to the small size of the bedrooms, they need to add additional living space to the residence. Kemna indicated he has spoken with his neighbors regarding this project, who are not opposed to the addition. Kemna stated they are proposing the addition in this location to avoid the necessity of rearranging^ their entire floor plan by going out the back of the house. Kemna stated he would like to expand his garage in an effort to avoid the need for a storage shed. Smith commented the Planning Commission would like the Applicant to be able to address his needs, but noted the Applicant will need to address City Stafrs concerns. Kern ia stated he could reduce the size of the addition to 18 feet in an effort to reduce the encroachment Kemna indicated he nu.-; fv-.-!' nad any plans prepared due to the costs Involved. Kemna stated his residence is located uie end of the road with a number of trees. Kemna noted his property was originally constructe;? -in 1932. Smith recommended the Applica'it consider constructing an addition from the rear of the home. There were no public commentr». Lindquist indicated he is in ag'eement with Staffs recommendations, particularly in regards to the house. Kemna inquired whether the Planning Commission would be wil'ing to compromise on the size of the structure. Lindquist stated in his view any adoition to the house would need to be constructed at the rear of the house in order to preserve the uniformity of the neighborhood and to avoid having a residence located significantly closer to the road than the surrounding residences. Lindquist suggested the Applicant discuss Staffs recommendations with his builder. Kem' indicated if is he required to construct the addition to the rear of his hoir.e, he would he forced to change his untire floor plan. Smith suggested the Applicant bring the garage into conformance. Smith indicated she would like Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May IS, 2000 (#2579 James Kemna, Continued) to see a plan that brings the project closer into compliance with the front and side yard setbacks. Stoddard stated he is in agreement with Lindquist and that the addition needs to comply with City Code as much as possible. Weinberger stated the '^’oplicant would need to meet the 15 foot side yard setback for the garage since the proposed garage is over 750 feet. If the garage is under 750 feet, the Applicant would need to meet a 10 foot setback. Nygard commented he does have a problem with granting the variance since the hardship is supposed to be created by the land. Kemna commented he has a limited amount of land available to work with between the house and the garage. Berg commented she understands the Applicant's dilemma and the difficulty of trying to construct the addition at the rear of the house. Smith pointed out the Applicant witi need to consider the possibility that Willow may eventually be widened or have shoulders added, which would lessen the setback from the road to the residence even further. Smith stated the Applicant has the option of having the Planning Commission table this application to allow the Applicant to revise his plans, or vote on the application. Smith noted due to the comments by the Planning Commission members, it appears the application will be denied. Weinberger noted the time iimit on this application will not expire prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Weinberger stated the Applicant will need to submit a letter requesting the 60 day time limit be waived in the event he needs more time to develop new plans. Kemna indicated he would like his application to be tabled. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2579, James and Candace Kemna, 1110 Willow Drive South, to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Smith recommended the Applicant work with City Staff on these issues. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#2) #2585 THOMAS AND KATHLEEN McCAFFREY, 4265/4355 CHIPPEWA LANE, SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, 7:10 p.m. - 7:28 p.m. Thomas and Kathleen McCaffrey. Appitcants, were present Joyce Shemanek, Neighbor, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Weinberger staled the Applicants are proposing to rearrange a common lot line to transfer 1.80 Page 6 VI ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 Joyce Shemanek, Neighbor, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to rearrange a common lot line to transfer 1.00 (#2585 Thomas McCaffrey, ConUnued) acres from the property located at 4355 Chippewa Lane to 4265 Chippewa Lane. The existing 4355 parcel is a legal conforming 'ot consisting of 6.92 acres and having a lot width of 370 feet. The transfer of 1.8 acres will result in a 5.12 acre parcel meeting the minimum lot size for the zoning district. The proposed lot division would transfer approximately 125 feet of frontage to the adjacent parcel, leaving only 245 feet of frontage where 300 feet is required. The second lot is almost one acre in size, with the transfer increasing the lot size to 2.80 acres. The lot would have 327 feet of frontage on Chippewa Lane. Weinberger stated vrith the lot line reai rangement. the buildings would now meet the setback requirements for the zoning district but would continue to bo below the minimum lot size for this zoning district. Weinberger stated the lot line rearrangement is being proposed in this location due to the location of some septic sites on the 4265 parcel west of the house. The sites are located within the area to be transferred to the adjacent property. Additional testing was not completed on the property to identify additional sites on the lots. It is possible the septic sites could be relocated to another site on the property. The second parcel also has two septic sites available near the east property line for the 4355 lot. Weinberger noted the proposed lot Hne rearrangement does not increase the density between the two lots. Under the existing zoning, no future subdivision is possible. The lot would require a variance for lot width since the lot would become substa^*\ard. The lot line rearrangement would result in tho 4355 lot being reduced in lot width to less tnan 300 feet and make it nonconforming. Weinberger noted some of the other lots in this area do not meet the 300 foot frontage requirement. The Applicants are also proposing to create a ten foot wide walking access to the Luce Line Trail for the 4265 lot. City Code does not address creating lots with walkways to access public land. Weinberger noted they have not heard any opposition to this walkway from the DNR. McCaffrey stated they are attempting with this lot line rearrangement to bring the lots more into compliarKe with tho five acre zoning concept. McCaffrey stated they v^re only informed of the 300 foot frontage last week, which came as a surprise. McCaffrey stated out of the seven lots on Chippewa Lane, only one complies with the required frontage and one with the required acreage for this zoning d’otrict. McCaffrey stated ho is unsure what the intent of the frontage requirement is. McCaffrey noted they have spent a considerable amount of money on surveys, title searches, and septic testing on this lot lino rearrangement. Smith inquired why the Applicants are proposing to do this lot line rearrangement. McCaffrey stated thf'v wnot to preserve their natural o*»sthetics. McCaffrey stated the Shemaneks are planning to retiio u .o sell their property in the net future, which would allow for expansion of their lot as well as legal access down to the Luce Lino. McCaffrey stated they also need to acquire some additional land to the west in order to accommodate a mound septic system in the future. Page? ♦ ^ 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 (#2585 Thomas McCaffrey, Continued) Joyce Shemanek encouraged the Planning Commission to approve this lot line rearrangement, noting they are doing something which will help their neighbor. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Lindquist commented that the City will still end up with two non-conforming lots regardless of how the lot is rearranged. Smith inquired whether this would become a flag lot in the future. Weinberger stated based on the existing five acre minimum lot size requirement for subdividing in the RR-1A District, the updated Comprehensive Plan is not proposing any changes to the density in this area. Stoddard noted the Planning Commission has approved a walkway path down to the Luce Line in the past Weinborger stated the DNR usually has concerns when people propose to remove trees down by the Luce Line in order to construct a walking path and gain access to the trail. Weinberger stated that should not be an issue in this case. Smith commented that the City should be advising Applicants that are proposing to construct a walkway to the Luce Line that they are not entitled to remove any trees or vegetation within the DNR's easement Weinberger stated the Applicant has been informed of the DNR ovmed property in this area. Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2585, Thomas and Kathleen McCaffrey and Fred and Joyce Shemanek, 4265 and 4355 Chippewa Lane, for a subdivision lot line rearrangement VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2587 RICHARD R. RUDD, 4575 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUBDIVISION FOR PLATTING A PUBLIC ROAD ADJACENT TO A PROPOSED SIX LOT PLAT LOCATED IN CITY OF MEDINA, 7:29 p.m. - 7:48 p.m. Kris Rudd, Applicant, was present. Weinbetrger stated the Applicant is proposing to plat a segment of a road that is intended to be a public road over a lot located at 4575 Wayzata Boulevard West. The total length of the road located in Orono would be approximately 450 feet, ending in a cul-de-sac at the east end of the property. Weinberger noted this lot is adjacent to the City of Medina. Weinberger stated the entire concept for this development involves having access off of Town Lino Road, • vhich is located in the western most part of Orono. with a double road entering the development, going through the Rudd property, and ending in a cul-de-sac Issues relating to access have been raised in the past relating to properties located to the east of the proposed road. Page 8 I eamBAiftiK*. ■ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday* May IS, 2000 (#2587 Richard Rudd, Continued) Currently the four lots located in Orono are all served by a shared driveway that has existed for some time over the Burlington Railroad. Weinberger stated the road has operated in the past with a license agreement between the railroad and the properties. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether there has ever been legal access given to the property owners, which in essence means the railroad could shut the access down if they so choose. Weinberger indicated the railroad is not proposing to shut the access down at this time, with an objective of Mn/DOT to eliminate direct driveway access to Highway 12. Weinberger stated the proposed road would provide driveway easements to the cu-de*sac, with two lots to the north having access to the road via easements. This option would eliminate the access over the railroad to Highway 12. Mn/OOT is also proposing to close the intersection between Town Line Road and Highway 12 due to safety concerns, which has not been approved at this time. Weinberger stated the proposed road would provide access to a proposed six lot plat in Medina and to the four existing lots in Orono. The Medina property is zoned for single family residential use, which will be served by City sewer and wa’ Dr. No utilities will be extended to properties in Orono. Weinberger stated the City still needs the following information; 1. Final grading and erosion control plan set. 2. Stormwater calculations for the drainage area that will drain towards the pond in Orono. 3. List of all easements that are recorded on the Rudd property. 4. Easement documentation Indicating legal access to the Slaughter and Hickey properties over the Fraizer property. 5. Final construction plans for the road. 6. Final plat drawing for recording the right-of-way. 7. Applicant shall dedicate to the City an easement for the NURP pond. City Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plans. Rudd stated Weinberger has given a good summary of the issues involved in thi j application. Jane Slaughter, 4545 Wayzata Boulevard, stated she is in favor of the road but would like to see the road extended somewhat. Slaughter stated she will need to maintain a longer driveway with her neighbor, but is still in favor of the road. Slaughter stated the railroad is required to give a 30 day notice if they intend to close that access, which causes some concern because her property would then become legally landlocked if ti^nt access is denied. Slaughter commented she has been turned down by 13 title companies because the tease agreement is not legally recognized. Weinberger stated these lots do not have direct access to what would be considered a public road, and without the access across the railroad, there is no way to guarantee lor>g-term access to the properties Representatives on behalf of the railroad have indicated they are not in favor of providing a permanent easement to open this up as a public entrance due to safety and maintenance issues. Weinberger acknowledged this access does potentially create a hardship for the neighbors in that their properties could eventually become landlocked unless some o^her access is provided. Weinberger stated the railroad has indicated tiiey uro willing to leave this access open until another access is provided. Weinberger stated it is not the objective of the Planning Commission to discuss long-term access Pages ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2587 Richard Rudd, Continued) to these properties, which is being addressed by the platting of this road. Weinberger stated the issue before the Planning Commission is whether the platting of this road within the development is appropriate. Smith commented that what is being proposed makes sense, noting she is sympathetic to the landowners that could potentially be landlocked unless easements are provided up to this new road. Weinberger stated the property owners would need to obtain private easements from the other property owners to gain driveway access. Smith noted that Lot 4545 would need to obtain an easement from Lot 4555. Weinberger stated they currently do have easements over a portion of that lot, but would be required to obtain additional easements all the way across to Town Line Road prior to the road construction. Smith commented that there appears to be a 20 foot easement already in place connecting to the new road. Slaughter stated there also is a 33 foot easement that exists. Weinberger stated there is documentation showing almost overlapping easements which would provide access back to the property as well. Weinberger stated there apparently is a cartway which exists in this area, which has never been legally recorded and was never used. Weinberger stated there is a 33 foot easement from 1910 which could provide driveway access as well. Berg inquired what easement Slaughter intends to use, the cartway or the 33 foot easenient. Slaughter stated she would use the easement along t .>wn Line. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission is simply approving that section of road that is being proposed tonight and does not really have any jurisdiction to hear any other issues relating to easements or the railroad access. Smith commented that there appears to be some options for the property ov^ers relating to access, but noted the Planning Commission is not in a position to hear those matters at this time. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2587, 4575 Wayzata Boulevard, Subdivision for Platting a Public Road Adjacent to a Proposed Six Lot Plat Located in the City of Medina, subject to the seven conditions contained in the May 15,2000 Planner's Report VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#6) #2580 TIMOTHY PATTRIN, 1360 RAILROAD AVENUE - VARIANCE. 7:49 p.m. - 7:55 p.m. Timothy Pattrin, Applicant, was present. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May IS, 2000 (#2580 Timothy Pattrin, Continued) Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 624 square foot attached garage addition to the north side of the existing residence. The property is located on the comer of Railroad Avenue and Spates Avenue, with the existing driveway being utilized to provide access to the proposed garage. A variarice to the street side yard setback is required to permit a side yard setback of 23 feet where 50 feet is required. The proposed garage will be located 23 feel from Spates Avenue, which is not a heavily traveled street. Bottenberg stated the existing garage will be remodeled into a master bedroom/bath, laundry room and a quader bath. The property is serviced with a well, which is located on the east side of the residence. The garage will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 9.76 percent where 6.94 exists and 15 percent is allowed, which is well below what is allowed. The garage will also result in an increase of overall hardcover coverage to 29.9 percent where 23.7 percent exists and 35 percent is allowed, virhich is also below what is allowed. City Staff is recommending approval of the street side yard setback. Pattrin indicated he has no comments regarding his application. There were no public comments relating to this application. Lindquist moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2580, 1360 Railroad Avenue, granting of a variance to street side yard setback for property located at 1360 Railroad Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2581 JOHN AND KRISTIN GEHRING, 1687 CONCORDIA STREET - VARIANCES, 7:55 p.m. • 8:40 p.m. (Berg is not present in Council Chambers) John and Kristin Gehring, Applicants, were present. Noil Trainor, neighbor, was present, and Tom Palm, neighbor, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to tear down an existing residence and build a new residence in approximately the same location on the lot. The proposal involves moving the new residence back a few feet to be more in alignment with the adjacent properties and bring the residence more into compliance with side yard setbacks and structural lot coverage. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has indicated a desire to work with City Staff on this matter ar>d has submitted a number of plans in order to bring the proposal more in compliance with City Code. A variance to lakeshore setback is required to permit the principal structure to be located 42 feet from the lakeshore where 75 feet is required. A second variance to hardcover in the 0-75 feel setback is also required to permit 26.7 percent hardcover wttere zero percent is allowed and where 26 3 percent exists. Another variance to hor^cover in the 75-250 foot setback is ulso required to permit 26.2 percent of hardcover where 25 percent is allowed and 24.7 percent exists. The new residence will also result in an increase in structural coverage to 15 percent where 13.4 percent exists and 15 percent is allowed. Pago 11 I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000 (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) Staff has indicated to the Applicant that an average lakeshore setback variance is not required; however the location of the proposed residence does not meet ONR minimum recommended standards for General Development Lakes of 50 feet. Gehring stated there are five other properties with approximately the same setback from the lake, and that their request is basically to make their residence stay at the same basic setback. Gehring indicated he has spoken with his neighbors regarding this project, who have not expressed any concerns. Smith noted a letter has not been received from the DNR regarding this application. Smith inquired virhether the DNR has been informed of this application. Bottenberg stated the DNR has been informed of this project and has not expressed any concerns. Gehring stated at the time they constructed their garage in 1995, they did work with City Staff and attempted to put together a comprehensive plan on this property. Gehring commented they were told that their plans for what they were proposing in the future were somewhat irrelevant because they were not in a position to approve everything at that time. Gehring noted they have taken steps in the past to keep hardcover to a minimum, such as reducing the width of the driveway and a smaller width sidewalk, both of which are below standards. Smith inquired at what setback the Applicant is proposing to build his residence. Gehring stated they are proposing to build 42 feet from the lake, which is the average of the two adjoining properties. Gehring stated the property to the south has a ten foot deck plus three foot stairs at the rear of the residence, which reduces the selback to the lake. Tom Palm, 1685 Concordia Street, stated the comer of the house as it exists now is located 1.6 feet from the property line, noting he would be very much in favor of squaring up the house and widening the access to the lake. Palm commented his property was constructed 39 feet from the lake, with a ten foot deck. Palm stated by allowing the Applicant to construct at 42 feet from the lake, it would bring the residence into alignment with the other adjoining properties and improve the drainage in the area. Palm indicated he is in support of this project. Neil Trainor, 1675 Concordia Street, indicated he recently purchased this property from his parents who lived in the residence for quite some < me. Trainor stated a majority of the problem with the setback has resulted from the lakesho a eroding ever th'> years, noting that approximately ten feet of lakeshore has eroded away over the years. Trainor stated the location for the proposed residence is good due to the alignment with the other adjoining properties. Smith inquired why the Planning Commission did not require Palm to meet the 50 foot setback at the time he constructed his residence in 1995. Palm stated no ono was in favor of a two story building, which vi^uld block the neighbors' view at the 75 foot setback, so the Planning Commission elected to allow the hou.«o to bo built at 39 feet to make it more in alignment with the other homes in the area. Sioddard commented he has concerns with the amount of hardcover proposed in the 0-75 foot setback as well as the amount of hardcover in the 75-250 foot setback. Stoddard stated the rage 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2581 John Gehiing, Continued) Applicant may need to look at reducing the amount of hardcover. Gehiing inquired whether he was being asked to relocate his garage to reduce hardcover. Smith stated the Planning Commission on new construction generally requires the Applicants to comply with the structural and hardcover requirements. Smith stated the Applicant should attempt to lower the hardcover in the 75-250 foot setback to 25 percent, which is what is typically allowed on new construction. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission should consider whether the hardcover should exceed what is existing in the 0-75 foot setback. Lindquist stated his preference would be to locate as little hardcover as possible in the 0-75 foot setb^, but in this case due to the location of the other residences in the neighborhood, it would not be logical to move the house further back from the lake. Lindquist noted the cabins in this area have existed for approximately 100 years. Gehring commented that these lots are all 50 foot lots, which means you are limited in what you can do with the lot. Nygard indicated what creates a hardship is the topography of the land. Stoddard stated he would like to see the residence constructed closer to the lake than the • squired 75 foot setback due to the location of the other residences in the neighborhood. Stoddard indicated he would like to see the hardcover in the 0-250 foot setback reduced. Stoddard noted this is new construction, and suggested the Applicant consider his options. Gehring commented they have attempted to limit the size of the house while still being able to have four bedrooms. Gehring stated in his view the narrow lot width creates a hardship as well as the hiqh water table, which does not allow for construction of a basement. Stoddard stated the Applicant would be allowed 2,200 square feet of living space under the structural coverage limits. Nygard inquired whether the sidewalk from the garage is necessary. Gehring stated the garage is located 100 yards from the residence. (Berg returns at 8:15 p.m.) Lindquist stated the Applicant is allowed 15 percent structural coverage. Stoddard stated he does not have a problem with the proposed structural coverage but would like to see the amount of proposed tiordcover reduced in the 0-250 foot setback. Stoddard commented the intent of the hardcover limits is to help protect the shoreland. Stoddard stated the Applicant is allowed 2,212 square feet of hardcover in the first two zones. Nygard commented that people also tend to add additional structure in the future, which the Applicant should also consider. Page 13 OROINO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May IS, 2000 (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) stHSuial Applicant should not exceed what Is existing now on hardcover and ^hring staled the residence originally was a cabin and was not constructed as a year-round residence. Gehring stated the residence does not adequately serve a familv a four Rphrinn ctaioH at the time they built the garage, they were not given much direction from City Staff at that time. Mrs. Gehring stated their current house is 30 feet wide along the lakeshore and 44 7 feet deeo The l^dquist commented he does not want to see any increase in hardcover or structural coveraoe over wtwt^rrently exists, with the residence being lined up with the other residences in the neighborhood. ^hring stated they are requesting an increase of 13 square feet in the 0-75 foot sethark ann 138 square feet in the 75-250 foot setback, which basically is the size of a small bedroom. Sm p?o^rty^ basically requesting the same amount of hardcover as what exists on the Nygard stated the Applicant will need to address the hardcover and structural coverage issues. Planning Commission appears to be comfortable with the 42 foot lakesh setback, with hardcover being limited to what currently exists.ore th??n?ify!!?, r ® Planning Commission can either act on the application tonight or table it to allow as iwpS* ° commented it appears the application will be denied Gehring requested the Planning Commission act on his application tonight. Ki^n rlhrin^^ second^, to recommend denial of Application #2681, John and ******* **** ***•"* presented, with the understandingthat the application would be approved If the amount of hardcover proposed Is reduced from^ 3,535 square feet to 3,484 square feet VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Berg'^A^Llned Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COM.\<i .SSION Monday, May 15, ''(rtiO (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) Smith noted the Planning Commission has acted on what is before them tonight. Weinberger commented the City Council may elect to send it back to the Planning Commission if the Applicant submits revised plans. Gehriii ’j commented his understanding was that his application would bo approved if the hardcover is reduced. Lindquist stated his motion is recommending approval contingent upon the Applicant reducing the amount of structural coverage and hardcover to what is presently existing on the property. Stoddard inquired virhether the Planning Commission should reconsider the motion. Nygard moved, Stoddard seconded, to reopen the discussion. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Berg Abstained. Gehring requested to amend his application to reflect the amount of hardcover currently existing. Smith stated in the p.: it the Planning Commission has recommended approval of applications where there is only a slight reduction in hardcover or structural coverage required with the u^erstanding the Applicant will work with City Staff to revise his plans to bring it into conformance with the Planning Commission's directives. Smith indicated she would like to poll the Planning Commission members to see whether that would be appropriate in this case. The majority of the Planning Commission indicated they would be agreeable to making approval contingent upon a reduction in the amount of hardcover and structural coverage proposed to what currently exists on the propedy. Stoddard indicateo he would not be in favor of making approval contingent and would prefer to see the Applicant continue to work with City Staff prior to approval. Lindquist indicated he would be willing to make a motion to allow 3,484 square feet in hardcover and 2,150 square feet in structural coverage, which is what exists now. Nygard requested the Applicant limit the amount of structural coverage on this lot to 2,150 square feet regardless of the location of the new residence. Gaffron commented the Applicant is looking at reducing approximately 51 square feet of hardcover. Bottenberg stated an error was made in the calculation of hardcover and the amount existing is 3,384 square feet rather than 3,484 square feet. Lindquist noted the amount cf hardcover to be reduced would be 151 square feet rather than 51 square feet. Lindriuist moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2581, John and Kristin Gehring, 1687 Concordia Street, with the understanding that the new hardcover will no* exceed the existing 3,384 square feet and that the stnictural coverage Page IS ..... 1^-4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2581 John Gehring, Continued) will not exceed 2,150 square feet, and to grant a variance to the lakeshore setback to permit the principal structure to be located 42 feet from the lakeshore. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Nygard moved, Stoddard seconded, to rescind the motion recommending denial of this application. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Weinberger noted that typically the Planning Commission has required any hardcover in the 0-75 foot setback be applied to the other setbacks. Weinberger inquired whether the approval would be subject to the condition that there would be no further hardcover allowed on this property Weinberger noted the Applicants are not at the 35 percent maximum amount in the 250-500 foot setback. Smith indicated that a restriction on further hardcover would be a condition of approval. Nygard stated the Applicant will not be allowed any additional hardcover on his property. (#8) #2582 FRANCIS AND SUSAN ANN KOUBSKY, 4784 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES 8:40 p.m. - 8:48 p.m. Francis and Susan Koubsky, Applicants, were present. Botlenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to remove the existing access at North Shore Drive construct 3 gdrago/room addition and deck at the northeast comer of the existing residence ^^e deck will replace an existing one that will be removed. Access to the property will now be via Park Avenue (addressed as Tonkaview Lane) along the north lot line due to the steep topography at North Shore Drive which makes access during the winter months a hazard for both the Applicants and the motorists who drive on North Shore Drive. City Staff is recommending the Applicants change their address to Tonkaview Lane with the relocation of the access to the property. Bottenberg noted the garage/room addition meets all required setbacks except for the street setback at the north lot line, which will require a variance to permit a front setback of ten feet where 35 feet is required. Bottenberg noted the structural coverage and hardcover on the lot is increasing but is still below the allowable limits. City Staff is recommending approval of the variance tor front yard setback and the relocation of access to "Park Avenue". Staff is further recommending that the neighborhood erect a nameplate sign on Tonkaview Lane. Smith indicated she did view the site. Mrs. Koubsky stated they have real safety concerns in the winter due to their steep driveway and a blind spot that exists, which is the reason for the relocation of the access. Koubsky stated the survey ,hows that the road is located ten feet from the property line, v^rhich is incorrect Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2582 Francis Koubsky, Continued) Lindquist commented the Planning Commission understands that where the roads are platted are not necessarily where the roads are actually located. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission needs to look at where the platted roads are in determining the setbacks. There were no public comments regarding this application. Nygard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2582, Francis and Susan Ann Koubsky, 4784 North Shore Drive, granting of a variance to a front yard setback and relocation of access to "Park Avenue". VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. GafTron stated the neighbors in this area need to look at the issue of addressing, with the residents located on Tonkaview and Park changing their address to a Tonkaview address rather than a North Shore address. Gaffron stated City Staff could send a letter out asking if the residents are interested in making that change. Smith noted that was a staff recommendation which was not included in the motion. Gaffron stated City Staff will pursue this issue further. (#9) #2583 ROXANN BEISCH, 3436 LIVINGSTON AVENUE • VARIANCES, 8:48 p.m. - 9:05 p.m. Roxann Beisch, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to remove the existing detached garage and construct a new garage, with the existing garage being located over the rear property line and on the west property line. The Applicant has stated a hardship exists in that the current garage has a dirt floor and is located on the lowest point between the adjacent properties, which causes the garage to become unuseable following a rain storm. In the winter months the ground swells with frost and the doors cannot be opened. Weinberger stated the option of filling in the low portion of the property was discussed, but this option was not pursued since it is the only location between the two properties that collects water runoff and should probably remain in order. The Applicant is proposing to construct the new garage approximately 12 feet off the property line, which places the garage ahead of the low area and allows for a foundation or slab underneath the garage. This location would allow the garage to remain dry and shorten the length of the driveway. The garage would bo located five feet off the side property line. The logic behirtd requiriro .^t least a five foot setback is a result of the Code requirement to maintain a minimum setba.^. t;> «•: other structures of ten feet. The adjacent garage is currently located three feet off the cy '-ne. and if replaced In the future, it should be located five feet from the property line resulting in a ten foot separate between the two buildings. Weinberger stated the proposal would require some additional hardcover on the property for a total of 43.4 percent in the 500-1000 foot lakeshore setback. The Applici^i .1 is proposing to remove 328 square feet of hardcover. City Staff is recommending reducing the size of the existing rear deck. Staff is also recommending approval of the application. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2583 Roxann Beisch, Continued) Smith inquired what the dimensions of the garage are. Weinberger stated the proposed garage is 20 by 14 feet or 280 square feet. Weinberger pointed out that this lot is not as deep as the other lots in the area. Smith inquired whether the new garage would b'* adjacent to the garage on the other property. Weinberger stated the new garage would be located further up from the other garage. Beisch stated the front of the garage is even with the overhang on the back side of her house. Beisch stated she does have a question relating to the side yard setback, noting the garage would still be 18 feet from the adjoining residence if it was located three feet from the property line. Smith stated the City needs to maintain proper distances between structures in order to allow for emergency vehicle access. Beisch indicated her back door is in the middle of the deck, and if the deck is reduced to the size requested, it would only leave her 19 inches to step out and go down the steps. Weinberger stated it is calculated to be approximately 4.5 feet wide from the edge of the deck to the house. Beisch stated she would be okay with that. There were no public comments regarding this application. Beisch noted the adjoining property owner will be constructing a new driveway, which will drain the water towards her property. Lindquist suggested the City Engineer review the drainage in this area. Beisch inquired whether the five foot side yard setback could be reduced. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to require the five feet side yard setback. Smith commented that the Planning Commission appears to be in favor of the five feet rather than the three feet side yard setback. Beisch irulicated she was fine with the five feet Weinberger commented the adjoining property owner was attempting to utilize the existing footprint and had some other setback issues in the back yard. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2583, 3438 Uvinoston Avenue, granting of a side yard setback to permit construction of a one<stail detached garage to be located five feet from the property line based on Applicant's statement of hardship, and subject to the size of the rear deck being reduced to the size indicated on the site plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 18 --------- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday* May 15,2000 (#10) #2584 ANDREW AND TRACY RASCHER, 4705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 9:05 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. Andrew and Tracy Rascher, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use peimit to replace an existing retaining wall and install two additional retaining walls within the 0-75 foot setback. Since retaining walls are considered hardcover, a variance is needed for hardcover in the 0-75 foot setback area. Bottenberg indicated the proposal would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, witt. the City Engineer recommending that no new retaining walls be constructed on the site between the home and the lake. It is the City Engineer's opinion that the retaining walls can be repaired and restored with minimal disturbance to the existing slope. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances and conditional use permit for repair of the existing retaining walls in the 0-75 foot setback area, but denial of the proposed new retaining walls based on the goals and policies cited in the City of Orono's Community Management Plan. Jeremy Bakken, Builder, stated due to the slope of the back yard all the way down to the lake and the old deteriorating corKlition of the existing wails, in his opinion it would be more cost effective to build new walls rather than repair the existing walls. Bakken stated the amount of grading involved in the repair is equal to that which would occur with construction of the new walls. Bakken stated the existing walls are not controlling the drainage and are unsafe. Rascher commented they would like to replace the existing walls due to the fact they are very unstable and do not do the job they were initially constructed to do. Rascher stated they would like to build some retaining walls which are more stable. Smith inquired whether they have had a chance to look at the letter from the City Engineer. Bakken stated they are not proposing to change the existing grade until they get closer to the lake. Bakken stated he would not recommend limestone walls since they need to be replaced periodically and tend to be unstable over time. Mrs. Rascher stated they are attempting to reduce the amount of erosion into the lake, noting that currently nothing is being filtered at this point. Rascher commented the current condition of the steps are unsafe due to the nails which are exposed in the timbers and the unstableness of the flagstone walls. Rascher stated they would like to have a safe access to the lake and remove the safety hazard that currently exists due to the fact they have a young child who will be in this area. Smith stated she can appreciate the safety concerns and the fact that flagstone steps tend to become tippy over time. Smith stated the City of Orono does want people to have safe access to tho lake, but that there are some limits that must be imposed on what people can construct. Smith stated since she is not an engineer, she cannot comment on the structural issues, but that the Planning Commission tends to take into account the recommendations of the City Engineer when deciding what is acceptable. Rascher stated they are proposing to decrease the steepness of the slope. Smith stated there are other lots in Orono with steep slopes, and that the Planning Commission must look at the recommendations of the City Engineer. Smith commented she has visited the site and is not totally convirKed new retaining walls are needed. Smith stated the City likes to encourage residents to keep the area as natural as possible and to limit construction down by the Page 19 J ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15,2000 (#2584 Andrew Rascher, Continued) lake. Smith commented the Planning Commission must look at what it will take to maintain what is existing and how to provide safe access down to the lake with a minimal amount of construction. Smith stated it is the policy of the City to stay away from a lot of terraced walls and to leave the area as natural as possible. Lindquist stated he is not capable of determining whether vrhat currently exists is right or whether the retaining walls should be replaced. Lindquist stated he does have a problem with retaining walls being located in the 0-75 foot setback as a general mie, and suggested the Applicants speak with the City Engineer to see if something can be worked out v/hich will be acceptable to all parties. Lindquist stated he would be hard pressed to go against the recommendations of the City Engineer. Lindquist suggested the matter be tabled to allow the Applicants time to discuss this matter further with the City Engineer. Smith commented that the engineering issues should perhaps tie explored further, and agreed that the Applicants should perhaps speak with the City Engineer to discuss hi3 recommendations. Weinberger stated the City Engineer will speak with the Applicant if so desired. Weinberger suggested the Applicants contact Wendy to arrange a meetir^ with the City Engineer. Mrs. Rascher inquired what would happen if the application is tabled. Smith stated the Applicants would probably reappear before the Planning Commission at their June meeting if they are able to resolve the issues. Smith stated the Applicants could request additional time if so needed by submitting a letter asking for an extension of the time limit. Bottenberg indicated the 60 day time limit expires on June 19th, which is the date of the next Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Rascher requested the application be tabled at this time. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2584, Andrew and Tracy Rascher, 4705 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS APRIL 24. 2000 AND MAY 8. 2000 Nygard indicated he was unable to attend the April 24,2000 City Council meeting Smith commented she is not aware of who attended the May 8th meeting. Page 20 V 1 I k **-* -**^*^, WITH*! tin I ^ ■ fil 1^ Oil il# r»^-fJl«T#I#lTiU;I«whuzu ri Ri liTiinqRMW •■(•It rtTiVCt¥cf»^lT^It nnri • I ■ WtTcWitTin««i Smith suggesttf'J this item be added to the work session agenda. Gaffron commented that perhaps the agenda could be rearranged to have the less controversial items towards the beginning of the meeting. Gaffron stated City Staff could do a review of the items rellWiltWlIt I I • •It Ol •:^i iitiiit