The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-16-2000 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday October 16,2000 6:30 p.m. 2750 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA-FINAL Council Representative: Barbara Peterson 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 Commusion is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the November 13,2000 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence before or between scheduled public hearings. . #2624 Roger Olsen, 815 Partenwood Road, Renewal Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) yi. #2571 Doug Ault and Jim Ginther, 2739 Shad^^ood Road, After-the-fact Variance. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) //!>. #2610 Jerome J. Hall, 80 Leaf Street, Variance. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 4^82614 Joe and Sue Haus, 4485 Bayside Road, Variance. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 p.m. ^ #2621 James Barth, 3725 Togo Road, Subdivision. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 7:30 p.m. 6.#2631 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, k' s’dential P.U.D., (Staff: Mike Gaffron) \ . m I CMK CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS ’< #2620 Paul Pascuzzi, 3320 Navarre Lane, After>the-fact Variance. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) ^^p-if2622 ^^2623 Gina Kosek, 1875 Shadywood Road, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) Greg and michelle Walsh, 1926 Fagemess Pt. Rd., Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) #2625 Morgan K. Nelson, 3145 Jamestown Road, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinl^rger) ^7/?nC . #2626 William B. and Lynee M.L. Peterson, 420 Orhchard Park Rd., Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) Willmar L. Thorkelson, 440 Big Island, After-the-fact Variance. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) Roger Anderson, 2200 Shadywood Road, Variance. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) '4. #2629 Keith Nord, 1245 Lakeview Avenue, Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) yi S. #2630 Gregg and Stephanie Larsen, 1380 Rest Pt. Rd., Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 16.Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings September 25,2000 and October 9,2000. 17.Other issues for discussion. 18.Planning Commission approval of minutes for September 18,2000. 19.Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on October 23,2000 and November 13,2000. ADJOURNMENT F Public A ttendance Meeting Date IO -llo- t o □Council IjJ Planning Commission □Park Commission □Other Please ntL out the information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1.j 2. % gyp 3.^ i._R, ^LcLuf»^ Jfij ■9 s/^iQ.y~ i.■//a 4S c\ nf I c r K f c 6m VV ! U r\ I c-y^ r (\ c f /V 7.JuUt^ A. Vyl<'vl/yrK^ f?r I O--.V'V ► IVi J/ ^ (-X n 8._A ■eA \OrJ ??x5Ty 9. 10. 11.. 12. 13.. 14. 15. X:\AffSN WFWlN#t^WFOOCS^rOILMS^Pt’mUC.ATT tauR^mwni^M ■ ft A .1. ■ k . I ■OMttMMMBIMUUUludtfflR:IrfWUQL^i««lkac4AAlQU L / TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner October 16,2000 SUBJECT:#2624 Roger J. Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variance Renewal •• Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area: 44,225 s.f. (1.02 acre) List of Exhibits A Application B Report from previous renewal (10/25/99) C Minutes from previous, meetings (PC-10/18/99, CC- 10/25/99) D Res. 4367 The applicants are applying to renew variances that were granted on November 24,1997, October 26,1998 and October 25,1999. The plans are to expand and remodel the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living area. Variances were approved for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Variances were required for remodeling to the existing residence that is located 34' from the lakeshore where 75' is required. Also hardcover in the 0-75' zone where 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) proposed, 5,815 s.f. (20%) exists and 0 s.f (0%) is allowed. Staff Recommendation: Tne zoning lot conforms to lot area, lot width, and side yard setback requirements. The existing residence is locaied within the required lakeshore setback. The propos^ plan reduces the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' setback. The existing amount of hardcover on the site is 10,228 s.f (23%). The proposed plan is for 6,595 s.f (14.9%) total hardcover on the lot. Staff recommends renewing the variance for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75' setback #2624 Roger J. Olsen 815 Partenwood yarlance Renewal page I » Application # CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Receded 9 /^cVc^ Amount Paid / PROPERTY INFOI^IATION Site Address ^ Property Identification Number fP.I.D.’l /77—.^7 0003------- t-i A.ttach legal description to application if not included on required survey Date Pro|BSCty^Acquired,5" - - 5^ 7 I (do)dqo pqQ* also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: /0. 0^.5" L R- i6_______ (month/year) (/■' 0 i . / V. APPLICANT Name Rcne> J Db. Address: y/C Phone (home ’) 9^0 ~ H7f~ 7711 _ _____ Phone fwork ^ H, 1- /" City: __________Zip:_j£friiIiC_V OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone (home). Phone (vvork)_ fc*-1 Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback: __Front __ _ Other (specify) Side Rear Average Lakeshore / xjk. cT HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements:. (attach additional sheets if necessary) Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 9/22/99 mim 11/21/99 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 10/20/99 ITEM NO.: p Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner Item Description:#2531 Roger J. and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variance Renewal Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:44,225 s.f. (1.02 acres) 5 Application: The applicants are requesting approval to renew variances that were granted on November 24, 1997 and October 26, 1998 to allow expansion and remodeling of an existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living area. The requested variances are for: 1. To allow remodeling per the plan in Exhibit A of the resolution where the residence is currently located 34' from the lakeshore where 34' is proposed and 75' is required. 2. To allow 15.3% (4,413 s.f) of hardcover to be located within the 0'*75' lakeshore setback where (20%) 5,815 s.f. is existing and none is allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: To approve renewal of the requested variances on a vote of 7-0. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. J A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL OF VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE NO. 2531 WHEREAS, Roger Olsen and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants”) are owners of the property located at SLS Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for the renewal of variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space located 34 ’ from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed as shown on Exhibit A. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2531. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 1.02 acre. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal application on October 18, 1999 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL. Page 1 of 5 2. The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad. 3.The amount of hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback would be reduced from 20% to 15.3%. i 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above fmdings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34' from the OHWL where 75' is required and hardcover of 4,415 s.f. (15.3%) in the 0’ to 75' lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed. 1. 2. 3. All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback prior to any new construction. No further variances will be granted to this property in the fiiture. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 25, 2000). Page 2 of 5 II 't I ' *1%. 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms a conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. 6. Any substantial changes or revisions to the plan in Exhibit A will require reconsideration by the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Mirmesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of October, 1999. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of October, 1999, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ day of , 199__ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared ____________________________:—:-------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing mstnimeni,an *1 acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed, NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199__ before me a Notary Public within and for taiovm°to°me to be the person(s) described in and who exwuted the instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 4 of 5 7 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner Octobers, 1999 SUBJECT: #2531 Roger J. Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variance Renewal — Public Hearing I Zoning Dbtrict: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:44,225 s.f. (1.02 acre) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1, Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B), LR-IB Lot Requirements Application Summary: The applicants received variances to expand and remodel the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living area. Variances were granted on November 24,1997 and October 26,1998 for lakeshore setback to be located 34' from the lakeshore where 75’ is required and for hardcover in the 0'-75* setback where 20% (5,815 s.f.) was existing and 15.3% (4,413 s.f.) was proposed. U253! Roger J. Olsen 815 Partenwood Variance Renewal PC-IO/8/99 page-1 *iiiii^na 11 attOu ANALYSIS Lot Ayca an4 Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 1.02 acres 225 ft. at 75' setback; 357 ft. atOHWL 37 ft. (existing) 35 ft. (proposed) 46 ft. (existing) 20 ft. (proposed) 34 ft. The existing residence does not conform to the current lakeshore setback regulations. The homeowner's association has more restrictive side yard setbacks than the zoning district, therefore, the garage was placed 20' instead of 10' from the side yard setback. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'28,810 sq. ft.5,815 sq. ft. (20%) None 4,413 sq. ft. (15.3%) 15.3% 75'-250'15,415 sq. ft.2,995 sq. ft. (19%) 25%3,600 sq. ft. (23%) None The applicant was granted a hardcover variance in the 0'-75' setback to reduce the amount of hardcover from 20% to 15.3%. \ H2351 Roger J. OUen 815 Partenwood Variance Renewal PC-10/8/99 page-2 Statement of Hardship : See Exhibit B Staff Recommendation : The zoning lot conforms to lot area, lot width, and side yard setback requirements. The existing residence is located within the required lakeshore setback. The proposed plan reduces the amount of hardcover in the 0'-75' setback. The existing amount of hardcover on the site is 10,228 s.f. (23%). The proposed plan is for 6,595 s.f. (14.9%) total hardcover on the lot. Staff recommends renewing the variance for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0'-75' setback. Attachments A Application B Applicant's letter C Architect's letter D Elevation E Site Plan F Hardcover worksheets G Minutes from previous meetings (10/20/97,11/17/97,11/24/97) H Res. 4004 I Minutes from previous meetings (10//19/98,10/26/98) J Res. 4185' ♦I.A U2531 Roger! Olsen 815 Partenwood Variance Renewal PC-lO/8/99 poge-3 ■ A’ Application # ^ i Date Received" 7/2 9 Amount Paid /SO CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ^ Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 —^ (no change from original application) Variance for nonconforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address l^oAC> OdcNo n)/\f Property Identific^onNuml^r^J.D.), ill-^30003 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired________ S/Soj^ 7 I (do) (d5>PBi^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential o ther (specify ) Zoning District: jp. JL*/.S LA-lB Sn.LCe.i'/weU _(month/year) APPLICANT A*F. Name J- CiSeW Address: /VS' R.oAa Phone (home ) ^1/'1733_____ ____ Phone (work ) V/ 7 - ^30^____ City: <g/g^A/c _______Zip: SS250 r ^ ) . / OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work).) Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary)r‘ %-S; VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore ^ Other (specify) ^t/BwAL HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difticulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: _______________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) i nil litif^[i-i~-iiaiTrflin r St'* September 22,1999 To: The City of Orono From: Roger Olsen Subject: Renewal of Variance for my home at 815 Partenwood Road. I am requesting a one-year extension of the existing variance on my property due to the following circumstances: Several general contractors have tinned down my project after initiating the bid process due to a lack of time and their inability to get reliable commitments from their sub contractors. After receiving a firm bid four weeks ago from a general contractor willing to do the project, the price is over one hundred thousand dollars higher than my initial expectations and fmancial ability at this time. This represents a 25% increase in construction costs over the initial estimates. Thank you for your considering this renewal variance. Sincerely, Roger Olsen 6 *• t \ -.i \ ’Ii .. •• ' • 3' \ liMi Ina i II T miilfga C. AI.EXANDI’U 5 November, 1997 To the City Planners of Orono: In response to your inquiry about the extent of remodeling to take place at 815 Partenwood, I will describe to you the scope of the work.dlsic ;n groui After being on the market for over a year, the Olsen’s purchased the property in June with the Intent of immediately remodeling the house. The house has a sagging roof that is in need of re-construction. The structure is of 2x4 wall construction & not up to current energy codes, is in need of window replacement, the porch foundation is In need of replacement,as well as needing much updating to pass any building inspection for current code compliance. Much of the current foundation will remain. Foundation will only be removed at areas where the house is being expanded. The porch foundation will be re-built. The lower level is walkout and has a sub-standard wall which can either have 2x6 studs piggybacked to the existing studs or we would rebuild the wall. Rebuilding the wall Is a much preferred method of remodeling and what we hope to do. The same options of construction can be applied to the main floor walls that will remain. The main floor is currently cantilevered at lakeside further than current codes allow for cant’s, so we will need to cut it back and re-build it without cantilevers. Given that the whole main level lakeside wall needs to be re-built to eliminate the cantilever, it has been suggested by contractors to rebuild the floor- for several reasons- to Improve constr. & eliminate rebuilding of sub-standard areas, to raise the height of the lower level to current ceiling heights, and allow for clear spans. This concept has now been incorporated into our plans. The ceiling plate heights will be raised and a totally new roof truss system Installed. The exact size and shape of the existing and proposed house are shown residential buldag design overlaid on the site plan submitted for variance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact the Olsens or myself. ▼ i 401 EAST LAKE STREET Sincerely, Kathryn AlA<ander V. a VZ a T.A. V.NS!3i'l (612) 4T3.5‘"r FAX (612) 4-3 s::: LMces(06 / !i O /I #<^V3/ 5 *« • bojH^y y// ><Sw iiili||l| iwiiiii r>i iiii;:*!S5SB iiliiiSi V f. 1* rio 11/20/97 10:04 FAX 612 470 S222 ALEXANDER DESIGN «AlU)COVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING WARPCQVT R IN 9LtiNr A. House 4- f 7S-2S0*2S0-SQQ'(tof jl) Width S.F. X X X S.F. S.F. S.F« B. Giragt vr\ /K.S.F. C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk 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 X 100 - PRQPOSEP WA.RPCOVER TN? TONTF A. House X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patlo/Dedc l\&t^ f^o g)CD^ <20iac- Oo^f^Jlsl F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______ 4. B ____X 100 - S.F. S.F. ^S-.S.F. _____ S.F. S.F. S.F. l.lo4r) S.F. ________S.F. S.F. S.F. Ch. P^\Ch S.F. S.F.4 3^ C2-ifgg>D S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. “ri5> 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. ft \ A B MiMAauBaaiiaiataiiaittiikkM HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING hardcover IN A. House -V LenjiK'^ • 250-500'500-1000' 0fc2^ Width 'bPbT) S.F. X X X & S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway X X lAdLi.VyiA iv^ A\. S.F. l S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ + B S.F. S.F. X 100 % PROPOSED HARnroVER IN ZOiSTF. A. House 'h'hb S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. A B ■ -leaiiefifc MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER20,1997 Cr (^12 - #2304 Deborah ShoU • Continued) Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2304. Vote. Ayes 6j Nays 0. ^ (#13) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:45-11:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is for remodeling and expansion of an easting residence to include an attached 4-stall garage and loop driveway requiMg a lakeshore . setback, and hardcover variances in the 0-75'and 75-250'lakeshoresetbac . survey was presented. Bressler indicated that due to the lot configmation, e mg pad on the lot is restricted. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to conditions noted which include elimination of the loop portion of the ^ under landscaping, and with the notation that no further hardcover would be aUowed in the future. Bressler reported that the applicant has agreed to remove the plasuc under the landscaping. like to move the design down 10' to satisfy this requirement. Ha\v-n said in order for this to occur, a new plan would have to be submitted. Bressler noted that hardcover calculations would change. said he would agree in principle to this change but would require reviewmg e p Olsen said there was a time limit problem for beginning construction this year, retaining walls. The applicant's designer asked if approval coidd be based on percentages and changes meeting the percentages required. minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on OCTOBER 20,1997 (#13 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsea - Continued) indicated he would have to review the plan. Berg said she would like to see • calculations be improved. Berg noted that the Planning Commission must review the application that will be seen by the Council. Olsen said the shift would change the front setback from 35* to 32' and asked if that was a ig const era on. He was informed that Lindquist that it was a consideration. Schroeder questioned the need for 4 garage stalls. T? f^A^'seS^ ^PPiicant that the City does not like to see any structure within the Kto. Olsen suggested the plan eliminate the 10' within the setback tiiat is in question by c covenants. ^ OIscQ said he could eliminate 10* from the plan but would lose storage space. Lmdquist suggested the architectii^ design be considered as well. Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2305. Dr. Bill Cottleman, a next-door neighbor, was present representing the homeowners' association. He submitted a letter form the architectural committee regarding their restnctivc covenants. He noted their restrictions are more stringent than those of the City. He smd the homeowners' association would approve the home being more centered on the lot A copy of the letter was submitted to staff. He said the association prefers to see as much distance between the homes as possible. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. » f PETERSON, HAVING AN mTEREST IN 3355 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD>V4RIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:05-11:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publicatioh'oqd^^i^at^^Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Photos were shown of the pr^erty. Bresslcr reported th^Khe applicant is proposing fconstruction^fa 282 s.f. carport with a deck ®oove it attached to Ae front of Ae existing residence. Thel2*^OTde carport would extend 22 ’ out o^*er the existing driveway with a walkway. This propos^ls^ require variances fof side setback, lakeshore setback, and 0-75' and 75-250 ’ setbackfetdeover. 4 •1 \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 \ \ Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.• • ^ (#3) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENVVOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - 6:47-7:03 P.M. The applicant and architect, Kathryn Alexander, were present. Bressler presented pictures of the property. The applicant is proposing remodeling and • • e)^ansion of the residence to include a 4-stall attached garage. The application requires variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75' setback. There is no problem with average lakeshore setback as noted in the topographical map. The residence currently has a 3-stall side loading garage. The driveway configuration has been changed. The existing residence encroaches the lakeshore setback. The allowable building space is limited by the property. Only a portion of the existing foundation will lemain; further information is included in the packet The total hardcover is proposed at 19%. The 1.02 acre property is located in the one acre zoning district with 3/4 acre in the 6-75' setback. The street setback is also restneted. Bressler reported Staff recommended approval subject to maintaimng a 34* lakeshore setback from the designated OHW where 75' is required. Encroachment on the lakeshore setback will not be increased by the improvements. Staff recommends hardcover be maintained at a ma.ximum of 14.5% in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 20% is existing, 16% is proposed, and none is allowed. Bressler indicated that the amount of existing hardcover excluding landscaping underlain by plastic is 14.5%. This figure could largely orono planning commission MEETINO held on NOVEMBER 17,1997 be me by eliminating several proposed decks and existing patio area on the lake side of the residence. By approving this percentage, there would be no net gain in the amount of harfeover on the property, not including plastic under landscaping. Staff recommends all landscape underlain by plastic in the 0-75-lakeshore setback be removed prior to commencement of new construction. The appUcant has agreed to this provision. St^ also recommends that no further hardcover variances be granted to this properly in the future. Mr. Olsen, in noting the difficult lot, said he preferred not to reduce the hardcover further Hun die proposed l«%to 14.5%. Ms. Alexander said the total hardcover Is less than the. 25Vo allowed. Hawn informed the applicant that trading hardcover for landscaping underlain with plastic is not the same and does not justify the additional hardcover. Lmdquist said he agreed noting there is a large amount of structure on the property and is of the opinion that the applicant should maintain the 14.5% hardcover maximum. Stoddard asked Bressler to explain the suggestions for hardcover removal. Alexander noted that as suggested, the hardcover Would still be over 14.5%. Bressler informed • McMillan that he amved at the 14.5% by subtracting the landscaping underlain with plastic from the hardcover. The balance of hardcover to be removed would come from eliminating a portion of the patio, dog run, decking, or decreasing the size of the addition. Olsen said that he would have to eliminate the existing patio or addition even if all of the decking was eliminated. Lindquist informed him that if the residence was new i 1 ."V. h. \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 _ construction, he would not be allowed any structure in the 0-75* setback. Olsen acknowledged that the home would not have been able to be built to meet today s f *• • standards. Alexander noted that the patio consists of pavers and asked if pavers with drainage holes is still deemed hardcover. Lindquist said they were. Alexander said elumnating 1.5% of hardcover would consist of497 s.f. When asked by Hawn what items are necessary, it was noted diat the dog keimel could be gravel and the patio could be reduced in size. This would amount to less than the decrease being required. The patio is 810 s.f. and could be reduced. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2305 for lakeshore setback, Juidcover variance in 0-75' setback, subject to revised Staff recommendation including a 41* lakeshore setback variance for structure to remain at 34 ftom the OHW, hardcover variance for a maximum of 4415 s.f. in the 0-75* setback, and plastic under landscaping ved in the 6-75* setback. The reduction in hardcover in the 0-75* setback wiU bemo decided by applicant subject to staff approval. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. DRIVE - PLANNED(#4) #230&^ROOK PARK REALTY, 3560 SVIO BESroE^TIALD^^WBLOP^IENT AND-C^ASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:03-7:39 Bill Gleason w^s^esent representing Brook Park Realty. f-1 ! MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT \U3) #2279 G. MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVK RiiCONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL X • - X Mrs. Wmtcbead was present. GaSrod reporte^Aat discussion, was held at the last Council xnee^g regardmg the paric dedication fee. Puhi^t to Staff discussions. Staff recomm^ reopening the ^ preliminary plat resonhipn to enable Staff to draft for inco^ration mto the resolution additional findings relate^ the nexus and proportion^ issues related to the park fee. Mrs. Whitehead had no conunehts. She verified St^and Council renewed her letter faxed to the City Office. Gaffion^cated th^ was received on this date and distributed for Council review. Jabbour informed Whitehead that the G^u^i\^plans on acting on the aj^Ucation in a timely manner. Mrs. Whitehead s^he applies that Jabbour said the Councd must also protect the interests ofme City. Jabbour moved, Peterson^^nded, to reconsider Resolution #3966 for purposes noted. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Jabbour moved, Hmt seconded, to direct Staff to draft findings^a^exus and proportionalityior inclusion in Resolution #3966. Barrett Y^fied that the findings will include the nexus and proportionaK^j^f tiie subdivision’s impact on parks. ^ nte: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#4) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 814 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4003 The applicants and architect were present Van Zomeren reported that the 1.02 acre property is located in the District and meets the minimum lot requirements. Pictures were pre^tc o e property. The existing house is located within 75'of the lakeshorc. ^elo isun the lot e.xtends along the lake but is narrow in its depth. The application is a pr^x) a 4-car garage and additions to the residence. A patio with pavers cuirently exi^. me planningCommissionunanimously recommended approval of the 41 variance or ^ lakeshore setback for the residence 34' from the lakeshore and 15.3% har cover vanan in the 0-75' setback where 20% exists and none is allowed. i 1 minutes of the regular orono city council meeting held on NOVEMBER 24,1997 ” ^2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued) The applicant had no additional comments. • • . • • i Jabbour asked if any of the hardcover resulted from replacement of non-structuial hardcover with stmctural hardcover. Van Zomeren explained what currently exists and * is proposed. She indicated the plan is reduced from the original proposal by remov^ of a dog rtm and balcony on the lake side. Van Zomeren said additional structure will occur. Jabbom explained the issue of concern. He noted that applications have been reviewed where illegally non-conforming hardcover is approved as part of an application becoming legally non-conforming hardcover and resulting in more permanent structure on properties. Jablwur said when the non-conforming hardcover is reviewed, the Planning Commission assumes it has been placed their legally through the permit process but has been added since the original application for construction on the property was made. The City has not verified if the property has changed since the last application and the hardcover is used for trading for additional structure. Kathryn Alexander, the architect, said the property is the same as existed when the original permits were issued. Jabbour said his point referred to other situations. Peterson expressed her surprise that the residence was able to be built originally. Jabbour indicated that it was approved just prior to the current zoning ordinances. • Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4003. Vote: Aye^, Nays 0. #2311 LOREN FRITZ, 3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLiqriON NO. 4004 Mr. Fritz was pr^ Peterson moved, Flint secorided^t^^ddpTResolution No. 4004. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. • (*#6) #2313 TOM A^iHTCARI STEINKE,^H)kPAKOTA AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTIONNa 4005 Pclcrt^moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4005rVbt«;..Ayes 3, Nays 0. • • • . *h M CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4004 . A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE NO. 2305 WHEREAS, Roger and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 815 Partenwood Road wdthin the City of Orono Qierein er e City") and legally described as follow ’s: Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has appUed to. the City for vmances to Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2305. 2.The property is locited in the LR-IB Single Family LakeAore Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property const o 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application 1997 and reconunended approval of the proposed variance ase upo following fmdings: I. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL, Page 1 of 5 MTTllifcill J CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO- -A ^ Q ^ 2. 4. r '* The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad. 3. The amount of hardcover in the O' to 75’ lakeshore setback would be reduced from 20% to 15.3%. ^e City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to It and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; .that grantmg the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and mtent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. * • CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants vanances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the rem^eling and expansion of the existing residence located 34’ from the OHWL where 75’ is Bid h^cova of 4,415 s.f. (153%) in the O’ to 75’ lakeshore setback xvhete 5,815 sX (20%) IS existing and none is allowed. 5. 1. 2. 3. All plastic imder landscaping must be removed in the 0’ to 75’ lakeshore setback pnor to any new construction. No further variances will be granted to this property in the future. Authorities grated by this variance nm with the property not with the applicants, but ^e permssive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 24, 1998). Page 2 of 5 m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4 0 0 4NO. 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variwce shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to die terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, Aeir heirs, successes and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of diis resolution in the Chain of Ti e o the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of November, 1997. AT^ST: Dorothy M I'i ly M. Hdpi, CiCity Clerk Pro Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24ih ^ November, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk o * of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on e o the City. mieiioouKTY__ I It0 ^ y' ^ ,Page 3 of 5 ... .j >j i- -irli nvr-HT ifmntiri CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 0 4 - STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this Jg. day of acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTWY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On diis____day of ____f 199_before me a Notary Public widiin andfor said county, personally appeared ■ _________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 11-19/97. 13:01 FAI 612 473 $222 ALEXAM)ER DESIGN • • @002 4004 If X ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 19,1998 ROLL: The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, William Stoddard. Elizabeth Hawn. Dale Undquist. Commissioner Charles Schroeder arrived at 6:45 p.m,, and Commissions Janice Berg and Lili McMillan were absent. The following represented City Staff: City Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Assistant Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. RENEWALS AND AMENDMENTS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #243l4lOANN JUNDT, 1400 B^ 6:34 p.m. ■TS POINT ROAD - VARIANCE RENEWAL, 6:32 p.ra. - There were no public Lindquist imwdd, Stoddard secondedTToNq^rove Application #2421,1400 Bracketts Point Road, rpAdvral of setback and hardcover vaftbncM per the findings and conditions of Reaofutions #3786 and #3986. VOTE: Ayes 4. Na^ ^ (#2) #2431 ROGER OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD - VARIANCE RENEWAL, 6:34 p.m. -6:36 p.m. There were no public comments. Lindquist V., ved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2431,815 Partenwood, renewal of variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover In the 0-75* setback per the findings and conditions of Re'sotution #4004. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#3r2434^ROL OLSON. KID’S ART SCHOOL, 2180 NORTH SHORE AMENDME?]Tr6:46 p.m. - 6:40 p.m. -CUP Carol Olson was present. Van Zomeren stated the Applicant is requeSttrjg^^^*’^^^®*'^ conditional use permit to allow a tipi to be located on the property for edueduonarbofpgses. which is considered to be an accessory use to the art school. Lindquist inquired whetheMh^pplicant had any concerns with City recommendations. Olson stated sbe’^s fine with the recommended conditions. rere no public comments. Page 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 26,1998 (#2430 Paul Phillips, Continued) GoetteiTmoveHrPctefsoa^econded, to senjiAppHcgfioh #2430,2140 Sixth Avenue North, back to the Plnnninrl^mTftffnilo^^ review.^^OTE; Ayes 4, Nays 0. ^ *(#13) #2431 ROGER OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE RENEWAL - RESOLUTION NO. 4185 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2431,815 Partenwood Road, and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4185. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 14) #2432 GREENFIELD CORPORATION, 4755/4775 BAYSTDE ROAD EASEMENT/SUBDIVISION Laurie Lur^deen, Greenfield Corporation, and Jim DeBerg, were present. Van Zomeren sh(ed the Applicants are requesting a revision or amendmmt to the final plat resolution to accommodate a private driveway easement over Lot 3 to^ovide access to Lot 1. The private dnyeway easement does not comply with the ap^val resolution for the final plat, which shows alKoutlot for all three lots along Bayside Rom. Van Zomeren stated Staff is generally not in favoKof private driveway easements due/o the possible problems that may result. The Planning Commission recommended denial of a priv^casement and suggested that the Applicant apply for a lot line rearrangembqt, which woqW require a lot width variance for Lot 3. Jim DeBerg, 1551 Hunter Lane, Medina, stated hi^Htad previously met with the property owner and offered the private driveway easemem notVealizing that it was in conflict with what was originally approved in the Resolution. DeBergt^ted he was later informed by the building official that he could not have a pwate driveway Msqment. Laurie Lundeen stated they were una\^e they could not grant a pK^te driveway easement. Mayor Jabbour stated the City doe^ot officially recognize a private drivbway easement. DeBergp remarked that even witiythe granting of the private driveway eascmen^lfte lot still exceeds the minimum lot size Van Zomeren stated a lot^dth variance would be needed in the case of a lot line rearrangement for the i^iadle lot. L__ M CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 1 ^ Fn______ A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL OF VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE NO. 2431 WHEREAS, Roger Olsen and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 8IS Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for the renewal of variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space located 34' from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f (20%) is existing and none is allowed as shown on Exhibit A. Minnesota: ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2431. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property, consists of 1.02 acre. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal application on October 19, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL. Page 1 of 5 % or\CITY of ORONO ^ fm RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 1 8 IS 2. The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad. j.The amount of hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback would be reduced from 20% to 15.3%. 4.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and ii!"?nt of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.vVie City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planrung Commission, reports by City staff, comments by; vhe applicants a.id the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and e.spansion of the existing residence located 34' from the OHWL where 75' is required and hardcover of 4,415 s.f (15.3%) in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed. 1.All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback prior to any new construction. 2. 3. No further variances will be granted to this property in the future. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approv^, or this variance will expire on that date (October 26, 1999). Page 2 of 5 .rn. . ► CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 1 ft R Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of tins variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatic y terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors an assigns, her*y agree to the record'mg of this resolution in the Cham of Title ot the property. 6.Any substantial changes or revisions to the plan in Exhibit A will require reconsideration by the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of October, 1998. ATTEST: i/a Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel^bbour, Mayor \ Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on tlus 26A day October, 1998. by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City o Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on e City. Notary Public Page 3 of 5 ____ ? • M CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE IOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ^ day of said county, personally aj^ared , 199_^ before me a Notary Public within and for known to me to be the person(s) descnbcd in and who e.xecuted the foregoing ins^ment.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. • . •»r». Ctf KCT;RYFUEUC-M![.!.'K0TA HSNHEfIN COUNTY f-VCcsan!$ilcnEx;lfMJan.31.20W Vi NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss« COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 4 of 5 tmi&rrik 4185 1 Page 5 of 5 ^ ' * ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2530 William Wear, Continued)4 compliance. Lindqc'st stated he would like to table this application to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan, and that he would not be opposed to total signage in the amount ^.380 square feet. City Council Member Kelley suggested that the Planning Commission tal^I?ito consideration what they would like to see for signage along the old Highway 12 corridor ^well as the new Highway 12 corridor, along with lighting and building materials. Kelley stated thal^ost of these guidelines were established with the understanding that Highway 12 would remajn in its present location and that these issues now need to be reviewed. Motion by Lindquist, second by Smith, to table Application #2530,2160 Wayzata Boulevard, to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised^fgnage plan for the entire property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2537 CITY OF ORONO REVISION TO ADULT USE ORDINANCE, 8:31 p.m. - 8:33 p.m, ffi^vilThe Certificate of Mailing ani^ffidavit of Publication were noted. There were no public comfnents regarding this application. Hawn stated due to'lhe amount of information involved with this revision to the ordinance, in her opinion discu^km of this issue would be better suited to a work session. Hawn requested that the approp^Ie notice be given to the general public regarding this ordinance revision. Motiptfby Hawn, second by Kluth, to table Application #2537, City of Orono Revision to A^p^ Use Ordinance to a Planning Commission work session to be scheduled this evening OTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#9) #2531 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - RENEWAL VARIANCES, 8:34 p.m. - 8:43 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Roger Olsen. Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant received variances to expand and remodel the existing residence to include a four-stall garage and additional living area. Variances to lakeshore setback and hardcover were granted on October 26,1998. The Applicant is requesting that these variances be renewed. Olsen stated that he is having a difficult time retaining a contractor to do the work at a reasonable price, but that he would like to have the work completed within the next year. Smith commented that she does not see any problems with this application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth inquired whether the hardcover that was requested to be removed has in fact been Page 11 c. \ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 c (#2531 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen, Continued) eliminated. Olsen stated that a portion of the patio has been removed along with elimination of one of the porches and the concrete dog run. • Motion by Smith, second by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application #2531, 815 Partenwood Road, renewal of variances to lakeshore setback and hardcover as previously approved in Resolution No. 4004. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #2532 HERMAN AND MARILYN CRAWFORD, 4745 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES, 8:43 p.m. • 8:47 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Hehnan and Marilyn Crawford, Applicants, were present. Bottenbdm stated the Applicants are requesting variances to the rear yard setback and hardcoverTOkpermit construction of an attached garage to the existing residence. The attached garage woulobe located three feet from the rear yard setback where 30 feet is required and for hardcover in th^5-250 ’ setback where 26 percent exists, 29.08 percent is proposed, and where 25 percent is allow^d^^he existing garage will be removed when the new one is constructed. Bottenberg stated the existing driveway will continue to come off County Road 19, but the garage door will face east. The existing gravel/driveway will remain and will be used as a tum-around. The Applicant is proposing to construct the garage in this location in order to preserve a number of very mature trees located on hisiot. \ N The Applicants had no comment regarding their application. \ \.Hawn inquired whether the existing garage was included in the hardcover numbers. \s Bottenberg stated the existing garage is included in the hardcover numbers. V Smith inquired whether the deck will be replaced or whether^a new deck is being added along the garage. '' Herman Crawford stated that the size of the deck is being reduced.N V Kluth questioned whether the gravel driveway was included in the hardcover numt«c>s. Bottenberg stated that fhe driveway was included in the hardcover calculation..^ There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith noted that the hardcover for this property would increase slightly with this proposal.. Nygard inquired whether the plastic underlayment would be removed. Bottenberg stated there is a small section where some plastic underlayment will be removed, whl^ . \ Page 12 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25,1999 Jabbour amended bis motion to include denial of the comprehensive plan amen^ to guide the land use designation from two acre density to one acre^ Peterson seconded the motion. Mayor Jabbour inquired whether ihw There were no public co •(#6) #2531 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - RENEWAL VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4367 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4367, a Resolution Granting Renewal of Variances to Allow Remodeling and Expansion of the Existing Residence Located at 815 Partenwood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 17) #2538 ROB AND TORI JAFFRAY, 540 BARRETT AVENUE - VARIANCE - id^LUTION NO. 4368 Flint movdd^eterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4368 a ResolutionOMnting Variances to Permit Construction of Dormers on the Second Story of an ExisHoa Residence Located at 540 Barrett Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#8) #2541 PAUL PHlbblPS, 2140 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, FINAL PLAT OF PHILLIPS WOODLAND TfeRRACE THIRD ADDITION - RESOLUTION NO. 4369 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to^pnrove and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4369, A Resolution Approving the Plat of PhiHips Woodland Terrace Third Addition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) REQUEST FOR DOCK ACCESS - D.AVID LOVELACE, 220 BIG ISLAND ' David Lovelace, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting dock access to his pro^e(t>' located at 220 Big Island. Back in April, 1999, the City Council granted a lot area varianc^w this property to permit the construction of a seasonal dwelling on the property. As of today's date/tiw City has not received a request for a building permit from the Applicant. The property is 43s^res in size and is landlocked. This property is one of several lots on Big Island that potentiall)^will request dock rights. Weinberger stated that according to Municipal Code, installing, maintaining, keeping or usin^ private dock on an%‘ platted public right-of-way, when such a dock has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council, is allowed. Not more than one seasonal dock Page 7 C I D r■ I ' ,mg®' CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF^HJ CITY COUNCIL A RESOHmON GRANTING RENEWAL OF VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE NO. 2531 WHEREAS, Roger Olsen and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 815 Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for the renewal of variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space located 34' from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed as shown on Exhibit A. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\TD by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2531. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 1.02 acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal application on October 18, 1999 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following Endings: 1. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL. Page 1 of 5 m CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 3 6? . 2. The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad, 3.The amount of hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback would be reduced from 20% to 15.3%. 4. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions e,\isting on this propert>* are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propert>’; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34’ from the OHWL where 75' is required and hardcover of 4,415 s.f (15.3%) in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed. 1. All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the 0’ to 75’ Ijikeshore setback prior to any new construction. 2. No further variances will be granted to this property in the future. J.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property* not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be e.xercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 25, 2000). Page 2 of 5 m Wy'aif CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 A -/ 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. 6.Any substantial changes or revisions to the plan in Exhibit A will require reconsideration by the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of October, i 999. ATTEST: .y > •'/ft-' Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Property Owner (ss) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of October, 1999, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Mirmesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the HBOIN. 8TURMAN i Notary Public MKMtrMue ___... »jf Mr CannMDa bpiTM Jn. It, 3008 Page 3 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CSHU NO.S t-> 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COXJNTY OF HENNEPIN ) before me a Notary Public within and for acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. . jIt NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF NflNNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for taJown'*to me wte the penoS"de^^ in acknowledged that h>: (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 4 of 5 Exhibit A RONO r RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL nV ^$86'• L H > ?5 Page 5 of 5 ^ OCT-16-a 11:44 2IMMERMRN GROUP 3410323 P.02/02 October 16,2000 TO: Orono Planning Commission FROM; Zimmerman 2745 Sha<^rwood Road Dick and Marlys Ogle 2771 ShadywoM Road SUBJECT: Oindwr/Auk Parldnp cc: Richard Gay M M 8 The Ogles on^ received notice of the Planning Commission Meeting on FHday. Given the late notice mw vrul not be able to attend and Jim Zimmerman has a conflict and won't be able to attend either. It is our understanding from previous discussions with city staff that only one issue will be discussed tonight and that is a variance for parking for Ginther and Ault. It is our understanding that tiiey are proposing a hard cover variance to allow for a total of two paring places. We understand that Richard Gay has worked with Ginther and Ault on determining how to place a 2 car driveway that works for both of them. We are totally supportive of any car park solution that meets the needs of Ginther, Ault and Gay. We would ask that any other issues raised concerning the non-resident dock lots be postponed until we could be present. It's our understanding tiiat there is not to be discussion of other issues besides the jwrldng and so we are comfortable having Richard Gay work with the Commission and Ginther and Auh to resolve this issue. TOTRL P.02 - • •• TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner August 17,2000 #2571 Jim Ginther and Doug Ault 2739 Shadywood Road Variance 0-75' Hardcover-Public Hearing Zoning:LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District List of Exhibits: A B C D E Hardship Statement Letter, City of Orono (8/9/00) Property Survey Hardcover Calculations Staff Report (4/13/00) Application Background: Ginther and Ault had submitted a Conditional Use Permit and variance application to request continued use of a property as a ‘dock lot’ that has been in use for the mooring of two boats, and an after the fact variance to permit expansion of a parking area constituting additional hardcover within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. On August 11th the City of Orono received a letter from Mr. Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. applicant representative, withdrawing the request for the conditional use permit for a dock use on a lot without a principal residence. They do wish to proceed with the request for the variance for the parking area. The request before the Planning Commission is an after-the-fact variance for the addition of 4' of gravel to the parking area located off Shadvwood Road. The applicant ’s hardship statement is attached as Exhibit A. The City of Orono posted the area along Shadywood Road as a “No Parking ” area in 1999. As a result the property owners expanded the gravel parking area to accommodate parking for two vehicles on the lot. • • The dock lots were created as part of Registered Land Survey No. 415 (2/3/1955) in common with residential properties located within the plat. It was assumed at the time of the plat lots within the neighborhood would have access to dock lots for storing of a boat. Since none of the dock lots were ever legally combined with the residential lots nearby they eventually were sold off separately and are held in private ownership. Several owners of dock lots applied to the City of Orono in 1985 for a conditional use permit to allow legal use of the lots without a principal structure. The Municipal Code has not permitted accessory structures (including docks) to be constructed on lots without a principal building early as 1968. »2S7I Jim Gmthtr and Doug Alt 2 739 Shad\M ood Road ^ir the Fact Fartance Augtut 21. 2000 pagt-l f The City of Orono has received several letters and comments from concerned property owners in the neighborhood questioning the legality of the second dock slip on the property. Staff has no strong evidence to suggest one of the slips had been added after the adoption of the ordinance requiring a principal structure to have a dock as a accessory structure. Although no CUP has been issued by the City of Orono, it is the position of the City the property has been “grandfathered” as a legal non- conforming use for dock use. City Staff believes that it would be difficult to require these docks, or one dock, to be removed based on there long existence. The City of Orono has no strong evidence that the use of the second dock is illegal. History of Dock Lots The 1985 conditional use permits were apparently only required for dock lots whose owners did not reside in the immediate neighborhood, approved the use of the lots as dock lots for Tracts S/T, R/Q, 0/P and E. Since that time the Hoffinan/Messer Tract U has been sold to non-residents Ginther/Ault and they had initially agreed to apply for a conditional use permit. The Orono Zoning Code does not have the provision of a conditional use for dock lots The CUP was accepted by the non-resident owners in 1985 as a practical way of placing some limits on the dock lot usage. Review of Hardcover The existing hardcover on the property is 792 s.f The driveway has been determined to be 28' X17*. Other hardcover located on this property is a small amount of retaining wall and landscaping which encroaches from an adjacent property. The parking area is located immediately next to a fire hydrant. Should the Planning Commission approve the request, it may be appropriate to require the parking area to be moved to allow some separation to the fire hydrant. It has been suggested that a 10* separation would be adequate. Issues for Planning Commission Discussion 1. It is unclear how long Tract U has been used for the mooring of two boats. This makes it difficult to determine if there has been an expansion of the use based on the number of boats using the lot. Previous CUPs for adjacent dock lots only permitted one boat and one parking space per dock lot. Because this lot currently has two boats and tw'o boat slips the applicants have requested an after the fact variance to permit a parking area to accommodate two vehicles. 2.Recently the City of Orono has prohibited parking on Shadywood which has been very controversial. Is there a created need for internal parking for this specific dock lot? Does the parking area have to be gravel? 3.Is a variance to allow an increase in hardcover in the 0-75' zone for the parking area justified since on street parking has been eliminated? fi257l Mm Ctnther and Doug Alt 2739 Shadynvood Road After the Fact Far lance AugtiSt2l. 2000 page~2 ? J • < iiTil r#ii The recent flurry of neighborhood concerns regarding the dock lots has raised many issues related to this application. These issues can be summarized as follows: (From 4/13/00 memo) 1.General neighborhood resident concerns about parking on Co. Rd. 19, overnight stays on boats, lighting, security alarms, and a general expansion of a non-conforming situation with the concurrent perception of increased activity. 2.Non-resident dock lot owners concerns about parking needs and the need to provide amenities such as lighting and security alarms to make the dock lots usable. 3.Resident dock lot owners negative response to City’s suggestion that they permanently tie the dock lots to their neighborhood homestead properties. 4.Lack of clarity as to existence and impact of existing easements and covenants dating back to the 19S0's that may impose limits on use or require maintenance of access. Staff expects area residents will be in attendance to voice their specific concerns about this application. Also see attached letter from neighbors. Mike Gaffron has written a letter to state the City’s position on several of the issues raised by concerned neighbors. It is attached as Exhibit B. Comments from the adjacent property owners and there attorney are attached following the exhibits noted on pace 1 of this report. Note, most of the comments were received earlier this year and are in reference to the conditional use request that has been withdrawn. Options for Planning Commbsion Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Table for additional information Recommend approval with condition Recommend denial, stating reasons Other action i^257l Jim Qintktr and Doug AU 2739 Shad}MCod Road After the Fact Variance August 21, 200C pagi-3 Ji FROM FAEGRE i BEHSON (TUE) 8.15‘00 15:59/ST. 15;59/NO. 4862058749 P 2 A Date: To; August 15,2000 Oiono Planning Commission From:Jim Ointher and Doug Ault Subject:Gravel Parking Variances Shadywood Road (P.I.D. 21 117 23 24 0028) Enclosed: Copy of survey dated 4/26/00 showing gravel parking area off of County On March 15,2000 we applied for a variance of an expansion of the gravel parking area that has existed on the property for many years. We expanded t!*.e parking area sufficient for one car to one sufficient for two cars. The current expansion area (approximately 18’ by 27*) is two car widths and represents .065% of die total land area of the lot. I A two car ^dth parking area is required so as not to have one car blocking the exit of the first if parked end to end and to avoid the need to park on "County Road 19. Hardships 1. i Two boat sl^s have been maintained for, to the best of our knowledge, ipproxiznately 20 years. A hardship exists if both owners cannot park on the loL 2. Since 1999 parking restriction on County Highway 19 have been strictly enforced. Prim to 1999 parking was permitted on Highway 19. A hardship exists if the lot is to be used for its intended purpose widiout adequate parking on the lot 3. ; Mamlaining the lawn areas adjacent to the parking areas without appropriate hard surface parking in a fashion consistent with the quality of die neighborhood creates a hardship. Hard surface parking areas prevent erosion of soil and eventual run off into the lake 4. The lot has been owned jointly as tenants in common, to the best of our knowledge, for over 30 years. Each owner is entided to a parking space vridi appropriate A 1_______*_____________T . « « « •ingress and egress. Not having such a space creates a hardship. % ^1 • •• >B. August 9,2000 Jim Zimmerman 2745 Shadyvvood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Narrows Dock Lot Issues GITYofORONO Municipal Ofllces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Partway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: We are in receipt of your July 20 memo. The City’s position on the various issues surrounding the Narrows dock lots is as follows: 1.Re; Ownersbip/rental status of the boat "Chop Chop". It is our understanding that the boat "Chop Chop", docked at Wittman’s lot, was formerly owned solely by Wittman, but is currently owned by Wittman and Bates jointly. Bates claims that he is the principal owner of the boat and that Wittman’s share in the ownership is minimal. Our previous discussion with a representative of Bates resulted in a proposal to re-title "Chop Chop" solely in Wittman’s name to eliminate any question that Wittman is an owner of this boat. If such a re-titling did occur, the City would have no basis to consider this as a rental slip situation. The fact that the primary user of the boat is a co-owner not on the title, or is any person not on the »itle, is a non-issue from the City’s perspective, because the code does not prohibit a person from allowing others to use his boat (this w'ould not be the case in the situation where a pure rental or charter craft was being operated as a business in a residential zone). The code sections that apply to slip rental read as follows: 5.43 (Marina Business License): Subd. 1 A: (Definition’i: "Business Use" means engaging in cither a marina business or the business of docking, mooring or storing boats. Subd. 1C (Definition’i: "Business of Docking, Mooring or Storing Boats" means renting or otherwise providing space, including boat buoys, for docking, mooring or storing one or more boats belonging to persons other than the ONNner or occupant of the property, except when licensed as a joint use. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.oronojnn.us Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Page 2 2. Subd. 2: License Required. It is unlawful for any persons to engage or participate in business use without first having obtained an annual license therefor from the City. Subd. 6: Business Use Licenses Limited to B-2 Zone. No business use shall be licensed in any zoning district other than B-2, except when a business use is allowed by ordinance in another zoning district, such use conducted in said district shall not be required to obtain a license. Per the above, a business use requires a license and a business use license may only be issued for a site in the B-2 zone, hence business use is not allowed in any residential zones. However, the BatesAVittman situation seems to be ever-changing. We were advised last Thursday by a representative of Bates that Bates has no intent to re-titling the boat to Wittman. Bates claims to have been leasing the land (and its attached dock space) from Wittman for a few years. Bates ’ representative claims he has a right to use the dock space because he is renting the land which includes the dock space, and is techiucally the ‘occupant ’ of the property. The code allows a boat to be docked when it is owned by the occupant of the property. The City Attorney has reviewed the term ‘occupancy ’ in this context and has concluded that ‘occupancy ’ likely does not require actual living on the property, but merely requires an occupant to have the leased rights to use the land. City staff will be following this up by attempting to obtain a copy of the lease. We are advised, by Bates ’ representative that "Chop Chop" will be moved to a different site next year, hence the immediate issue may be resolved in a few months. City staff will be considering possible code revisions prior to the 2001 boating season to close this apparent loophole. Please be aware that until last week the City Attorney has had no direct involvement in this specific matter. We know of no action by the City Attorney to force the removal of "Chop Chop" in 21 days, in 5 days, or in any number of days. Staff has had a number of ongoing discussions with Bates ’ and Wittman ’s representatives over the last month, and the issuance of deadlines for action is a fluid process as information is gained. ' Ginther/Ault Docks. A. Potential CUP Withdrawal. Ginther and Ault have net yet withdrawn their CUP application. We are not convinced that they will withdraw it. They have the right to withdraw it if they so Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Page 3 choose. If they withdraw it, the City will have to decide what actions to take. The decision on what action the City might take is affected by a number of factors, including: F- The CUP application was not forced upon Ginther and Ault. They chose to apply for a CUP at the request of City staff, based on the same method of regulation that the City chose to pursue in 1985 for Narrows docks that were owned by persons who did not live in the immediate area. As you know, the Ginther/Ault dock lot was owned by a neighborhood resident as of 1985, hence no CUP was required at that time for this site. In 1985 the City apparently concluded that the narrows docks were legally non-conforming by virtue of being in place and generally continually in use since prior to 1-1-68 when the "no accessory use without a principal use" code was first adopted. The City therefore chose not to pursue removal of the docks. The City apparently concluded that those docks owned by persons in the immediate neighborhood could be considered as accessory to the nearby principal residence, which met the intent of the ordinance (security, primarily) if not the letter of the ordinance. The City in 1985 chose to further regulate the docks owned by persons who did not owTi a principal residence in the immediate neighborhood. Absent clear direction in the code, the City chose the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit as an effective way of establishing suitable controls on the non resident docks. The CUP established minimal standards for parking and dock length, but not much more. The CUP apparently was voluntarily accepted by the non-resident owners of dock lots as a reasonable method to establish their continued rights to use the docks. Because the Ginther and Ault dock lot was owned by a neighborhood resident in 1985, it was not subject to a CUP. If Ginther ^d Ault choose not to accept the CUP method of establishing their rights, the City has limited recourse via the CUP process, because the zoning code technically docs not require a CUP for a dock. City staff agrees that expansion from one slip to tw'o slips is an expansion of a non-conforming use. However, removing the second Ault/Ginther dock slip based on it being added after 1-1-68 is not necessarily as simple as providing an airphoto showing only one dock at some given date in 1971. Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Page 4 L The findings made by the City Council in the 1985 CUP’s support continued use of the existing docks subject to a small number of conditions. At this time the Citv does not intend to pursue removal of the docks from anv of the dock lots. City staff believes that it will be virtually impossible to legislate these docks out of existence, given their long history of continued use. The issue of whether the second dock on Ginther and Ault’s lot is legally nonconforming is extremely murky in our opinion. The fact that the City has allowed this property to exist uni^dered with nvo slips for nearly 30 years makes it difficult for the City to make the case that this use shouldn’t be allowed to continue as it has in the past. Had the second dock appeared very recently, the City would be in a much better position to pursue its removal. It is my understanding that the Mayor has had numerous discussions with you and with various dock lot owners in an attempt to gain for you and your neighbors a ‘first right of refusal’ for purchase of the non-resident dock lots as they come up for sale. City staff fully supports the concept that dock lots should be owned by property owners in the immediate neighborhood. City staff will support your efforts to establish covenants which will disallow the separate sale of dock lots from the neighborhood principal residence property to which they are accessory. Such a covenant would provide you with more neighborhood control of the situation than currently exists. B. General expansion of use at the docks: 1.We do not consider the flagpole as an intensification or extension of the nonconforming use or a violation of any past CUP conditions, and we will take no action regarding the flagpole. 2.We do not consider the provision of electricity at the docks as an extension or intensification of a nonconforming use, even though electricity allows the docks to have certain amenities which may be offensive to the neighborhood such as lighting, etc. 3.We do not consider the addition of canopies over the individual docks as an expansion of the nonconforming use. 4.We do not consider overnight occupancy of boats stored at the docks as an expansion of the nonconforming use. The City has not adopted any ordinances prohibiting overnight occupancy of boats. t Nj ......^ • f Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Pages 5.Based on staff measurements this year, none of the docks subject to an existing CUP have been extended past the lengths allowed by the CUP. Docking of boats that are longer than the docks is uot specifically regulated in the City code nor in the existing CUP’s. C. Issues City Will Address. 1.We believe that the City can address lighting issues through the Zoning Code. The City can require the shielding of the source of lighting (the bulbs) so that it is not visible from adjoining properties. This is normally enforced by the Zoning Department. You or the neighborhood will have to advise us of any specific lighting issues before we will take action. Generally, City staff supports the idea of security lighting for these docks as a deterrent to theft and vandalism, which can spill over into the neighborhood. 2.Noise issues with the use of security alarms, loud music, etc. can be dealt with via the noise ordinance which is enforced by the Police Department. False alarms would be dealt with in the normal marmer by the Police Department. City staff supports the use of security systems and alarms as a deterrent to crime. 3.The issue of the driveway hardcover within 75' of the lake is a zoning matter which the Zoning Department is pursuing. While the placement of gravel dees not require a building permit, the location in which it was placed is not legal given that it is considered as hardcover when used as a parking area. The City has asked Ginlher and Ault to remove the hardcover parking area. Their response is that they will request a variance for the parking area hardcover because the City has eliminated their street parking. 4.The Police Department has advised that parking on private property is only required to be 3' from a fire hydrant; the normal 10 parking separation is not enforceable on private property. D. Other Issues. 1.I am advised by the LMCD that there may be issues with certain Narrow docks in relation to the dock use areas defined by extended lot lines. This is a separate matter that would have to be addressed through the LMCD. 1 1 i 1 \ f Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Page 6 2.The City intends no additional action in relation to the dock lot parking along County Road 19. The parking ban remains in effect. I hope that this letter provides you with a clear picture of the City’s position on this matter. Please contact me at 952-249-4600 if you have any questions. Senior Planning Coordinator cc:Richard Gay Dick Ogle Ron Moorse Greg Gappa / Paul Weinberger*' Gary Cheswick Thomas Barrett City Council ^ t FEOM FAEGHEJ^BENSON (TUEl 8.15'00 16:00/ST, 15 ;59/MO. 4862058749 P SUKVCY rat JIM QINTHER DESCnPIKM SfMVv'SriKJ ^ 415, FIm ofNmMptn Caun^ MkmmoXa. cannwtat y ^ m» or una*r my dNct luponMon ond 5 “* J •?_ • ^ «"«» low «f Iho State of MimiMetd. fE*sIM«f IMi Rsvtod Hill lUiUiid Hll» 4«y FitaMnL 2000 Mno«r im ar ui.. (fm UMm Ionia Mimnaole Ueonaa I HAWDCOVBi AREAS flRAva CM9< • *72 sa m DOCKS ON land - tS S& FT. OONCREIC NMJL • 11 Sa FT. tOTM. Mmoovci « STS ta FT. TBTat. UNO ASCA - T223 Sa FT. TOTAL pmcoir OF HAROOOiai -IS te Ueonao Na. 2Q2St NOtEfc '• Jusst hinr as 3tr»‘‘tfsta'5? a25r»iaL?ai •*“ 2. Iha orw of «ia proporty fhown h««en k 10.SS0 aquoro faol «• 02443 ocm. ‘ 5SS KS2T.*^^^ 3c .1 w-nAn.rf^i'AwaA^ i m H h P-IT-IOOO OS • C"EG«I. FIELD a HOWt^S12S4S6S37 P.02 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET • »SETBACK ZONE: (CmCLE ONE) 0-75 75-250'250-500'500-1000’ EXiSTINC HARPrOVER IN ZONE A. Houss_____________S.F. Length w;oth X X X S.F. S.F. S F. D. Gars"e S.F. Driveway X X /7 *'■v7a.S.F. S.F. D. SidcwaBc X X ss Sa S.F. S.F. £. Patio/Deck X X e R S.F. S.F. r. Land<C9pe Undarlfiln By Plastic laS-iL % X X 3:10 SJ. S.F. S.F. O. OOier S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 = 73^ S.F. /O. S.F. A U A ' 73 pyopf>.«;r.Ti TTAnncovy.n in zonf . A. House S.F. Length WMth X X X « e a SI. S.F. •".F. B. OarajC!S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk SJ. S.F. E. Potlo/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic X X X S.F. S.F. ST. mm mm • G. Other S.F. TO’l AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPLRTY AREA IN .'.ONE A____________ ♦ ----- S.F. S.F. A B X 100 -% TOTi^ P.02 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Conunissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 13,2000 #2571 Jim Ginther and Doug Ault 2739 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Permit and Variance After the Fact Variance Zoning: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Application: Conditional Use Permit and variance to permit a ‘dock lot’ for two dock slips within Tract U, and an after the fact variance to permit expansion of a parking area constituting additional hardcover within 75' of tlie OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. List of Exhibits: A B C D F F G Application Existing Survey Dock Lot Ownership Plat Map Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 Resolution No. 1847 Approving Dock lot for Tract E (Sample) Letter from Zimmerman, Gay and Ogle History of Dock Lots: The dock lots are shown on a plat map attached as Exhibit C. They were created as part of Registered Land Survey No. 415 (2/3/1955) in common with residential properties located within the subdivision. It was assumed at the time die subdivision occurred each lot within the subdivision would have a dock lot for storing of a boat. Since none of the dock lots were ever legally combined with the residential lots nearby they eventually were sold off separately and are held in private ownership. Several owners of dock lots applied to the City of Orono in 1985 for a conditional use permit to allow legal use of the lots without a principal structure. The Municipal Code has not permitted accessory structures (including docks) to be constructed on lots without a principal building as early as 1968. *2571 jim Ginther and Doug Alt 2739 Shadywood Road Conditional Um Permit and Variance After the Fact Variance .Uareh 20. 2000 pagt-l The 1985 conditional use permits were apparently only required for dock lots whose owners did not reside in the immediate neighborhood, approved the use of the lots as dock lots for Tracts S/T, R/Q, 0/P and E. Since that time the Hof&nan/Messer Tract U has been sold to non-residents Ginther/Ault and they have agreed to apply for a conditional use permit. The Orono Zoning Code does not have the provision of a conditional use for dock lots. The CUP was accepted by the non-resident owners in 1985 as a way of placing some limits on the dock lot usage. Issues for Plauning Commission Discussion 1.Does the pre-existing use of the dock lots prior to 1968 and presumably continuous since then given new property owners perceived “grandfathered ” rights, and therefore the same conditional use permit rights given to other dock lot owners in 1985? 2.Some lots have had electricity and lighting added since the CUPs were approved. This lot has also. Would the addition of electricitv/liphtinc. etc, constitute the expansion of a non- conforming use? 3.It is unclear how long Tract U has been u.;ed for the mooring of two boats. This makes it difficult to determine if there has been an expansion of the use based on the number of boats using the lot. Previous CUPs for adjacent dock lots only permitted one boat and one parking space per dock lot. Because this lot currently has tw o boats and two boat slips the applicants have requested an after the fact variance to permit a parking area to accommodate two vehicles and the CUP to reflect the lot is to be used for storage of two boats. 4. 5. •Can the property, based on the size, be put to any other reasonable use. The existing docks are approximately 65' long. If approved now at this length, any extension of the docks would require an amendment to the CUP. 6.Recently the City of Orono has prohibited parking on Shadywood which has been very controversial. Is there a created need for internal parking for this specific dock lot? Does the parking area have to be gravel? If you approve of a conditional use permit and variance for the this application recognizing the riparian use of these tracts as a legal non-conforming use and approving the necessary variances to allow an accessory structure without a principal structure and setback variances - consider whether the following findings are appropriate: 1 . The use of this lot as proposed will not create a hazard to the public, health, safety or welfare. 2. The present use as a riparian dock lot had been established on this property prior to official municipal zoning and controls. i2571 Jim Gimher and Doug Alt 2739 Shidywood Roid ConditiontI Use Permit and Variance After the Fact Variance March 20. 2000 poit-2 . I 3.The property as subdivided in the mid 50s without under apparently minimal local controls, is a unique situation requiring use but for limited dock use. 4. The property because of its physical constraints, cannot be put to any other reasonable residential use but for limited dock use. 5.A variance to allow an increase in hardcover in the 0-75' zone for parking area is justified since on street parking has been eliminated, (or should on street parking be allowed for this lot?) The recent flurry of neighborhood concerns regarding the dock lots has raised many issues related to this application. These issues can be sununarized as follows: 1.General neighborhood resident concerns about parking on Co. Rd. 19, overnight stays on boats, lighting, security alarms, and a general expansion of a non-conforming situation with the concurrent perception of increased activity. '4on-resident dock lot owners concerns about parking needs and the need to provide amenities such as lighting and security alarms to make the dock lots usable. 3.Resident dock lot owners negative response to City’s suggestion that they permanently tie the dock lots to their neighborhood homestead properties. 4.Lack of clarity as to existence and impact of Existing easements and covenants dating back to the 1950's that may impose limits on use or require maintenance of access. Staff expects area residents will be in attendance to voice their specific concerns about this application. Also see attached letter from neighbors. Options for Planning Commission Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Table for additional information Recommend approval with condition Recommend denial, stating reasons Other action U251\ Jim Ginther and Doug Alt 2739 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Pennit and Variance After the Fact Variance March 20.20(H) past~3 Application U Date Receh‘ed~ 3//5/g^ Amount Paid ^ 7,50 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^7 (fL(^ Site Address ggvf^/i-/y /^O 'Tti.ctci- {/ Type of Application to be Filed CptiiH i~ri t/Tg ___________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) //7 Jl3 OOt^?________________ APPLICANT Name SAMB^ AddressCLryit- .. ^>*^hone (home)C0/^ 0 (yjAJ O’* ^ Phone (work) ^ . wX-v r^TZT. “CZ\J f\J 7* 'N iCity Zip OWNER (if different than applicant Name ^ po ffej R..Au ^ ^ Address Date Property Acquired 1929 _____ I (do) (^o n^) also own the adjacent parcels of land. icanrt Phone (home) 0'a.) •‘'¥97 7- T /Phone (work) • vO City~>^i? S Zip (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PEIUVATS - V $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee 3^ »• rf:-' "'-o r.:‘ -I \> / 'N' J O' 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 ■‘S)L--.y ^ i. I 15-2000 09:00 EC iIh M. field i •i. 125aE>: !53T P. 02- O. LEGEND: a <> V ■ ca )uh basin POVUCB POLS NtDfUNT SIAN UCIIT POST GUAPD PCS*! eixcm c Mcnp / recT sopvcr ►QW, JIM QINTHPR txoAL oesninPTiON:i CCVTinCATION: tni* aui aoy ©t Morch. ?ooo ^ By: H^itOCO’^CR OrW\«'»*AY - *72 mmu*rm f««l LANOSTAFC •• 330 «aw«r© f«©t TOTAI. m 7#0 ©quor© le«t p«orc«TY - in,.‘l90 ©quer© t«©t Tgt.^L PCRCCNT . 7.»AS NOI&S: nn»<Mt4 Ue©nso No. 20281 a. Th© or^o of th. p.0©.ny «,o*o !>•••..« |, ,0.990 ©quore f«©t or 0 2**2 ocr©,. EQAN %Ui?VE*yo'ai'^^'^IklA 741.<: W*f2*J* awAAVAllO MNNCqpous. W1.MMOTA me-. («ia> »4«- ©w? TOTi:^ P.02 PIlD •7.1-\P'2.3 2.4 00 /• ■«' i • • •■ • • *D**I 3'^ •• •' I \ \- ao fe ’J I fell (2-il (io) (f5 i XI I S P' . O , /O K. Uu^lf A- j pcid^^l- I l^fTTTAXf^ ? i / / t>«tc4trn0»>_ • tT*^ T*m.t U "Sww** ObMUftS. W<ec«> ftsSi T^KcrlsiT /iMfeffie. 3111 'DMr»»«-*rH Av» . ^^e^n-sibC. r.o. *o|C Aco,|>rCA^(S •^/ . V A .'TTR.‘*«U5.ffl W^&GL • •[«.'.* s 0 i P WJfTfWArt 2^1^ SH^PWoob frB'i SuuiwJ li/t j Cou/.»^c//« \ '' \P' / y ^ f\*V ' ^(/ >.t* •' f —/ / / / ^ / • *i«.».*s 1/«r wfTrrftAN yyvtr tsal o^cte ^ S S3>?> I • T(»4fi 0i-SoKirlf\H5\<,pVe?9=>tf--smiyW6>^-7^V(j<; C^^\yp<!w^^ '\ra\\ ^ . T/^.i, in^r r«n ' \. ■«»«.. K <L CAJ^V npr MW SS%\1 '• iJArcr 0 CoOk OaVkI uijuwwbe^ w, i^avz ^cTA Zll I <V4i.y{/Ja;i> \ ^OCf7 «K«TC^ //-3-9: TTffS 7i /' A yMjtv 1 1 >- ; VI,Ji i i IL_ §10.03 B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement, which results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning district, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying-under the minimum acreage, openjspace, required yard, setback or sanitar>- or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels i *der any provisions of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of in > Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 7. One Building Per Lot. Except in the case of Planned Residential Developments as provided for hereinafter, no more than one principal building shall be located on a lot except that staff may issue a permit to use a manufactured home that shall meet all required setback standards or an existing dwelling while a new principal .structure is being constructed. Such permit shall be issued for a period of 3 months, any extensions must be approved by the City and shall expire upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure and such structure removed. Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 8. Lots to Face Streets. Each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement. Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. A. Time of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in height. Source: Ordinance 72,2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 ORONO CC 254 (4-1-84) • • • . /. I ■■ m-:-City of OROTVO • «* #•Ul.i.V ,4 • . • . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __________ (trvo'K'O > A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE mS ““ PTM suBDiy: WHEREAS* David C. Cook (hereinafter "the applicant") is an owner of one of the properties located at 2739 Shadywood Road within the City of Orano (hereinafter "City") and legally des cribed as Tracts E, Registered Land Survey No. 411 (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS* the applicant has applied to the City f® conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 A through J to permit the continued use of the property as a legal non-conforming use and, specifically, per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) seeks a variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 4 (A) to allow an accessory structure (docK) on a property that is unable to sustain a principal structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1, This application was reviewed as Zoning File #946. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. On August 19, 1985 the Orono Planning Commission re viewed this application as proposed and recommended approve based on the following findings: A) Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J): "Where, however, such a situation existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance... The substandard tracts were created prior to formal municipal zoning and controls in February of 1955. B) The Orono Council minutes of 1958 and a newspaper article published in the Minnetonka Harold in that same year confirm that the City was aware of the existence and use of accessory docks by non-adjacent owners. Page 1 of 4 ; • r ••: -C*if\5?iv '.» >-'-Oir ■* ••>•■I »»■ ^ 1» ^ ■•«—1*^ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUI^CI.L 1847NO. *»-V J4U/;> ? C) The property, as subdivided in the mid 50's without the benefit of local controls, is a unique situation requiring special consideration. D) The limited use of these tracts as proposed by the City will not create hazards to the public safety. E) The property, because of physical constraints, cannot be put to any other reasonable residential use but for limited dock use. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow continued use of the property as a riparian lot with an accessory dock not to be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon ona or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use perit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to permit the continued use of an accessory dock on a property that cannot sustain a principal structure hereby establish a legal non-conforming use of the property, subject to the following conditions; 1. Applicant is limited to the mooring of one boat at zero lot line dock. 2. Applicant is advised to arrange for appropriate off- street parking for the parking of one car. J •The existing dock at Tract E measures 50 feet in length and 3 feet in width. The applicant must file a conditional use permit with the City if an increase in the length of the dock is considered at some future date. Page 2 of 4 . s \ *• .^2>\Q.L<Q.^ :..l:::y^ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUI^CiL NO.---------------------77^J% -O.v, CITY COUNCIL ^ 1847 :M %r ■ V r,.v. w.V 111 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and here by agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of Sep^mber, 1985. ATTEST : \! allin,'City Clerk V ^ (1) Property Owner Marty'C, Butler, Mayor Tom Frahm, Acting Mayor Page 3 of 4 ; V City of OROINO ;ir^. : •.-•■• • • i. ; ' c: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1847 .• ^ : —— . %•• • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) »r i On this OjJe^day of C£>c*^rPdg/g.1985 before me a Notary Public w^hin and for said county, personally appeared _ _ _!£!>AV/'b . CZt>okL. known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC ..'V • • • - • • • I •„MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 1985, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoinginstrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 _ _A. April 13,2000 TO: Orono Planning Commission FROM: Dick and Marlys Ogle Richard and Sue Gay Jim Zimmerman 2771 Shadywood Road 2735 Shadywood Road 2745 Shadywood Road SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application for Ault and Ginther Agenda Item # 2571 We have a number of specific concerns, issues and questions about the specific property in question. We also have a number of issues and concerns about all of the non-conforming non resident dock lots that exist in our small residential neighborhood. To understand the issues and concerns of the neighborhood residents it’s important to review the history of the non-conforming dock lots in the neighborhood. That background and history is as follows: Origin of the Non-Conforming Dock Lots The 20-foot lion-conforming boat dock lots were created specifically and'exclusively for neighborhood residents. Each non-conforming dock lot was tied to a specific neighborhood lot. The purpose of the non-conforming dock lots was to provide docks to neighborhood homeowners not on the lake, as well as to provide permanent docks to some of the home.)^vners on Carman’s Bay so that they would not need to put temporary docks on Carman’s Bay. Non-Resident Ownership When the covenants of the neighborhood expired, a few of the residents sold ofif the non- conforming dock lots to non-residents. ■ Over the years, a number of the non-conforming docks have been resold to other non residents. Earlier city documents detail that there was an agreement that when docks were sold there was a requirement that a 10-day written notice be provided to residents of the immediate area. *rhis agreement was so residents in the neighborhood would have the opportunity to purchase the non-conforming dock lots from die non-residents and return them to the neighborhood use for which 9iey were intended. There is no record of any non-resident oumer that sold their dock providing the agreed to 10 day written notice when they sold their docks to other non-residents. J ’ . I X Dock Location and Numbers We are working \vith the city and the LMCD using aerial photographs to determine exactly what docks and structure was associated with each non-conforming lot at specific points in time. We expect to have that research completed in the next 2 to 3 weeks. What was involved with each property is critical to understanding the issue of prior use for each property. A Long History of Problems with Non-Resident Dock Owners In doing background history on the non-conforming dock properties we discovered that there is a long history of recorded problems with these properties. The attached Orono city memo from 1984 states that there have been many years of complaints about the non resident docks. The city cites the many years of complaints focused on theft, garbage and litter, abuses of parking, excessive number of guest boats, all day picnics and boat slip rerital. City staff also stated that the area had been complained about as being a commercial marina. Because of all the stated problems and complaints, in 1984 the city asked residents and non residents to agree on covenants to address this issue. The City Council stated that they would approve a building permit for a non-resident owner (Thimesh) if covenants were developed and agreed to. Based on the verbal commitment of all the owners, approval was given to Thimesh to install his dock. Once his dock w’as in, he had his lawyer send a letter to the city refusing to sign the covenants Thimesh had agreed to in order to get his dock. Because of this, the covenants were never signed and the problems stated in 1984 have continued and accelerated. Despite acknowledging the serious complaints and problems and the city’s conclusion that “There was indeed a potential threat to the public health, safety and welfare” posed by the 20 foot non-conforming lots, conditional use permits were granted to 4 of the non-resident dock owners in 1985. As a neighborhood, we have documented numerous issues, concerns and complaints about the non-resident dock owners as detailed in the attached past correspondence. Intensifying and Significantly Expanded Use of Non-Conforming Dock Lots Since 1985 there has been a consistent and extensive increase in use that we feel the city needs to address. • In 1985 the non-resident dock slips were used in the same manner as residents, which was for daytime recreational use. Boats were in the size range of 18-30 feet consistent with other boats in the neighborhood and appropriate for the very shallow and narrow lagoon where the docks are located. In the late 1980’s or 1990, electricity was added by the non-resident dock ovyiiers which f^undamentally changed the nature and usage of the boat docks. This addition more than any other has led to a significant intensification of use. The addition of electricity has changed the docks from appropriate only for daytime^ recreation use to making them habitable docks. Large boats that can be used e^entially to live on require shore power, which was not available at the non-resident docks in 1985 when the conditional use permits were granted. With the addition of electriciW, boat size has increased substantially, and usage has changed. Usage of the non-resident boat docks has gone from da>time weekend use to boats being used by many non-resident dock oyvners as weekend homes. A number of owners frequently spend 2 or 3 nights per week on their boats, sometimes tied up at their dock. The addition of electricity has also allowed the addition of a high intensity anti-crime light that bums all night This light disturbs the peace and quiet of tiie neighborhood and also because there is bright light, it facilitates and encourages late night boating. When there was no electricity and lights, non-resident dock owners generally brought their boats in at the end of the day when there was still daylight to unload their boat. With the light in place they now frequenUy bring their boats in at midnight and later. The engine noise from the large boats and the talking and music is disturbing to the neighborhood given the very narrow channel the boats must go through to get to their docks. As detailed in 1984, abuse of parking privileges has been a serious and perpetual problem. The agreements and the conditional use permits call for each dock owner to have the right to park one car per slip in front of their dock on theii property. Since Cook (one of the non resident dock owners) has essentially no lake shore, his conditional use permit does not grant him the right to park a car and states that he must arrange for parking in some other location. In return for agreeing to give Dick Ogle the right to purchase his dock lot when he is done using it, Dick Ogle agreed to let Cook park on his property. Non-resident owners consistently and routinely have \iolated their parking agreements, frequently parking two or more cars per boat slip. Overflow parking has wound up on County Road 19. This created serious safety' problems both for bicyclists and walkers that use County Road 19 as a designated county bike path and for residents that need to use the areas that were designed to provide safe deceleration lanes to exit County Road 19. There were a number of near miss accidents with bicyclists and residents turning off County Road 19 using the deceleration lane that were due to non-resident dock o\vners parking cars along County Road 19. As a result of this dangerous situation, neighborhood residents, in 1999, petitioned the city to place no parking signs on County Road 19. The city and county agreed with the safety risks and put up the no parking signs. Because the non-resident dock owners could no longer park the multiple cars per dock in violation of their parking restrictions, they petitioned the city, in late 1999, to park along County Road 19. The City Council addressed the issue for a second time and once again concluded there w’as a serious safety' issue that necessitated the no parking restrictions. Once again, in March 2000, the non-resident dock owners have petitioned the city to grant e.xcess parking along County Road 19 and for the third time in less than a year the City Council will address the parking issue at the May 2000 City Council meeting. As neighbors we are very frustrated that the non-resident dock owners will not live up to the one car restriction they agreed to and that the city seems unwilling to tell the non-resident dock owners that they must comply \ ith the one car per dock agreement they made. Rental of Boat Slips It’s clear from the 1984 Orono City' memo that dock rental by non-resident owners has been a problem for many years. The memo states neighbors referred to the non-resident dock area as a marina because of the dock rentals. For the last few years there has always been at least one dock and frequently two of the non resident docks that have been rented to non-residents of the area. We have made the city aware of the rental situation. Renters create substantial problems since the neighbors have no idea who should be in the area. Renters also don’t know the rules, regulations and restrictions that affect the non- conforming dock area and therefore frequently violate the rules and restrictions creating noise, parWng and other problems. • We have been told by the city and the LMCD that rental of these boat docks is absolutely not allowed. Despite knowing about the rental problem in 1984 and our reiterating the rental situation in 1999 and again this year, to our knowledge the city has never taken any action to restrict dock rental by non-resident dock owners. We want the city to vigorously enforce the no rental restrictions beginning with the 2000 boating season. Docks Have Moved From Intended 198.^ Davtime Recreational Use to Becoming Habitable Docks and Essentially Weekend Homes With the addition of electricity, the non-resident docks have very large boats that are essentially used as weekend homes by many of the non-resident dock owners. Shore power allows them to have the t>*pe of boats that can be used essentially as weekend homes and that’s increasingly how the boats are used. The larger more valuable boats allowed by shore power are also attractive targets for crime and there have been numerous break-ins on the non-resident boats. Theft and crime were also referenced in the 1984 city memo. Because of the crime attracted to our neighborhood by the large, expensive non-resident boats, they have installed a high intensity anti-crime light. One of the boats, R Tonka Toy (owned by Ginther), in the past installed a motion activated burglar alarm. The alarm malfunctioned, causing it to go off at all hours of the day and night, completely disrupting the neighborhood. Since Ginther did not live in the neighborhood and we had no way to contact him, the neighborhood was disrupted for weeks until he returned from vacation and turned off his alarm system. ■ There have been a number of instances of trees being diseased and dying or trees coming down by storm in the non-resident dock lots. Since their entire dock is in the 0-75 foot range, it is our understanding that legally these trees need to be replaced. None of the trees that were taken down or came down have ever been replaced. In 1999, a flagpole was added to one of the non-conforming dock properties. We’d like the flagpole removed since this clearly was not there in 1985 and is an expansion. One flagpole may lead to others. Essentially, the addition of electricity has resulted in the non-resident dock owners being able to use their 35 plus foot boats as weekend homes on Lake Minnetonka while paying $200-$300 per year in property’ taxes for the privilege of having a “second home" on the lake. SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATING TO GINTHER AND AULT We feel the above information relating to the non-conforming dock lots and the long history of problems and issues is essential in looking at the specific issues related to Ginther and Ault. Our specific issues relative to this lot and the conditional use permit they’re seeking are as follows: Two Boat Docks on One Non-Conforming Lot - It is our understanding that only one dock b allowed per non-conforming lot. If this b the ordinance in Orono, we would ask that a condition of the permit be that one of the two docks on this property be removed. Boat Slip Rental - For many years, we understand Ault has rented hb boat slip. We want the city to enforce a strict no rental policy on this dock property and actively and aggressively enforce thb policy. L_____ ■ Prior Use - We understand that 1968 is the date that governs prior use. We have reviewed 1971 Heard aerial photographs that show there is one boat shed or boathouse on this non- conforming lot. That further supports that there should be no more than one dock on this property. Hard Cover Driveway - There is a hard cover gravel driveway within the 0-75 foot setback. W'e understand that city codes do not allow this and that no permits were ever requested or granted for the driveway. In 1999, the driveway was expanded from accommodating 2 to be able to accommodate 4 cars. We would ask that as part of any conditional use permit that the gravel drivew’ay be removed. Blocking of Fire Hydrant - The non-permitted driveway that Ginther and Ault have put in is immediately adjacent to the only fire hydrant in the immediate area. Frequently, four cars are parked on the gravel driveway making easy and quick access to the fire hydrant virtually impossible. Within the last 24 months, there have been 2 home fires in our immediate neighborhood where the fire trucks used this fire hydrant. Thankfully, it was at a time when cars were not parked immediately next to the fire hydrant, which allowed the fire department to get to the fire hydrant. We would ask that, as part jf any conditional use permit, parking not block the fire hydrant. Burglar Alarms — As referenced earlier, Ginther’s burglar alarm created major disruption to the neighborhood in the past. We would ask that burglar alarms not be allowed at this property. Parking for Only One Car per Dock - Consistent with the other conditional use permits for the other non-conforming docks, we would ask that only one car be allowed to park for each dock. Since we believe there should be only one dock at this property, we would request that only one car be allowed to park at any given time on this property and that that parking be in a spot that didn’t limit access to the fire hydrant and didn’t violate hard cover restrictions. Removal of Electricity - Per the prerious discussion on the non-conforming dock lots, we’d request that electricity be removed from this propert>'. Noise Guidelines - Since this property is at the end of a very narrow lagoon area, we’d request strict noise guidelines be incorporated into any conditional use permit granted for this property. We’d also ask that boats not come or go from these d<xks after 10:00 p.m. on weeknights and 11:00 p.m. on weekends so as not to wake up the neighbors and disturb the neighborhood. We would respectfully ask that until all of the above issues can be satisfactorily discussed and resolved that no action be taken on applicant’s request for a conditional use permit. Both Richard Gay and Jim Zimmerman plan to appear at Ae Planning Commission meeting. Dick Ogle will be out of town and thus unable to testify in person. We hope the above information provides some helpful background on what w'e see as a very serious and expanding problem. We respectfully ask for the city’s help in resolving the many issues surrounding the non-conforming dock lots. jm :-i .*$1 'IV r>>..'•<, ^^VilK To:Thomas Frahm, Marina Cojnmittee Chairman Charles. Kelley William Sime Prom:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zorir.c Administrator Date : Subject: June 17, 1985 Riparian Outlots North of Narrows 5rid9c List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Agreement of 5/31/65 Exhibit B - Combination Papers Tracts S S T Exhibit C - Building Permit for Temporary Dock 6/7/84 Exhibit D - Soule's Letter Dated 6/25/84 Exhibit E - Zoning Administrator's Letter Dated 6/2S/84 Exhibit F - Casey's (Resident Ov.^.er) Letter Dated 7/1C/84 Exhibit G - Inspection Notice Exhibit H - Building Permit for New Dock Tract S 6 7 Exhibit I - Survey/Site Plan for New Dock • Exhibit J “ P.egistered Land Survey 415 & 411 Review of Application In the Spring of 1984, after the many years of receiving complaints concerning the intense use and reported operation or a commercial marina v/ithir. Narrows Lagoon area. Council directed staff to inspect the subject area. Staff advised Council that there was indeed a potential threat to the public health, safety and welfare in the unregulated use of these 70 feet wide riparian tracts given the limited area of the lagoon. The original Registered Land Survey division created uhr tracts to provide protected dock use areas for the homestead lots within that same Registered Land Survey. The covenants, dealing, with the use of these tracts have long expired and the tracts have been sold off to non-resident owners. Complaints range as follows: garbage and litter of land ‘portion of tracts, theft, obuses of parking, encroachment of dock use areas by adjacent dock owners, excessive number of guest boats stored at docks, all day picnics conducted on private property by guests, re:\tal of residential slips. The City ’s real concern is for the potential for the congested lagoon and the elledged* commercial within the LR-lB Resdential Zoning District. accidents within • r.ta 1 of slips Status of Review A.t your June 6, 1984 meeting, the Orono Marina Committee was reassured by all resident and non-resident owners t.not they had accepted the directive of the City Council and agreed to execute conevants for the limited use of their riparian tracts. Based on this verbal conunitment by all owners, the c'nairman advised staff that they could issue a building permit for a temporary dock to the current owner of Tracts S 6 T. Review Exhibit C, the building permit speci fied the agreed upon standards (non-resident owner) for the docks construction. The tracts were sold upon construction of the cock to John Thimmesh who refused to accept covenants that he claimed dis criminated against non-resident owners (see Exhibit D). The agreement of May 31, 1934, as amended at the June 6th meeting, was never exe cuted . / i>: -T? -^r^ m^.h--^-r. **'r', *: pv'-b'f Sc?:=^' JTVfetci?ilr ••.'’Vjjra -m. Hi ifeA- ■Xr^' RiXj m V Marina Committee June 17, 1985 Page 2 of 3 P.eview Exhibit A. The follcving amendments were agreed to by ail parries with interest: « i\m Performance Standards for use of riparian tracts of resident owners (Tracts K & ?., ?.LS 415) Thomas Casey and Joseph Fleischhacker 1. Dock strccture/ccck use area: a) Dock length - not to exceed 55' in lenrth (length measured from shoreline at 929.4 elevation) b) Limit of 3 boats - boats not to encroach 20 feet wide dock use area. c) 20 feet wide riparian tracts do not qualify for the use of bucys in lagoon. B. Performance standards for use of riparian tracts by non resident owners (Tracts C,?.,S, P.LS 415 6 Tract E, P.LS 411) James Johnson (now John Thimmesh), Paul Nutt, Dean Thomas, David C. Cook. 1. Dock structure/ccck use area: a) Dock length - not tc exceed 40' in length (length measured from shoreline at 529.4 elevation) b) Limit of 1 boat over 16 feet in length - boat may not encroach defined ?C feet wide dock use area. c) 20 feet V'.’ice riparian traces do not qualify for use of buoys in laccon. C. Performance standards for use of land tracts owned both resident and non-resident cwr.ers (Tracts L, M, P, Q, T, P.LS 415 s Traces D & B, P.LS 411) 1. Executed e.xclusive/mutual access case.mcnts over land tracts specified above in favor of individual riparian tract owners. 2. Each land tract is to be used solely for vehicular access and/or the parking (e.xcept for Tract D, RLS 411) of 1 motor vehicle - picnicing, etc. is not allowed (owners may wish to establish other limit.ations on use). D. Additional recuirements of all owners: 1. Owners agree to install a keyed access gate tc bo placed on east lot line of Tract D, RL.S 411. 2. Owners agree to legally com.bine their individual land tracts with respective riparian tracts .«-pecifically Tracts O S <*J5 anc Tracts P & 0, RLS 415 still rcm^ain to be& R, RLS combined. ■ ' - r,• •.r V*' Karina Conr.ittee June 17, 1935 Page 3 of 3 3. Owners hereby agree to the terns of this agreenent and on behalf of thenselves, their heirc, successors ..nd as signs, hereby agree to the recording of this agreement in the chain of title of their subject properties. In 1995 absent the executed acreenent The City must once again ask the residents to share in the solu tion of this dilema. V.*ithout the necessary covenants and as the City has cone before, a building permit was issued to John Thimmesh for a 48 foot length dock for apparently 2 slips. The dock has been placed as with the ethers with a zero side yard setback with each slip width at 9 feet. The dock does not appear to encroach the dork use area* of the adjacent users. Unfortunately without the necessary cont;-.-'!. .*n use, Thimmesh (Tract S) has gone ahead and installed an electrical cable from Cook's dock (Tract E) and juried the cable underground within Tract R,0,N and K without proper authorization. I have not checked with Thim-oesh but I would imagine he never received a permit from the State Inspector authorizing the installation. In fact, Thim.me.sh installed the dock without a building permit. There are other violations cr irregulations within the subject area: 1. Gasoline tank within Tract E must be removed from lake iavmediatly - Cook. 2. Canvas top has been stored on Tracts Q & P for the past two years - it must be removed cr installed over dock as in past but not left on shore - Nutt. 2. Garbage continues to be a problem on non-resident tracts. 4. Grass is not maintained on non-rcsident tracts - potential violation of municipal ordinance. The Marina Com.T.ittec must see that the following is included in any agreement by the residents: 1. For safe navigation of limited lagoo.n - controls for dock size and limit of boats stored at docks. 2. Updated registration each season with the City advising of current ownership, license numbers of boats stored at dock and insurance certificate for c,ach boat. -.1 t &,:• • VC' 1^ ft- ag?j:emzmt THIS AGRESMiNT is entered into this 31st day of Kay, 1934 ancn^ James F. Johnson, Paul Nutt, Joseph F. Fleischhacker, Thomas Casey, David Cook and Richard Ogle, all of Hennepin County, -Minnesota KHEREA.S, James F. Johnson is the owner of Lots S and T, and Paul Nutt is the o-wner of Lots 0, ?, Q and R, and Joseph F. FleischhacVer is the o--*Tier of Lots N ani K, and Thomas Casey is the owner of Lots K and L; All of the above said lots are part of Registered Land Survey Ko. 415 of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, David Cook is the owner of Lot E, and Ric'" Ogle is the o'wner of Lots B and D in Registered Land Survey No. 411 of Hennepin County, Minnesota; and v-r!E?JL^S, the above listed Lots S, R, O, N. K and E are used for boat docks and th : o--fnnrs of said lots have easement rights ever the above listed Lots T, Q, p, m, L, D and 3 for the purposes of ingress and egress to the said lots used for boat docks. NOW, THERSFOR.E, the parties agree as follows: 1. That each of the above parties who are owners of the six lots used for boat docks will contribute to the cost of a gate which can be kept locked; said gate to be placed at the entrance to Lot B of Registered Land Survey No. 411 and which will control the use of the casement that the parties hereto* have for ingress and egress to the beat dock lots. • • < • • • •• • • 4 1I iiiyyiMMlUil rM-5rr*S v .-• ••• •' •'.-r-- v.-.v Vv 'S.. .'' , '*•- r ■ V--.... . . . •. •// -JS‘- ;• •to « m ^ ^ m* f• • m *V ‘*^*j*^ m •% * <ir A *» • C'* ^ % a • # r\, .•'• I- ■m v‘i? •V«,« * Said expense will be distributed ar.cr.c Messrs. Johnson, rleischhackcr. Casey and Cco!< so that each will bear 17 percent of the total cosz and Mr. h’utt, the owner of two lots, will bear 22 percent of the total cost. 2. Each of said o-r.ers as listed in paragraph 1 above and Richard Ogle shall have a key so that each nay open the gate xhich th.e owners agree to keep locked. 3. Each of the owners listed in “»\agra?h 1 above agree that he • will keep not ir.ore than three bonts on each of the boat coc<s r.e owns and said boats shall be of such site that they will net interzere with the use of the other boat lots listed above. 4. Each of the owners agree that boats docked on tne».r respective boat lots shall be owned by said owners or r.etr.bers of tneir fa~ii.ies and the ownership of such boats will be so registered Each of the owners agree that in using the acave described Lots T, Q, P, M, L. D and 3 for the purposes of ingress and egress they will not permit vehicles or property owned by them to interfere with others who have such easement rights. 6. Attached hereto for illustrative purposes are replicas of the Plats of P.egistered Land Survey No. 415 and No. 411. 7. Each party to this agreement has signed one copy of tnis agr ee- r.ent and each signed copy can be considered an original. IN witness v.riZREOr . each cf the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above stated. \ X\r^*::*; • I- ■^■•' m '•^Wm .Sj Ssl? ggs4^4 *•> ^;l•;-'.'’c^t=j • > V-«2 >-rjxJ»:*.rf- ..<5^ • ’ • \ %v m .* •V*vV ;t t. i:•« '•?«.% '.!3•v5 nobm < • Soules. McKendrick. Gurewiti. Clew &. Mas^uson. Ltd. A::orne/t a: La^ 8C3 Fir;; Bank Pljc? V/et: 120 South 6(h Strec Minotasolij. Mln.-#,c:a 55-02 Tctephor.* (612) 339 3100 June 25, 1984 SUlOF ORONO VMi.a^ A S3v»'t» Jo.^n e M<f¥«n L. S C«f^ *<f«: N, .Vi5**wto« 0* Cow*'!*! Wm. f, Ro:tic''4t-9>. i'. Rf3»< 13 Kinnetonka office* Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Sox 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Tracts S & T, RLS 415 John Thimmesh Dear Ms. Mabusth: I an attorney for John Thirmesh, vho has purchased Tracts S s T, RLS 415 from Janes Johnson. This letter.is in response to your nenorandun dated June 11, 1984 regarding the property and the adjoining tracts. Mr. Thin.nesh has been furnished a copy of the proposed agreenent dated Hay 31, 1984 to be signed by the five affected property owners. He is w’illing to becone a signatory to this agreement. On the other hand Mr. Thimssh does not agree with the additional conditions set forth in your nenorandun. In particular he objects to the discrimination that would exist between resident ov.*ners and non-resident owners, and to the restrictions that would be imposed c.n the length of docks and the number and size of boats. Mr. Thinunesh is willing to abide by reasonable regulations that, arc uniformlj applied. He therefore supports the conditions contained in the May 31 agree ment, and he opposes the conditions contained in the June 11 r.emorandum. We await your reply. Thank you for your consideration. Vours ver.Y truly.fi ^^>CC<3J v:iLLIAM SOULES KS/san cc: John Thimmesh V.nnelonVi Oil.et: 207 RidsciJ't Zu:t 3f \ 1720 OooSM Plymouth P.o*<S. MmnctonWj. M.\* ;33'.1 T*le;»hon»: 6l2/£:6 2'53 BJ*ine OJfie«: 2«0» JOSth Stf**:. SU!n*. VN Sr^Si. T*:»phof«»: 612.'78Q £342. j3T * ■ -' * .*,• .fc?3r *-t ijW « t*. .1 .Wr -dr ! it iiJ:*-.- ----------e- IS® l^ciTY- roRONo: CITY of ORONO Poll Office E«1 6C*Cryr.u! S»y. Minn«uu M322»Munici9»t Off.en On t.Hc North Shore of Lake Mtr.r.clonka. June 28, 19P,4 Mr. .William Soules Soules, McKendrick, Gurevitz, Clew & MO'.'r.uson, Ltd. 808 First Bank Place West 120 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. Soules: On June 7, 1984, the City of Orono issued building permit No. piO to Jdmes Johnson for the construction of a residential dock at Tracts S and T of RLS 451 subject to the following conditions agreed to by James Johnson at a special Marina Committee'meeting on June 6, 198-,: Tracts S and T must be combined - Johnson filed for combination on June 7, 1984, see copy attached. _ _ _ _ legoor. _ _ _ __ _ _ length to 40 feet and the mooring of 1 boat over 16 feet in length. The Marina Corutittee directed the City staff to issue a building for this specific dock prior to the execution of an amended agreement by all involved owners because of the unanimous agreement by a.l concerned including James Jchnscti at that same June 6th meeting. An inspection on June 27, 1984 confirmed that a dock had b®*-} constructed complving with the 40 feet length and 1 boat in excess Ok ic feet length moored at the subject dock. The City will building permits for the reconstruction or alteration o. the located on Tract S, RLS 415 until the subject agreement has been executed by all parties with interest in the six riparian wracts. ICSLUI'^'i 1 ZUMNC • ASStssiNc; ADMI.smTKATlOSl ri.SA.NCE - 47J.7jS»rciLlC WORKS - 4:j.7Ji« rv. r S'?!'.' r , • • ■ 51 t* -1 ICC? '>?v -^;'.;'V/:.: Kr. William Soules Page 2 June 28, 1984 - will send a copy of your letter of June 25, 1984, with this letter t;o the five owners. Once again, I will restate the directive of the Orono Marina Committee which is for all persons with interest in t)»e six riparian tracts to establish limitations on the use of the land and riparian tracts, to address specifically parking, dock, and l.jnd use limitations. The owners were responsible for drafting an agreement for the review and approval of the City. Please advise my office if there are to be additional araendments to those set forth on June 6 , 1984, if so, the Marina Co.Tjnittee must review and approve all amendments. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator JAM/ps pc:Mr. David C. Cook 8012 Pennsylvania Road Bloomington, Ki< 55438 Mr. TKomas Casey 2785 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 J 8 M Fleischhacker 2775 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Paul R. Nutt 9200 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, HN 55426 Dean Thomas 1500 Bohns Point Road Wayzata, MM 55391 Mr. Jin Johnson 26420 Oakridge Circle Excelsior, MS 55331 Edward M. Callinan 706 Second Avenue South Suite 930 Baker Building Minneapolis, KM 55402 Enclosures:Combination Paper - June 7, 1984 Building Permit No. 5310 William Soules letter dated 6-25-84 ■ * •. •% «\• • •• *' . m . YOUR RRCTf CTIGN 13 CUR PAOf IS6ION CASEY AND CASEY. INC. 77CCLOv^**^ SC • ViNNtAPOU'.S M:Nf4 55^23 • PHC*N£E641?t’ July 10, 1984 t •. * . *. ► • O ^ iI I • ;. I O bCA 1 % ! 1 \ I .• * II* • •« w* ! CITYOFORONO iy- Jeanne A. Mabusth City of Otono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mi; 55323 Pe: Tracts . T of BLS451 Ms. Mahusth, Mr. Jim Johnson v.-as Ln ocrplete agreenent with all limitations regarding the captioned lots. I belie%-e they should be binding with Mr. Thi: resh, a.nd his disagreements worked out wi^ Itr. Johnson. All owners did agree or. all atendments. Mny we please close this as agreed. Than.k i’O'J for i'oixr tine and concern Sincerel SUtmtll ANO PiaSONAt. tNIURANCf casualty • I.I7C • Pine • h .*alth • mutual puno i ..i. .. XdML. V-»l ^V- l. • :A., .^ ;/ .. • •^v;•' ■■v V 5..^;• ‘ ■J|-*v '. • •'.•■..;vx> . ^-•;^/V.:/;. V.v • ■:- - .L-..- • ' . ■• •.- .r * ^>1'•> k ^ • * , -^ .•*» ,••• *•.*• '*• •••.’• %••.*•••.#•• ,*%t ■•*• •-.* ■%. t-;- •-.'M ^73?^ k’> KtS Y. -r • • ' 1 : ^ §S--- Prom: Mayor Butler , . . »^Mark E. Sernhardsor.» City Administrator Orono Council Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Date: September 2, 1985 Subject:conditional Use Permits and Variance review for "'’''-/‘^acent land owners of riparian tracts within lagoon located 300 feet northwest of Narrows Bridge. a) 1941 Paul R. Nutt b) 1946 David C. Cook c) 1951 John Thimmesh PrSjSItf ^"rouc lo^oot wide rlpetlan tracts located within Narrows laaoon *- see Exhibit D. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subdivision 4 (A) Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) Application SubdU ison < (A) a ir.aintaln a dock (accessory structure) on a rot without a principal structure. b) Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) a ^ "*® ^'/"to and variance is required if this continue and, be recognized as a xegal non-conforming use. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit 1 - Exhibit J - Applications Property Owners Lists Plat Map Lagoon Lots - Subjecc Properties Record of Ownership Survey in Relation to Ownership Thimmesh Letter Cook Letter News Article 6/12/58 Survey Tract S 6 T Review of Individual Applications: T/. Nur^rhas owned four tracts (Tracts P a _Q - 2 land tracts, .nnd Tracts 0 6 R - 2 riparian tracts) since the , owner of the area E. He purchased them from the devcioper and tracts exnircd in even before the covenants that governed ^'1®.. orono City Council was L“s‘ui,ft.^" Nr*hara“|reVd Vo ViU^ V.? aVpViVat?o‘n ?orth%" VaV owTr. K' Zoning Files ^941, *946 & 3951 August 14, 1985 Page 2 of 4 Tracts ?. & 0 have contained docks since the early 60's. Each c: with the others, maintain a zero lot line setoack. Both doc.<s na gach one soil boat over 16 feet stored for the su~nier season.^ knov**iedce there has never been another boat Kept at these doc.ts. & P are'the land tracts providing a parking space for each owner, tc these tracts are via Dick Ogle's property to the south. b) Donald C. Cook Cook has owned Tract E, a riparian tract since 1979 or 1931. Tne tract was originally owned by an adjacent land owner and when the subjec- owner sold his homestead lot, the riparian tract was not includec in the sale but sold indeoendently to Cook. The covenants governing the special ownership combinations for the riparian tracts owned by adDacent lano owners expired in January of 1965. Cook has laaintained 1 boat over 16 feet in length at the zero dock since his ownership. Cook does not own the contiguous land ._acw . Dick Ogle owns Tract D. The land tracts serve as off-street parking ^ car. Cook does not have sufficient dry land area to provide s-itabie parking for one car. Cook is able to legally park on County Roat 19 bu- this may not be an arrangement that the City would wish to encourage.^ these non-conforming uses are to be approved by the City, their use rus-. i.. no way pl«ice any unnecessary hazards or risks in the use of the properties .or create nuisances for the surrounding property owners or tjie c^enerai public. It would be preferable for Cook to acquire the use of Tract D -cr off-street parking purposes but in light of the available parking on adja c^nt County Road 19, it is difficult for the City t,o deny a conditional use permit to the applicant because of safety factors si ice the docK nas been used for the past five vears without mishap. Limits on the use c: appo-i- canfs dock would result in an increase in safety - guarts to be picxed up at public landing areas rather than encourage additional parking cn Coun.y Road 19. c) vTohn Thinmesh . , c , - e Thinmesh is the current owner of recently combined Tracts S 6 *. prooerty remained with the original owner/developer's famH y until 1. ••• It was the request of a potential buyer to build a new dock that ccmmencec this year long review process. Tract S has had a zero lot line cock .or many vears. The applicant asks if this property could be ownce jointly with another individual. I have explained that this review may establish ii.T.its on the use of thtse docks so that joint ownership is impractica^i. He understands our concern but also asks that the City consider the - ° . adjacent owner could maintain 2 boats in excess of the 16 not encroach on adjacent dock ateas or create hazards for navigatic.-. lagoon. I suggested that the City would be vary of the potontiar to re.^. or lease the second slip and add to the parking congestion problems wit..^n the neighborhood. He advised tl'.at. this was not his intention but that ..e had planned at some future date to acquire a collector type boat m exces.s of 16 feet length. I advised Thimmesb to come back at that time tc amenu k.is original conditional use pcrm.it per Council approval. 'r m^.O: •Vv .» Sfc?i!:;.- r: ■ ^'.<'.v'. .*. -“s fij- ' • ■' ^* k:^ !/-v. ^v 5-'i. .' '■ • >•/... ■ ■• W0m te *• > I Zoning riles «941, =945 & 1951 August 14, 1935 Page 3 of 4 Review of Application In the Spring of 1994 , after receiving cor-.piaints concerning the intense use ar.c reocrted ooeratior. of a corr.rr.ercia i narina within e Karrows Lagoon area*. Council directed staff to inspect the subject area. Staff advised Council that there was indeed a potential threat to the public safety and welfare in the unregulated use of these 20 foot wide riparian tracts (see Exhibit F) given the limited area of the lagbon. me original Registered Land Survey division (195*«) created these tracts to provide protected dock use area for the homestead lots wihin that same Registered Land Survey. The covenants dealing with the use of these tracts have long expired (1955) and four tracts are currently in the ownership of non-adjacent land owners. The City was introduced to this multiple dock area in 1979 in the process of reviewing a lot area variance for a Robert V,atson. It was an application involving the common ownership of two tracts of lakcshore oroperties. One was developed, tlie other undeveloped. A condition o.. approving that variance apiplication was that both homestead lots on the mainlake retain a lacoon tract for dock purposes. As a result, the curren owners of Tracts M £ N and K S L are the only legal or conforming users or the riparian tracts. The original covenants established^ standards for the use of these limited properties but they are no longer in effect and many would require variances to our present code. The Marina Committee had been attempting to deal with the six separate owners, two adjacent residential owners and four non-adjacent owners, u found It impossible to come to any agrccm.ent because of the diverse owner ship pattern and the illegal or unresolved status of Tracts S £ f I. and E. The chairman of the Marina Committee advised each of owners of the need tc gain legal status or recognition of their use ot tne the Counci x before the com.m«itteo could work with allf -riparian tracts ___ six owners on a safe agreed upon use o.*” the iaccon area. Planning Commission was asked to consider the following issues: 1. Can these tracts be put to another reasonable use under the present y.cnin.g? 2. Were the hardships created by the owners or due to circumstances unique to tb.is propcityV 3. Is the current use of eh.e pioporty cut of character with the surrounding lagoon neighborhood? 4. Is there a safe level of use fo: a 2C wide riparian lot? 5. Should th»- fact that these ncn-confor.ming uses existed before formal toning have asry bearing on the toview - the City knew in i. that these tracts were not owned an.d used by adjacent land owners. ;»#• « •*• • • zoning Files #941, =94C & 1931 August 14, 19B5 Page 4 of 5 6. What £orf. o£ ovr.arshio is feasible for these tracts? Single or joint? 7. What corr.bir.atien of boat storage is acceptable? iHoatcv*Grl6f66^ini6r. cthonl^ b) 1 hill over 16 feet in length only and 1 under c) ^2 boats each ever 15 feet in length 16 fee 8. IS there a special placement or pa^ttern for dc=h_^«^^ ti::«^r^%»?s?o?"h>°Thi!SUh^ro;erty - I h.ave enclosed the survey to assist in your reviev. a) limit on dock width b) limit or. widths of boat sxips dock location within 20 feet wid.-h d) tracts cannot cualify for use of buoys in lagoon 9. Use of land tract; users - nice, but how do you enforce, c) other land use limits? The Planning Cor.e.ission felt the scope -“j^s °nl Tell conditional use pcrmiru riparian uses are best construction, setbacks, etc. '”“0 5 dc..ling ^^e'lntttittti'^ttttiuticns drafted by staff include the necessary CindinQS. The total membership did not ail the use of these tracts. ^^00^ the dry land the four docks to one bo.nt over 10 p?, ' f^^ther recommended that ^rja^crt’Ta^ncr;rncn..^t;icts Jit^^u^ The- v^Vt't^^n^'co^^sent of the affected cwno.r . The minority cf tv., fit that ^ ‘UsU” t unrcasonabic and untcur.de! Jiritai icn not b.lnccl O! S...C.1 co The enclosed resolution:, h.ive houn dratted based or, the diroetives e£ the majority opinio;;. i Zoning Files #941, 1946 s #95- August 14, 1535 Page 5 of 5 Staff further recor.raends that Council *<^Jne‘d b“nSn- riparian tract owners now tnc.t -ti s,-x owners am to oncerxpaci-an v.io.v,w --------------- . ___ -oeoived that ail srx owners acts «-w adjacent property owners hau °®®'Jag^eetrent/covenants that would *2n?n\rtre%s\heVc":enre^> Marina Con^Utea will bfe responsible for reviewing this ag.eewent. f • I ? r •;r.;5<‘i.1>H. ^' '-r'.. • * '. •« .t - y»'•:• ■ - i.-<‘ y sfl.;':-,-.-" •-•i irA^: -w^rrJiT 7^* V.' .*• fe. V 1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IIBLD AUCUSt 19, 1985- PACE 2 1948 - 565 LEAP ST. continued „ Asst. Zor.ir.-; As-ir.istrator Gaffron states that Revcr..— Chaffin vis ccr.cer.ted atout the encrcach-e.-.t of the patio, •..'hich is used for church services, into the pronose- subdivide-i property. As a potential sclutior. to the encroachr.ent probler^, ^Mr. Hanson suggested a possible conveyance of that certain property to the church. Mr. W.J. Koronkie-ic2, <65 Leaf St., vas in attendance fer this natter. Goetten asked about the plans for the existing house. Mr. Kanson stated that when the property was acquired, they thought they had a full 6 acres and was unaware of the high dry buildable ordinance, and felt they were dealing with a Dininal variance. Due to these problens, their plans are to s“ll or® lo*" for a new hone to be built, and sell the other lo- with the existing hone. .Mr. Hanson r.lso stated that the applicant understands that he will be responsible for partial read naintenar.ee of Oxford Road. It was n.oved bv Chairn.an Callahan, seconded by Sine, to recon-T.end approval of the proposed subdivision subDect to staff's < reccr.rendations as listed in addition to i) conditioned upon obtaining approval f ro.n neccessary parties for use of Oxford Road for entrance to Lot 1, 6) applican.. being notified of the attractive nuisance /J'® pool and need to be addressed. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays lO). ZONING A.MENDHENT PUBLIC HEAJ.ING 12:14 ^ ^ ^ s-Due to the late hour, it was noved by McDonald, seconded w.. Goetten, to continue this public hearing rianning Connission neetir.g. Motion, Ayes (6), Nai s (OJ. ^5ili^PAUL NUTT, 1946 DAVID C. COOK, #951 JOHN THIMMISB 2739 SEADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:58 - 8:29 , , ^ ^r-,4 ch w®-cPaul R. Nutt, David C. Cook, and John & Patti ihirr-nish w..o present for this natter. zoning ,\dr.itiistrator .Sabusth noted the certificate of nailing and the affidavit of publication. Zon lo (riparian) fnd ? s Q (land' which he is selling tracts t R, David C. Cook owns riparian tract F‘r.. adjacent land tract (D5 by Mr. R. Ogle. Tracts M s N and i% & L are owned b,. t !<■ >• land owners. Mr. Casey and Mr. Flcischhacker. V ^» f ^ • '-Y’ IH,- '*^3 - / 1 * X ' - C * 'i. • • •• - , ' •■.7, • , V<?, C--''V.-'i'-':*^'^,^;.-.>' -.. X .-. ■i * ».• . • . • - •• .. •.',v .r.'- -s • r . - -- . . : . • HINUTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION K2ETIKG HELD AUCUST 19, 1985. PACE 2 •948 — 565 LEAP ST. continued Asst. Zor.ir.7 Ad.r.ir.istrator Gaffron stated that Reverer— Chaffin w^s ccr.rer.-.ed about the er.crcachr.er.t of the patto, which is used fcr church services, into the pronose- subdivided property. As a potential solution to the encroachr.e.nt problem, Mr. iJanson suggested a possible conveyance of that certain property to the church. Mr. W.j. Koronkiewicz, <65 Leaf St., was in attendance fcr this natter. Goetten asked about the plans for the existing house. Mr. Kanson stated that when the property was acquired, they thought they had a full 6 acres and was unaware of the high dry buildable ordinance, and felt they were dealing with a nir.inal variance. Due to these problens, their plans are to sell one lot for a new* hone to be built, and sell the other lo- with the existing hone. .Mr. Hanson r.lso stated that the applicant understands that he will be responsible for partial road naintenar.ee of Oxford Road. It was r.oved by Chaivr.an Callahan, seco.nded by Sirr.e, to recor-T.end approval of the proposed subdivision subject to staff's < reccr-Tondations as listed in addition to 5) conditioned upon obtaining approval f ro.ra neccessary parties for use of Oxford Road for entrance to Lot 1, 6) applicant being notified of the attractive nuisance of the swirur.ir.g pool and need to be addressed. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). ZONING A.HEND.MENT PUBLIC EEAJ>ING 12:14 j v..Due to the late hour, it was r.oved by McDonald, seconded wj Goetten, to continue this public hearing until the r.lanning Ccr-T.ission reeting. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (OJ. Cj^jS^FhVL NUTT, #946 DAVID C. COOK, *951 JOHN TBIMMISB 2739 SEADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:58 - 8:29 . Paul R. f.jtt, David C. Cook, and John & Patti I’hirjnish v._ present for this natter. Zoning ,Ad.T.inistrator Mabusth noted the certificate of nailing and the affidavit of publication. Zoning Adr.inistrator Mabusth explained the ownership of the lots located west of t *.e Narro.;s Bridge: John TMnnish owne tracts S (riparian) &T (la.-.d), Paul R. Nutt owns tracts 0 6 n (riparian) and ? 4 Q (land' which he is in the process selling tracts ^ 4 R, David C. Cook owns riparian : adjacent land tract (DS to Mr. Cook's riparian tract O'—^ by Mr. P.. Oslo. Tracts M 4 N and K & L are owned by two adDa-c... land owners, Mr. Casey and Mr. Fleischhacker. m m mm§ T^v V. vV"*5 >.V/ I7;ri .Vx-\ ^ . . ^ ; . .y • . • / '••'•Vt'''VV'V ■-> >7' -V . f-. • ‘'.'..'J ‘ •' • '* • .V “ T.■*. ** ?* *• AXNUTBS op the planning commission meeting held august 19, 1985. PAGE 2 #941-1946-1951 2739 GHADYWOOD RD. continued Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the question is how to deal with the ncn-conforr.ing use of these properties. Mabusth noted that the City has been aware of the non conforming use of these lots since the late 50's. Mabusth gave a short background as to when these lots were purchased by the applicants*. Mabusth indicated that because the applicants* are non-acjacent property owners creates the illegal r.on-conforrr.ing use, which has been a non-conforming use fer the past 30 years. Mabusth als'' noted that some of the tracts have been combined and some have not. All three applicants indicated that their request is to be allowed to use the lots for boat dockage. I.n order to do this, the City must recognize them as a legal .ion-conforming use. Rovegno questioned, since back in 1955 this use was apparently a legal thing to do, at what point did it becor.e an illegal use? Zoning Ad.ministrator Mabusth indicated the change occurred in 1967, when the formal zoning ca.me in. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Plan.ning Commission is being asked to addresu two things: 1) recognize these lots as a legal non-conformi:-c use 2) grant conditional use pec.mits because these lots have accessory structures with no principal structure. Mr. Ogle stated that issues to be considered are that the applicants' want to change the conformity of the lots, the lots were intended for residents, parking and access problems for guests, and the proble.m with regulating the use and nu.T.ber of boats being docked. A person from, the public stated that the L.MCO allows one boat per 100 feet of lakcshcrc and the lots in question are 2C foot lots. Tom. Frahn, Chairm.an of the Marina Committee, stated that the Marina Committee found a problem with the number of boats and ownership of beats. Frahm stated that the real proble.m is that the Marina Co.mnittec felt they could not deal with the dockage proble.m without a legal definition of what these pieces of property are, which is why it is before the Planning Co.mmiFsion. Rovegno wanted to m.ake clear the Planning Commission's issues in this natter which is a conditional use perm.it to allow an accessory use absent a principal use and variances because the lots arc sub-stanJarr. under the terms cf today's zoning review. Rovugr.c felt that is what probably a reasonable use because it has been done for over 30 years. Rovegno questioned whether thc.se docks have perm.its fro.m. the L.MCO. . .. *•9m* • t * } : i 1 r •»fez-a' ,/;:-:-^'^*;~:---'v*-'*.-'T‘-/■ y,,\-.=v;.-'^r<o’-'■•^* ■■■ •■. • .• •. •• ■•*-^ .• ■ T'-.v;\< - ' . X •*' * < . . -I • '*‘1 »#• »,' V*. ’• ,,'^*—1* ’ \ .i*, • * . .•jL' p;*?.Vt-v. ^ ?in•-r A* » ►.•fir. »r * > . . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 4 #941-1946-1951 2739 SHADYWOOD PS), continued Zoning AcT.inistrator Mabusth stated that the LMCD ccnsid«-s tnis a grandfathered situation and that the cocks are legal because they existed prior to the creation of the LMCD. ..aousth also stated that the LMCD recoc.T.ends 50 feet of would consider variances for a ninirtuc. of 10 feet for one boat. .Mr. Ogle stated that a "grandfathered” clause should pertain ^o t..e original evner only end not be sold off. pere were .no ether cocjr.ents from the public and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Cal’ ihan felt that .Mr. Ogle's state.nents regarding parKing prob .er.s should be considered. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to reconur.end granting the Conditional Use Permit's to use as a non- conforming use subject to no parking be allowed on propertv they don't own and allowing one boat per non-adjacent landowners. Motion, Ayes ( 4 ), Nays (2 ). Sime a.nd McDonald hardship. #945 k.J. BAUHAK 1040 TONKAWA ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC BEARING 8:53-9:03 Aso.. Zoning Acrinistratcr Gaffron noted the certificate o railing and the affidavit of publication. .Mr. Robert J, Hauman was present for this matter. Hr. Bauman .atatec that he 'wants to clean up his shoreline area using a backhoe to remo'/e tree stumps and poison ivy which requires a conditional use permit. >ir. Lauman stated that he will comply to ail of staff's recommendations as listed in their report. Asst. Zcning x\dnin istrator Gaffro.n indicated an issue regarding the drainage* pipes. .-.r. Ea’jman stated that there is a surface drainage problem that ran do'wn to the Nocltings property and tnat the pipe is 3ust laying th«rc now. Tue Nceltir.gs, 1C60 "‘onkaw,! Road, stated that now that the fence i.s there, there is no drainage problem. Jurgen Stiolow, '020 TonV.awj Road, stated tl'.at hedidn't like seeing mature trees taken down. -t wa.« mo'.'cd by Sime, seconded by Ccottcn, to recommend ppro'-al of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to applican* complying w*tl* the five cond'tions rccom.T.onJed by staff an.: that staff will revio;,- and work with applicant regarding the draitiogoon the north Jot line. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). mmm r r L.. February 23,2000 TO: Mr. Mike Gaffron FROM: Jim Zimmerman, Richard and Sue Gay, Dick and Marlys Ogle SUBJECT: Resident and Non-Resident Boat Docks I We understand that one of the non-resident boat owners has asked the city to revisit the parking situation along County Road 19. We also noticed that one of the non-resident dock properties is now being surveyed, and we’re concerned about what may be planned for this property. The docks along Country Road 19 were set up to be resident docks for homeowners of the Pheasant Lawn Development. They were obviously never intended to be sold off as independent properties or rented out as rental property as is now the case. What started out in 1985 as the sale of a couple of docks for normal recreational use has groum to the point now where we have essentially a condominium marina in our small neighborhood. It’s creating a number of problems now, and we have a very real fear about what could happen in the hiture vdth these properties. There is also the issue of conditional use permits vs. no permits. The dock properties break into the following three categories: ■ Resident Docks with No Conditional Use Permits - Olson and Casey ■ Non-Resident Docks with No Conditional Use Permits - Gunther and Ault Non-Resident Docks with 1Q85 Conditional Use Permits - Huber, Miegel, W^ttman, Cook There are currently issues relative to all 3 of the above categories of docks. Rather than address the issues one at a time in isolation, we feel it is important to look at the total issue of the docks and look at both short and long term issues. In the short term, we want to work with the city to clearly understand exactly w'hat the rights are of the neighborhood and wbat the rights are of the non-resident dock owners, linger term, since these properties are completely non-conforming and do not fit within the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City, we would look to work with the city to bring this area into compliance with the current Zoning Codes and requirements. Detailed below is background and history on the dock area in question. In addition, there is a summary' of current concerns about the dock area and the expanded use of the docks beyond what was in place in 1985 when the permits were granted. In looking at the situation, we thought it made sense to look at it in five different ways: ■ The physical characteristics of the area in question and what is appropriate Original intent for the dock area The history of what’s happened relative to these docks in the last 15 years since the Conditional Use Permits were granted How the current use of the docks no longer conforms to the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit Resident docks without Conditional Use permits Specifics of each are as follows: Physical Characteristics of the Dock Area The area where the docks are located is ver>’ shallow, ranging in depth from 2-4 feet. • Because the area is so shallow, docks need to be 40 feet plus in length to be usable in periods when the lake is low. There is a very narrow channel leading back to the non-resident dock area. At the narrowest it is approximately 60-70 feet from the end of the dock at 2765 Shadywood to the other shorf* of the shallow depth of the channel, the navigable area at the narrowest part of the channel leading to the docks is only approximately 20 feet wide. •k. «u iV>“''ng before the planning commission in January*, one of the non-resident dock Miegel, testified regarding the narrowness of the channel and that ther e '**» rooi .or large boats. He stated that a 33-34 foot boat was the maximum that wl . km appropriate for the area. This is smaller than a number of the boats currently docked a* Lie non-resident docks. Due to the very* shallow depth and narrowness of the channel, extremely large boats are not appropriate for the non-resident dock area. In 1985, the boats docked at the non-resident docks were much smaller than those docked there today. Original Intent of Dock Area In taking a historical look at the dock situation, it’s important to go back to the original intent and plan for the neighborhood and docks. The docks were established when the neighborhood was originally plotted. The docks were created solely for neighborhood residents. The covenants of the neighborhood development clearly specified that the docks were for neighborhoixl residents and the path behind the boats was to be used to take things to and from your boat, and not as a car park area. There was certainly no overnight parking en\*isioned or allowed. r . • L_ VVhat ’s Happened Since 108?^ As the neighborhood covenants expired, a few of the neighbors who had lakefront footage and also a dock in the channel sold the channel docks to friends. • There are a total of 5 docks now owned by non-residents. Since 1985, there has been a gradual but steady increase in the size of boats moored at the docks, the amount of boat usage, and the number of cars and amount of traffic due to the non-resident boats. • The parking and safety issues became so severe this past summer that the city posted the County Road 19 in front of the non-resident boat docks as a no parking zone because excess car parking resulting from the non-resident docks created a major safety issue. There has also been a substantial increase in the infrastructure of the non-resident boat docks with the addition, since 1985, of electricity, running water, a flagpole, burglar alarms, hig!: intensity anti-crime lights, gravel car parks and other amenities. Along with the substantial increase in boat size has come a significant change in boat usage. In 1985, the non-resident dock owners were using their boats in the same manner as the neighbors, which was for recreational boating. In the past several years, however, as new owners have come in and established owners have purchased larger boats, the boats have come to be used for weekend or overnight accommodation. Generally, a number of non resident boat owners stay on their boats from Friday to Sunday. This results in (ars l^ing parked for the whole weekend. While generally boat owners do not spend the night tied up to the dock, it is not uncommon for owners to sleep in their boats while they are tied up at the docks. There have also been a number of instances of paitying on boats and loud music on boats late at night that disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. There have been a number of break-ins on the non-resident boats. One non-resident boat owner put a motion sensor burglar alarm on his boat when he went to the 1996 Summer Olympics. For the three weeks they were gone, the alarm went off many times each day at all hours. Since the dock owner was not from the neighborhood we had no way to reach them and instead were awakened every night when the alarm went off. Over the past few years some of the non-resident dock ONvners have used their slips as rental property. In 1999, at least two of the slips were rented. Current Use Compared to 198.5 Resolution The Conditional Use Permits were granted for the four docks in 1985 based on the assumption that granting a Conditional Use Permit for docks would “not to be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property* will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City'." Given the significant changes since 1985, we feel the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permit no longer are valid in a number of important areas as follows: “Docks would not adversely affect light" - In the past few years, a high intensity anti-crime light has been installed by one of the non-resident dock owners. In addition to the very negative message an anti-crime light communicates for a neighborhood, this bright light that burns all night is a substantial and adverse increase in light in the area. “Nor pose a fire hazard” - In the past few years a gravel car park has been built (without permit) by one of the non-resident dock owners. This car park is immediately next to the only fire hydrant in the vicinity of the boat docks. Frequently, cars are parked for 24 hours or more directly in front of the fire hydrant. There are also frequently 4 cars in the car park preventing any easy access to the fire hydrant. This poses a significant increase in fire risk to the neighborhood. We also believe that the large boats with correspondingly large gas tanks that are left unattended pose an increased risk of fire to the neighborhood. The boats have been broken into. It’s certainly not unreasonable to assume that vandals could set fire to one of the boats, which could pose a serious fire risk to the whole neighborhood. ■ “Nor pose other daneer to the neighboring properties" - The non-resident boats have been broken into a number of times. A recent article also indicated that boat crime on the lake is on the increase. The large, extremely valuable, untended non-resident boats are an obvious target for thieves and vandals. Their presence is an invitation to burglars and vandals to enter our neighborhood, where they are not likely to stop at the non-resident boats. The presence of the non-resident dock owners makes it very difficult to practice Neighborhood Watch since neighbors never know which cars belong in the neighborhood or who is supposed to be in the non-resident dock area. "Proposed level of use" - The level of use has changed substantially since 1985. In 1985, the docks were used for normal recreational boating and the boats were much smaller than they are today. None of the slips were used for rental propert>’ as two of the slips were used in 1999. There was no electricity, water, lights, flagpoles, car parks or other amenities in 1985. The level of use is quite different than in 1985. “Use of the property will be in keeping vrith the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Cqmprehensive Plan of the city" - We’ve all been told that no other situation like this exists in Orono and that no docks are allowed without a structure. VWve also been told that these •properties are all non-conforming. We don’t understand how in 1985 these docks would have met the criteria stated above but they certainly would not seem to meet these criteria today. “Nor will it depreciate surrounding property values’’ - We believe strongly that the current situation does depreciate our propert>' values. There is no other place in Orono where a condominium boat marina is allowed to exist and that’s because it goes against the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The cit>' mandates that only lots with structures are entitled to docks because this is the proper use of land to maximize propert}' values and proper lakefront usage. While in 1985 an argument could have been made for these non-resident docks not harming property values because the boats were much smaller and used for normal recreation, this is no longer the case. Having a condominium boat marina with large boats, break-ins, substantial car parking, rental slips, noise, lights, etc., in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood most certainly adversely affects propert>’ value. Given the cit> ’s rationale in the 1985 resolution, we believe that if the city applied those guidelines to today’s situation, the conditional use permits would not be granted for the size boats, infrastructure, and current use of the non-resident slips. Resident Docks without Conditional Use Permits The two docks owned by residents without conditional use permits are Olson and Casey. Neither Olson and Casey were owners in 1985 when the conditional use permits were granted and neighbors agreed to provide access for thefing car that was allowed to park for the three non-resident owners entitled to park one car. 1 k \ . ’i • Access for the non-residents to park cars has always been granted by previous owners of these properties and Olson and Casey. • While no permanent easements have been put in place, we think the access issue is probably • governed by the fact that it’s been done for 15 years without protest from anyone. Also, the land behind the docks is clearly a right a way to access the docks and was always set up that way. • Specifically as relates to Olson and Casey’s docks, they are separate tracts on the plot map but were purchased by both Casey and Olson in a single purchase agreement and transaction when they purchased their homes. The docks and homes have always been tied together, and as neighbors ^ve would like to ensure that they continue to stay together. If these two docks are allowed to be sold off to non-residents, it will only increase the problems and potential problems we already face. Conclusions • We feel strongly that since 1985 there has been a substantial expansion of use of non- conforming properties (specifically the non-resident boat docks). • The non-resident boat oumers have gone substantially beyond what was approved and intended inl985. • We would ask that the city carefully review this situation to determine if there is any way to bring it within the current zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. Since the non-resident docte are the only non-conforming dock properties in all Orono, at some point in the future we feel these non-resident docks will need to be eliminated. Given tfie continued expanded the current problems and the significant potential for much greater problems in the future, we reel it is important to address the issue now. At a minimum, we would ask that the city eliminate all of the expanded use since the Conditional Use Permit was granted and bring these properties back to where they were when the permits were granted. Specifically Aat would involve the following: - Only 1 car of parking per boat slip for the three boat slips w'hose Conditional Use Permits allow 1 car of parking. - No overnight parking. - Removal of anti-crime light. - Removal of flag pole. - Removal of gravel car park. - Elimination of parking that blocks the fire hydrant. - No partying on boats tied up to the docks. - No overnight accommodations on the boats tied up to the docks. - Removal of electricity to docks and running water. Given the narrowness of the channel and the shallow depth of the area in question, we’d ^so like to see boat size for the non-resident slips restricted to the boat sizes that were in use in 1985, or the 33-34 foot limit stated in the January Planning Commission meeting by one of the non-resident dock owners. use, near future 'r' ’ ¥ t'hr-' fl' Mr. Gaf&on, we would like to work with you oh this issue to develop solutions that protect rights and maximize the quality of life for our neighborhood. It’s unfortunate that this situation exists and there probably is not an ea^ answer, but the issues need to be addressed and the sooner the better. Well plan to call to set up a time to meet and discuss. t*I ■j i ♦ > j: • % 3 Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 8/21/00 10/20/00 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:October 11,2000 SUBJECT: #2610 Jerome J. Hall 80 Leaf Street After-the-Fact Variance Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 36,625 s.f. (.84 acre) i;!ouncil Review The Council voted to return the review of the variance back to the Planning Commission to discuss options on the property for deck replacement without increasing the size of the deck. The Planning Commission had voted 7 to 0 to recommend denial of the request based on the size of the deck within the 75' setback would increase. The applicant has requested further review of the application with the Commission to review an alternative plan. The revised plan is attached as Site Plan A2 to this memo. Application Summary: Applicant had requested approval of an after-the-fact variance to permit replacement of a deck within the 75' setback to a protected tributary. The applicant has stated the pree.xisting deck was not safe and needed replacement. In July, 2000 it was observed the deck was being replaced without a permit. The deck has been about 50% completed and is constructed larger than the deck that was removed. Preexisting deck = 174 s.f. Replacement deck = 244 s.f. ♦ Approximately 25 s.f. of the replacement deck is outside of the 75' setback, List of Exhibits A1 Application Revised Deck Plan Plat Map Site Survey Project Photo Site Topography Property Owners Notification List A2 B C D E F (112610 Jerome J. Hall 80 Leif Street After>thc-Fict Viriince - Public Hearing Page I Pertinent Code Section 1.Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) prohibits hardcover within 75' of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of a tributary. Analysis Air photos indicate the preexisting deck was constructed sometime between the mid 1970's to the early 1980's. The City does not have a permit on file for the deck. The replacement deck would include two areas that were not part of the original structure. Please refer to the site plan attached as Exhibit C. At its’ closest point, the deck would not encroach nearer to the protected tributary than the old deck (48' from the OHWL). A deck would continue to provide a landing for a sliding glass door located at the rear of the house. The additional 6' at the south end would not be required for access to the door. The closest the added 6' would jencroach to the tributary is 70' where 75' is required. Hardship The applicant has included his hardship statement as part of Exhibit A. The original deck would have ^n constructed prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance. The Shoreland Ordinance applies to non-lakeshore property. Section 10.22, which is the ordinance that regulated hardcover prior to 1992, applies only to lots zoned Lakeshore Residential and only to lakeshore properties. The applicant’s property is zoned RR-IB and is not a lakeshore property. Staff Recommendation Staff makes the following recommendation: To approve the variance application to permit replacement of a deck and adding 6' to the size of the deck based on the following finding: 1.A deck has existed for many years in the location of the new deck. The additional 6' of deck would be located 70' from the lakeshore and partially outside of the 75' setback. 2. 3. 4. The house and deck were constructed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. The deck would not encroach closer to the creek than the preexisting deck. The deck is located on an area of the property that is generally flat and does not slope directly to the creek. This condition allows for surface water to infiltrate into the ground better than property with varying topography. #2610 Jerome J Hall 80 Leaf Street After-the-Fict Variance Page 2 - Public Hearing 4 i vr- Options for Action : 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Other action. •2610 JcranwJ. Hall SOLeafStrctt After-the*Fact Variance Pages — Public Hearing i 1: 4 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; LR-IB Lot Area Required 2 acre Actual 36,625 s.f. (.84 acre) Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 36,625 s.f.Allowed: 5493 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,733 s.f. (4.7%) Proposed: 2,003 s.f (5.4%) A Application # I 0 Date Received 2 l«OQ Amount Paid 2.S(O CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Sr'/le'eT Property Identification Number fP.I.D.'l r ~ ^ ^^ ^ — A.ttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propc^ Acquired 1TOa,-c-^ :> ?-----------------^(montfa/year) >0 •• I (do) (do 11^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: i^-^residentid ___pother (specify) Zoning District: k ^_________ applicant Name c nS LL Address: jV J-»____ Phone ~ ____ Phone (vyork)___l;;------ r\ty‘ Zip: 3 x w OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________________‘ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. description of REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S--------- Describe request in detail: /) e. j: I a. d <£- /Z9 7Td & A' ^ coa- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ /Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Lot Coverage 1.^ Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or ^usual property conditio^ prevenhng compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 'p-fic __yVg .s C i it/\/if‘'rrr\ •-+0 ^'r "f U •<_ --------------------—----------—------------------•4-0 <-y ri P'1 <g>rrf (attach additional sheets if necessary) •k<., I wr-fc—I 31V0 X--1 7IV3S VtOSHM J) UVIS M JO UVI M OH) MUAITS 9tn ONV OMON] ivNOissaioai (osNian atm v m i iVHx (MV NasMUdns iostM AH M3(Mn w n AO oiovdsaj svmiWMn HO ‘N0UV3U03dS MVU SMi JVHl AJ1U33 A03H3H I SMMVU 3it> 'syoA3Atns (mvi '90200 awrsNM a* ■ ■■nj‘0)11 'OHaatoso v Hujoa NOUdWOSJO aivQ N0SIA3U MmVMQ <nN9l53Q *S)uaiuq300JDU9 jo 8)U9UJ0A0Jdaji J9q)o Xuo Moqs o) )jodjnd )ou sdop )| uoojoin >{D9p pasodojd o jO uoi)ooo| posodojd oq) pur> *)\09p puo 'poqs *9snoq Buj^Sjxo uo jo uot)030| aq) 'Xpadojd poquosap OAoqo aq] jo sauopunoq aq) Moqs O) spua^ui XdAjns s\m ujn^op paoinsso uo uodn pasoq ajo UMoqs s6uuoag jaHJOLU uoj| 6d)cuap : o •D^osauujv^ *X;unoQ uidauuaH 'sanjx jO jojisibajj jo saj|j *on XaAjng puoi paja)8!6a^ *v poJi • S3SIK13dd JO N0lldmDS3Q ViOS3NNIW 'AlNnOO Nld3NN3H tt-Z. ’ON ’S 1>J ‘V iOVai 30 11VH A31dlHS yoj A3Aans 30 3J.voi3iia30 m >~n CO mm ii •• ■■ r. -•- • . »*-• '• M-.l ''O'W ' - ^ ‘\^- • » 'I '. . .s * ^ - •* A .•• *■ » • \] •,’r Lff V J • r-i ^, r ^-- . yy V'^ -^ -K,jr ' ‘ g^-n jg«a lUN DATE t7/31/0« DATCH S02 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. P14S54R1 PACE S mop ADM SB 04-117-23 22 0403 03145 WATERTOWN RD 36 04-117-23 22 0004 00060 LEAF ST 3B 04-117-23 22 0005 00110 LEAF ST OUNiD NAHi T C tXTTCt IKS RXTTEII JEMHE J HALL N S A K J CRONBERG TAXPAYER THONAS C t KALLl S RITTER JEKOHE J HALL NARK S GRONBERO NANE/ADOR 3145 WA'iERTOWN RD 60 LEAF ST 110 LEAF ST •LONG LAKE NN 55354 LONG LAKE NN S5356 LONG LAKE NN 55354 3S 04-117-23 22 0007 36 04-117-23 22 0006 58 04-117-23 22 0004 . OOOB5 CYGNET PL ✓ 6 J EHALT ETAL ■ 4% PROP ADDR 00025 CYCHET PL y‘00045 CYGNET PL • ^ •# r OHNER NAHE D C A A L SHAUONNESSY RAY HOFFATT ♦ * . " > TAXPAYER DAVID A ANN SNAUCHNESSY YVONNE HOFFATT GREGORY J EHALT NANE/ADDR 25 CYGNET PL 65 CYGNET PL 105 CYGNET PLACE •LONG LAKE HN 55354 LONG LAKE NN 55356 LONG LAKE HN 55354 t • PROP ADDR SB 04-117-23 22 0014 00105 CYGNET PL . 0 J ENALT ETAL ^ 36 05-117-23 11 0001 03245 HATEKTONN HD 3B 05-117-23 11 0005 00045 LEAF ST OWNER NANE CIA KHANE E C GRAHAM JR ETAL • TAXPAYER GREGORY J ENALT CAKL P KHANE E C ORAHAN JR NANE/ADOR 105 CYGNET PLACE 3245 HATERTOHN ROAD 45 LEAF ST LONG LAKE NN 55354 LONG LAKE NN 55356 LONG LAKE NN 55356 • PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR • • TOTAL DATCN 502 00004 • • • D • • • 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS • REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE • REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORD! OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE O £-? 'S •;V In X4S549I S ■ij t. ■ Application Date: 8/21/00 Deadline: 12/19/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 4,2000 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:ii2610 Jerome J. Hail 80 Leaf Street After-the-Fact Variances Zoning Dbtrict: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: RR*1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 36,625 s.f. (0.84 acre) Vote 4-0 +0 ra'^orn +lv4. PlAv\M>net \S& I0W. Oc+ober 2eco A Site Plan B Revised Plan C Planning Commission Minutes (September 18,2000) D Planning Report (September 13,2000) Application Review: Applicant requests approval of an after-the-fact variance to permit replacement of a deck vtrithin the 7S* setback to a protected tributary. The applicant has stated the preexisting deck was not safe and needed replacement. In July, 2000 it was observed the deck was being replaced without a permit. The deck has been about 50% completed and is constructed larger than li.e dec.*': that was removed. Planning Commission Recommendation: Ihe Planning Commission Recommended 7 to 0 to deny the application because the amount of hardcover within the 75* setback would be increased. The Planning Commission also reviewed'the application and determined they would have not recommended increasing the size of the deck had the application been reviewed prior to any work being completed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission they would support replacement of a deck without increasing the hardcover within the 75' setback. Revised Plan: Based on the recommendations made by the Planning Commission, the applicant has proposed a revision to the plan that would remove some of the deck located within the 75' setback and extend to the deck to the south an additional 2* (most of which would be outside of the 75' setback to the creek) Please refer to Exhibits A and B showing the sur\ ey and proposed plans. The applicant has stated the deck extension to the south may be better because it would require fevver steps up to the deck platform. Some of the deck would Request for Council Action continued Page 2 October 4,2000 #2610 Jerome J. Hall_______ be required to remain within the 75* setback due to the existing sliding glass doors being located at the north east comer of the house (with access to the east side of the house). It would be possible to extend the deck further to the south since that portion of the property is outside the 75* setback. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct staff to draft a resolution for adoption at the October 23,2000 meeting of the Council. V 1 • • « i ' 1^ •{•-''m • • • • TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner October 16,2000 SUBJECT: #2621 James Barth 3725 Togo Road Preliminary Subdivision-Public Hearing Zoning:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) List of Exhibits A Application B Site Survey/Proposed property lines C Sew'er Map and Assessment D Water Map and Assessment E Right-of-way (Subdivisions-Brenton Woods, Halcyon Hollow) F Plat Map G Location Map H Property Owners Notification List Application: The applicant has applied for a Preliminary Plat for a two-lot subdivision of a 1.22 acre site located off Togo Road. The lot does contain one house, owned by the applicant, that would remain on Parcel 1. Pertinent Code Sections: Section 10.25, LR-IC, Subd. 6(B): Lot Standards for LR-IC Zoning District Section 11, Subd. 12: Class II Preliminary Subdivision ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Vz acre 100’30’10’30’ M262I James Barth 3725 Togo Road October 16, 2000 Preliminary Plat Pc^e I Subject Property Lot Area and Yards: Parcel i . . i » R^equired :‘a* '' a ' • *Actual . . • * • ; ■ V 'u t* » ».Required Proposed ^'••‘•.V/V: — Parcel 1 1/2 acre .61 Acres 100* 122' Parcel 2 1/2 acre .61 Acres 100' 122' The proposed lots will meet the minimum lot width and lot area requirements. Suitable areas exists within the required setbacks for a building pad that will not result in the need for any variances. The existing residence will meet the required 10' side setback. Access: The preliminary plat does not indicate where the driveway would be located. The city engineer has indicated that any driveways should provide adequate sight lines to ingress/egress from Togo Road. The driveway shall be located at least 5' from either the east or west property lines. The Public Services Director shall approve the driveway access for the new lot. Sewer and Water: The current residence on Parcel 1 has sewer and water. Sewer and water lines are located in Togo Road. There is a sewer stub for Parcel 2. (Exhibit C). The propert>' was assessed in 1965 on a footage basis, hence there is no sewer connection charge due. There is also a water stub in place for Parcel 2. (Exhibit D). The propert>' was assessed for 2 water units in 1970. The only additional charges due would be $360.00 1999 Navarre Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Connection Charge for Lot 2. Park Dedication Fee: The City Assessor will review the plat and determine the fair market value to establish the Park fee due. Accessory Building: A permit was issued September 2000 by the building official for a 24' x 42' detached garage on what will become Lot 2. By city zoning code an accessory building is not allowed without a primary structure on the property. The applicant is aware of this code .. equirement. The lot being divided off is being sold to the owner ’s brother. Staff would recommend that the accessory structure be showed to remain on the lot as long as a building permit for a residence is obtained within one year from the date of final plat approval. If a building permit is not obtained within a year, the property owner will be required to remove the accessor^' building. i^262l James Barth 3725 Togo Road October 16, 20G0 Preliminary Plat Page 2 ; i'. Easements: Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat 10’ along the boundaries of the property line, and 5' along all internal property lines. Right-Of-Way: A 15* right-of-way shall be dedicated on the plat from the center of Togo Road for each parcel. This is consistent with other lot developments along Togo Road. (Exhibit E). The existing right- of-way is only 10' from the centerline, which is inadequate for maintenance and snow storage. Note that this will reduce the existing house’s front setback from 3 T to 21'. (Also note that the survey shows iron monuments at 16.5' from the centerline. If in fact the city has rights to 16.5' of right-of-way per some prior action, the applicant must dedicate 16.5' on the plat). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following: 1. Creation of drainage and utility easements as noted above. 2. Creation of right-of-way as noted above. 3 Parcel 2 subject to standard park dedication fee. 4. Plat subject to all other standard platting requirements. .! #2621 James Barth 3275 Togo Road Preliminary Plat October 16, 2000 Page 3 *----- Application tf 2 (g 2 | Date Received 9 -12 •^CO Amount Paid jl.C/0 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ Siteaddress ^ Property Identification Number (PID) I Ar« A/<> 7 6^ Please check one - Property abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name—^ ^£>Prr^4-\4' City • riiuiic vuuLucj til ZipS^3?/ Phone (work)/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) City Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels /J Development Size ^ •2 7 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land /. z-t Acres Total, all parcels ; )Present use (check)- Residential; no. of units * / Other (specify) Present Zoning District * • .<1 PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) y Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites < Existing Units 1•• % *1 • •' V • / New Units -f 2. Total Units . Proposed Gross Density 1 Units per *^2 Acres *■>!» Minimum Lot Size 1 . Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use (check)Residential Other (specify) ^^^XMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Pa>Tnent of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to thi»pptica^n, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Dat e _____________ 3. AS an aaaenaum to inwappiii.'^n, please anacn a Zoning Official's Signature^X^-^ „ ^ MINIMUM ^L\TEIUAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. 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 and fcreer of Credit. , . Zoning Official's Signature ----f ^Date 7“/8-CC I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 X Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/7ot (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 Totals 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 from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + S.50/Iineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _ lin. ft.x.50-$ lin. ft. X .50 - $ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Wateimain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) S50.00/per lot x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision S30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Anomey, Planning Commission and Council neoKsary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ApF^iTam's Signature ___________ Date _______________- Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 dryS before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetinas are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commis' and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authoriaed agent attend in yu— place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. L_. •• # * •• : • •. • • *-y\ \ 48.7 ’ TO • -.• OAK .••• 40* TO (2J12’ E^S ►i ft* *.• *'”* ”'* TO • " •* ■ 23 6* ' ~ • v^ ■ P.^ .■ ,v. :/ : •: 18* ELMOr*/- A 1- s F-HO vN V V. TOWNbl l t•*• * 1 1/2-S i-s 1 r-Ho • f • • * • •• , ^ i2; .T0 “ . * ** A* acwn . F-HC . <>1 Sa r-.-o 'TO./ f’.13.4 20" ELM Ur ■v'^ •. .. 0 B.E 935.7''.^0.2* 38.6 TO w* / WELM - ' * V« w J V / ••:> i.v *Y ’si\o ' o L.: 0<4 . *. : f ^ 4. l . r ' •: • *•• 0 • .*; .‘-k . .1 • • •t*’ i . ^. • •* ' •• • . • ■ .: v /.v- ••; • ’"i# f • . ......................................• '‘v -n!*. «t *. ;*v» L 54.5* V- •*. !fiV\•• -V . 25 8’ TO • (3^ 12" ELMS • V \j'0 27* TO O-i , 7 * apple TREE # * t . . ‘•• • « . *. RLS MO. 763 MB|2I2 : “r? ■ (5750 ) 11 tT----- , M M M» ••••*••****** *^** ****** * .»♦>.»».»«»».»»»—»—»<*t****—******* ■ •••••••••• .•»»•••••••••••••• •••*•••• *«•••*•••••••••••••••••••••■ .....«*.••••••••••••**•*••***••**••**•• ....»«.••••••••••••••••***••**•*•••*•• •••**♦•••••••• ••*•**•• I•••.«• •••••••*••*••••••••*•*•• ••••••••• !•«•#••••••• ••••••••• - ••■•••••••»••••• •....«•••••»••••*••****♦**••**••**•* ••••••••••• .......................... *!**,#*«**••♦••••••••*•**•••••***••*•* ...... .. . ,»«••*«••• »»•»■••♦••*»•••••••••••• I I••••••.•♦•••••••»•••••■**•■■•••*•*’ «..••.••••••••••«•• •*•***••***•*••■ « »^. ..• »^*** ••*•*•**•*•*•*•**• • •.•.•••^•••» ••••••••*••** •••*••**•*** ................. •»^»»»* »•••*♦••*•**•*•** •*• RiQifiD ................. 2 T »» —*** * »•♦•••••••••••••••*••••*•***•****••'•** ,,,,T---------------- >.»«<»*»»*—»»—*•*********** **4****** ^—»»»•■«* *y • • •••••♦•*•** >«»»»«« »*« » «♦«•—«*< I ■—»»—>«»•«»«»***•*******♦' ...... •• .•••»•#•••••*••*••••**%•»**•••******^** .«»»•••♦••••••••••••••*•*•** M*********************** * ** *^** ** ^* ** ....................« ■«.■••••••*• .»»•.** •^*** ••*•••**•••***• •••*;*••**•** . ..«ai M«* ••**••• •• **•*— .*«.•**•»*•*• .*«»»*^*«*****^** *•♦*•**• ••••**•*•*' % 1Aa. **••*••*•**••♦*•*•*••**•••• •••••*••*••*•••••••.*•••••<••*••**•*•• ..•«^ •••«•*••*•**•*••*••**• •*••*•• M:H.213 ■ ••«••«••••••>•••*••*••**•** *#*»•••••• •■***••••*• • •*•*••••*•*••••*••***••***•**••*••**• .»»«•»••»•.••««*•«**••*•**•••••••*•• »**••<*•/ ,...«»**»»•••••**«•*•*•*• *•*••••*••*• >••**. •••■••*•»****•*••••••*•••••*••* *•••*♦••**•******•••*•••*♦*•*• ..'.•*•**••**•••*••••*•••*•*••**•••*• ' *..»...*•**••**•*♦* >«•»*•«.*.*•••*•**•••*•••***•••••• ..*••*•••**•*••••••*•••****••• **t"** «•••••»*•* •••*****••* »»************^** ,1.*. ..*•«••.••• M*******.................**•**•• .*.•*•»»*••»*** »^ *»****•*•****•••*• * ••••••*•*••*•***•**•****•*•**••* •«•»••«.••••** ••*•••**••*•**• •*•*»♦•* .*»«•••••••*••••*••••*•*•••**••**•••••* .............................. .............................••••.•».*••<•♦*• .»••••*.***•***••••*••••••**•*•♦***♦*•* .................................... ............ *»*~.••*•**•*•• .»•«•«••»*••**•••*•****......».•••••*• ..»«»«••*••••••*****"i**•••****•**’•** .»...*..***•♦•*•♦*•*•*•*♦♦•**•••***•*** .•••***.••**•••*•*****♦•*•**•***•*••** .........................................................f ••• ,.•••*«..••*•**•••••****•**•••*• ♦•**••• .•..••••**»*••*•♦•••*•*••••*•••***••*■ ,.«.•.••.•****.*••••*•«**••*****••••**• a,., —-V. • .••*•*••*••***•*•**** ***^* ** ********* ,.«•*«**.**.*«•* *.*•*..***•*••••••*•* ,«» »•*.*•**•.*•*••*•••’•••**•***'‘ .«..»*•..• **m1«******.......... %o w^*«r LOCA1 ’ON • PHOJECT DESCRIPTION Lf V V »iuma « n # . PP»OifC T tlUMBC M FUND plat NAME OF ADDITION J w CH'.ftL L»'lf./'AL iU»tH (i'ji *1 C M t iU V. lam:- jUl.VLV .\L) ?o.‘5 CMAfH.C i iu • U C U (* AOOn *GNAL CHAnOt M E A S O N F O n ADDITIONAL C M A N G II M I r» C C L L A N C O U S I f4 T O M M A T I O f4 riMST YLAM nrscmr»Tivc: intonmuion UNITS irool Aoni if I C.l •a' ' Ili% - r \ — •»*■ MAnCflL IIUMULR t- \V>'i St c LO*. —tr |-f - -I T^VH UL>: -rr? %* A- fICL TOTAi INUNCIPAL TTrT:*JT;xr ANNUAL PniNCIPAL CUMMU nT Yi: AH ASM.SSMI.N T 1 'V.ifl I S / i 1 VVl. CUMMEN1 YC AM ASSCiSMLti 1 ^ \\ks\ % .1 "I J "S «“l. 1* I j-------7ri.*-*-37 I S t.’; i V 7 < I •; r> « • • •• CLKill.lM VI. A)« iwh. r-1 ■ i 4 V t* o'P^ V 8)0 .* \ •*• y (4 800) 4?.4 .■r Zi 8-:.'" TOGO RD. (4950) *•• ■\....................J* «341, (4850) M.*,- 30C .............. *.• (4980) 0<sP •.• _ • *. .•** 86.0 .• *. a:F HYC \ 6 L( *• . %• 88.1 ao. AD.*‘ •». 4-ial frf r ~ r-\------—-------- \ .••••\.HYD.,GVa iVi 8X6 TEE 1 6 LEAD • • • :•»;• • • • S •V • •••# • ••• 9 *• •• # ••• V A .• 6€.|.;.>60.3 ji HQ \C'' (5750) • • • ’• • • V V — • ParoGl H6£2iclent ResId.Commerc. Corumero,Oversized Assrnt.ASSDlt.Assist,Assist O Footage Units Footage Units Services Res id 0 Resid.Comm,Comis. Footage Units Footage Units 43102 6000 116.99 1 •678.54 580,00 7000 82,12 1 476.30 580,00 . 8000 • 43104 3000 130.25 1 755.45 580,00 • 6000 121,70 1 705.06 580.00 9000 125.00 1 725.00 580,00 43111 3000^244.00 2 i4 i5.20 1160.00 7020'474,18 3 •2750.24 1740.00 • • 43114 2000 .• 4000 6000 8000 43116 2000 165.06 1 957.35 580.00 4000 155.42 1 901.44 580.00 6000 127,39 1 738.86 580.00 8000"112,23 1 650.93 580,00 43139 4010^160,00 1 j 928.00 580.00 <^6373 8000 144.65 1 I3W.S7 h 838,97--580.00 / '// y, '77 «’A. 43148 5000 160,00 1 928.00 580.00 43149 3000 154.95 2/3 898.71 386.67 6000 133.00 2/3 771.40 386.67 • 9000 132,49 2/3 768.44 386.67 • 43150 1000 2000 • • 3000 4000 5000 6000 -• 7000 • 43156 4500 75.25 1 436,45 580,00 9000 72.70 1 421.66 580,00 /ocv.-sc>. 43180 250 115.20 1 668,16 580.00 450 146.91 1 852.08 580.00 • '850 125.20 1 726,16 580.00 1400 60.10 1 348.58 580.00 • 1600 120.20 1 697.16 580.00 Serv, 20.00 } HALCYON HOLLOW 3REN TEN W / ✓ / 'n u ^ <y Hennepin County fight*of*woy monument Na9»4a’30“E r^OAD g ^ ^ /O ^Henntpir DRAINAGE 8 UTILITY EASEMENTS SHOWN THU Being 10.00 feet in width ond rood linos ond being 5.00 fe ond Adjoining lot lines ot th sp ; tm ••* « -Tl ^ K* * # % / .•' \ . i ' f.! ;•*lI- ■— UO_OAXJ^ t Red'. . Oat V Golf *. ••CouVse ’-V • -• r $?1200 \*r'V ;; QRAKDVIEWUUVE Lake V . Skogsberg Point •' . •>.. /..A \ t* .*r. Hnv ^ /: ■ "% J# X ORONO i4r/72 BOHNS rOINT 3 \U I •SAo^Wocn/ Poi/»/ PEERING q^LAND Crystal ) ®•/ s • oTlS■*- LJ* \N* Bohns * •i 1-SHOWlJll^n BUDOt* lI\1* Fagerness Point rj ^ Toio 5cronl| I ^ Lake^ ' * r- ‘240(S SS£!«(»^S B-oaoTEflom ITOkJ iCKSON fiWg / y UL 1-2 r*.*rp SlacJcLakeYh «d«L0* w 1/ /rLJ B / / cr WNCLBary I ellblf M LA / 1^301^ iS"« • if ■N ' Park I >4^ OMERTRO ^GOOSH ISLAND • j ^PRAY SHADY ISLA^D / *** *^|g Trih *^ *Tlm ^xSHORCLINE o v^\ «0\^\ n •ftSTM ITNC g RVt SON 240f /o .^'• / tip k ^ / v.^'^ Carman-Mh— ' Bay 4OROKO ITBjJ AiTlkd CnSi RUN DATE BATCH 503 PTOP ADDR OWNER NAME V^?PAYER NAu 'ADDR 28/00 58 17-117-23 31 0017 05725 TOGO RD JANES LEROY BARTH JAHES BARTH 5725 TOGO RD ORONO HN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORI. PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 17-117-23 31 0019 03780 TOGO RD DOUGLAS H HCHILLAN DOUGLAS H HCHILLAN 3780 TOGO RD WAYZATA HN 55391 .ON SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI<i35<«01 PAGE 10 38 17-117-23 31 0022 03760 TOGO RD GEORGE GLASSCO ETAL GEORGE GLASSCO 3760 TOGO ROAD WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 17-117-23 31 OOZS 05760 TOGO RD 0 GLASSCO t J GLASSCO JUANITA GLASSCO 5760 TOTO RD WAYZATA HN 55391 • 38 17-117-23 31 0026 03720 TOGO RD H F SLECHTA SEA SLECHTA HERBERT F SLECHTA 3720 TOGO RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 51 0025 03700 TOGO RD SUZANNE D FACKLER SUZANNE D FACKLER 3700 TOCO RD WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 17-117-23 31 0026 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 17-117-25 31 0027 03710 TOGO RD LINDA J LINDQUIST HS LINDA J LINDQUIST 3710 TOGO RD WAYZATA 55391 38 17-117-25 31 0028 03690 TOCO RD TIHOTHY P ROBERTS TIHOTHY P ROBERTS 3690 TOCO RD WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 17-117-23 31 0029 83680 TOGO RD RONALD J HESSERICH RONALD J HESSERICH 3688 TOCO RD ORONO HN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 83668 TOGO RD LESLIE J D0C6ETT LESLIE J DOCCETT HCOl BOX 79 E DRIPPING SPRINGS 0030 78620 38 17-117-23 31 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 PROP ADDR OWNER NAtffi TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 17-117-23 31 0032 83670 TOGO RD WARREN W DAY WARREN DAY 618 NIAGARA LA N PLYMOUTH HN 55647 38 17-117-23 31 0035 03675 TOGO RD RALPH WILLIAM KEHPF RALPH KEHPF 3675 TOGO RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 31 0036 03655 TOGO RD HOUND CONG JEHOVAH WITNESSES NAVARRE CONG OF JEHOVAH WITH C/O KINGDOM HALL 3655 TOGO RD WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 17-117-23 31 0037 83685 TOCO RD GARRET S KIRCHENWITZ GARRETT S KIRCHENWITZ 3685 TOCO RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-25 31 0038 03795 TOGO RD H J O'CONNOR I R L O'CONNOR H J O'CONNOR A R L O'CONNOR 3795 TOGO RD WAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 31 8039 03785 TOGO RD STACY L KEKKONEN STACY L KEKKONEN 3785 TOGO RD WAYZATA HN 55391 '■■'.J ' ‘ IHJN DATE 06/26/00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT HO. PI<i3S<i01 PACE 11 \ i PATCH 503 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 36 17-117-23 31 OOAO 03765 TOCO RD MICHAEL H t RITA C PRAHM MICHAEL H 0 RITA C PRAHM 3765 TOCO RD MAYZATA MM 55391 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 36 17-117-23 34 0015 00036 ADDRESS IMASSICNED JEFFREY ROBERT ZELL JEFFREY ROBERT ZELL 3660 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR OW«R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 36 17-117-23 34 OOIB 03670 NORTHERN AVE R P JOHNSON 6 H K JOHNSON ROBERT P 6 MYRA K JOHNSON 3670 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 503 00027 ir. 004636 17-117-23 31 03745 TOCO RD CERALD EDWARD MACKEY GERALD E MACKEY 3745 TOCO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0002 03700 NORTHERN AVE LEO J SLECHTA ETAL LEO J SLECHTA 3700 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0016 03660 NORTHERN AVE JEFFREY R ZELLJeffrey r zell 3660 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 34 0017 03640 NORTHERN AVE SCOTT H CARDNER SCOTT W CARDNER 3640 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0049 03775 TOCO RD J L KNOLLENBERC/K L TIFFANY JON L KNOLLENBERC AND KRISTEN L TIFFANY 3775 TOCO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 34 0051 03760 NORTHERN AVE J R 9UAN B J E GUAM JOHN R qUAM 3760 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM 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 MY KNOWLEDCE AND BELIEF DATE s Application Date: 9/18/00 60 Day Deadline: 11/17/00 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner October 11,2000 #2622 Gina Kosek 1875 Shadywood Road Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) 36,040 s.f. (.82 acre) A B C D E F Application Survey/Site Plan Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Plat Map Permit Record Property Owners Notification List Background: The applicants have recently purchased the properties at 1875 Shadywood Road and made an application to have the lots legally combined into one tax parcel. Following the lot combination a permit was issued by the City of Orono for demolition of the house. A permit has been issued to begin construction of a new house on the lot. No variances were required for the lot or house under construction. Due to the lot being narrow the applicants have requested a variance to permit a new deck to be located within 75' of the lakeshore. A deck had existed on the previous house within 75 ’. The deck would have been permitted to remain on the property if the old house would have remained and had been added to. The first proposal on the property would have been an addition. Following a review of the foundation and structural limitations on the old house the applicants chose to completely remove the old house and build new, including foundation. A condition of building permit approval was all the existing structure and old deck be removed and the separate lots be combined to create a legal sized building parcel. 02622 Gma Kosek 1875 Shadywood Road Variances Page I Application Summary: A variance to permit construction of a 190 s.f. deck within 75' of the lakeshore. The following variances are required: 1.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10,56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) to permit 190 s.f. hardcover within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit structure within 75' of the lakeshore. Hardship Statement: Applicant has provided her hardship statement as part of Exhibit A. Lot Characteristics: The approved site plan (Exhibit B) indicates a narrow building pad on the lot. The narrow pad has required the applicants to apply for a variance to permit a deck within 75' of the lakeshore. The propertj' owners did not want to request a variance to build closer to Shadywood Road than the 30' setback. Shadywood Road is an arterial street and carries much more traffic than most residential strep'1 in the City. To locate the house to the center of the property and within setbacks requires building where only about 35-40' exist within the building pad. A house and reasonably size deck could not be located here. If the house were moved further to the north it would have been possible to locate the deck and house within the required setbacks because the lot is wider to the north. Changes were not made to the plans because the str»jctural conditions within the old house were only discovered following completion of the building plans within and within one week of beginning construction. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application for variances to permit construction of the deck within the 75' setback. The property is a legal conforming lot with an adequate building site. An area exists behind the proposed garage that could be used for an above ground deck. A hardship requires an undue hardship be inherent in the land. It appears the hardship may be self-imposed due to the location of the new house on the property. Options for Action: 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table. Other action. *2622 Gma Kosek 1875 Shady\^ood Road Variances Page 2 loU Application # ,^{/ySILc^ Date Receh ed Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 1^1 S ^____________________ Property Identification Number^ (T.I.D.1 ^vyiLiyLv Wv^lAi,^^x Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey<^ Date Property Acquired ^ 3C DC I (do not) also own me adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___pother (specify)_________ Zoning District:_____________________________________________ Xmonth/year) applicant ^ Name V^v^U. Phone fhome ’l - 411 *• t rl9 Phone (work)_______________ Address: r-A \) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________________ City: HCfTAr _ Zip:.^5£> •/ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: r]r/\/L ^^ - \9Tj 4/. . fh liPA -hA ‘ (attac¥i additional sheets if necessary) I 9 i ■■ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area \V v/5etback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage .> • . # * =*5s.' Average Lakeshore t Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe ur»due hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: CJiL /i ' • * " ^ ■ ' b^A^f "" 1Ac -» 7jP ClV\iirh v\; y --------- w^ir .ILicc-vW _ levV £L w-oJd <v^ -fcy? rf wKcl^ \N< -ftYJ-'A ivA d^cU VgkAfC e Jv 5L"X^-A'..Y REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. J. All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date_ jB order for vour application to be considered complete; Completed Application Form _ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Coutity Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). y,/ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) wpy 8'/S" x 11" for reproduction. (^Vi |px|fZ4vv/t' Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVz ” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy %Vi' x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yom: variance application is not complete if the above information has not been includedi APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ( OWmR'S SIGNATURE Date__3.CO The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature ‘Date ^to A Applicant must hav^jill submi/tals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ple^e make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. OROHO COPY ckoJCK HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) {Ji-li' EXISTING VTARPCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ 75-250’250-500* Len|th Width ^.S X X X ar 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 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B X 100 = . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ________ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 = 7 S-OO 500-1000* S.F. 6^ 37 ^44 7^ m ___4 S.F. -5r©N£ WA S.F.-P<5« WAt S.F. -SWCD S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F; S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 1397 S.F. IT. \20 t S.F. A B 7^% S.F. €S S.F, uMt 3~* S.F. U/4C g / S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S6 S.F. S.F. /fO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 5 Al2^ S.F. /9./2/0 S.F. 2 ,T.€ % A B OM 0 kofeK VER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* • • rXlSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X 75-250’250-500’500-1000 c. 7-S'Oo J'y~oo /A0^ojfa Lenfih Width X X X B. Garage C. Drivewa}' J-U/oeO fftoCkJ D. Sidewalk E. Pauo/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B ___X 100 = PROPOSPn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House_____________X S£ Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ' B _ _ 437 12/4- 142- ta4 sz //ilSCfit/fd. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.-POK (^41 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3i46 S.F. {^^^20 t S.F. A • B 23 ZO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /ZOO S.F. S.F. /OS S.F.^^'^’^ S.F, /2 O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. 37 S.F. X 100 /K.^ZO S.F. iz. n__ A B • • •p Ti A •*• % V •JU *w- ’ , ', .. . ^ t^s;;sr PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AUDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 01675 SHADYWOOD RD H J KOSEK t G FINK KOSEK HARK KOSEK I GINA FINK KOSEK 1875 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0007 01855 SHADYWOOD RD H J 8 G KOSEK HARK £ GINA KOSEK 1655 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED H J KOSEK £ G FINK KOSEK HARK KOSEK £ GINA FINK KOSEK 1875 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED COFFEE LANDINGS COFFEE LANDINGS 9722 W FAIR HILLS RD HINNETONKA HN 55395 38 17-117-23 29 0018 01890 SHADYWOOD RD W R £ R T OHLIE WILLIAH £ RHONDA OHLIE 1890 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED G R TILLOTSOM/H A TILLOTSON GLENN R TILLOTSON 1875 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 01880 SHADYWOOD RD DURWOOD A TAYLOR OLGA H TAYLOR 1880 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0008 01865 SHADYWOOD RD H J KOSEK £ G FINK KOSEK HARK KOSEK £ GINA FINK KOSEK 1875 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0010 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED H J KOSEK £ G FINK KOSEK HARK KOSEK £ GINA FINK KOSEK 1875 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0012 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED H J KOSEK £ G FINK KOSEK HARK KOSEK £ GINA FINK KOSEK 1875 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED COFFEE LANDINGS COFFEE LANDINGS 9722 W FAIR HILLS RD HINNETONKA HN 55395 38 17-117-23 29 0016 01890 SHADYWOOD RD T R £ B T BOSTON THOHAS R £ BRADLEY T BOSTON 1890 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0017 01859 SHADYWOOD RD H £ D SEIFERT JR HILTON H SEIFERT JR 1859 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 29 0019 01890 SHADYWOOD RD H E HASLOW £ S S HASLOW HARC E £ SHARON S HASLOW 1890 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 502 00019 #2 ,-fD •K •IM DATE •9/27/Aft HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI9359ftl PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date iiiiZ 9-ll-^A lbS ‘i «-n- cs ‘Hsia 5-31-77 10-1.3- 77 7^ /V. oii Po ■:i‘7^ 7 ?,/S!-Oo £• Type of Permit t 'AP fdPT IkI-nncTe/^ f HCCfAfP (^Vt\}>^Te ^v//J . /9. MU I 'Y 1 Application Date: 9/20/00 60 Dav Deadline: 11/19/00 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:October 13,2000 SUBJECT: #2623 Fred A. Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lbt of Exhibits: A B C D Application Plat Map Survey Building Plans Staff Recommendation: Staff has mailed a notice to the property owners and notified the applicant of additional information that would be required to complete the application. A deadline of October 10, 2000 had be established for the updated survey and plans to be submitted. As of the date of this memo no new plans have been received. Action Requested: Motion to table the item to the November 20,2000 meeting. Application ^ t Date 'Rf^rved Amount Paid dO — CITY OF ORONO - VA UANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each add .tional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150,00 (no change &om orij inal application) Variance for non-confo ming structures $250.00 Aftet-the-Fact Fees (D« uble application fee) A. m Property Identification 'surnber^.IiDO_____________ ^ • • I___• . ______:r 5n/*rnft#d Property Identincation sumoer _______________——— ------— Attach legal descriptio i to ap#jalion if not included on require s y. Date Property Acquire* y ft - -----------------------------------^ ^do'n^ irtae^l Zoning District:^ APPLICANT A, Name Address; ^Oq O pt City;. Phone fhome"> ____ Phone fworkl Zip; Phone Ainme^ \.. . , J Marne ^ ----- • _________ Phone (work) ^ >2.-S:3r~ 3|^4 _^ Address; lAl CHjT --------------Zip:. \0 OWNER (if different tl in applicant) . Name ^ DESCRIPTION OF R CQXJEST Describe request in d tail: __ Estimated Construction Cost S.C (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUI tED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover • Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshorc Other (specify) HARDSmP/DESCRE TION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets if necessary) % 8. V. ' *1 i‘ :v •.« 7j .) ^ •' • •. w- .!^ r- J p (r c A A ' ''P c UNOeP THt ------^ V)f'®®^ ■V MINNETONKA .-'*/°27*r 2000) p 0 5 's> 4 V 4 \ y ■s > i 4 i1 4 • . « ? V ^ f« 1 * 4 7 1 fr tf (4 If J < VJ r V j t! j P J r% 6 - V*Mi ^ 8 • .-i *V^|1«- # .«*#•• • •'/ 7 •• •/ {. )Vv ,'f^V. • ^ f t •« if 1 * u.-- .- J_________________________________________________J1 .. v*-”• • 1 - . *•-•• i __________<»•'•»•-______1 i. ___-• 1 -----------------------------------;----------------------------------------------------------------,11 i1 '\ . - 7 .•••* 'I. . ■% rv Vv § •-I ^ ••ii ••• A •• A • * I- • • % h L- J' 4m*ic "^OtN •J i^M A««0* I • ^«>4* ^w«.i A.J* a^**k */%.*• I*-o* J/; /“■'..• .“V •\yT'--' «■> f* , • *<1- -,i / s •w • ^T • • i •j .-^ •' /■.i..' ■iJ’ •*.4l•••-I- .*.*• To; From: Date: Subject: Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator » Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator October 13,2000 #2631 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Add "Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) District" List of Exhibits A - Draft RPUD Ordinance B - Sample Development Standards for Small Lot SFR C - Sample Architectural, Landscaping Standards Purpose The 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan (CMP) as preliminarily approved by the Council on September 11, designates a small number of areas in Orono for medium density residential uses which are currently not allowed by any of the existing zoning districts. Additionally, the CMP establishes housing goals and policies placing emphasis on the provision of lifecycle and moderately priced housing. The CMP also encourages the use of innovative methods of development that will preserve Orono’s natural environmental features as well as conserve resources. The proposed RPUD District will be a residential district that has the purpose of allowing flexibility in terms of design, building techniques, land development methods and density in order to achieve the residential goals and policies as outlined in the CMP. This amendment is necessary because none of the existing zoning districts are tailored to achieving this purpose. Brief Summary of Proposed "RPUD” District Parameters The RPUD District is strictly a residential zone, and does not have a mixed land use component, although it will allow for various types and densities of residential uses The RPUD District will contain a list of permitted, conditional and accessory uses that is similar in scope to that of our single family districts, but will not include certain of the "institutional" or "quasi-commercial" conditional or accessory uses allowed in those districts. Any site to be rezoned to RPUD must be at least 5 acres in area unless the developer demonstrates the property has certain unique characteristics (see Subd. 5). — Any site to be rezoned to RPUD must be guide-plarmed for residential use in the CMP. Proposed RPUD Zoning Amendment October 13,2000 Page 2 Proposed density of a project in RPUD must match the CMP planned density, except that for a site not planned for residential but which Council wishes to be residential. Council decides appropriate density. Incentives as to density and floor area ratio are possible for RPUD proposals which Council finds are consistent with Orono ’s housing goals. RPUD Performance Standards are established for hardcover, floor area ratio, setbacks, etc. (see Subd 5). A laundry list of potential additional standards for consideration, appears as item P on page 7. Application review, approval and amendment procedures are generally described in Subd. 6 thru Subd. 9. Substantial detail in terms of specific plan submittal requirements could be added, using our Highway 12 PUD (Section 10.53) as a reference. Discussion The impetus for creating the RPUD District is the application we expect to soon receive for a 70-unit senior housing building on a site along Highway 12 that is guide-planned for commercial use.. The proposed RPUD District ordinance language addresses and accommodates such a use conversion (from commercial to residential) as well as the density needed to make the project feasible. However, the RPUD District is also intended to be a suitable option for development of the three specific areas along Highway 12 the CMP has guided for 2-6 units per acre SFR/MFR use. And, the RPUD District ultimately may replace our minimal PRD code section for planned residential developments. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance to establish standards and authority for the RPUD District as a residential zoning option, subject to any changes that may be proposed by Planning Commission, Council and staff as the review process moves forward. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend that the zoning code be amended by adoption of the attached RPUD ordinance as Section 10.33, creating the RPUD District as a residential zone, establishing authority and standards for rezoning to and development within tlie Residential Planned Unit Development District. Table for further discussion. Recommend that the RPUD district not be created. Other. A SEC. 10.33 RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPiMENT DISTRI ' Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) district is to provide a district which will encourage the following: A. flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; B. provision of housing to meet lifecycle, and low and moderate cost housing needs; C. energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses; D. preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils and E. F. G. trees; high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city; and development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the RPUD District, no land or structures shall be used except for ono or more of the following uses: A- Any ‘Permitted Use’ as regulated in the R-IA District (Ed. Note: this includes one-family single dwellings; public owned parks and playgrounds; and municipal buildings). Subd. 3 Conditional Uses. Within the RPUD district, no land or structure shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: (Ed Note: Conditional Uses listed in the R-IA District include Schools; Churches; Clubs, Camps, etc.; Public Service Structures; Greenhouses; Private Recreation Areas; Guest Houses & Guest Apartments; PRD’s; Duplex credit; Farms; Animals; Stables and Barns; Riding Academy; Plumbing in Accessory Buildings. None of the 1 41 /s'conditional uses listed in the R-IA District conceptually fit into the RPUD Distri^, v except perhaps Public Service Structures). A. Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50' from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus wnll promote the general welfare. Public service structures as defined above that have been approved by the City at required public hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a conditional use permit but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the City to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the Council. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Uses allowed by conditional use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the RPUD master development plan and with the applicable conditional use permit standards of this ordinance. Uses allowed by conditional use permit shall also be subject to site and building plan review pursuant to this ordinance. Subd. 4 Accessory Uses. Within the RPUD Distr ci the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: Any accessory use except for “Roadside Stands ” as regulated in the R-1A District. A. B. Privately owned buildings to be used for recreation or social purposes, or for use as storage areas for maintenance equipment or rubbish. 1 Subd. 5. Development Standards. Within the RPUD District all development shall be in compliance with the following: A. B. 2. Minimum Area. Each RPUD shall have a minimum area of five acres, excluding areas within a designated wetland, floodplain or shoreland district or right-of-way, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: 1. unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; the property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way fi'om property which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development; the property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan; the property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering ol buildings cr other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. 3. 4. Uses. Each RPUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan (Ed. Note: Many of the uses allowed as conditional uses in residential zoning districts, cannot be placed in areas of the City which are designated residential in the CMP; for instance, ouly properties currently containing schools or churches are designated in the CMP as Institutional rather than residential. The result is that any existing st'e that is designated Residential in the CMP L Ali atf •riM r-f«iiB VMnr-i-■ ■■ - f • ta . rH«UUM i IX E. cannot be converted to an Institutional Use such as a church or school use, without a CMP amendment...) , except that the city may permit a RPUD on a site designated for commercial use if the city council finds that such use is in the best interests of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this section. If a commercial site is to be used for a RPUD, the city may forward a copy of the request to the Metropolitan Council for review. C. Sewer Availability. A RPUD of proposed density greater than 1 unit per 2 acres must be in the MUSA and must be serviced by municipal sewer. Density. Each RPUD shall have a density within the range specified in the comprehensive plan for the RPUD site. If the site is not designated in the comprehensive plan for residential use, the appropriate density shall be determined by the city based upon the City Council's finding that such r i»v is consistent with the intent of this ordinance and of the comprehensive plan. Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city’s housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density and floor area ratio requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing and low and moderate cost housing. Incentives for low and moderate cost housing may be approved by the city only after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available to persons of low and moderate income for a specific period of time. r F. G. Site Coverage. Hardsurface coverages and floor area ratios (FAR’s) (Ed. Note: We need to have a definition for this in this section or in the zoning code general definitions) shall be limited as follows: Comprehensive Plan Designation Low or medium density residential (up to and including 6.0 units per acre) High density residential (in e.\cess of 6.0 units per acre) Hardsurface Coverage (%) Floor Area Ratio 0.5 l.O Individual lots within a P.U.D. may exceed fliese standards as long as the average meets these standards. Setbacks and Separation of Uses. The setback for all buildings within a RPUD from any bordering or abutting street line shall be 35 feet for local streets and 50 feet from railroad lines or collector or arterial streets, as designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building up to a maximum of 100 feet. The setback for all buildings from exterior RPUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be 35 feet except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building up to a maximum of 100 feet. Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a RPUD. The setback for parking structures including decks and ramps shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other su-eet classifications except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking structure setbacks from external lot lines shall be 50 feet or the height of the structure, whichever is greater when adjacent to residential properties; 35 feet when I. J. adjacent to non-residential properties. Parking structure setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD. Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single family lots outside the RPUD, greater exterior building and parking setbacks may be required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of uses. Areas within a RPUD which are designated in the approved master development plan or final site plan for residential use shall be considered a residential district for purposes of determining building and parking setback requirements on adjacent high density residential, commercial and industrial property outside the RPUD, H. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a RPUD. Any RPUD which involves a single housing type shall be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Each RPUD shall provide a minimum of 8 percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residents. Such area shall be for active or passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project, including swimming pools, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot lots and saunas. (Ed. Note: This would be in lieu of park fee...) 1 K. All property to be included within a RPUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. L.Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants. The requirements contained in this ordinance pertaining to general regulations for residential districts and performance standards shall apply to a RPUD as deemed appropriate by the city. N. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the RPUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. O. Traffic Studies. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. The plan may include travel demand management strategies, use of transit facilities or other appropriate measures to reduce traffic generation, and necessary improvements to road systems. The developer shall have the responsibility to install all necessary road system improvements. p.No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved RPUD nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved RPUD. Q. POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL STANDARDS TO CONSIDER; Height limits; minimum lot area or width standards, perhaps a minimum lot area per dwelling unit; accessory structure setbacks; landscaping minimum standards; trash handling requirements; accessory buildings and fixtures of similar type/quality/appearance; limits on views of mechanical equipment; loading dock screening; screening car headlight impacts to adjacent property; shoreland zone limitations; ownership of internal streets; special outside storage standards; exterior wall finishes; SEE THE ATTACHED SET OF STANDARDS FOR SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS (Exhibit B) AS A REFERENCE FOR DISCUSSION. ALSO SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT C WHICH INCLUDES ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS FOR DISCUSSION... Subd. 6 Review of Application; Procedures. A. Concept Plan Review. In order to receive guidance in the design of a RPUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended for large RPUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following: 8 1) approximate building and road locations; 2) height, bulk and square footage of buildings; 3) t>’pe and square footage of specific land uses; 4) number of dwelling units; 5) generalized grading plan showing areas to be cut, filled and preserved; and 6) staging and timing of the development. The comments of the planning commission and city council shall address the consistency of the concept plan with this section. The comments of the planning commission and city council shall be for guidance only and, if positive, shall not be considered binding upon the planning commission or city council regarding approval of the formal RPUD application when submitted. B.Master Development Plan and Rezoning. Approval of a rezoning to RPUD and approval of a master development plan shall be subject to the procedures outlined in the Zoning Code for a zoning map amendment. The master development plan shall contain the following: 1) building location, height, bulk and square footage; 2) type and square footage of specific land uses; 3) number of dwelling units; 4) detailed street and utility locations and sizes; 2) parking layout; 6) drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 7) grading plan and drainage plan includiv ; i ft nt contours; 8) generalized landscape plan; 9) generalized plan for uniform signs and lighting; 10) plan for timing and phasing of the development; 11) covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; and c. D. 12) renderings or elevations of the entrance side, all sides of buildings to be constructed in the first phase of the development. Approval of the master development plan shall indicate approval of the previously listed items and shall occur in conjunction with rezoning of the property to RPUD. After rezoning of the property to RPUD, nothing shall be constructed on the RPUD site except in conformance with the approved plans and this section. The procedure for notification of and public hearing on the master development plan shall be the same as required for a zoning map amendment by this ordinance. Final Site and Building Plan. Approval of a final site and building plan for the entire RPUD or for specific parts of the RPUD shall be subject to the procedures outlined in this ordinance. The final site and building plan shall contain information as required by the city, including the following: 1) detailed utility, street, grading and drainage plans; 2) detailed building elevations and floor plans; and 3) detailed landscaping, si^ and lighting plans. Substantial Compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved master development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean: 1) buildings, parking areas and roads are in substantially the same location as previously approved; 2) the number of residential living units has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent from that approved in the master development plan; 3) the gross floor area of any individual building has not been increased by more than 10 percent from that approved in the master development plan; 4 4) there has been no increase in the number of stories in any building; 5) open space has not been decreased or altered to change its original design or intended use; and 6) all special conditions required on the master development plan by the city have been incorporated into the final site and building plan. Approval of a final site and building plan shall signify approval of all plans necessary prior to application for a building permit, subject to conformance with any conditions on the approval and subject to other necessary approvals by the city. E. Simultaneous Review. Applicants may combine the final site and building plan review with the master development plan review by submitting all information required for both stages simultaneously. F.Basis For Approval; Conditions. In evaluating a site and building plan, the planning commission and city council shall base their recommendations and actions regarding approval of a RPUD on a consideration of the following: compatibility of the proposed plan with this section and consistency with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan; preservation of the site in its natural state to the greatest extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general character and appearance of neighboring properties; creation of compatible relationships between buildings and open spaces both on the site and adjacent to it, incorporating natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development, giving special attention to: a) an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; b) the amount and location of open space and landscaping; c) materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. promotion of energy conservation through design, location, orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading; protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations ! L r which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.; and such other factors as the planning commission or city council deem relevant. The planning commission and city council may attach such conditions to their actions as they shall determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of this section. Subd. 7. Term of Approval. If application has not been made for a final site and building plan approval pursuant to the approved master development plan for all or a part of the property within a RPUD by December 31 of the year following the date on which the RPUD zoning map amendment became effective or if within that period no extension of time has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the RPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of a rezoning, the approved master development plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within the RPUD. If construction on the property included within an approved final site and building plan has not started by December 31 of the year following the date on which such final site and building plan was approved or if building construction in a phase of a RPUD approved to be built in phases has not started within this period or if within that period no extension of the time has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the RPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of rezoning, the approved master development plan and final site and building plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within the RPUD. Subd. 8. Amendments. Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be approved by the city council after review by the planning commission. The notification and public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original RPUD. A major amendment is any amendment which: a) substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads; b) increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling units by more than 5 percent; c) increases the gross floor area of any individual building by more than 10 percent; increases the number of stories of any building; decreases the amount of open space by more than 5 percent or alters it in such a way as to change its original design or intended use; or f) creates non-compliance with any special condition attached to tlie approval of the master development plan. Any other amendment may be made through review and approval by a simple majority vote of the d) e) planning commission. Subd. 9. Exceptions. This section shall not apply to any residential PUD or PRD which has received preliminary or final approval by the city council prior to the effective date of this ordinance unless such is requested by the property owner and approved by the city council. Additional Topics for Potential Inclusion: — Phasing and Guarantee of Performance - More detailed list of submission requirements (such as in 10.53, Highway 12 PUD section) X‘\A. PPS\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\B&Z\M1KE\ZNAMDMTS\RPUD Draft.ord.wpd r \ i 1 '1 •j J 1 J a 1 s ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 300.22 . GL 139 All property to oe included within a ^U.D. shall be under unified ownership\^or control or s^ject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master ^velopment plan and final site and building plan'i' Signs shall be restricte^to tl(ose which are permitted in a sign plan approved by th^ 9^ty and shall be regulated by permanent covenants. The requirements contained inXsections 300.15 and 300.28 of this ordinance pert^ning general regulations for residential districtSyand performance standards shall apply to a P.U.D. as deemed appropriate byVthe city. / The uniqueness oJ^-^ach P.U.D. requir^ that specifications and standards tor ^streets, utilities, \public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modiMcation from the city ordinances orainarily governing them. \The city council may therefore aj^rove streets, utilities, j^blic facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements^if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section ^r to protect the healt^ safety oi: velfare of the residents of rh® P.U.D., the surrqunding are- or the city as a whole. No^uilding or other permit shall be issued for ^y work on property included within a proposed or approved pTtJvD. nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliancV^th ithe proposed or approved P.U.D. SUBDIVISION 4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS DEVELOPED ON SITES GUIDED FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Each P.U.D. developed for single family detached dwellings on sites guided for low density residential development in the comprehensive plan shall be subject to the following standards: a) Minimum size of entire parcel or parcels subject to the P.U.D.: 40,000 sq. ft. Permitted locations: In areas of the City where smaller lotr; will serve as a transition between low density residential areas or in areas where the prevailing lot size is less thar 22,000 square feet. c) Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet. L 1 PAGE 140 Miniinuin lot width ..t ” '“>■aepth: 125 feet.* L* • the^P^ yaird setback* ?*? #? must be* provided^^®^^?^ through streets^^”^^ streets withcoliector'^ora^lf^ «tree¥s aS^Vo ««tbaS Guide Plan. streets as defined by ^ on Comprehensivenininiim-''“i'^enensive teet°^2^ lot^ll*^’^ setback: 10 feet on 1 - yard se ---r-of-t\-^^^^ -nes, isrear yard , --«^xor of the p.u.d. ^spth of the 1 minimum of 40 feef- Whichever is less. Percent of the-ts xess. U • ding height! maxinua of 35 feet. All dwell .feete All diifAi 1 ^___ Accessory structu»-ea« -v .,, conformance'• "“J-xaing code. '-'^“^ormance - C..0™ to the ’ aV.f=ff5^°ry structures ^ll ^ns xollowlngf* I I ^ ^ocated between throrlnoT^ , detache. tho maintain structu;front lot line. minimum setback e^are%et in® area^or^"'*"’’^'* P®*‘‘=®"’= °f ' " 12 feet i^heit'h.®"'"®'’ I'OOO ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 300.22 PAGE 141 1 1 I 1 I I I p“?ov^atran^a“ or site plan to be submitted when applying for a building permit to construct a new dwelling or alter an existing garaQG• — (Subdivision 4 revised 11-16-87 by Ord. 87-481) imnDTVTSIOH 4A. nWlELOPMENT STANDARDS_FQg-SING.^jE-EAMI^ PTiTfi^P ximtcVMr. awn FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HQVgxSG ISviSS LEsj^T?.P00 sWe Each P.G.t developed for single faSily detached cluster housing and for singl family detached housing built on lots having less than 15, square feet shall be subject to the following standards: a) This development sh^l only occur on medium and densit properties as designated in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. I Say be allowed on \ow density residential f designated in the c^prehensive Guide Plan if it can b deSiSstrated by theT applicant that because of uniqu circxmstances of the property such as floodplain, wetlands o steep slopes that lots\ of less than 15,000 square feet o cluster home development is the only feasible manner o utilizing the property. \ However, in no case f^all the lo size be less than 11,'\o square feet for single famil detached housing on low density residential properties. For cluster and attached hdusing where lot areas are designs, to be similar to the size ^ a dwelling unit and surrounding property is held in common Ownership, the 11,000 square foot lot size is waived as long\as the average lot size of all parcels is a minimum of ll,o\o square feet. For properties designed for mediuir and mgh density housing in the Comprehensive Plan, the avera^ lot size shall used for active recreational {purposes. (Added by Ordinance 88-500, 7-20-88.) ,) Development standards outlined \pder subdivision 3 of this section. :) A homeowners association shall be Wablished to maintenance of commonly held pro^perties and r architectural modifications to the approved plans. i) The applicant shall demonstrate thatN^he landscape design being proposed clust^ developments provide privacy for both internal and exterior ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 300.27 PAGE 218 SUBDIVISION 10. TEPM OF APPROVAL. Construction of the building or initiation of the use shall begin no later than December 31 of the year following thA year in which site and building plan approval is granted. After the expiration of such period the approval shall be null and void unless the planning commission grants an extension of tune or a building permit has been issued and substantial work perforaed on the project. Upon request by the applicant, the planning c<Mamission may grant a one-year extension of time for a site and building plan approval following compliance with the notice and public\ hearing requirements of this section. The city may decline to grant an extension if there has been a change in circumstances affecting the property or if there are other reasons to justify the denial. A change in circumstance may be an approved modification to the comprehensive guide plan, substantial changes to the surrounding development pattern or other items as determined by the\city. Three consecutive one-year extensions shall be conclusive proof that the development has not made adequate progress toward completion, and no further extensions shall be granted, except upon a variance from this provision. (Amended by Ordinance No. 89-559, 7-13-89) BUBDIV18IOK 11. CONDITIONS.\ The planning commission, city council or director of planningVay impose conditions in granting approval to site and building plans to promote the intent of this section or to protect adjacent properties. SUBDIVISION 12.SPECIFIC PRO,Site and building plans shall be valid only for the project for which approval is granted. Construction of all site elements shall be in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications approved by the planning commission, city council oa^ director of planning. SUBDIVISION 13.ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. It is not the infent of the city to"^estrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the city to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified person acceptable to the director of planning and shall show the following: 1) elevations of all sides of the building; 2) type and color of exterior building materials; 3) a typical floor plan; ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 300.27 PAGE 219 4) dimensions of all structures; and 5) the •'location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. (Amended by Ordinance 90-589, 11-21-90) b) Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and 'unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials residential or non-residential buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings except those accessory buildings not visible from any exterior property line. The city may, at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels• All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and ®^®rior trash and recycling storage areas shall be enclosed ®®®P®tible with the principal structure. Low profile, self-contained mechanical units which blend in with he building architecture are exempt from the screening requirement. (Amended by Ordinance 90-589, 11-21-90) d) Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures. SUBDIVISION 14. shall be prepared r^j^^D?CAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Landscape plans py- a landscape architoot or' other qualified person acceptable to the director of planning, drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following: a) b) c) d) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions; locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots. roads and other improvements; * proposed grading plan with two foot contour intervals; location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; ^ a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions; planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; m r. ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 300.27 PAGE 220 locations and details of other Izmdscape featxires including berms, fences and planter boxes; details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be sodded or seeded; i) j) location and details of irrigation systems; and details and cross sections of all required screening. flUBDIVISIOW 15 MINI]lANDSCAPING REOUIR: All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and ground cover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Project Value (Including building construction, site preparation, and site improvements Minimum Landscape Value Below $1,000,000 $1,000,001 - $2,000,000 $20,000 + 1% Of Project Value in excess of $1,000,000 $2,000,001 “ $3,000,000 $30,000 + 0.75% of Project Value in excess of $2,000,000 $3,000,001 - $4,000,000 $37,500 + 0.25% of Project Value in excess of $3,000,000 Over $4,000,000 In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of the standards in this subdivision may be ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 300.27 PAGE 221 • ' h>) e) adjusted by the city to allow credit for such material provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many Se site plan! ** Practicable and to incorporate them into trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous^ teees shall ^ v* inches. ConffSous Sees Six feet in height. Ornamental tr^s shall have a minimum caliper of i 1/2 inches. All site areas not covered by buildings. sidewalks shall similar hard surface materialsshall covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by t^e city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. ^ In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaoed olrt® sprinkler system shall be provided^s part of each new development, except one and two-familv lelst^ el^al existing structures which do not at « ^ floor area of the existing structure A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural state. Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall the"?rilSU: shall"L"“?*iJ fmmre irS!tc"h^“!m 2} box elder; 3) a species of the genus Populous (poplar); or 4) female ginko. SUBDIVISION IS.interior parking lot T.AMngraPTXT/-;. containing over 150 stalls shall be designed a‘?me!rsro?%*‘?e^TArby '"4/ shall contain a minimum of lao square feet. Isliias which*are [•I r ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 300.27 PAGE 222 necessary to promote the safe and efficienc flow of traffic shall not be subject to the ”150 stall” standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot . landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the planning cosmission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the planning commission. SUBDIVISION 17. MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the director of planning in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. SUBDIVISION 18. RETAINING WALLS. Retaining walls exceeding five feet in height, including staged walls which cumulatively exceed five feet in height, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered r-ngineer or landscape architect. SUBDIVISION 19 LANDSCAPING BOND REQUIRED. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this ordinance a performance bond shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements. The bond, with security satisfactory to the city, shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The bond shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one full growing s ^ason after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept a letter of credit, cash escrow or equivalent in lieu of a bond in an amount and under such 7 ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 300.27 PAGE 223 condl'tlons as city nay detemine to be appropiriate in o™e^%nTth\"'s,5-ety »«= the expense of th4 i*/tte del1l?Ts’'due‘’to^ condit^^^^^ =“P^®tion of all beyond the control of ^,e develSoS ^ reasonably exceed nine months, may be arant^Y’du/^« such additional secSrt^ 2"iS deeS^pMrt^f^'' SUBDIVISION 20.SCREENING AND BTTPFERTWG. w??h*the°«"^i"/”en\\“"^^^ in accordance Principal buildings and structures and any buildlno o’r ^nS!stS^ »=“®=°ry thereto located in Ly bitiniss " planned unit development diSrilt lots «SeS^o^“\7;%^^7d\'n\\a?Vurp^^^^^^^^ struct^ t^retlToS L"\n*yV."'il^4''VI *rom loW l^^aU^dTn In^^* pu^4s “^ t°r e^y^Llile^ill pSblic^roalsf ‘’® ®"eened from all lot lines and lin« *rom all lot business and industrial districts .•TTZr A . r I ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 300.27 PAGE 224 f buffering may be achieved With fences hedges or other landscape materials. All DriiclSi shall be architecturally harmonious with the building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier duriSg Ll slasonl. screening or buffering shall be located on the icreened^^®!^^^ building, facility or st^ct^t^^^^ oSliS or buffering shall be located on any required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. o'fTns ” u“iS. ITOPy^BION ^» v gSADING. FfayNG AND E:i^VATT qn ^ This section movdd from Section 300.27 ta'^o\28 (Relo 7-20-88.)Or^apcre 87-481 ll-ie-87 and\ Ordinance 88-500, « • Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 8/23/00 10/22/00 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:September 13,2000 SURFECT;#2614 Joe and Sue Haus 4485 Bayside Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Size: RR-IB Rural Residential (2 acre) District + 7.5 acres List of Exhibits: A B C D E F Application Description of Request/Hardship Statement Building Photos Property Survey Plat Map Property Owners Notification List Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9: Location of Accessory Structures Application Summary': The variance request is to permit a recently remodeled accessory building located in front of a new principal residence that will be constructed on the property. The Haus* purchased the property last year and had a conditional use permit for a guest house approved by the Council. They have decided not to construct the guest house and, instead, build a new residence and remove the existing residence following receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new house. The Property does not have direct access to a road. The lot is accessed via an easement for driveway purposes along the west property boundary of the propert)’ to the northeast. The building in question is located along the north property line where the driveway enters the applicant ’s property. The building is located approximately 530' from Bayside Road and 200' from the nearest adjacent residence. A property map has been attached. In the Hardsnip Statement the applicants have stated they would prefer to keep the building where it is located sine*: they have just completed remodeling the building. The project description and hardshio are attached as Exhibit B. il26I4 Joe and Sac Haus 4485 Ba\side Road Variance - Public Hearing Page I . ? <-1 t« Conformity to Zoning Code; The Code prohibits accessory buildings from being located closer to the front property line than a principal residence and meet a minimum setback of 10' to the side property lines. Because the structure has been there since prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance it is considered legally non-conforming. The variance requested is to permit the structure to remain on the property without a principal building assuming the strucUire to which it is accessory will be removed. Required Setbacks : Lots in the RR-IB district have the following setback requirements; Principal Structure Front Setback = 50 ft. Rear Setback = 50 ft. Side Setback = 30 ft. Accessory Structure Front Setback = shall be a minimum of 50 ft. and not closer to the front property line than the principal residence. Side Setback (for buildings less than 750 square feet) = 10 ft. Rear Setback = 5 ft. Staff Recommendation ; Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the following findings; 1. 2. 3. The building has existed as a legally non-conforming structure and was recently remodeled. The building is located on a property without frontage on a road. Access to the property is via an easement over the lot located to the northwest. The building is located well behind ail other residential structures aion^ Bayside Road. Natural vegetation adequately screens the building from view from adjacent structures. Options for Action; 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons, 3. Table. 4. Other action. H26\4 Joe and Sue Haus 4485 Bayside Road Variance > Public ficaring i -------------------------- lUVirti • • 2(o NApplication # Date Received S-2S-O0 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) rA». DAPROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address HVB5 ’RAUciOe._____________________ Property Identifcation Numbed(P.I.D.1 0(o " U7 "’'2. 3 __^J_—QOO^.--------------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ^ j________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: > resident!^ ___other (specify)-------------------------------- 2Joning District: IB----------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT t Phone (home ) ^4^ 7^7 ^ ^^7 — Wane _________ Ptone(work)_i /,^ HU Address: liJI City: ----------Zip:_£#i£Z_ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ____ Lot Area ___Lot Widdi /" Setback: / Front _ A Kp Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore _ X Other (specify) /a Xto/yj" ffhciplr, HARDSlilP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions i^^enung compliance with Zoning Code requirements: — (attach additional sheets if necessary) 3 This variance request is to keep an existing garage that will be located in front of the principle structure. This garage has recently under gone considerable repairs. After purchasing the property last year we applied for a Conditional use permit to build a garage/guest house with the intend^ purpose to live in that residence while construction on a new home took place. After realizing the cost involved in building the guesthouse we discontinued that course and decided to put the money towards a new house in 2000. To provide for immediate storage we started repairs on one of the accessory structures removing half of the structure according to the city inspector’s recommendations. At that time we removed the other run down structures on the property that were not as easily repairable. This year during the process of getting a permit for the new residence Lyle called with questions on plans for the existing house and garage. We plan to remove the existing house after moving into the new house but want to keep the garage. The intended purpose of the garage will be for storage and snow removal equipment as it is at the top of the property/driveway and will make snow removal less difficult. Lyle said that we would need to apply for a variance because the garage would be in front of the principle structure. He indicated a variance might be granted because our property and this structure are located far from Bayside Rd and cannot be seen from the street. While visiting with Paul from the city he also indicated it might be desirable to move the structure farther from the lot boundaries to meet setback regulations. After discussing this with several contractors we discovered the cost for moving the garage because of foundation oddities would be better invested in a completely new structure if keeping the current garage is not approved. Thanks for your consideration, Joe and Sue Haus Before and After Pictures attached. c£: A', V£J .1 *•* ■*’4r^ iramniia innriT rir, . V - ^ t - • ■ V . • • • '• ..^^'agsc ■■■’■^^; V ' ■ . •!' r r ' % ^ J .^'**•* ,• fp p •■•••■>, V'- .•y c a =it S-v.. -‘r- ■/.■' • ' . «^vx- ' -r ' Z''i-sL-ri : / • >7^-' • I'TONY EIDEN COMPANY ^eSL.t Co. go.KO. &4. t?€-rAlL UwCon.-,»J6'^t,' U6/4, Ww'4' i£>>^e»t>t I r-.}„' »/-.^Trrr:—----"'Sp IftwJ IOD4J 'ToifluotJ ^ ©'•iV S / 0117.3 r zsinco \ r NOTE: Proposed grodss ora subject to results of soil tests. Proposed buNdtng informotlon must be checked with opprovsd buOdlny plon ond developrnent or grading plan before excavation ond oonalructlon. Proposed Top of Block iOQT.V proooitd Oorogs Floor O Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building FUu, €>AVEM6«<4-r U)AU^oi7T ^ •XUBjecT H>o I J N Cy AjE'iV H OU S B Location i>TS7 m ^4 iteth r $4S*o (^ex?. Lti;ALUE8CMirTtUn Ti«t tr tiM l/t «r ifet li^rtiivMi 1/4 »r •• ItoniMiatt •orMr •f il» lA 1/4 •T IlMrtllVMt 1/4 «r •••!&•• A/4 #r •fti4 I tM( AlMie 'S* SmMi UB* bc SA niiTs;.*;? s.;rjMS'.=rj.;ft Se'^Hu:! •r mU HM’tMABt 1/4 4r !l«f%fe«««4 1/4 %• ••Min ll*« 4f wU i/4 «r »W44«M4 1/4 «r ^ 4h4»M f^4 •Mtfe il»4 %t INiriMMt lA iT llMrtbVMt I/I •( *•••!•• •# •• •IIM4 nm9%h 4 4lt4maM ii 44 mb I« B fBlM 10 Obb I iiBB Bf 44B NBCtilBBBl 1/4 Bf ^I^OOBI i/4^ i/e •r iBBtlBB t|«%IIBMB Obb I 10 Mb 1B Obb 4 ilM Bf BBlO Ob MMb I l/4 llBrtlIBBBi 1/4 BC llBrtiMBBt 1/4 OBBtiB* «lMBB OBBtO %B MUI BB«tMllB4. b U !• BB4 Kir* Bf 4BB B B41 _ ,••• B fBlB4 BB IkB H b B^ tBBBBillf UY| 0B»«B ! .. . ^U4 BB %h% Utm llBB Bf ObV«IMIBM 1/4 Bf 00«4lOO BBBllIf UY, 0BB«B to B 4iBiBBBB Bf 10 lA £?•• ■••• ft IBBt Bf NBrihBBBi 1/4 Bf OBttOBBBt lA_^ ObOIIBIBBJ j/f Of^^lO BtlBB biibbbbb ObbbO b BIbBbbbb Bf 00 bb4 b 4 b b »bAbI 10 lA f« 1/A af HariBBBBt 1/4 Bf -■bb BIbb Baao ©r ■©•• itM Mb k^WStSHSlAS 17a UKJU // ^ t a {0 \f-jlL} lUr"^' ■^ A >' \ \ A ' i- 7r*5T « II Wl” • •(2) ^ # 4 » ■ '•! 1 (3) 6 4- i >9 909 W*» & 1^ ■ * 1 J . • ---------— - ^ C" # I MHr............ k Ai. ...... t ■UN BATl M/tS/f9 iATCH IM TAVAVra Nm/ABOR u lA-ur-zs SI ••ft •44M ■AVSIM no NAP JOHNSON NAIOC S • PATilCSA P JOI 4ASS OAVSIOC RO NAPLI PLAIN HN SSSS9 TAXPAVI* NAHi/ABOR SO •0-117<25 21 •••! •AMS RAYSSOt RO P • S RtNNiROMN PtTU • SHARON RtNNUOIM ASAS RAVSm ROAD NAPLI PLAIN NN SSSS9 TAXPAVIR NANt/AOOR SO ••-117-tS 2A •••! ••tlf NORTH ARN LA C A PASS IT AL TRUSTIIS JIAN T ARNSTRONO tSS ARN U N NOUNO NN SSSOA V-' Is, • -L NSfMEPXN COUNTY PROPIRTY INPORHATZON SYSTEM PROPIRTY ONNCRS LIST REPORT NO. PZASSAfl PACE If SO •••117*2S 21 •••A •A49B SAYSXOE RO 0 10 KELLEY OIRALD P KELLEY 1A92S CO RO NO • PLYMOUTH NN SSAA7 SO •0-117-2S 21 •••• •AAOS OAYSXOE RO ORINT 0 SNIANN JONNSON ORENT 0 SNIANN JONNSON AAOS OAYSXOE RO NAPLE PLAIN tM SSS59 TOTAL BATCH 5«A OffOT X CERTIFY THAT TNI FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATXQN OF SHFORNAHON AS XT APPEARS TNXS BATE ON TME RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTNINT OF PROPERTY TANAnON« TO THE BEST OF NY KNOMLEOOE AND BELIEF. DATE lV// o,c» -? /O w* X A.T. - \ \ V' m •« * ' i 1 A h' t 7 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner October 16,2000 SUBJECT:#2620 Paul Pascuzzi 3320 Navarre Lane Variance - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR*1C List of Exhibits A Analysis Application/Applicant Letter Survey Storage Shed Plans Building Official Notification Letter Ha>.i^:over Calculations Plat Map Photo of Property Location Map Property Owner’s List Permit Record Actual Lot Area: 7,139 s.f. (.16 acres) B C D E F G H I J K Pertinent Code Sections (After-The-Fact) 1. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Front Yard Setback: The minimum requirement for front yard setback in LR-IC zoning district is 30 feet. Request: To permit a 7.8’ x 10' (78 s.f.) accessory' structure to be located 15' from the front lot line. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (D):Accessory Building Location: No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. Request: To permit a 7.8' x 1 O' (78 s.f.) accessory structure closer to Ae street lot line than the residence. Application Summary: The applicant has applied for after-the-fact variances to permit a storage shed to remain on the property. The shed is ciirrently located on a property line, within the front yard setback and in front of the principal structure. The accessory structure was built in October 1999 without a building permit. The applicant was notified by Orono’s building official of the violation, October 1999 and August 2000. The notification letter explains when a building permit is applied for a review of the plans is done to check if it meets City building and zoning codes. (E:^bit D). The applicant had the property surveyed and the survey indicates the shed is located over a property line and within the front yard therefore a building permit has not been issued. The shed is currently used for storage of yard equipment and other items not easily moved up or down the steep slope in the front yard. The front yard is flat for approximately 25 feet from the street and then becomes very steep. Structural and hardcover coverage are not an issue with this application. U2620 Paul Pascuzzi 3320 Navarra Lane Variance 10/16/2000 Page I mat 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. 2. Will the location of the shed impact neighboring properties? Since Navarre Lane is not a heavily traveled street, should the shed be allowed to be located closer to the front lot line than zoning code requires? 3. 4. 5. The topography of the property limits where the shed can be located.i Should the shed be in alignment with an adjacent property owners garage? Does Planning Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal? Options for Action: 1 . Approve the variances to allow the accessory structure to be located 1 5' from the front lot line and 10* from the side lot line. 2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. 3. Table for additional information, advise applicant what odier possible revisions will make the application acceptable. 4. Other. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of the variances to allow a 7.8' x 10' accessory shed to be located between the principal structure and the street and be located IS' from the front lot line. i^2620 Paul Pascuzzl 3320 Navarre Lane I’iviance i;i&2000 Page! ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard 1/2 acre 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft. Strwgftffftl CQvgrags Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 7,139 s.f.1,000.44 s.f.14% Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500'-1000*7,139 s.f 1,955 s.f (27.38%) 2,498 s.f (35%) 1,955 s.f (27.38%) 5 . Application U ^ Date Received CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION , Site Address . ^ ^ C- Property Identification Number (Pi J>.). :) Attach legal description to^pl^ation if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired /9 7 I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: vC residentud ___pother (specify). Zoning District:____________________________________ .(month/year);f I APPLICANt^ Address: 'W'i.O djLa-j City Phone fliome'i Y ? ^ ^ ___^hone (work )t ^ :itv: ^ ^ o _____Zip:_£L£li£ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:City:.Zip:.a DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST^ t Estimated Construction Cost^S.^---------- -----^ . . Describe request in detail: \o V tvj r\-----iS.—"hs—^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width \^ Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) <f T Q/kc.f HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficidty or unusual proper^ co^tiou p^vMtmg cornpliance with Zoning Code rMuirements:M^ ---- ..U^cvU Vc . UWI »V ------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) - - - REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the folloTying information must bg submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: J Completed Application Form Certified Property 0\Miers List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing 3. 5. 6. I grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854" x 11"). _ # m A A ^ ^ 7. 8. List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(8). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish n tified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember fliat vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses^^curred m review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is^tKie/uidyChrre^to the bestjif his/her knowledge. ^ Applicant's Signature 7 ~ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property hy.City staflliHjonsultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes^f m/esti] ■ ^ ' ---------------------------// >/ A ^DateOwner’s Signature ' / ^ ^ Applicant must have all submittals mto the Qty~?yffices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plaiming Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. < 1 J CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR PAUL PASCUZZI OF LOT 1. WILEY' S NAVARRE ADDITION 4 i f'it. ■■ii LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 1. WLEV S NAVARRE ADDITION O : ddnotes iron morker (961.1): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown ore based upon on ossumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the obove described property, the locotion of on existing house, two existing sheds, ond the locotion of oD visible hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroochments. comii ft dnot|B caaincaaQRunsmn KUI(C adum ioeuif,M95ai il2-47>4m I lmk| c««tr M lii «nt| «■ arf IMI«t «r (M lorf litf* lie Ibvs ol Oe Stdf ol iiwe»la 12-29-99 JOt NO. 99-488 99-488 c. J -V S 56"3p' 28.4^...—v................. ^(956.8) (956.1) ‘ff'T^ ** ftPAVCL ^0*S CO^. ST^PS * i •* i D IL f. n i' •• - • •' /■n)•Os • < •■ ■'• N• * 7 • • r'.' 5-1 GlTYof ORONO Municipal Ofllces Stnat Mdress: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Addn u: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 October 26,1999 Paul Pascuzzi 3320 Navarre Lane Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: whed without Building Permit Dear Mr. Pascuzzi: It has come to the attention of this department that you have recently constructed a shed on your property at 3320 Navarre Lane in Orono. This letter is to notify you that the City requires building permits for the construction of sheds. Therefore, the City must require you to remove the shed or submit a building permit application along with building plans and a survey showing the location of the shed. A review will be done and if found to be in compliance with biulding and zoning codes, a permit can be issued. A deadline of November 2,1999 has been established for submittals. If this deadline is not met, the City will initiate legal action. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch Enc. Permit Application Marc Davis, Building Inspectorcc: Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 1 i r-if GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offlccs •Vs Strett Mdrtu: 2750 Kelley Partway Ofono. MN 55356 Milling Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 53323 0066 August 23,2000 Paul Pascuzzi 3320 Navatie Lane WayzataMN 55391 Re: Storage Shed without Building Permit and Unlicenced Inoperable Vehicle Dear Mr. Pascuzzi: This office has notified you of zoning and building violations on your property on several pemiit application or removal of the shed, and to licence and make operable the van on the property. If this deadline is not met the City \viU issue a fotinal complaint regarding the shed and the «ill be towed from the pro^rty and disposed of. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at City Hall. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/sp Telephone (952) 2494600 • Fax (952) 2494616 www.cI.orono4nn.us riltidl /^A SC I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* PVTSTING HARnCOVFR IN ZONE A Mouse 3^13 X 75-250*250-500’ r \ House B.Garage c. • • Driveway .. , .. D.••Sidewalk E.Patio/Deck •: ^: F.Landscape • •Underiain• •« M ««By Plastic- G.Other •tv. -'.t'. *. • . . •:/. ■ Ltngih ^.3 X X X Width u/^Og X X X X X X 7.S X X X p#u/io£ •» TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -J- B X 100 = PPnPOSF.n HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X i; Length Width ; • •, j* * ♦• • • X X X B. Carxge C. Driveway X X -. . ^ D.Sidewalk X m t X as kr E.Pa:io/Deck X -3 p ••X • :■... * ^ 1 F«Landscaoe X S5 l . • •••V.'-..:. •Underiain X * *?Bv Plastic X B 0.Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 I ■ F 845 77 3£. 144 131 34 \^Ss ^7, S.F. .F.S.F « F-SMCO »»1 S.F.*»w^O itf/SLLT S.F. SF”6'f^Vi?C ^ S.F. ^ coHc.^nps S.F.* t VVAwlZ c e uiCoO * ARAvr %Tgr5 S.F.-^«^.AIWfH« S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ f UUAUL’ S.F. S.F. % A B 4 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i. JS.F S.F. S.F. S.F. .■ ■**V • , • S.F. ^ S.F. /'■; •. '‘3. S.F. ' S.F. S.F 7 ] •• • .F. '.>•••■. ■] •. r/ S.F. ll: % /7-//7-45-yf 0 (24) --- fiM^9‘26*E A % “ / OTv> OUTLOTA (3») •• 'I I |V */ .# . • ^ . >••-r V*' \A rd /f G- .. i*iiiifr trt ■ •' •' #.' ^ ' ■: V-^-- •.'«.••• ..I- .• w.; — - .-S’.-jV • . .« J^*^■ W:; ..•,*’ ■ ,• •'‘■r'V/ - •*’ ' - • *’ |i-- ..-• ■ ■‘- '>%■.-■ ■.:I. -v: ., t . ,r-tIT ’ • • . • * >'•il, bo^" iOi’^ztrd • •"••'»' r*t*> jb»-v- V'. f>*/:-V.- . V, • --•* • ' . fc' ' ,s::c>’-* ' -A?-:: :. • •■-•. ^ , 'X- * .. t-: V ■*«.- ~y • V. t:;r-ui:^ j • ^ ’*•:“*•* ’ •r: -X *-'; '» ' <■*. ,,*•- • ♦- - •^ '- '. ; V '' V' .^tr -J. - * * . > V • - •• •• ■ • i-.*'• '55r' ''-l'- '*T • • . . . -.. .. - -♦• V^-‘ ■■ •• •••■^ —-*■: ' * ‘ _ i ‘'Sir; ■ ..'♦ I.:.' » • - » —■ Forest QIUUIDVlEWXUyE Lake i V - V . . / -f^Oo • • iogshtrg Point bohk S;5 , : fOWT S vW ' ;.:• '• West ORONO Arm \ Sih®v ' ' ‘ - ^qod Point • PEERING 4-‘ - \ ISLAND . Fagerness Point BUOO 1* MOIVLIil PL DaoTEmAyij-t / f\ sr^^iu «fx 7 bralah"^ I Crystal Ba k.:-Bohr. Bayii ■f cw> cacnraoca SOR piSbi ITOIAR 3»Is / BlacitL^e ^ ,Vl4MAini0i u /7 c V w«fitaaT V < / = \ ouaYW '(^Pet^n Point <^\SHOREllNE o*v-] I / r.// Carman' y j«T55'«eo^\ .1 iOROlHO ^GOOSE ISLAND •« i /-ySPRAY *• • cx.SHADY ;ISlJ^^D I ,mm DATE t9/24/tD HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INfORHATlON SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA3MRX PAGE 26 lATCH 5t9 ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR Sa 17-117-23 66 0R07 •2366 SHADYNOOO RD NALFREO PROPERTIES LLP WALFRED PROPERTIES LLP 5100 EDEN AVE X112 EDINA m 55636 35 17-117-23 66 •025 •2265 5AYV1EN PL 61NA I SUNNERS GINA I SUNNERS 2265 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA NN 55391 35 17-117-23 66 0029 •2253 DAYVIEN PL 0 N LENIN 5 C N OLSON-KOSKA GREG LENIN/CAROL OLSON-KOSKA 2253 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA NN 55391 1 PROP Al ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 35 17-117-23 66 OOSO •2265 BAYVIEN PL BART E POHERLEAU BART E POHERLEAU 2265 BAYVIEN PL NAYZATA NN 55391 35 17-117-23 66 OOSl •2275 BAYVIEN PL JANES R ANDERSON JANES R ANDERSON 2275 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA NN 55391 35 17-117-23 66.OOSZ •••35 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GENE AND SNERYLL BLOCK GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA NN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 35 17-117-23 66 0033 •2305 BAYVIEN PL R N STELLING ETAL GENE N BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEN PLACE NAYZATA NN 55391 35 17-117-23 66 0059 •3320 NAVARRE LA PAUL J PASCUZZI PAUL J PASCUZZI 3320 NAVARRE LA NAYZATA NN 55391 35 17-117-23 66 ••65 •3326 NAVARRE U CURTIS R SNITH CURTIS ROBERT SNITH 3326 NAVARRE LA ^NAYZATA NN 55391 ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 35 17-117-23 66 ••63 •2366 OLIVE AVE JANES S HEITZ JANES S HEITZ 2366 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA NN 55391 35 17-117-23 66 OOAA •2335 OLIVE AVE PAUL NACKINNEY PAUL J NACKINNEY 2335 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA NN 55391 35 17-117-23 66 ••76 •2336 SHADYNOOD RD JOHN C I BARBARA E ERICSON JOHN A BARBARA ERICSON • 1620 SHADYNOOD RD NAYZATA NN 55391 ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 35 17-117-23 66 0077 •3326 NAVARRE U NALFRED PROPERTIES LLP NALFRED PROPERTIES LLP SU9 EDEN AVE B112 EDINA NN 55636 35 17-117-23 66 ••56 •2356 OLIVE AVE GARY L NILL GARY L NILL * 2355 OLIVE AVE NAYZATA NN 55391 35 17-117-23 66 ••96 •••35 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED UFAYETTE RIDGE HONEONNERS LAFAYETTE RIDGE HONEONNERS P 0 BOX 61 NINNETONKA BEACH NN 55361 ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR TOTAL lAtCH 519 •••15 i£/• ';V %• __ * *'• •>* • . •! V-'t.*l A q O ^JJouOcxyukji^’K • PERMIT RECORD Permit No,Date o?6/3 /a-/- *7/ 7-/7- 73 ^^7 3> Type of Permit y^CUi / (cJuL^lJL^ rA,/ Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 9/18/00 11/17/00 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:October 11,2000 SUBJECT: #2625 Karen J. and Morgan Nelson 3145 Jamestown Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 79,400 s.f. (1.8 acres) List of Exhibits: A B C D E F Application Survey/Site Plan Plat Map Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Property Owners Notification List Site Topography Application Summary: Applicants propose to construct a pool on the lakeside of the existing residence and adjacent to a gazebo. This home was constructed prior to the 1992 Shoreland Ordinance, which implemented the 150' setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Classen. Lake Classen has been classified as a Natural Environment Lake by the DNR. Natural Environment lakes require the 150' setback for structures and septic systems. The proposed setback from the pool to the OHWL of Lake Classen is 123'. The existing house is 128' from the OHWL and the gazebo is 123'. The pool is proposed to be 34' X18' in size. A second variance is required for the average lakeshore setback. The pool will encroach 9' into the average lakeshore setback defined by the principal structures of the two adjacent properties. This property contains a bluffby definition, but the existing house and proposed pool arc set back at least 40' from the top of the bluff (defined as the point ^^ere average slope changes from greater than 18% to less than 18%). The required setback to the top of bluff is 30'. i2625 Karen J. and Morgan Nelson 3145 Jamestown Road Variances Pagel ■i Adjacent Property:The property to the north would be the most impacted, however would not see the pool due to the existing vegetation and the gazebo located between the houses. A variance was approved in 1997 for the gazebo to be located within the 150' setback to Lake Classen. The Planning Commission made findings that the gazebo will encroach no closer to the Lake than the residential structure, the residential structure was constructed within 150' prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance and the proposed gazebo location will have little or no impact on views enjoyed by the neighbor to the nordi. Hardship: Applicant has stated the improvement lies adjacent to the gazebo and adjacent to the deck. Planning Commission should consider the following factors in determining a hardship. 1. The proposed pool would be located bem een the house and gazebo on the lake side of the residence. The residence was located on the property prior to the 150' setback requirement for Lake Classen. 2. The pool would be located above the hill and would be well above the flood plain or areas affected by the HWL of Lake Classen. 3. Placing the pool behind the principal residence would not function well as it would be located in the front of the house towards the street. Typically, pools would be located behind the house in a back yard. Also, the street yard is the site of the septic system and alternate site, leaving no other reasonable location for the pool. 4. The gazebo and dense vegetation would screen the pool from view to adjacent residences. Staff Recommendation: The pool at the proposed location would appear to have little impact on the neighborhood and would have little or no impact on views by either neighboring property. The proposed hardcover would be within allowed percentages as required by the Zoning Code. Staff recommends approval of the variance. ^ Of-.. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table. 4. Other action. #2625 Karen J. and Morgan NeUoo 3145 Jamestown Road Variances Page 2 A Applic&tioa # Date n~^lv«5~ Amount Paid ^ 2,JST9^L CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 • (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S150.00 (no change from original appUcaUon) Variance for non-conforming structures After-the-Fact Fees (Double application feej property inform /^on Site ________ Property Identification Number (?J.p.). i^-Iuded on required survey. Anach legal description to appUcaUon if not mcluoea on h_____________^(month/year) Date Property Acquired-------- ?> — 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. pSl use of property: j/resideutial _other (sp«c.fy)_ Zoning District; (o applicant Phone (hocneQr? pho*fabric) <>t7 ------Zip:. Address: ^----------- ' description of request _ Estima^ Describe request in det^; ^ ^ « tSTO »v»^o»c __a (attach additional sheets if necessary) '^6 VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshorc Other (specify) Poqv^ ^^/o^^O o\ hardship /description of preventij« c-a^ ^^^ch addition^ sheets necessary) J 1 * #2 f<- A c 4 J <* i il^lirtiiiiflli^ilu 1 .-Ik - f-W.-.*«l I■•.'• ^. . . M k. K L / . k. . ih .A ■ • •. .. U>1LmtzxYAceti^S HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 7-/^ - ^7 250-500' SOO-1000' T~^'0 0 A>o t/fJiJC€SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^^7^ 75.250' •gxiyriNC HARnrovF.R in zqnf. A. House ______________ X Lcti|ih Width t • B. Carege • • C. Driveway X X X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET yj^ ^ ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) .0-75*7M5';;ZSO-SOO’ reusoo-ioooL. FXiyriNG HARnCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________ /17? C/ T» //rS' » .• wau.5 COHC, SP\AS»> Di.oci<$ # B. Garage C. Driveway Lcngih 2/ O Width X r-:^ X t \ ■ X X. X X D. Sidewalk f/^rcr Ca/^C. 4^CAZ€€£i__________ X* X E. Patio/Deck GAZ^eo. X X 0<Oc CAZ^iv F. landscape _______ Ui^erlain _______ By Plastic _______ X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B X 100 ♦PROPn^rn hardcover tn zont . A. House X Lcn4ih Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E.- Patio/Deck ^^o££S£±JiOe, c x ' F. Landscape i>ArjCC*'Af i *h ‘> f A U^AU Underlain ____________ x__________ By Plastic ~ _________ x __~_______ 0. Other .X . TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZON'E TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __ _ _ _ + B X 100 S.F. /GS S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Z530 -S.F. S.F. 4 ■» AS S.F. S.F. 7^0 /7C S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _______%.S.F. S.F. 37. 150j__ S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • »•_ S.F. /7 g> S.F. “2GG - S.F; ________S.F. S.F. S.F. ?2rs S,F. ■? 7. /So S.F. • • •••« L__ A B A* B ! . T I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET . V/ IN Oufcicl^ ' 7-/0-97 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*75-150*250-500*7-cfo tujAJCf 500-1000* fViyriNC HARnCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________•S.E. W09O WALV-S Lcnfth 2JJ IS.X X X (9 OS W'uSlh /3e s.f; S.F. S.F. • • B. Qerage S.F. C. Driveway X X 2^90 S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Fatio^ck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By plastic X X X G. Other S.F. S.F. S.F. 11* S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ■r B 2/7 < S.F. X too S.F. Jf l 73 % PROPOSFn IIARDCOVFR IV ynNT! House S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway • ^ .H S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Pacio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape ’ Underialn By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ________ + B X 100 S.F. S.F. % A B A B » \ MM BATE •9/21/M BATCH S«S HENNEPIN COUNTY PEOPEETY XNFOENATION SYSTEH PEOPEETY ONNEES LIST EEPOET NO. PXASSA#! PACE X3 PEOP Al ONNEN NANE TAXPAYEE NANE/ABBE SO 20-U0-2S SS •••9 •••30 AOOEESS UNASSXCNEB A L PACE • J H PACE ANOEEN L 0 JULXE H PACE 3050 JANESTONN ED LONG LAKE NN 55SS0 SO 20-XX0-2S S3 OOX* •SSOS JAHESTONN NO BOB LANSON OAEY A LANSON S90S JAHESTONN NO LONG LAKE HN SB3S0 SO 20-XX0-2S S3 00X2 •SU5 JAHESTONN NO XAN C GATEHOUSE XAN C CATEHOUSE S1S5 JAHESTONN NO LONG LAKE HN 55S5A PEOP ABBE ONNEN NANE TAXPAYEE NAHE/ADDN SO 20-110-23 S3 OOM •317S JAHESTONN NO HXCNAEL GEEAEDY ANES HXCHAEL GEEAEOV ANES 3175 JAHESTONN NO LONG LAKE HN S5S50 30 20-110-23 33 OOIS •SOSO JAHESTONN NO A L PAGE 0 J N PAGE ANONEN L 0 JULXE N PACE 3050 JAHESTONN NO LONG LAKE HN 55350 30 20-1X0-23 S3 OOIO •3135 JAHESTONN NO H N LUKTON 0 S E LUNTON H NXLLXAH LUNTON 3135 JAHESTONN NO LONG LAKE NN 55350 PEOP ABON ONNEN NANE TAXPAYEN NAHE/AOBN SO 20-110-23 S3 BOIT •3105 JAHESTONN NO KANEN Elizabeth nelson KANEN ELIZABETH NELSON 3105 JAHESTONN NO LONG LAKE HN 55350 30 29-110-23 00 •••! •3225 SIXTH AVE N N C NEUPEL SON NEUPEL NEXL C 0 OENXSE K NEUPEL 3225 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE NN 55350 TOTAL BATCH 5«S ••••• r . i- X CENTXFY THAT THE FACTS NEPEESENTEO AM AN M^TE AND TME KEPNESENTATXON OF INFONNATXON AS " OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPANTNENT OF PNOPEJ[TY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF NY KNONLEDGE ANp BELIEF. DATE TAXATION* TO THE BEST \ik^SaaZ/up \ . *- i • IT*".I. L-f MiM Application Date: 9/18/00 60 Day Deadline: 11/17/00 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner October 11,2000 #2626 William B. and Lynne Peterson 420 Orchard Park Road Variance and Vacation of Platted Road - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-1A One Family Rural Residential District (S acre) 4.34 acres List of Exhibits: ki, A B C D E F G H Application Plat Wetland Overlay Map Property Survey/Sitc Topography Grading Plan Septic Locations Memo from Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager - Approving Site Design Property Owners Notification List Application Summary: The applicants have requested approval of a variance to the 5 acre lot area requirement to permit construction of a new residence on the property. The property is a vacant parcel without direct access to a road. Access to the property would via a 33' platted right-of-way that would be used for driveway access to the property. Ei^bit B is a plat map illustrating the proposed location of the driveway and the building lot. Applicants also request vacation of a portion of the platted right-of- way that would not be used for driveway purposes. Other approvals required before building permit: 1. Septic Design for primary and secondary sites - Approved - City of Orono 2. Land alteration vrithin a wetland - MC>\^ (Small wetland basin does not appear on the City of Orono ’s 1974 Wetland Inventory). May require permit from the MCWD. 3. Grading Plan for the driveway - City of Orono #2626 William B. and Lynne Peienon 420 Orchafd Park Road Variance and Vacation of Platted Road Page 1 4 ‘fl 1'* kl Variance: The variance requested is to permit the lot located at 420 Orchard Park Road to be considered a buildable lot that does not meet the 5 acre minimum lot size for the RR-1A zoning district. The lot is 4.34 acres in size but does have 300' of width at the defined front lot line. The front lot line would be the east property line. Front property lines are defined as “That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street, and in the case of a comer lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street.” Because the property is adjacent to a dedicated public street, although undeveloped, the shortest of the two property lines adjacent to the dedicated right-of-way is considered the front lot line for zoning purposes. Vacation: Exhibit B shows the area of the public right-of-way that is requested to be vacated by the applicant. The vacation would benefit the applicant in two ways. The vacation would increase the size of the applicant’s property by over 31,000 s.f creating a lot of 5 acres. The lots within the plat of Orchard Park average 4.8 acres in size. The 33' dedicated Cjt public right-of-way adjacent to each lot is the additional land required for the lots to meet the S acre lot requirement. Secondly, vacation of the right-of-way would eliminate the possibility of a driveway or road being routed around the property. Staff has reviewed the vacation request and would recommend the right- of-way not be vacated until the property to the north develops and access has been secured to the other land locked properties. Surrounding Properties: A lot combination has been completed on the lots located to the north of and surrounding the subject property. The total land area of those lots is approximately 23 acres (Lots 5,6, 7, 9,10 Orchard Park). Although unlikely, a lot could be split leaving a property north of the subject lot without any access to a right-of-way except the 33' dedicated on the plat of Orchard Park. The plat of Jacobs Mill, completed in 1999, is east of the plat of Orchard Park. No access to Jacobs Mill Road would be available due to a large wetland located on Lot 6. The connection to the north would not be possible. The applicant has stated he would be willing to dedicate an easement in favor of property to the north creating a shared driveway across the 420 lot for access to Lot 7 as a condition of the right-of-way vacation. Proposed Grading Plan: The grading plan shall be approved by the City and MC WD prior to issuing a land alteration permit for the driveway. No building permit could be approved for the house until such time the driveway is constructed and approved by the City and MCWD. The NWI shows a small wetland basin in the #2626 William B. and Lynne Peterson 420 Orchard Park Road Variance and Vacation of Platted Road Page 2 1 hi area where the driveway is proposed. A site inspection has confinned the wetland location by the types of vegetation present (several willow trees). If the area in fact is a wetland WCA rules and regulations apply for a permitting process and mitigation through the watershed district. Hardship: The property has existed as a separate parcel for many years. The property is 4.34 acres in size and is sized similar to other lots in the locality. The lot width measures 300' at the front property line and structure setback (east property line) for lots in the RR-1A district. Staff Recommendation: Staff reconunends approval of the application for a variance approving a lot area variance for the property based on the hardship noted above subject to the following condtions: 1. Applicant shall receive approval from the MCWD for the land alteration within a wetland. 2. Final Grading Plan for the driveway shall be approved by the City of Orono. 3.Septic Sites shall be enclosed with a four foot orange snow fence prior to land alteration and grading on the lots as required by the On-Site Systems Manager. 4.Applicant shall enter into a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Orono for the private driveway within the public right-of-way and agree that others requesting use of the public land can share a driveway if required. Staff is recommending denial of the request for vacation until such time the property to the north develops and legal access would be secured to all properties. Opuu h* for Action ; 1. 2. 3. 4. Rt *'y/nmend approval. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table. Other action. »2626 William B. and Lynne Peterson 420 Orchard Park Road Variance and Vacation of Platted Road Page 3 4 aiMifliillttf r A Application # Date Received ^ ' 2>g> - OO Amount Paid 4^ 2.STC> ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2SO.OO (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address P _____ ___________ — Property Identification Number (P.IJ0.1 T«3 2 S _ _ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ A A « « A • •A.ttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Address-. jfXX^Pw-J/t-^ UtU-c> _ City: Phone fhome ^ A\2. - / *"■ . Phone (wotlc l ^/i ~ __Zip: <rf\\K.;.. OWNER (if different than appUcant) f(home) Name <JX-y^fi.T.nJe. /ju *** Phone (work)__rZ —---- Address: {g^o 7^.A^rA^4-. Cit^ ------------Zip:——. ) Estimated Construction Cost $ A^ADESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: c Teg- 4L.« - (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED f Lot Area ___Lot Width •1 Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lake^ore y Other (specify) >U^i» c£A*t.i»iA/y^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: y\iUi0. rag- Vsg, ------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) r.-. . M) R ' ^ PoMltlt McrtAN^ VAe AAI Driveway iM S^Sis • • *»♦ v-xt**. .. ■ * teA** 2iT '*•’• , • - ?Sl£-t'-'~.fry^--:y''_— - — r *- • - • *^ mm '11^'Mam.«isgimgffigg WM mm M Mi»- :a-i. $.*1 W^'-- ^»i;r fwiL^ i'A* -.■:W.%^ \ >V-PR'-mm: M ^K.~: *•;^mm a? r%4i\_ •#. ^‘.• .^ - - '* /I**: 7,/. MlF L*. «^-.J k^ V*\^ *•. *r. •».•>!►; i ;,? •' v:-,t-vn'-.. . -V. i-f>j^:-'i- ‘;r A y — -. Vv\W^'. 1 t 1^.if ,^i.. ■* ■ • .' >. • I *• vf.-^ jc^- :-:^'a*-V ^5^vi mm 5l mm^•;o; ??«l V m SJwmk ic s*,?;' tMS rv A >^y}'».'f: .•*« 35 ^Lnv •fC. ii\ •' ^ V r. vS5 t:^v ^ .'y'Ar 'r'l »4 V<f^ .V *y « T .O. #/*>>> >1^ ^CtLj’^ 'ti .o ;L%/; ff :v •.-v ‘- •- -* ;< l' *:- »' .n..''\:-. I -r#; I . -s^ iV • t\ . < L ^s ^ 1 WXi lyi III I :n>> ■:d U r W o Cl 3 CQ "D 5T 3 mm ■ r i Mmm V. f-<Vv^-. J^.r;- '.;'mm$:v;VtvW5v : :■■■■ : ■•■it: •tJLfi: s a a5 (ft rt o 3 3 5^2. 2.g.(ft (ft O-M W 1 o (Ol1 ^ c*K •^1 C 1(0| (0 1 (9l glI 1 1 C3 03^1 *^ 1 1^ O 1 ^ '?*D 1CD IIh illfJi / ^s / y / \y < ! //■'\ Ni n; \ \\ N.\ \ \ v\ \ r A ' \ /' \ J // // / f'<?v \ o r»'o 8 o :S 5 '^D §5#5&';5 / / A y «0i' / .810^ / n H/r /I I / ^ j_ ' / / / / .^ApproM, Proptrty Un»» // y trttllM v yw / ^ ^ / I § ejfa^atjpoJejpcLeysIoexJooej^oejijtjgeoejpk^ fanc0 ’m.'' m? 0 9 0 J’i;nii8*1,*pl 88 G TO: FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Adnunistrator/Planner Chris Pence, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:October 10, 2000 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Bill Peterson, Lot 8, Orchard Park A septic design was submitted for the above stated property. The design is dated September 29, 2000 and was done by Otto and Associates. The design meets all minimum requirements of the Orono Septic Code and Minnesota Chapter 7080. It should be noted that the design is oversized for what is required in Orono. If the installer wishes to downsize the mound to meet the minimum standards of Chapter 7080, another design will need to be submitted and iq)proved by the City. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the variance. The City requires the drainfield sites to be enclosed with four foot orange snow fence prior to any grading or land alteration on these lots RUN ORTE •9/lZ/M MTCH SIS HENNEMN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATXON SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST OWNER NM1E TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR U S2-11R-25 2S RMA •tRSO AOORESS UNASSXGNEO STEPHEN D TOWLE STEPHEN D TOWLE 5115 PINNACLE DR OLDSNAR PL SAA77 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SR 32<110*2S 2A tRlX •SA75 OACOiS HILL RO JEFFREY R t XARl A ANENT JEFFREY R S RARE A ANENT ARl m ST S OltlS HPLS NN 554fl TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TOTAL DATCH 5tS •••14 ; --j. iEfORT NO. PX43Mtl PAM 7 M S2-11A-2S 23 §109 •MA9 OtCHAIIO PAM 20 ROiERT J i LORRAINE E RODEN ROBERT J t LORRAINE E ROOEN AAi ORCHARD PARR RD LONG LAKENN 55356 35 32-115-23 26 5611 •3765 JACOBS NILL RD B A ADANS 5 L N ADANS BRADLEY ALLEN ADANS LYNN NARIE ADANS 530 SILVER NEADOR DR LONQ LAKE NN 55356 35 32-115-23 32 OOtl 03960 HATERTONN RD JEFFREY V NELIN JEFFREY V NELIN 3960 RATERTONN RD NAPLE PLAIN NN 55359 35 32-115-23 32 0005 03550 RATERTORN RD S N 5 C A HARRIS STEVEN N HARRIS 355 TURHAN RD NAPLE PLAIN NN 55359 ■^1 #2B2b X CCKTXFY THAT THE FACTS HCPHESCNTED AXE AN ACCUKATE AND THUE HCPDESENTATION OF XNFOHNATXON AS XT APPEAXS THU DATE ON THE XECOXDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPAXTHENT OF PXOPEKTY TAXATION, TO THE DEST OF NY KNONLEOOE AND DELIEP. ^ I I N DATE ... . .^ . 12 TO: FROM: DATE; Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner October 16,2000 SUBJECT:#2627 Willmar Thorkelson 440 Big Island Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: RS (Seasonal Recreational)Actual Lot Area: 48,781 s.f. (1.12 acres) List of Exhibits A Analysis B C D E F G H I J K L Application/Applicant Letter Site Plan/ Survey Building Official Notification Letter Shed Plans Topographic Map Photos of Property Hardcover Calculations Plat Map Location Map Property Owner’s List Peimit Record Pertinent Code Sections (After-The-Fact) 1. Section 10.31, Subd. 8 (C): Minimum Setback: The minimum setback from platted street rights- of-way, all structures: 30 feet. To permit a 12' x 24' (288 s.f) accessory structure to be located 23 ’ from the property line. Application Summary: The applicant has applied for an after-the-fact variance to permit a storage shed to remain on the property. The shed is currently located 23' from a platted, dedicated right-of- way where 30' is required. The accessory structure was built in 1999 without a building permit. The applicant was notified by Orono’s building official of the violation, April 1999 and August 2000. The notification letter explains when a building permit is applied for a review of the plans is done to check if it meets City building and zoning codes. (Exhibit D). The applicant had die property surveyed and the survey indicates the shed is located 23' from the street right-of-way, therefore a building permit has not been issued. The shed is currently used for storage of an ATV, yard equipment, gardening tools, supplies and other tools. The property consists of two lots that have been legally combined making it large and odd shaped. The shed is used to house equipment for the back property. *^2627 IVillmar Thorkelson 440 Big Island Variance tOd6/2000 Page I i-- The platted right-of-way was dedicated to the public use forever on the plat of Morse Island Park in 1887, but is not a developed road/street. The city does not intend for it to become a developed street. It is more like a trail through the woods and provides access for emergency or service vehicles and utilities to Big Island (Exhibit G-1 ). The storage shed is located on a high spot on the property. (Exhibit G-3). The surrounding land includes wetlands and slopes to low areas. The area surrounding the shed is wooded, and the existing shed location is appropriate in terms of topography and trees, save for the lot line encroachments. Merely moving the shed 6' back will result in the need to remove two mature trees. A total relocation of the shed on the site to meet setbacks would potentially do damage to the site due to the probable soil and vegetation disruption that would be caused by the heavy equipment to move it. Structural and hardcover coverage are not an issue with this application. Staff views this building encroachment as extremely minor as compared to the 0-75' violation on the opposite side of the island a year or so ago. That applicant was required to move a newly constructed cabin out of the 0-75' zone. The visual and perceived impacts of the Thorkelson request, by contrast, are minimal. 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. 2. 3. Will the location of the shed impact neighboring properties or use of the right-of-way? Is moving the shed worth cutting down mature trees? Is damage to the property, surrounding property and access location to the island that large equipment would cause Aat would be needed to move the shed a concern versus leaving the shed in its current location? The topography of the property limits where the shed can be located. 5.The platted right-of-way is not and is not intended to become a developed street within Big Island. 6. Does Planning Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal? §2627 Willmar Thorkelson 440 Big Island Variance I0.'l6'2000 Page! K y : Options for Action: 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval of variance. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. Advise applicant what other possible revisions will make the application acceptable. Other. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of the variance to allow the shed to remain located 23' from the right-of-way. 02627 Willmar Thorktlson 440 Big Island Variance 1016/2000 Page 3 _____■*—II iT I Jfih'lii w ANALYSIS Structural Coverage Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover ' Allowed Hardcover ► Proposed Hardcover 0-75'7,786 s.f.53 s.f. (0.7%) 0 s.f. (0%) 53 s.f. (0.7%) 75-250’8,852 s.f.972s.f. (9.1%) 2,213s.f. (25%) 972 s.f. (9.1%) 250-500’32,143 s.f.278 s.f. (0.9%) 9,642.9 s.f. (30%) 278 s.f. (0.9%) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 48,781 s.f.1,250 s.f.2% A .*A Application # ^Cg2.**) Date Received ^-'L€> ~00 Amount Paid ^<^5^0 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non>conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^*>0 Big Island Property Identification Number tP.I.D.1 23- 1 17-23 32 0071 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired April 199 7 _________________________.(month/year) I (ain) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residentitd ___pother (specify). Zoning District: ______________________________ APPLICANT Name Wlllmar L. Thorkelson Phone fhome ’l 588-2ii86 Phone (work). Address: ^o51 Dawn view Terrace City: Go I den Valley Zip: 5 5** 2 2 0^^’NER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: after the fact variance - see Exhibit A attached hereto. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback:Front X Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__See Exhibit A attached hereto. (attach additional sheets if necessary) "*) 1 ; )i •"8 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followiing information must be submitted bv the npplication deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. Tn addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi' x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE • The applicant hereby agrees to provide all" information required or requested by the Zoning Adminirirator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in ^e^ .cw of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct * the best of his/her knowledge. Date *7*“ IG -0 0Applicant's SignaPare \j\/‘ l . OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request Owner’s Signature \ ^ Date 7 “ /6 - OCJ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plaruiing Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commissior -tnd 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. 5 EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO VARIANCE APPLICATION OF WILLMAR L. THORKELSON 1. Legal names of all persons with an interest in the subject property: Willmar L. Thorkelson, married to Maxine B. Thorkelson Peter A. Thorkelson, a single person 2. Description of variance request and hardship/description of unusual properQr conditions: This after-the-fact variance request is made for the purpose of allowing a storage shed to remain on the subject property, which encroaches 6.28 feet into the sideyard setback area for the lot. The shed is of recent construction, is well-made, and is 12 feet by 24 feet in dimension. Detailed plans for the shed as built are attached, as is a photograph of the shed. You should already have on file a survey of the subject property dated April, 1999, by Advance Surveying & Engineering Co., together with hardcover calculations. The applicant's co-owner and son, Peter Thorkelson, regretfully constructed the shed without knowing that it encroached on the side yard setback, and thought that he was positioning the shed in a manner which would be best for the lot and surrounding properties. The encroachment is fairly minor, especially given the fact that the shed encroaches on the sideyard abutting what is laid out as Moslin Avenue. Moslin Avenue is a street that has never been opened and it is questionable whether it was ever actually dedicated to the public. It is currently no more than a two-track cartway through the woods. As the survey indicates, the subject property consists of two, unusually shaped lots. If the shed is moved, large trees would have to be destroyed in the process. The encroachment is minor and the applicant respectfully requests that it be allowed to remain in place. s b Jesperson Law Oehce 1012 Grain Exchange Building 400 SocfTH Fourth Street Minneapous , Minnesota 5541 5 (QI 2) 332-035 I John R. Jesperson A ttorncy A t Law Mays, 1999 Mr. Lyle Oman City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orcno, Mimiesota SS3S6 Re: 440 Big Island. Orono. Minnesota Dear Mr. Oman: Enclosed as we discussed is the building permit ^it tlcation, hardcover worksheet and survey for the shed located on the Thorkelson property on Big Island. The hardcover worksheet was completed by the surveyor. Also enclosed are scale drawings of the structure that were prepared by Mr. Peter Thorkelson. As we discussed, the shed is intended for the storage of the Thorkelson’s small ATV, lawn mowers, gardening supplies, supplies and tools. The interior of the structure is not finished. It does not contain any electrical fbetures, sinks or drains. A large door is located on the back of the shed, below which is located a ramp. This is the primary access into the structure for lawn mowers, tools and other gardening supplies. A screen porch is located on the front of the structure, to provide a sitting area during warm summer months, when the cabin (located near the lake shore) is too warm. I presume the appearance of the screen porch caused some confusion, as the building has the appearance of a small cab'm. However, a further examination reveals the building is being used in a manner consistent with the intent stated on the permit application. J B Mr. Lyle Oman May 5,1999 Page 2 Please feel free to contact my office if you have any questions about the enclosed permit application, or if you require any additional information. ly Yours, John^ Jesperson JRJ:U enc. cc: Mr. Wilbnar Thorkelson Mr. Peter Thorkelson i i o r' 'j SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. nkMc«l2|lll79i4 ra%(ll2|4fiai«l :f£, BILL A MAXINE TIIORKELSON eUfUBi AH !•■)•** jra iMm li MRvni Mi Hm Mf « 4 fMVtf, iMVf feiM ikMV. 41 caiHiM IvpiMMMH «t 4mMi t>M« M «M IMMMMII li ■»% tfk« IM Ckr fcoMi M CMtiati Tit it t IrnI MMT. Icftl CMtlll. at( tpli|lt«ta|Siait UuRM ■fiwptptwy. itfAtlti iMIMTinicw Mi (tr At mkw aiMck Htiflil f*.r ■wtr—Mf iMiiMi mm ii« *t IM tittt Swt tf MtusiaML t«M iMt lUMtM ttt • i ^ — Qf' i •• • • • am\JOB NO. 99 if'■.i*- % ¥. ^ D GlTYofORONO Municipal Ofllces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 553S6 Mainni Address: P.O. Bm 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Willmar L. Thorkelson 4851 Dawnview Terrace Golden Valley, Minnesota SS422 Re: Work without Permit - 440 Big Island, Orono, MN Dear Mr. Thorkelson: It has come to the attention of this department that you have recently constru^ed a cabin on your property at 440 Big Island in Orono. This letter is to notify you that the City requires building permits for the construction of buildings. Therefore, the City must require you to remove the building or submit a building permit application along with building plans, a survey showing the location of the building and hardcover calculations. A review will be done and if found to be in compliance with building and zoning codes, a permit can be issued. A deadline of May 3,1999 has been established for submittals. If this deadline is not met, the City will initiate legal action. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch Enc. Permit Application Hardcover Worksheet cc: Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Michael P. Gafifron, Senior Planning Coordinator Paul Weinberger, Asst. Zoning Administrator TclcphoM (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 J r D GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Psrinrey Oroflo, MN 55356 Maiting Address: P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Willmar Thorkelson 4851 Dawnview Terrace Golden Valley, MN 55422 Re: 440 Big Island Dear Mr. Thorkelson: On 5-5-99 this office received an After the fact building permit application for a shed that was constructed on your property on Big Island. The permit caimot be issued for the shed in its present location. A 30' setback is required from the side property line along Moslin Avenue. One comer of the building would be required to be moved 6.28 feet fiirther away from the property line. The City must require you to obtain a permit and move the shed to meet the setback or to remove the shed from the property. A deadline of 9-1-00 has been established for compliance. If you have any questioris please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/hs A i ••1 .s-.i i 1 Tdephooe (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 wwwxi.orooojnn.us B j*» '.iy/ '-^-■* • v * ; ST I r^ H ^ -M : V » •%" m •« u. • i * ’ m ■ » FLOOR PLAN Vi'-4 RAhP y/ V H'ooofls, ATV ST0RA6f 5c.a.la 7t'~/' IH 10 5T0RAG£ ______________^ OOOK 5CRF5N Poach 4OOOA 2'V± r /I T''«3 CN j M •■«i 1 ';i ::;f c- ■■Vh M ?' front v/ew 5to,U ^" = / ' ;oV ove/{AU Hi^kt i 1 ■*.,it' iidL ■% BACKV/fW ScoAc i ' 27- ■ »r- W'lr • v?S^ rsj.. r 5IDEVIEW " 1/Scale i=| ;.i £ « 'm T, % >r<iiii^a"fcinai fiirftitnn ^mir rt ■ ruMi - nnrr r »i'rfi 1 ninja ii i^ina II . /5c.<\V.<i Vs -I m ’^OOF 1 I ff’ iO%j r' • 0 0 G) footing. Plan AIL Fooh'^^SO.rC r<J/*m,fcr ct^JW'dccp )f^t6 ^rounJ —©.— e 0 0 o o I A <» ^ t • ft • ••0 (3) 4 0627fij /#/ J*V • kfifeiSi »» . ^^U-< ^ s ^ ^ ^0m i ■ ;ii^3;"w5^^F»^ ^■i-' M»l A . I \ , » r' T : - ‘■r::^'', r — >-r^' ''•> }. ^ v*i‘? ••’• ■” ’■■'■ ■; v*‘ I *’ ^V'** VM' • , '■ ':€ \T •'/ ’ A«>‘. ••• ■-V:"'* < . -7- . S';- ^.-^ ■‘^ . V •.• u* ■ ‘■'':S/iH»;}' f ;V>; 'iWMMMaKtiaagH wl , -" f‘>* V^'f'.^ ; -.r;! •• •*•/ '• ;> • > Si l;i.; 71’ - A /#« ♦ «fij ; i?, • V • 4 f*4 !i I . I- \ ( V ■ V*!^.:^;: ..-r/ *^.» \\ ^ V ' •*. i'■'.f wm ■Ji ^ i^Twr Sf-Cw'il A / -' *?• <_ »■ i ^ «*• - 5? Smw » -». -a *• % w ?* m j »n 'j' ■ •r'r i ^ V*' ^I'lO Fy/l J'J'-’. -pi- ■i’' irjijJit^O:^-:%i ^*?X--- i^: • I . i 'r/T ..»•>♦. ♦*».♦■•■» * ^ A IQ -ft** ' i fe.-: r /r^ ■ .;4 •'1 *r'»i ■ - ■ i P!l I j n* '^ •' •r ^ - t .' \ .T * 1* ■, ♦*-T. ■M J• • , r 7 ;• <4 • 1 l-\ t'A. t4 m ^NC’ ~Bi^' lt)(o;;i(.\.iLCi , J / •# W- >ti ■■ - / '^' --iv'--ir f t 1!-i i; .r>-ui----i» Ugjj^h.v-.- V\ • - .V- ' .. T" ^ * ■'r: ir' ^ i * . / I •t / V* t ■ •i - I r ^^•# T m;- 'Pi j^ f^'m ■■"■ A- : >?■ '^■•'•*' - r •:.^^'^|lr--'''-*• '•........... F *^.- ••-?'”■ f '^ ki .' ■.'■■♦. •. ^ ■ ■ ■■'' •■: ?■ '-T, ■ ■“' •■ V - ^ V-'3--~ ■■•lY r^“' V !*< -. • ••i'• ; . | - '. , •>■■.*-V - .. :. '^ ... ■c;yr^T^ , • * * ^ i . • • '’r. •i^ %, ^ .is>’ r .'*J : S ••;5 “T. , -■• t • % fe I •t ?b CITY OF ORONO © 6124730510 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 08/01/97 13:02 0 :03/04 N0:998 m HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET (A 75-250' 250-500* SOO-1000' EXISTING HARPCOV^R IN gOVR A. H oum _____________ X Ljtniih SI. WMtfi X X X S.F. S.P. S.F. B. Oarage S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. £. Failo/Dedc X X S.F. 5.F. F. Loodscape UndeiUia By Plittlc X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B -^n9‘L X ICO S3 S.P. FBOPOaiCn HARDCOVBn rM Vjf\m A. Hottu ____________ X Ltofli Widdi X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patk)/Deck X X F. Lambeape Uadertaln By PUidc X X X -in<rc. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other 5.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 • S.F. S.F. * A B A B 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ,£rniACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75*25-SOO’500-1000' TT/u?ncQVER IN ZQNK A. Kousc -------------------- S’weA C)o4 LsafO Widdi X X X S.r. I S S.F. 7-7 S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garaje C. Driveway X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patlo/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Laad^espe Underlaia By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone ^ , ,(J0 ■3-7Z- S.F. ^ S.F. % S.F. A. House Length Width X X S.F. S.F. S.F. X S.F. B. Oarage X C. Driveway __X X xs le S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. •E. Patio/Dcck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape __ Underlain _ By Plasric __ X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in ZONE X B xlOO S.F. S.F. % kBlXl.1 - A 6 A B llARDCOVER CALCULATION WOBiamET ,elBACKZON& (CIRCLE ONO 0-75-75-250'500-1000' ^XlSTgig A. House S.F. LeafUi Viih X X ^”7 S S.F. ’S.F. ■ "s.F. S.F. B. Garaje C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. p. Sldfwallc X X S.F. S.F. E. pado/Dect X X S.F. S.F. F. Laodscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A -------- ■" ® • '7'1‘i S.F. B ^7, \0 _ * ICO - \A^ S.F. “IZSZS-T S.F. A. House Lcn|ih X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Oarage X C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Pado/Dcck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A ______ *»* ® - xlOO - S.F. S.F. A B A B "i:-va '^ci'h t. :)h . ^ V'v \ 'U ' '^.1 33-11-7-33-^) ^M.76 8 L/A?S^/s ^®P=- \ ^■*1 n ''C 'c N»x-^ '?? -Sr-rTT 8 J5 <*i3-rT7tt75g 5 8 (12) Ha 3^ rTt T Lane »• • *•«^French^ - . V %Lake :*.• y^%.\ ' — #. _•- ^V- •• ^ •* • » % ^ • ••• » • -• V- *-.•• *•* • •• %«\ 4 •■ Bohns.Point ;.* • • •» • •. ■ • % • ‘•\ •. • • .• • t : * • • Crystal Bay f-'• •!’.V Lfifayetw, • vV;-r • \ j omui , •< @ ... ORONQ*'^ 1600 *** Asi Smith B iy ». . i: • • '^.J/ ^ . • ■ V-- ^ \ • \ \ ^ mI nnetonka *. \ BEACH „Lafayette Ba) . ... * / ‘ ' ) ^5'■Muntington Point * « • • L-I \ /. Big :28C0 •. ^ Island > \ V>.'a Crown Point - ni^- 'W ■"CBEEMTlHEf^y^ • • • ^ V •* J Bracketts Point • ♦*.»•• ‘ • # • •. • • • • • • • • • .* • Poin Charm \ V Com fori \0 I Gale Island • • i escent Beach •; RUN DATE 09/15/00 BATCH 505 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 23-117-23 32 0002 00A60 DIG ISLAND NANCY L PARNES NANCY L PARNES 2710 P0X6ATE DR NINNETONKA NN 55305 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 36 23-117-23 32 0010 OOAOO BIG ISLAND NANCY L PARNES NANCY L PARNES 2710 POXGATE DR NINNETONKA NN 55305 REPORT HO. PX935A01 PAGE 15 38 23-117-23 32 0011 00A60 BIG ISLAND NANCY L PARNES NANCY L PARNES 2710 POXGATE DR NINNETONKA NN 55305 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 23-117-23 32 0037 00370 DIG ISLAND GWENDOLYN S LARSON ETAL GWENDOLYN S LARSON 6500 JANES AVE S RICHFIELD NN 55623 38 23-117-23 32 0044 00038 ADDRESSi UNASSIGNED VIVIAN J NELSON ETAL VIVIAN J NELSON 1425 SHENANDOAH CT BE PLYMOUTH NN 55447 38 23-117-23 32 0046 00310 BIO ISLAND NANCY LEE PARNES NANCY LEE PARNES 2710 POXGATE DR NINNETONKA NN 55305 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 23-117-23 32 0047 00310 BIG ISLAND NANCY LEE PARNES NANCY LEE PARNES 2718 POXGATE DR NINNETONKA NN 55305 38 23-117-23 32 0063 00420 DIG ISLAND N B PRUEN 8 R H PRUEN ' NICNAEL PRUEN 4411 13TH AVE N NPLS NN 55441 38 23-117-23 32 0065 00410 BIO ISLAND RICHARD W PRUEN ET AL GREGORY B O’CONNOR 1425 86tH ST W UPPER INVER GROVE HEIGHTS NN 55077 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 23-117-23 32 0067 80430 BIO ISLAND ELIZABETH ANN BRENNAN TINOTHY C LOVETT 14400 STATE HWY NO 7 EXCELSIOR NN 55331 38 23-117-23 32 0070 00450 BIO ISLAND GABRIEL E JABBOUR W OP NINNETONKA INC 21 UNIVERSITY AVE N E NPLS NN 55413 38 23-117-23 32 0071 00440 810 ISLAND W L i P A TNORKELSON W L 8 P A TNORKELSON 4851 DAWNVIEW TEP OOLDEN VALLEY NN 55422 PROP ADCW OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 505 00012 ** • (•. . > V;/ 'V •J*;.!* •| PERMIT RECORD f •. PERMIT NO.DATE TYPE OF PERMIT /}j.dA>6t^c<iJL ^ % TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner October 16,2000 SUBJECT:#2628 Roger Anderson 2200 Shadywood Road Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC Actual Lot Area: 16,941 s.f. (.38 acres) LUt of Exhibits A Analysis B C D E F G H I J K Application Site Plan/ Survey Floor Plans Hardcover Calculations Grading Plan Photo of Property Location Map Plat Map Property Owner ’s List Permit Record Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Lot Area: The lot is 16,941 s.f. where 21,780 s.f is the minimum lot area for the LR-IC zoning district. Lots of one acre or less serviced w ith public sanitary sewer and platted prior to the adoption of the zoning chapter are only required to meet 80% of the lot area requirement (17,424 s.f). 2. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Lot Area: The lot is 52* wide where 100* is the minimum lot area for the LR-IC zoning district. Lots of one acre or less serviced with public sanitary sewer and platted prior to the adoption of the zoning chapter are only required to meet 80% of the lot width requirement (80*). Application Summary: The applicant has proposed to tear down and construct a house and detached garage on a lot that does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The lot is served by sanitary sewer and currently has a house and detached garage on it. The proposed residence and detached garage (18* x 20'-360 s.f) meet all setbacks in the LR-IC zoning district. The proposed residence and detached garage meet structural and hardcover coverage requirements of city ordinances. The applicant was asked and did submit a grading plan for the proposal. However, at writing time of this report the city engineer had not reviewed the grading plan or provided comments. U2628 Roger Anderson 2200 ShadyHOod Road Variance 10/16/2000 Page / 4 I" K > 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. 2. The lot has an existing residence on the property. The properties sunounding the applicant’s lot are undersized and most do not meet the required area in the zoning district. Most lots are 50' wide. 3. The applicant’s proposal will be developed consistent with the locality. 4. 5. 6. 7. The proposed development would conform to setback requirements. The proposed development would conform to all lot coverage and hardcover requirements. The lot is provided with sanitary sewer. Does Planning Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of variances from lot area and lot width. Also, the grading plan will need to be reviewed and approved by city staff prior to going to City Council. #2628 Roger Anderson 2200 Shadywood Road Variance 10/16/2000 Page! VII Afari ■iiii iiiiwi itibri rtTfi^aun ... II ■■.■‘■1.—■- ------------------------------- , ANALYSIS CITV* OF ORONO - VaRLVNCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance tor non-conforming structures S250.00 After-the-Faci Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address________2200 XI ApphcatioD tf <2-^ ^ ^ Date Received H "XO Amount Paid CO Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) " /7- //7> Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired Z^OOO I (do not) also own the adja^t parcels of land. Present- use of property: )( residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:__________ .(month/year) APPLICANT p ^ . Name_____Koje*. 0 rr\.oo,iAAddress: Phone (home) i ____Phone (work) Cirv:Zip: jrs‘331 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____ Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) Citv:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ‘ ___________________^ Estimated Constmetion Cost S Qfio I ’Q.X* d/ jaA<jc. ^ /c'J (attach additional sheets if necessary)v>o VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area X Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Cov Average Lakesho Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difiQculty or unumal property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:____PVmT wc /o'{ /i —______________' (attach additional sheets if necessary) MyVWQNVl ivpiQf^ ONnoj my* IHOiSAll* ------------ o ‘‘ :»,n0lN03 » 6Z6 M31VM HOIH AHVNIOMO O .^yM d(H ino > ;nn-. W E W a/:# / .'7E--W f >» I 5 MVi'U I. j offy^ *^j<4Stf %5 r-r-m > n WAYz ro cn K)04 O)lO —•04 K)o 04 a\(D 04 cn u\ro CD cn mm^ > 55 in (/>(/)(/)in (/)in in 70 P p o•p p p p p p m > 'yX *n “n T1 ■n -n .-H •H ;H *H ;H —1 * % ^ /$’"'^y' ■ //$'ff/y - ^4^/, m / i //;i'i' V ..'V ®» 2 CD 01•Kl•» nT z lO o o si a r- H A o rr o A — #i* a 2 s«l?s. A A M « o o gd3 Q J|ll 9 s C o “*‘00o ^ » 5 zacs ?1S =* o y**=^* 0 (P 9- - 0A 0 0 *4» CT.Ss So Ml1** 0*- 9 f 3g 3□r 2 ^0 0 3n <A (S M 2« Jt T3r** -• M ^ 0^I ^ cj “ n ? o 3- m sS?3g &&I • X O I Si; oS m M VI % m m* MIM* MUM 0€CM» •« • •««•# a«vt BMi M mu *«»««• MM* MM« «• MC »l»l—MW MW IMl I M * MU* MWI»«WMt lac**!* umm Ml iMW « M »u« m MMwt* MW . #MM< M.«t M» iJilf ROGOI A. ANOCRSON ANO ASSOOA1CS MC 2200 SHAOYWOOO ORONO. MINNESOTA J Je R LLC PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS Ew m laMim»* I 2 OF 2 ct) iV** /'.—A ^ ^ /7 O i\ ** *• • f y a f ' H:4Imi Froa-CITY OF ORONO SETBACK ZOiXE: (CIRCLE Or«} EXISTING EARPCQV^ js n A. House ^9522494816 7S-2S0* / < H •X>V$ U*' •>’ t»f T-284 P.006/097 F-6B2 250-500' •in VTidih B. * ‘Gar^sc** • •• • • • • • C. Driveway D. Sidewalk hccjc. E. Pj^o/DeCIc F. Ijandse^e Undedtia By Plutie Or Fabric G. QAcf X X X f . . ••X X X X X X X X X . .• • . SS" 500-1000' _S.F. .S.F. S.F. - S,F. S.F. I S.F. S.F. .S.F. ______S.F. _____S.F. _____S.F. _____S.F. ___L1S.F. t O ± total hardcover im zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ . % B , .33.lf ‘0^ X100 ; • • • • PROPOSED H.ARDCQVER TN~ ynvp A. Home _____ ______ , __S.F. _______ S.F. 38//.^^ S.F. ~A./> % Leo^ch WldJh X X B. Garage C. Driveway p. Sidewalk E. PadoTDeck F; Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric •• X X X G. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • A ______________ ♦ B A B S.F. . xlOO - S.F. S.F. A S.F. 5 % • . ;• . •• lt:4lu Fror<ITY OF ORONO 5ETBA.CK za:^(x;; (CIRCLE Of«5)0-7S' EXI^G HARDCOVgR 7^ A. House Len|th X X X B. ' •Garase*' « • • • ~ — • • . • C. Driveway i . • • • X X D. Sidewalk /Z. X X E. ?acio/Deek Z^' x:X X F. Ludse^e Uadeciiin By Fiaaiie Or Fabric X X X lOtLLO. Ocher total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •• /^c ^ T PROPOSED HARDCOVF.P Tv vnvp A. House Ltofch WU(h X X X B. Garaje C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E« Pado/Dcck , • X X F. Landseape Underialo By Plasctc Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ‘ A - ^37Z^ B f5V>/ xlOO ^0522494616 T-284 250-500' P.006/007 F-662 500-1000* •• •• •• S.Fww* ~ ^!5 S FS. 2-'4-0 S.F V __S.F. S.F.• . . •. •• 0 •• V:--^• • • • • •••. • • • •.: ‘ zz.^ *. S.F. S.F.• 1 4 'ZZ'^S.F.iT'13 •S.F. IL • S.F.4'S.F. •f • 3 • Z./S.F. m S.F. «■V.■ ■ -SF. • • //S.F. /!5'c ^5.^S.F. .7S7?/. X 100 9SaA 68 S.F. *SI r. { 5- ^ S.F. A^ S.F.Cl r i >\ , ■\ T S.F.VVi! S.F. S.F/^’ .--w. S.F/^i;:%' S.F^l'^«:\ ’ y/7 • • ■ a /S 7 • S.F. * ‘ \ S.F. 3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. L£&."W S.F. S.F. f. A 6 • •* • • • M:4tu Frot-CITY OF ORONO SETBACK ZOrVE: (CIRCLE ONi;)0-75' 49522414616 75-250* EXISTOfG HARDCovyry^ js Ti A. Hotue T-284 P.006/007 F-662 (^50-50^500-1000' • • VTidih S.T. X X X B. ’ Garaje* ’• • . * * . ^ • C. Driveway ___3^ .. S.F. -S.F. S.F. ■••• ZA- • • 3S- D. SldewaDc E. Pado/Deck F. Liadse^e Uodedain By Flascie Or Fabric C. Other 4^ X X X X X X X X X Jo 3^0 /O 3. S" -_S,F. • • • — S.F. _S.F. — S.F. — S.F. — S.F. — S.F. — SJ. — S.F. ■ • 's:f. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - -----^ B ■ .7Sr4^'4<^ X lOQ : • * • • PROPOSED HARDCOVER m 7.0^^ • A. Hoiue w Z./*TL S.F. S.F. S.F. 74 f. A B Lcofth WUdi B. Garage C. Driveway p. Sidewalk • • £• Pado/Deck F. lJuidfeape Uoderlaln By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X 36>c' "7^ S.F. ‘ ;y S.F. S.F.) Q S.F: ^ , S.Fr^, - S.F. " S.F. S.F. G. Ocher S.F. total HARDCOVER IN ZONE ’ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ’ A - + B 5S4^ 4^ xlOO _ S.F. '.4$'~S.F. ^ y. A B tii F' II Ii rid V • "Wirw-^r ■ I , \ ) i 1 ' !H i ¥ i •n .4 f • t*•» • •s? */• •• 7 •«• 4 ;^vi a\**ft" a0 f ! « 9 i‘. f?^2 t?'-t ’4 7 *4 «.• •i I •! •• . I h .v • • . 0*"» sS^4 ^ ^ N»** !;^i:*mi ft t iV f .•» •« ;: »4 52 13 i) -g ncjc iH? d Pr •I 1 3 » c On ty> —I >n oz mz >znm m ,TI O y)o noz —I .*ijon LOo Xmac f“m lOHa »I 51 i Ml Jt • SJ 2:j ft.*S I Isr; 15 M Msu S H t s m Yt Ml V Ml Ia i ^ «ri ."’a I" “??! H ilj t! H’®v 'U SS «2 -3 !l 3 ;?7 «4S'- *55« 4-Sj u 5 <.r>:s “V?- 5 ?•?.<* .-xo,.oo- 3^;;. iliJpISp v‘*b5*‘J ‘<?5 o 5iy'^3)iVMl0m IS.? s 1»* |ii'‘{t8S 5.?2¥ m N-.111 a ifSi’ ys3-*- '-a *ts q"S ®l <1? * 4 t|s ba“ S»- o .JO * ^ ^ X M G - -X ^ ^r,y 7».r.^-l^' -,;^ 5=-.V. *V 'o-. ^.\ ■ -»».'■.■«.-y A*'*’ <5^ -A/- _ C S C:\ YXrri Gcvrr./ F.’ F.h 1 ’-V', A^ % 7 *-< ,7^1 S r 1 •■;_...., . • - »%• l irV ^ ;'.T-.Vv'j’ V\* /A-l 17-111' ^3 ?2- 9pi CM <N cn CO (140)^ 5Q _5Q_50 ^ 5CLiJ5Qi5Q- <M 1st CN cm3<^ ^m CO fo -w- ^ CM <N CM CM -• • - fo n CO CO _ - ^, 1^ 1^ ^r• 17^ 1»- 1»" 20*- 21«- 2J M 24 (35) (1501 I (148) (40) (41)j(42) 7/ CM (4l) 80 sol so' so 50. SQ-IsO—50 _5(L-jO 5Q1..5QJ LIVINGSTON AVE 50 ~50 ■ 50rt 5>1 50T SfiT SOo' 50n 5a»‘BffT'SJh. n S S S S 2 .s s s 5 12 11 1(T O'" i", 7'" O'* 8"" 3— 2 1 , ig‘l? *-11* ir 13 15"(17) ' !‘’V50 ’ ' 50 so' so mJ’Im l~50 “ 50 5^ 5(Vf 5(h 5%i 50 13 i5 l5 1^, 5B> 50> 50i oiJq 0«L ,5 .5S .^.2^]? (•5) ^ .•• '.*N i .1 RUN DATE Rf/lS/OO BATCH 50A HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE 28 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 17-117-23 A2 8002 02232 SNADYWOOD RD RICHARD LEE KOKESH RICHARD L KOKESH 2232 SMADYWOOO RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 92 0003 02224 SHADYWOOD RD S GRIFFIN 8 T FERGUSON SUSANNE GRIFFIN THERESA FERGUSON 2224 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0004 02218 SNADYWOOD RD S A KEEFE i W R KEEFE S A KEEFE 8 W R KEEFE 2218 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 17-117-23 42 0005 02208 SHADYWOOD RD B L BENNETT 8 H E BENNETT . BARRY L 8 MARY ELLEN BENNETT 2208 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0008 02200 SHADYWOOD RD V W YOUNG ETAL VINCENT W YOUNG 2200 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0007 02190 SHADYWOOD RD R F POTAS ET AL CO-TRUSTEES RONALD F POTAS 2190 SNADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 r PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 17-117-23 42 0008 02184 SNADYWOOD RD GEORGINA L HACKNEY GEORGINA L HACKNEY 2184 SHADYWOOD ROAD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0133 02205 SHADYWOOD RD T D NULST 8 D D HULST TIMOTHY D 8 DENISE D NULST 2205 SNADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 42 0009 02178 SHADYWOOD RD CBS ANDERSON CURTIS ANDERSON 2178 SHADYWOOD ROAD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0134 02199 SHADYWOOD RD COLLIN F REESE COLLIN F REESE 2199 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0132 02213 SHADYWOOD RD SCOTT A BRENER SCOTT A BRENER 2213 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0135 02195 SNADYWOOD RD JOHN H ANDERSON JOHN H ANDERSON 2195 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 38 17-117-23 43 0143 02227 SNADYWOOD RD GEORGIA J SPAULDING GEORGIA J SPAULDING P 0 BOX 31 SPRING PARK HN 55384 38 17-117-23 43 0144 02229 SHADYWOOD RD P A DONELAND P S R HERZ PATRICK A DONELAND SARAH R HERZ 2229 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 504 00014 r r f • \ .iy- • • 9y » • • .• J .1 :)•!# CA Permit No ^SHI 3bOt PERMIT RECORD Date 'I bS- “1- \^-l\ Sr-i^-ro Type of Permit 5*<ira/g?g H-._____ G ARABS' UJ. /r>gr^/g-f- Aoo*<ru^ ./nfeCii Application Date: 9/20/00 60 Day Deadline: 11/19/00 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:October 11,2000 SUBJECT: #2629 Keith Nord 1245 Lakeview Avenue Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 14,490 s.f. (.33 acre) List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H Application Survey/Site Plan Plat Map Front Elevation View Structure Dimensions Site Photo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Owners Notification List Application Summary: The applicant requests variances to permit construction of a one stall garage attached to the existing residence. The existing residence was constructed in 1958 prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Required setbacks for the property are 50' from the front property line, 50' from the east property line, 30 ’ from the west property line and 50' from the rear property line. Variances requested are to permit the garage addition 26' from the front property line where 50' is required and 6' from the east property line where 50' is required because the east line is adjacent to a platted, undeveloped street. A site plan showing the property and setbacks is attached as Exhibit B. Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.28 - Setback Standards for the RR-IB Zoning District «2629 Keith Word 1245 Lakeview Avenue Variances Page I Surrounding Properties: The property is located in the Crystal Bay neighborhood where most lots are similar in size and dimension to the applicant’s property. A platted, but undeveloped, alley is located immediately east of the property. The City of Orono has no intension to open the alley for construction of a public right of way. The alley is used for utilities (overhead electric poles). Hardship: The house was built 29.8' from the front property line in 1958, before the 50' setback for new construction was adopted. The house was placed on the lot with the sides being parallel with side lot lines and 29' from the front propert>’ line. No addition could be placed on the house without requiring variances. The existing floor plan and driveway location favors placing the garage where it is proposed on the plans. A platted, but undeveloped 12' alley is located along the east property line. With a 6' setback proposed to the side lot line and the additional 12’ of right of way there would be a total of 18' to the nearest residential property. Vacation of the alley was discussed. It is the position of Staff the entire neighborhood should jointly apply for a vacation of the alley. If the alley were vacated at some time in the future, 6' would go to each adjacent property owner. Utility easements would be required over the entire 12' because the alley is used for utilities. There would be 12' between the center of the alley to the comer of the proposed garage addition. Typically, staff will recommend a minimum 10' setback for lots under Vi acre in the RR-IB, two acre zoning district. Lot Coverage: The property is allowed 2,173.5 s.f. of stmctural coverage. The total structure would be 1,590 s.f. No variances are required for lot coverage or hardcover. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application for variances to permit construction of a one stall attached garage with second level living space based on the hardships noted above. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table. 4. Other action. *2629 KeiUi Nord 1245 Lakcvicw Avenue Variances Page 2 4 Application # ^ G Z 'I Date Received ^QO Amount Paid ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conformin g structures S250.00 Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION , Site Address --------7 Property Identification Nunber fP.T.D.'^ /D/i ‘7<P,'.?/ ------ A.ttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: >C residentid ___pother (specify). Zoning District:_ applicant , Name j/t,it% k Address;.37oyS%c-^/. w O''. Phone - __________ ____ Phone y^work'^ 6 t Z- H^/ /o/ o — r.itv: ________Zip:__si±2jj. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Z)ivc 4- S^-lcJC-‘4.C /M > ^ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address: / i ^ S’ L->k.e^'.t^ /?»/.City: O r f AC Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST __ •• ' _________________________________________________________________- (attach additional sheets if necessary) C\ ce variances required Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side . \ Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of unusual property CONDITIONS ^ Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or imusual property con i P compliance with Zoning Code requirements;. (attach additional sheets if necessary) DAT LAINu IvniNINC-I wiNf\y-v HENNEPIN COUNTY. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 17 and 18. Block 1. MAXWELL'S ADDITION TO CRYSTAL BAY LAKE MINNETONKA ^ o li '7 /^^\\ (■" • ‘ M. '•■1 P <l J denotes iron marker BearinQS shown are based upon an assumed datum This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachrnents. 0 -ill-9(5-C 14016 O Osil14(g O 140 55 9v 14 140 lO 13\,'14ft> ®'(73) 140 ^ (72)140® MINNETONKA AVE T?0 I 140 « lycRVsTALN 11 2 >J g .V? '^^2 9 14(b'~ 4 14tb •!?{ (371 A ^dn1 % JV8 14C? v' 8\{36) \_ _1.341.s i ^5 m j 7 V' 6 ^ —: o140 i (35)14a 1 CRYSTAL AVE 122 1 90 £‘^LS 1 ^ S118.9 ^ (18^1 § (16) S (103) *1, «2(17)i^ / ir> tri #0^5 O D iM Kta .mKmt t < i , 5 i U ■ i /•2'-;‘3 L\f-LK ■Cl'. it/It m■u^M na'gnra*?i/fn m \ “ I .::a^L’ ^ .'s.. mmmm e}> • ; %» fcirtll ' • ,flesi^^«;'i?-‘v>: .. ■ «i^''• - % 'UI m- »•>' . • » ^SSmSSi^ ■' *■ iiBi/ • *• . •-^- •/. • - ii' •. • vV^^ * ' •Jc'Tf: : •• "S >.- ?9,0?OSEP Aot>\TlC.Ni L 0<Lf\T\0^ hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ 250-500’ 0, 500-1000’ EyrSTTNC HARDCOVER IN TONT A. House Length width B. ' Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pado/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X 5B aj 3r J^sO X X X X X X X X X / X /s //9 /3 yyz '9 -Jis- TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ______ + B /y^90 jiypS' + B /yy9o yy990 X ICO - X ICO -yp /_ PROPOSED HARDCOVER TN 7.n>nr A. House _____ Lenfth Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other / f -5-i5» X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -5^ + B X ICO - SR. (2> SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. ® SR. SR. ^ S.F. SR. ^ SR.(g) R. ® R.(^ SR. S.F. S.F. SR. S.F. % A B SR. S.F. S.F. SR. S.F. SR. S.F. SR. S.F. SR. S.F.» • S.F. SR. ,SR. SR. S.F. __I SR. Voy % B 1 RUN DATE *9/12/00 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 10-117-25 20 OOIB Olios WILLOW DR S BETTE PERL BETTE PERL 1105 WILLOW DR S WAYZATA NN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATIOH SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SB 10-117-25 20 0*19 *1220 LAKEVIEW AVE DOUGLAS PAUL SCHNOOR B WIFE DOUGLAS I NORMA SCHNOOR 1220 LAKEVIEW AV WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI05S001 PACE 1 SB 10-117-23 20 0*20 *1105 BROWN RO S DARREN K I SHELLEY L KNOP DARREN K 0 SHELLEY L KNOP 1105 BROWN RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 58 10-117-23 20 0021 01205 LAKEVIEW AVE LESLIE A HANSON LESLIE ANN HANSON 1205 LAKEVIEW AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 58 10-117-23 20 0022 01212 ARBOR ST J R CADY 0 S R CADY S R CADY 0 J R CADY 1212 ARBOR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 20 0023 01225 LAKEVIEW AVE W A JOHNSON t A N FARNHAM W A JOHNSON KAN FARNHAM 1225 LAKEVIEW AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 10-117-23 20 0020 01205 LAKEVIEW AVE DAVID N BENSMAN DAVID N BENSMAN 1205 LAKEVIEW AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0060 *1205 BROWN RD S ROGER A DAY ROGER A DAY 1205 BROWN RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 51 0065 01223 BROWN RD S CURTIS R OUAOY ETAL CURTIS OUAOY BOX 127 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 10-117-23 31 0*66 *1201 BROWN RO S H T BROWN ONE BROWN MONICA T 0 MICHAEL E BROWN 1201 BROWN RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 58 10-117-23 31 0069 01230 ARBOR ST P C MARTIN I C H MARTIN P C MARTIN B C M MARTIN 123* ARBOR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 58 10-117-23 51 *099 0120* ARBOR ST L S KENNEN B J H KELLAR LEONARD S KENNEN JANICE M KENNEN 1223 ARBOR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWISR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR total BATCH 501 00012 I » I?i.Jr r ^ J V '• i •• 1 -* / TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administratcr/Planner October 16,2000 SUBJECT:#2630 Gregg and Stephanie Larsen 1380 Rest Point Road Variance/CUP — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 14,500 s.f. (.33 acre) List of Exhibits A Analysis Worksheet Application and Letter of Request Site Plan/ Survey E.xcerpts from Comprehensive Plan City Engineer’s Letter Hardcover Calculations and Map Plat Map Location Map Photo of Property Propert>' Owner’s List Permit Record B C D E F G H 1 J K Retaining wall 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]). 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]). Patio project as proposed requires the following City approval: 1. Hardcover in 75-250 ’ zone for patio (10.22, Subd. 2,10.56, Subd. 16[L][2]) Application Summary: The application proposed is two fold. First, the applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to replace existing retaining walls. There are currently three retaining walls within the 0-75’ setback. The applicants are proposing to combine the upper two walls as one and keeping the lower one (closer to the lake) making two walls rather than the three that currently exists. Retaining walls are considered hardcover, therefore a variance is also needed for hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area. The second part of the application is to construct a brick patio on the lakeside of the existing residence replacing a wood deck that the applicant removed. The patio will be approximately 12‘ X 30' and a smaller part to be 3' x 10' for a total of approximately 387 feet. The deck removed was 10’X 13.5’(135 s.f ). U2630 Gregg/Stephame Larsen 1380 Rest Point Road Variance/CUP 10/16/2000 Page I ' 1 L The replacement and combination of the retaining walls will reduce the hardcover coverage in the 0-75' zone from 922 s.f. (12.2%) to 882 s.f. (11.7%). Applicants have no intent to remove the shed and ramp which account for 3.7% of the 0-75' total. The lakeside patio of approximately 278 s.f. will increase the hardcover coverage in the 75- 250' zone from 5,811 s.f. (64.2%) to 6,098 s.f (67.4%). The applicants have already reduced the hardcover coverage by removing landscape plastic under rock. However, there still is a considerable amount of landscape fabric in the 75-250' zone.(According to survey). Removal of the landscape fabric (1,727 s.f) would reduce the amount of hardcover from 5,811 s.f (64.2%) to 4,371 s.f (48.32%). Comprehensive Plan; (Retaining Walls) 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 consistent. Without the retaining walls in the 0-75' zone erosion would be a problem. See attached excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and views on altering shoreline areas. (Exhibit D). Engineering ReviewtfRetaining Walls) The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering standpoint and recommends new retaining walls be constructed on the site between the home and the lake. It is his opinion that the existing retaining walls should be replaced. (See Exhibit E). He also notes the unpredictabilit>' of boulder walls as compared to other wall types. 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. Will granting of the variances alter the essential character of the land? 2. Is lakeshore erosion at this site substantial as to warrant the retaining wall system proposed? 3. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone ;s ov: • what is allowed, should the patio square footage be limited to the square footage of the deck which e.xisted on the property? (Removed deck -135 s.f versus proposed patio - 387 s.f). 4. What is the visual impact of one 4' retaining wall as compared tot he existing two 2' walls? What degree of screening should be required? #2630 Gregg/Stephanie Larsen 1380 Rest Point Road yariance/CUP 10.16/2000 Page 2 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation; Retaining Walls: Based on the goals and policies cited in City of Orono Community Management Plan and opinion of the City Engineer, staff recommends approval of variance and conditional use permit to replace the existing retaining walls in the 0-75' setback area. Planning Commission should address vegetation/screening requirements. Patio: Staff recommends approval of a variance to build a patio of area no greater than the deck that previously existed (135 s.f.). Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances and conditional use permit for wall replacement per staff recommendation. Recommend approval of variance for patio per staff recommendation. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table for further review or further specific information, advising the applicant what other possible revisions will make the application acceptable. 4. Other. 1^2630 Cregg'Stephanie Larsen 1380 Rest Point Road Variance/CUP 10/16/2000 Page 3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; LR-IB Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 14,500 s.f. (.33 acre) Hardcover Calculations; Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'7,533 s.f.0 s.f. (0%) 922 s.f. (12.2%) 882 s.f. (11.7%) 75-250’9,046 s.f.2,261.5 (25%) 5,811 s.f. (64.2%) 6,098 s.f. (67.4%) Replacement of the retaining walls lowers the hardcover coverage in the 0-75' zone. The addition of the patio increases the hardcover in the 75-250' zone. However, there is 1,727 s.f. of landscape fabric in the 75-250’ zone. If this is removed the hardcover would be reduced to 4,371 s.f. or 48.32%. ■ /? ■ 3 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S150.00 (no change 6om original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION . Site Address __ Property Identification Number A tn Qt^nlioafinn TIOt incIllQ6Cl Application # ^ ^ Date Received" ^ -'2^^ ~ OO Amoimt Paid ^ A.ttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. - "-(^erty Acquired _______ do^ no^^so own A^djacent parcels of land, use oforooerty: X ,(month/year) 'residential other (specify). Zoning District: U2. — \ g> APPLICiOT Name Addrc Phone (homel i^ g^e^vuw<-je^ Phone (work) U j ?, i s: 7 Av<. City: ------------Zip:.SSS3a_/-^ 1OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ \0,OoD .. ■So" __________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) V f VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side ^ Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore ^ Other (specify) t/\g ^ Q HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property wnditions preven g compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ---------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) To: The City of Orono From: Gregg and Stephanie Larsen RE: 1380 Rest Point Road - Retaining Wall Replacement To Whom It May Concern: We are requesting a variance for work to be done within the 75’ set back from the water on Lake Minnetonka. Our property currently has three retaining walls on the slope down to the lakeshore. The upper two retaining walls each average two feet in height with an approximately two foot terrace between them. The third, :^nd closest wall to the lake is about four to five feet tall. All the walls are about 75 feet in lengtii. The :*.:ls are constructed of a combination of railroad ties, limestone rocks and fieldstones. All three retaining walls arc in very poor condition. They pose a safety hazard for people in the yard and, eventually, they will fail and collapse allowing the yard to wash into the lake. We also have a deteriorating set of stairs on the slope to the lake. We are proposing to replace the existing retaining walls and stairs on the property. Our plan includes using 24 ”-36 ” boulders to build the walls. This would create a more permanent remedy for the situation. The ne retaining walls would be safer, and more aesthetically pleasing. The new steps would be constructed of a natural material such as cedar timbers or granite slabs, depending on our budget. Our goal for both items, if possible, is to reduce the overall amount of retaining wall and step area that is currently on the property. We are proposing to combine the upper two walls in to one four-foot wall. The lower w all would remain in the three to four foot range. We also propose removing permanently approximately two-thirds of the original steps. The slope of the land on the top portion of the original steps is such that the steps are not necessary. In fact, we have already removed most of the unnecessary steps. These proposals will reduce the overall hardcover on the property Thank you for your time, Gregg and Stephanie Larsen B • I * f To: The City of Orono From: Gregg and Stephanie Larsen RE: 1380 Rest Point Road - Patio Variance Request We are proposing to construct a brick paver patio on the lakeside of our home. The dimensions would be 12’ by 30’ running along the front of our living room with an additional 3’ by 10’ section in front of the porch. The area of the patio would not exceed 387 square feet. The patio would not encroach on the 75 ’ waterfront setback. Our current hardcover exceeds the maximum amount allowed. However, the new patio w'ill replace approximately 100 square feet of current landscaping (see photo atnchment). Also, we have recently removed approximately 278 square feet of hardcover that is not shown on the new survey (see photo attachment). This along with the 40 3 L___ o 7/117/23 LAK^kN. URLOti ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. S300S H«yNo^ 101 HiMCfonka. MN 55345 rho«ie(6t2)474 79M Fu (612) 474 X267 SURVEY FOR; GREGG LARSEN SUR\^3TDr Scplcfnbcf.2000 PRArtED; September 19.2000 REVISED: ScpMbv 20,2000 10 ihow cjusiing cooioiin. proposed rtutoiog wills, propoicd p«tio. LEGAL PeSCIUrTiOH; Lo! lead dw Wcslcrlp 40 fed of Lot 7, Subdiyisloo oTLoi 14, Rest Pouit Park, Lake Miondonko, SCOPE OF WOI^ I. Koptofoor ■od dbtedoo of boundary linn of dw above fepl deae riptioa Tlic ■ ndicr. Of comoR wkb conpdeni legal coonieL if ncocawy, ID HMhi mo dM R if conod. and dwi any HMant of rocord. such as easenwms, ibd yon wiab fbovd on dw nnwy, bovt b« 3. SddntnrwmoniHMnliorvortiyintoldanMHMniiionMrItibccotnmofdieieopcTty. 4. Tbonint and labolaiinj hard nrtr amt am irf ^ fr yrr rr-^r^ and for ibe review of • a\V at ty barf joriidiction over bard cover reqoiftrernts. STANDARD SYMBOLS A ***Denom l/TIDfipawMbplafiicpIof bcaria|Slale LkcmcNinabcr9235,sd,onksa CERTIFICAT10W; TberSibmby ccmfytalbiiMrvvy was prepared by me or ander my direct npeivitlon and that I am a fmfnsionai Eofiaear^nd^fisfetsional Samyor under die Laws of ike Stale of Minnesota. vwvt-. II P«licrF.e.AP3.No. 9235 j' n Ml «W on • IM. PMmnm An • •» GRAPHIC SCALE « m ( m me ) I mra • If II.4 •*-.* i ik i Job No. 01JJ2 animfmniMi UaiTiiiiI no n ■ s 5.'. 3/ w —100.07— V •«% '©j r»^ D PNVTRONKEtil JUNE, 1980 6. 7. the wetlands and marshlands of the city will be protected ^d p^ser^d Is WILDLIFE habitats, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza Study, the 208 Water Quality Management Study, and Orono's surface Water Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that require protection as part of the City's storm water management program. It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Management Plan. PROTECTION OF THE CITY’S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. i8.', PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitivi bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachmen 9. \ LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas-of soi .•or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection wi be encouraged. . 10. LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new chaivnels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian access where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the ^ control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner s desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds. CMP 3-20 JUNE, 1980 pf^yiRONMENI 11. © development or alteration of nOODPf ins will be ;ho”riLe ' of th. i: p«Lctea"by other pro- visions applicable to those areas filling or do exist on otherwise L ’ as to avoid flow restrictions, alteration will be strictly “perties, and to avoid costlyto avoid flood level increases on other propertxes, , flood damage or pollution dangers natural resource investigation will be^qui^d as !L«».tion, development proposals. This will otanl erosion control soil analysis, drainage Pi*"®' g^ch project, whether public , measures and similar '*1*^'^ ‘te^will be determined by Ior private. The extent of each *“=*> review required of probable environmental impact. Grea oroxiraity to Lake Minnetonka •larger projects than of tnd^oncern increaseor a major wetland increases, so will the care in direct proportion. 13.ON-SITE WATER RETENTION ^^^?j^^^^®|,^^nEVELOP^NT^PROJECTs'^WHENE residential, commercial STORM WATER RUNOFF necessary TO MAINTAIN OR Jf,HT. scope or hardcover PATTERNS. Whenever a development s * increase^the speed of would tend to increase the development will be runoff, or decrease the quality sufficient to maintaii required to provide on-site J®®i^tVlVLrrunoff by reducing ^JaSn:rrrtin:g:T.tr.ii:s^"=rbJ t^h^ritfadvetsely affecting storm water drainage. land use and development will not be permitted at the expense^w ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. No land "111^® ^“”^^ the proposed or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City tor :^e because of flood hatard, inadequate 0“I"»|®;^®°IL po^rtial, with severe limitations for developmen , or sewaqe disposal unfavorable topography, inadequate hVrVfVt to the health capabilities, or any other feature proposed subdivisior safety, or welfare of the future residents of the propos ^jfect or of the community. No land use will be ® ge be permittf the neighborhood's air or water resources nor *"y to emit noise, dust, electrical or radiation pollution. CMP 3-21 PNVTRQNMENTAL JUNE, 1980 15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL LAND ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each contractor will be required to minimize the probability of soil erosion on site and/or siltation damage downstream. The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways Fill must be compacted and stabilized for permanence. URBAN AREA POLICIES FOR NATIIRAI, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. 3. 4. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot widths will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will be established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover in proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover will be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline pursuant to Mn. DNR recommended shoreline practices. ALL EXISTING URBAN l^ETLANDS 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 existing marshes. CITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER QUALITY. Salt use for winter street treatment will be minimized. Snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites where they will not overload the natural drainage system or where foreign matter, especially salt, will not directly enter a marsh or lake. Jpring cleanup will promptly remove road sands and salts before environmental damage occurs. CMP 3-22 b ^ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& I Associates Engineers & Architects October 9, 2000 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik and Associates. Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principais: Otto G. Bonestroo. PE • Marvm L Sorvala, PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G. Schunicht. PE • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. Senior Consultants^ Robert W Rosene. PE. • Joseph C Anderlik. PE. • Richard E. Turner. P.E. • Susan M. Eberlin. C.PA. Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W. Foster. P.E. • David O Loskoia. PE. • Robert C Russek. A.I.A, • Mark A Hanson. PE. • Michael T. Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE. • Kenneth P ArkJerson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Dav.d A. Bonestroo. M B A. • Sidney P. Williamson PE.. LS. • Agnes M. Ring. M B A. • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE Offices: St. Paul. SC. Cloud. Rochester and Willmar. MN • Milwaukee. Wl NMebsite: www bonestroo com tL Wendy Bottenberg Assistant Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Larsen Retaining Wall File No. 139-2630 Dear Wendy: We have reviewed the proposed plan for retaining wall improvements to the Gregg and Stephanie Larsen property located at 1380 Rest Point Road. The plans call for the removal of existing stone and wood retaining walls and replacing them with boulder retaining walls. The plans also show the construction of a brick paver patio adjacent to the lakeside of the home. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters: • Silt fence should be in place prior to any grading or removal activities. • Boulder retaining walls should be constructed with angular rocks to provide wall stability. Boulder walls constructed with round rocks tend to lack stability, similar to stacking marbles. The wall design should incorporate a drainage filter material and drain tile behind the walls and be constructed with the proper batter to provide wall stability. • The area between the two new walls and any other disturbed areas should be seeded and covered with a fiber blanket immediately after grading to prevent erosion. Staked sod is an acceptable alternative to seed and fiber blanket if sod is available. • new walls shall not exceed 4-feet in height without an engineered set of plans submitted for review. • The plans should show proposed elevations for the patio and identify any associated grading. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District should review and approve the plans. 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 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET F 75-2f0’250-500'500-1000' pyiSTTNC. HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House _______________ 51 Length Width X X X Shed B. "Cx^age- C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E- Palio/Deck X X f^eV. u)<xUs F. taadsespt* ___ Underlain ___ By Plastic X X X VJcoA S-Veps, G. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total AR^ >N ^ pPOPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________^ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. ■PatoflBeek ’ ---- ^ X A^AA- ^ * F. -Irfwdscape. ____________* Und^ .ain_____________ * By Plastic ______ — ^ G. Other TOTAL HARDCO'/ER IN ZOf-T total PROPERTY ajiEA IN h, o^ n B f S X 100 S.F. vS.F. " S.r. S.F. 7rz.c^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. 5 F. ________S.F. S.F. Q 4 • I C-4 S.F....I •• S.F.nsssis-f- 12.2 _% B:' .... <•■t S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ”. *. fV. .i% *\V S.F.fc S.F. SJ. SI. SI. S^T, S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. ST. ST. aii2L^s.F. A B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House ______________ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 0-75*250-500' Length width B.Garage C.Driveway D.Sidewalk E.Paxio^eck F.Landscape Underlain Fabr.’C G.Other X X X X X X X X X X X X 500-1000’ 7.S1S sj. 1 'bS vS.F. ___________SJ. S.F. S.F. \ S.F. SI. \1Z2 iHS TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE QgblV + B ^ OAb X 100 Fig>n SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. <f\r\AC^ S.F. A B ppnpnSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk ■ E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other Pcs.4nO X X X X X X X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3S1IZ—s.f'S.F. lev ®— loo X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone + B ___X 100 S.F. ______2s.f. __________^S.F. ___________S.F. ’ S.F. U S.F. C.7.4 % A B 01-HI' HENN Imfj B (25) (24) (56) ;ove;=^^0 «• \s; c^.i ^MINN** \ (28) Tj .(18) '{>■(17) ^ C '"^.15 >Tv .(31V (16) (38) [ M 5 _________\ loo) \ * \ _■ e ^ (^U-N N aflf lw . . ; “ A ij 82.6/ (19) G- ■II io‘-j: Fia T'cint 'fScACi • t . RMk. fT 1 M . • :'£5 =m: *i L>^ •t-jlm « ^-4. -tjfTi^ 7 ' M>r V'^> :^ mmf mm -7*^Vv 'rr* • V'■ • ■ - 4 • '■*r; •.• . ^ A-*--.: I J ^V*; >, 4!>K;/Vjti^u 'Mm r,' I ■:i JL- 'X i?c=^i PcAvf f^cnd KiVi.;-:<r.;V'* ’'>'•** ^.-t* •• ^ r":' .'•"■. . ■ • • V . Es^: -1 #4?%=V ’ .' ,X ^-i 'Ai'.- :1 VIo i-' t‘;!r:' \, ./'^, i:?/- i- ' ?'••’ i- • ■ vJmi —— ^ ' ■ T*•III fK:. V . ! ■.i‘‘ '' -:L' ' "■ M«» t-. ^ i»- . ’'J '-J-'-'' ^ '* ■ " ffi'i ^Em^f iv^>*; '» ' /»• » • /A- -»- ■ ‘. r "* # ^‘■'r ■ *;f • ’^Z - -i. V. b RUN DATE 0V1A/OO HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI<iS5<lQl PACE 10 BATCH SOS PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 07-117-23 31 002A 01350 REST POINT CIR RICHARD L ANFINSON RICHARD L ANFINSON 1350 REST POINT CIR HOUND m 5536A PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 07-117-23 32 0031 01360 REST POINT CIR D A J BOIES JR DAVID B t JENNIFER BOIES JR 1360 REST POINT CIRCLE HOUND HN 55366 PROP ADOR OWl«R NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 07-117-23 32 0038 01373 REST POINT RD K E ANDERSON OAK KRAHER KIRK ANDERSON 1373 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55366 PROP ADOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 30 07-117-23 32 0061 01371 REST POINT LA KENNETH W 0 RENEE 0 EOOERT KEMffiTN W I RENEE 0 ECCERT 1371 REST POINT LA HOUND HN 55366 OWNER NAHi TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 07-117-23 S3 0002 01600 REST POINT RD DAVID A WILLIAMS ETAL DAVID A WILLXANS 1600 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55366 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR SB 07-117-23 S3 0005 01396 REST POINT RD PON HALSN PATRICK J WALSN 1390 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55366 • • • •• V 38 07-117-23 32 0002 01360 REST POINT LA J N HOUTHAN 6 K J HOUTNAN J H HOUTNAN 0 K J HOUTNAN 1360 REST POINT LA HOUND HN 55366 3B 07-117-23 32 0030 01310 REST POINT LA E 0 B C L REINHART ERIC D REINHART 1310 REST POINT LA HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 32 0036 01365 REST POINT RD THOHAS NICHOLAS BERSCHEID THONAS NICHOLAS BERSCHEID 1365 REST POINT MO HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 32 0037 01375 REST POINT RD H B 0 L K 6ERLICHER HICHAEL B 0 LYNNE CERLZCHER 1375 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 32 0039 01350 REST POINT RD LOS CRABILL LARRY 0 SHARON CRABILL 1350 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55366 SB 07-117-23 32 0060 01366 REST POINT RD J K LANCHANS 0 S LANOHANS JANES K 0 SHEILA LANCHANS 1366 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 32 0062 01356 REST POINT CIR B A SCNE8LER B S B SCHEBLER B A SCHEBLER B S B SCHEBLER 1356 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 33 0001 01610 REST POINT RD ROBERT e BREDESON ROBERT C BREDESON 15 E ST ALBANS RD HOPKINS HN 55305 30 07-117-23 S3 0003 01606 REST POINT RD L R NORN B H NORN LESTER R B HYRTLE HORN 1606 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55366 SO 07-117-23 33 0006 01398 REST POINT RD L K JOHNSON B C B JOHNSON LYLE K JOHNSON 2737 IRVINC AVE SO HPLS HN 55600 -9 38 07-117-23 S3 0006 01306 REST POINT RD J T NYCARD B K H NYCARD J T NYCARD B K n NYCARD 1386 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55366 SB 07-117-23 33 0007 01380 REST POINT RD 0 J LARSEN BSD LARSEN STEPHANIE B B CRECC J LARSEN 1380 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55366 RUN DATE BATCH 503 HEW4EP1N COUNTY PROPERTY ZNFORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. Pl<«35^01 PAGE 11 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 S3 0009 01395 REST POINT RD B CAVENOER ft C CAVENDER BARBARA ft COLLINS CAVENDER 925 WINOENORE CURVE PLYMOUTH HN 55991 38 07-117-23 33 0010 01905 REST POINT RD C CAVENDER ft B CAVENDER COLLINS CAVENOER ft BARBARA CAVENOER 1905 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55349 38 07-117-23 33 0011 01385 REST POINT RD D W ft J L RAHN DAVID W ft JODI L RAHN 1385 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55349 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER ' NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 33 0012 01379 • REST POINT RD G R BLOOM ft T A BLOOM GEORGE R ft THERESA A BLOOM 1379 REST POINT RD HOUND HN 55349 TOTAL BATCH 503 00022 %. % r \i i Z CIRTXFV THAT THE FACTS REFIIESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF ZNFORNATION AS If APPEARS THZS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHEHT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE REST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE PERMIT RECORD /?cac/ Permit No, 3^3 3$33 l^/gb toga 3 ‘<S'0 ygo7 .S'?,/ 'V? * / •• It Date 6-?y /a-7g ll'7S ^-7{, V-77 i'a '>:•? //■-/■ r? Type of Permit gCugR M .^JlC /jLTtz/09r?<3A/3 A^^rrydAT TO PSTtf*^ ^ 5^: 6/7^/^6£~ f f^EtTiOOEl » a^Al9JAtT€r 0-dA- ■T/Vul^ /f /~f?r 7 ■ - / 2). MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jay Nygard, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Sandra Smith, and Daniel Kluth. The following represented City Staff: Senior Plaiming Coordinator Michael Gatfron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representatives Richard Flint and Bob Sansevere were present. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2596 BRFNSHELL HOMES, 1181 WILDHURST TRAIL, SUBDIVISION, 6:31 p.m. - 7:5A p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Steve Behnke and Tom Stokes of Brenshell Homes were present. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed by the City Council at their last week, who requested to have this matter sent back to the Planning Commission due to some revisions in the plan. This property is located at 1181 Wildhurst Trail, with a request for a five lot subdivision of a seven acre site. Weinberger stated the major revision to the plan were a result of some concerns and questions by Cit>' Staff and residents regarding some sensitive environmental features within the plan located by the ravine area on the south side along Lot 2, with the steep slopes, drainage, and erosion the primary concerns. Staff had requested the location of the houses on Lots 2 and 3 be relocated in order to help protect that area. The Applicant has responded to these concerns and has shifted the common property li.ie between Lots 2 and 3 Uventy feet to the north, which allows the building pads for both lots to be shifted slightly. The retention pond in this area has also been relocated further west to protect the mature trees in that area. Weinberger stated the total length of the proposed road to this development has been shortened by 40 feet, which allows the building sites for Lots 2 and 3 to be located closer to the top of the hill and where the land is flatter allowing for a more usable back yard. Weinberger stated the primary ’ reason for relocating the building sites was the ravine located along the south property line of Lo» 2. The developer has created a drainage swale behind the building pads on Lot> 2 and 3 to redirect stormwater runoff from the houses to the storm water pond located on Lot I. fhe Applicant has also relocated the stormw’ater pond to the west to protect any mature vegetation around the ravine. Weinberger stated the revised plan also includes some regrading to help redirect storm water to the NURP pond located on Lot 5. All drainage from Lots 2 and 3 will be redirected towards the cul-de-sac where the drainage would enter the storm sewer and flow towards the northern NURP pond. The main sewer scrv'ice would be extended in Wildhurst to a point between Lots 2 and 3, PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (^2596 Brenshell Homes, Continued) with a utility easement 20 feet wide being granted between Lots 2 and 3 from Wildhurst Trail to the cuUde-sac and standard utility easements being granted over Outlot B to allow extension of service to Garden Lane. Staff recommends the placement of conser\’ation easements below the 1014 contour, which would help to protect the ravines and wooded areas along Wildhurst Trail. The conservation easement would be granted over the east half of Lots 2 and 3 to protect those areas from removal of vegetation and land alteration. The additional casements would protect the two drainage ravmes. Weinberger stated the plan before the Planning Commisson tonight docs meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for lots in the LR-IB zoning District, which is single family lakeshorc residential lots with a one acre minimum lot size. Each lot has a minimum of one acre. Weinberger noted the area for the drainage and ravines have been taken out of the calculations in determining dry buildable. Weinberger stated Lots 1 through 4 would access off the new cul-de-sac within Outlot B, with a driveway to be constructed off of the proposed extended Garden Lane, which would serve Lot 5. Variances to lot width for Lots 2 and 3 are required. In order to keep the street and the cul-de-sac from extending too far into the property. Staff had requested that the road be built as short as possible to lessen the impact to the area, to reduce the amount of hardcover, and to allow the houses to be built on the flatter ground. Weinberger stated the lot width requirement could be met by allowing the longer cul-de-sac. Weinberger stated extension of the walking path for people along Tonkaview and this development is being pr<;posed. Staff stated approval could be recomended on this application subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot width variances be approved for 2 and 3. 2. Drainage and utility easements be dedicated on the final plat 10 feet along exterior property lines and five feet along interior property lines, stormwater detention ponds located on Lots 1 and 5. 3. Drainage easements shall be dedicated for the lower ravine located on Lot 2 and a conservation and flowage easement shall be dedicated over die south portion of Lot 2 to ensure tlie higher elevations of the ravine are also protected. 4. A conservation easement be placed over Outlot A to protect the ravine from an\‘ land alteration and vegetation removal and over the east side of Lots 2 and 3. 5. Utility installation shall require directional bored lines under Wildhurst Trail and between Lots 2 and 3. 6. Subdivider shall satisfy all concerns and requirements noted in the letter dated August 15,2000, by Tom Kellogg, City Engineer. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 (#2596 Brenshell Homes, Continued) Steve Behnke, Brenshell Homes, stated they have made the revisions based upon the concerns expressed by the local residents and City Staff. Behnke indicated all the proposed lots in this ^ development exceed the one acre dry buildabic minimum. Behnke stated the revisions created a road 40 feet shorter, which results in less hardcover and less runoff. Additional protections have been given for the vegetation and trees in the area by the granting of conservation easements over those areas. Behnke stated all lots woulu meet the lot width requirement if the road itself was in front of the lots. Behnke noted lot width is measured differently for lots situated on a cul-de-sac. If the cul-de-sac were to be extended further into the development, Behnke noted this would result in all the lots meeting the 140 foot lot width requirement. Behnke commented in his view a shorter road would be more desirable due to the amount of hardcover being reduced. Behnke commented they have taken efforts to respond to the concerns raised by the neighbors, noting they have substantially reduced the amount of water runoff to the southern ravine and by reducing the amount of water runoff from Lots 2 and 3 and improving the water qualit>’. Behnke stated they are in agreement w ith the directional borings being requested by Stiff in this area to allow as little impact as possible to the site, and are in agreement with all six of the conditions listed in the Planner ’s Report. Behnke stated in his opinion all the conditions outlined in the Cit>’ Engineer’s have been complied with or will be prior to final plat approval. Behnke stated it is his understanding the trail would be credited against their park dedication fee to be paid on this development. Kathleen Kasprick, 1067 Linden Lane, commented she was confused why this application was back before the Planning Commission again. Hawn stated generally the City Council will send an application back to the Planning Comm:ssion when there have been revisions made in order to allow the citizens an opportunity to comment on those revisions. Kasprick inquired why variances need to be granted on this project. Kasprick inquired if variances do not need to be granted on this application, why Staff is recommending variances ' for this development. Kasprick stated in their view some of the issues have not been addressed completely, noting they still have concerns regarding the wetlands and water runoff in this area. Kasprick stated they are not opposed to development in this area, but would like to see a development that is done in accordance with Orono’s Ordinances. Hawn indicated the variances arc being recommended to help reduce the amount of hardcover in the area, improve the drainage, and to help protect the ravine. Hawn noted only the City Council has the authority to grant variances. Michelle Wickman, 4735 Tonkaview, presented pictures to the Planning Commission of the area, noting in her view this area best serves the community the way it presently is. Sandy Rasmussen, 1186 Wildhurst Trail, stated the residents in the neighborhood have PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 (^2596 Brenshell Homes, Continued) contracted the services of Barr Engineering to review this site, and she distributed the information Barr Engineering has generated as a result of their review. Rasmussen stated they have some confusion regarding the issue of the slopes and the steepness of the slopes, noting that the slopes range from 12 percent to 18 percent. Rasmussen stated only 9 percent of Lot 2 and 27 percent of Lot 3 have less than a 12 percent grade, with a substantial portion of those lots containing slopes greater than 12 percent. Rasmussen stated the shortening of the cul-de-sac and the positioning of these structures on these lots, in her view are out of sync with Orono’s Codes relating to land management, which requires that all possible soil erosion impacts be addressed. Rasmussen stated in her view the land management for this development are questionable, with only a small area of this site being suitable for development. Rasmussen stated the only reason for the variances is due to the shortening of the cul-de-sac. Rasmussen stated major issues relating to development of Lots 2 and 3 exist, which need to be further addressed. Rasmussen stated approval of the lot width variances for Lots 2 and 3 arc not consistent with prior variance approvals for lots situated on cul-de-sacs in her opinion. Rasmussen questioned the use of cul-de-sacs to avoid slope and land management issues. Rasmussen commented regarding the retention ponds, one of the ponds is located in an area where over half of the area has slopes in excess of 12 percent grade, with the other pond having 30 to 40 percent of the area also being in excess of 12 percent grade as well as a substantial portion containing over 18 percent slopes. Rasmussion questioned the viability of those retention ponds, and citing from the Barr Engineering report, stated that the t>pe of outlet being utilized will create high velocities, with no protection on overflows on Lots 2 and 5, with the small orifices prone to plugging and will provide a potential for erosion and failure of the berms Rasmussen stated if the ponds are allow ed to plug up, ultimately the ponds will overflow resulting in erosion and creating a significant potential for a flood, especially in light of the steep slopes in the area. Mark Jacobson, Barr Engineering, stated they have a concern regarding the small orifices being proposed for these ponds, noting they could easily become plugged, with no overflows being included in the design. Jacobson recommended some options be included in the design of these ponds to handle those concerns. Rasmussen stated another concern they have is regarding the elimination of the mature trees in this area, with the trees providing some critical stability to the slopes. Rasmussen stated they would like to see that issue addressed as well. Rasmussen commented the type of soils in this area should also be considered prior to approval of this development, noting that the soils in this area have not been adequately addressed in her opinion. Rasmussen requested drainage easements be placed over the swales, with provisions for long-term maintenance of these areas. Rasmussen also commented that in her view non-performance by the developer has not been adequately addressed as well as the visibility issue from Forest Lake Road. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 (^2596 Brenshell Homes, Continued) Tom Kellogg, City Engineer, stated the issue regarding the outlet was addressed in his August 15 memorandum. Kellogg indicated he has not reviewed any outlet structures proposed by the developer to the present time and is unaware of what the developer is proposing for these ponds. Kellogg stated Item U3 in his memorandum requires that the developer construct the ponds according to City standards, with proper skimming being provided. Kellogg indicated skimming will keep the submerged pipe from being plugged up with leaves or sticks. Proper sized orifices and skimming would be required on these ponds under Orono’s Ordinances. Kellogg noted an emergency overflow is also required on all ponds. Kellogg stated he does have some confusion because the plan that is being reviewed tonight is not the plan that he has reviewed. Kellogg stated the plan he reviewed dated 9/12 does address some concerns regarding the steep slopes by relocation of the pond to the north. Weinberger concurred that the pond has been relocated. Kellogg stated there is a 4.8 foot difference between the pond high water elevation and the basement for Lot 5. Rasmussen commented they were unable to update tlieir information due to not being provided current data from the developer, noting they have only been notified of the changes to^y. Tom Stokes, Brenshell Homes, stated they have revised their plan in accordance with the request of City Staff. Stokes stated they did provide a revised plan to the Citv last Tuesday incorporating the recommendations of City Staff and addressing the concerns of the residents. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, stated they have attempted to take into account the concerns of the neighbors by relocating the pond, with construction of a drainage swale behind Lots 2 and 3 to handle the water runoff. Gronberg stated normally on a preliminarv' plat you do not show all the details that would be required on a final plan. Gronberg stated they are intending to incorporate an emergency overflow in accordance with Orono’s Ordinances into the design of the plans. Hawn inquired whether the developer could subdivide this property without the need for variances and still meet City requirements. Gronberg stated a tvpical walkout slope is 18 percent. Gronberg stated there are some steep slopes in the area but the houses would not be impacting those slopes. Weinberger stated City Code does not prohibit building on steep slopes but only on bluff situations, which does not exist in this case. Weinberger stated the only variances for this development that are being requested are to lot width. Weinberger stated if the road were to be extended, the houses could be approved without the need for a variance. Rasmussen stated one of the issues they are raising with regard to this development has to do w ith both the steepness of the slopes and the soils in the area. Rasmussen stated the question to consider is whether this development is suitable for this area and whether the developer is able to address the erosion that could potentially occur as a result of the construction. PACES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (^2596 Brenshell Homes, Continued) Stokes reiterated that a standard walkout slope is 18 percent, with many developments existing in Orono with that type of slope. Dwight Affeldt, 4765 Tonkaview Lane, c.xpresscd concerns dealing with the diminished quality of life that will be experienced with this development and the increased amount of traffic on Tonkaview that will result from the additional residences. Affeldt stated currently 18 children under the legal driving age reside on Tonkaview, with a significant amount of cars utilizing Tonkaview rather than County Road 19. Affeldt expressed concerns regarding the safety of the children in the area, noting that the road has a large hill in the middle of the roadway which obstructs the view of the drivers. HasNU inquired whether Tonkaview Lane was a substandard road. Kellogg indicated that Tonkaview does not meet Orono’s current standards, with no immediate plans to upgrade the roadway by the City. S^rve Behnke stated as it relates to Lot 5, the building pad is located far enough from the lot lines to alleviate any concerns regarding that lot that the neighbors may have. Behnke stated a substantially oversized pond will be constructed in that area to reduce water runoff as well as improve water quality down the ravine. Behnke commented in his view the benefits to be gained from the construction of the retention pond outweigh any concerns that the residents may have regarding the removal of some trees in that area. Behnke stated according to documents provided by the City of Orono and his wetland specialist hired to review this area, there is no evidence to support a wetland in this area Behnke stated there apparently exists a dra\ving from 1997 that purports to show a wetland in this area, but to his knowledge there has never been a wetland delineation on this property. Behnke stated as part of the requirements for approval by the Watershed District, they are required to establish an agreement with the homeowner's association which mandates long-term maintenance of the ponds located within this development. Hawn commented the residen. appear to have a concent should the homeowner’s association not follow through with their responsibilities regarding the ponds. Behnke stated the Watershed District docs have a system in place to handle maintenance of the retention ponds should the homeowner’s association not provide the proper maintenance. HaNMi inquired whether a homeowner’s association will be created as part of this subdivision. Behnke stated there w*ould be one. Behnke stated a considerable amount of engineering has gone into this plan in an effort to reduce the water runoff and to address the issues relating to the slopes, which in his view have been adequately addressed. Lyle Rahn, 1147 Wildhurst Trail, requested that the minutes reflect that there will be a homeowner’s association created for this development which will be responsible for the long- term maintenance on this pond. PAGE 6 1 ** «-» »* ... - a,.,. - MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#2596 Brenshell Homes, Continued) Rasmussen commented it would be in the best interests of the conununity if an easement were granted over the ponds with the City having the responsibility to maintain them. Behnke stated they have provided their w'etland delineation report to the City as well as to the Watershed District, and it is his understanding that whichever report is accepted by the Watershed District, that is the one they must follow. Behnke stated as it relates to the public easement, it would reduce the buildable area of the houses given the current City ordinances. Behnke stated it is his u derstanding that the Watershed District requires a homeo^^’ner's association to do the long-term maintenance on the ponds. Hawn inquired whether the Watershed District has an inspection process to determine whether the ponds are being maintained adequately. Weinberger stated he is unsure whether the Watershed District has an inspection procedure that they follow at this time, but to his understanding they would respond to any complaints received. Weinberger stated the City is typically notified if there is a problem with a retention pond. Hawn noted she has been handed a 1997 report tonight prepared for LG A Investments by Scholl & Madsen. Hawn commented she has not had an opportunity to review the report at this time, but requested that it be made part of the City ’s record. Rasmussen stated that is her only copy and she would like to retain possession of it. Hawn noted the Planning Commission at this time does not know whether a wetland exists on this property or not. Kaspriek inquired when in the proeess the Watershed District reviews the wetland information. Weinberger stated the Watershed District reviews some preliminary information prior to approval by the City Council but that a final decision is usually forthcoming following preliminary plat approval. Weinberger noted the City lias not received any comments concerning this application at the present time from the Watershed District. Weinberger noted the only response received from the Watershed District at this time is that a watershed permit is necessary on this property. Stoddard inquired why variances were being recommended for approval on Lots 2 and 3, noting that a reduction in the cul-de-sac has been incorporated into the plan. Stoddard stated in his view this application should be tabled in order to more fully address some of these unresolved issues dealing with engineering and wetlands. Weinberger stated the concept behind shortening the cul-de-sac involves reducing the amount of hardcover as well as requiring less grading, especially in the areas that have been identified as being more sensitive by the City. Weinberger stated another reason for shortening of the cul-de-sac is that it enables the houses to be built on a flatter area. Weinberger commented that extension of the cul-de-sac would allow each lot to have the required amount of width, but in order to protect some of the environmental features associated w ith the land, it made sense to keep the road at the shorter distance. PAGE? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 (^2596 Brenshell Homes, Continued) Hawn commented it was also her understanding the shortening of the cul-de-sac helped to lessen the amount of grading that would be involved with this development. Stokes stated these lots are double fronting lots, with frontage along both Wildhurst and Tonkaview. Gronberg commented that there typically just has to be frontage along a public street. Gaffiron stated the City of Orono routinely grants variances to lot width for lots situated on a cul-de-sac in the one and two acre zones. Gaffron stated these lots do have substantial width in which homes can be constructed that will meet the required setbacks. Rasmussen inquired whether trees will be removed, and if so, how many. Rasmussen also inquired whether visibility would change from the road would change with the removal of the trees. Weinberger stated StafFhas viewed the site, but at this time are not aware how many trees would need to be removed. Weinberger noted a conservation easement w ill be placed over the most sensitive areas in order to protect the natural environment, with plantings being required in areas where erosion is likely to occur. Weinberger stated there will be tree planting once the grading is completed along the roadway, with vegetation being restored on the building sites. Kluth commented in his view the developer could proceed fonvard without a lot width variance but that the developer is working with the City in an effort to reduce the environment impact on this area. Kluth stated he is in support of the project. Lindquist stated he also is in support of the project. Hawn commented in her view the developer has worked quite hard with the City in order to minimize the environmental impact to this area as well as to comply with the City ’s regulations Hawn noted the developers have addressed all of tne concerns raised by the City Engineer, and in her view will be able to meet any concerns the Watershed District may have. Smith stated in her view she would like to see Lots 2 and 3 combined, noting that is a decision that would be up to the developer. Smith commented she feels the developer is addressing the concerns. Smith stated in her view she is unsure whether tabling this application would allow improvement over this plan. Stoddard stated the developer has submitted a better plan tonight for their consideration, noting that they have received some new information that he would like to review in more detail. Stoddard commented the Saga Hill area is a vcr> unique area and needs to be dealt with carefully. Stoddard stated he would be in favor combining Lots 2 and 3 and would move to table this application in order to review the information more closely. Nygard inquired what the worse case scenario would be if houses were built on Lots 2 and 3 w ithout the variances and w hether a drivew ay off of Wildhurst would be feasible. PAGE 8 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (^2596 Brenshell Homes, Continued) Weinberger stated Staff would prefer not to see driveway access off of Wildhurst due to the amount of grading that would need to occur as well as the amount of vegetation that would need to be removed. Weinberger stated driveway access off of Wildhurst would make the situation worse and would not allow stormwater to be managed or treated. Gafffon stated if the developer were able to build a driveway across the slope that would meet slope requirements, they could build one house with a long, steep driveway, which would not require a subdivision. If that should occur and this was not a subdivision, the City would not have the opportunity to require the developer to construct stormwater ponds, which arc needed in this area. Gaffron stated this level of development allows the City to require certain controls that they otherwise would not have if only one or two houses were to be constructed on this property. Stokes s;ated they have looked at gaining access via Wildhurst, but in their view the plan being reviewed tonight is the best possible plan for this site. Stokes requested the Planning Commission approve their application tonight. Kasprick commented in her view this is not the best plan and that the developer has not adequately addressed the water nmoff. Hawn stated the Planning Commission is here to review the plan that is before them tonight, with the developer having the right to appear before the Planning Commission with a plan to determine whether that plan meets City requirements. Hawn noted the City Engineer is comfortable with the steps being taken to address the water runoff and the drainage and erosion concerns being raised by the residents and the City. Hawn stated if the variances are granted on this subdivision, it would be to help reduce the drainage and not for any other reason. Hawn commented if the developer were to develop this land without the variances, the situation would be worse due to the additional hardcover and drainage issues that would result from a longer road. Haw n thanked the members of the audience for their input into this application, noting that the comments and concerns expressed by the residents has resulted in a much better plan for this area Stoddard moved, Nygard seconded, to table Application #2596, Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail to enable the Planning Commission to review the information provided during tonight’s meeting, with the developer addressing the particular concerns raised tonight. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 4, Hawn, Lindquist, Berg and Kluth opposed. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2596, Brenshell Homes, 1181 Wildhurst Trail, subject to the six conditions contained in the September 14,2000 Planner’s Report. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 3, Nygard, Stoddard and Smith opposed. Smith noted she is not opposed to the development but feel there would be a benefit to reviewing the additional information supplied tonight. Stoddard reiterated he would like to review the additional information prior to recommending approval. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 (#2596 Brenshell Homes, Continued) Hawn requested the wetland delineation report be included in whatever information is provided to the City Council for their review. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2615 GEORGE STICKNEV ON BEHALF OF GEORGE AND GLORIA JOHNSON, 879 BROWN ROAD NORTH, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, 7:50 p.m. - 8:08 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. George Stickney, Developer, and George Johnson, Applicant, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a rearrangement of a common property line for properties located at 879 Brown Road North. The properties have been under conunon ownership for many years. Lot 1 would remain a residential parcel less than the required minimum lot size for properties in the RR-IB district, with the lot line rearrangement resulting in an increase of Lot 1 by about 4,300 square feet to make it 1.1 acres. Weinberger stated the City Council did approve in 1997 sewer connection to Lot 2. Lot 2 would be decreased from 4.45 acres to 4.35 acres, with Lot 2 being the larger, undeveloped lot located to the rear of the property. Weinberger noted a good portion of Lot 2 is located below the high water level of Dickey Lake. Weinberger indicated the proposed revision narrows the frontage for Lot 2 along Brown Road from 50 feet to 30 feet, with a 30 foot platted outlot being required for front/back lot subdivisions when providing for driveway purposes only. Weinberger noted Lot 2’s status as a flag lot would not change. Weinberger stated a creek draining Dickey Lake exists along the north property line, with the creek being defined as a protected waterway and requires a 75 foot setback for structure and hardcover. The property also requires a 50 foot rear yard setback in this zoning district. By rearranging the lot line, this makes more of Lot 2 developable in the future as well as allowing a 30 foot corridor. Both parcels are subject to hardcover restrictions, with an adequate building site being available for Lot 2. Weinberger noted Dickey Lake has been classified as a Natural Environment Lake and requires a 150 foot setback for structure and hardcover. Weinberger stated benefits from the lot line rearrangement result in Lot 1 being able to meet the 200 foot minimum frontage along Brown Road, which it currently does not, and also maintain the two acre density on the rear property. City Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement as proposed subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easement ten feet along exterior property lines and five feet along interior propert>’ lines. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 (^2615 George Johnson, Continued) 2. Applicant shall provide to the City any documentation relating to easements on both properties. 3. Prior to City Council review three original copies of the survey completed by a licensed surveyor in the State of Minnesota shall be submitted, with signature blocks. 4. Drainage easement shall be recorded for the property below the 985.5 feet OHWL of Dickey Lake and over City protected wetlands. 5. Prior to Council review a title opinion addressed to the City shall be submitted by the property owners. 6. Accessory buildings shall be relocated to conform with Zoning Standards. Stickney stated the lot line rearrangement allows for the small lot to be made slightly bigger and to be oriented in the right direction. Stickney noted the creek provides a natural buffer between the two lots, with the lot line rearrangement enabling the properties to achieve the proper setbacks. Cotmie Gray, 819 Browm Road North, inquired whether any of Orono’s Ordinances would require a shared driveway to these two lots. Weinberger stated City ordinances do not prohibit a shared driveway but it is a decision the property owner would make. Weinberger stated any driveway would need to be located five feet off the property line. Stickney indicated they do not have any plans at this time to develop Lot 2. Stickney stated there are a number of trees along the property line which would shield the driveway. Hawn commented she does not have a problem with this application. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2615, George and Gloria Johnson, 879 Brown Road North, Lot Line Rearrangement, subject to the conditions outlined in the September 13,2000 Planner ’s Report. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#6) #2616 MINNETONKA CENTER FOR THE ARTS, 2240 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:09 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Jim Dayton, Tom Oslund, Gary Gleason, Roxanne Heaton, and Julie Holmquist were present on behalf of the Minnetonka Center for the Arts. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a new facility on their property located at 2240 North Shore Drive. The property has been used as an Arts Center since 1978. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 (#2626 Minnetonka Center for the Arts, Continued) The Applicant has indicated they need a new building due to increases in enrollment and attendance over the years. The existing building has structural problems with the foundation and the roof, with the mechanical systems being out of date. Hazards such as asbestos and lead paint are also present in the existing building. Weinberger stated the new facility consisting of approximately 30,000 square feet is proposed to be constructed north of the existing building. Upon completion of the new Arts Center, the old building would be removed. Issues for the Planning Commission to consider include building height, parking, construction schedule, curb cuts, driveways, parking areas, grading/drainage, off-street loading areas, lighting and landscaping, and the impact to the adjacent properties. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a cooling tower at 44.5 feet in height, which requires a conditional use permit. Section 10.75, Subdivision 1(A) allows cooling towers to exceed the 30 feet ma.ximum height limitation by 50 percent with a conditional use permit. Weinberger noted the majority of the building meets the 30 foot height limitation. Weinberger commented the Applicant will need to increase parking by two additional spaces to allow for a total of 74 parking stalls. The new facility is proposed to be constructed north of the existing building beginning in 2001, with the old building being removed following construction. The construction entrance is tentatively proposed to come from the east side at an entrance to access Briar Street. Staff has concerns with the construction traffic using a smaller residential street and recommends that all construction traffic be redirected to the south entrance to access North Shore Drive. Weinberger indicated the existing entrance is a horseshoe w ith two access points on North Shore Drive. The access points would be removed and each shifted outward towards the property lines, w ith the parking areas and driveways meeting the minimum setbacks to the propertv* lines. The Arts Center is proposing a crushed rock aggregate material rather than blacktop for the parking lots. Staff recommends bituminous surfacing for this area. The Applicant is proposing to construct a stormwater maitagement pond located over the northwest comer of the property. Final design and rate calculations will need to be submitted for review by the City. The City’s intent would be that runoff from virtually all hard surfaces on the site be directed to the stormwater pond. Weinberger noted only one loading berth is being proposed, w ith the Zoning Code indicating this size school building should have two loading berths. Weinberger stated the Applicant may determine that a second loading berth is unnecessary'. The service entrance w ould be on the west side of the building, which would also be utilized for truck delivery and trash receptable storage. The plan will need to indicate how the dumpsters would be screened and protected to not allow trash to leave the service area. Weinberger noted a lighting plan will need to be submitted by the Applicant for review by City Staff. The Applicant is proposing to plant trees along the east property lines along Briar PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#2626 Minnetonka Center for the Arts, Continued) Street and to screen the property from the residential properties located to the east. Additional trees are to be planted to screen from the residential properties to the north and west. Weinberger stated Hill School'is located on the adjacent property, with Hill School currently utilizing the tennis court and an outdoor area. The property is immediately adjacent to the proposed east parking area. The use of the lot for parking is a possible safety issue for the neighboring school, with one option being to require fencing along the property line between the school and Arts Center to define the property boundary and to screen the parking area. Temporary fencing should be provided along the property lines to Hill School to separate the construction area from the Hill School property. Weinberger stated construction traffic should be limited to access to the southwest entrance. Weinberger recommended if this application is approved, it be subject to the seven conditions outlined in the September 15, 2000 Planner’s Report. Julie Hallquist gave a brief background on the historj’ of the Minnetonka Center for the Arts, with the new facility intended to be a distinguished building that will meet the present and future needs of the Arts Center. Hallquist commented they have gotten good community support for this project and are artxious to commence work on the new facilitv. Jim Da>ton, Architect, stated he has worked with City Staff in order to insure compliance w’ith the City’s Codes. Dayton noted they are planning to house a considerable amount of mechanical equipment in the cooling tower, which necessitates the 44.5 foot height as well as providing a focal point for the building. Dayton indicated the signage depicted in the plan does exceed the allowable, with the Arts Center being agreeable to reduce the amount of signage if required. Gary Gleason, Mortenson Construction, indicated he would be fine with the construction access being located off of North Shore Drive. Dayton stated the Arts Center is working w ith Tom Oslund & Associates on designing the landscaping for this project, with work being undertaken to complete the drawings regarding the stormwater management pond and grading and dr^^'inage for this site. Ha\vn inquired whether they would be able to have the plans completed prior to review by the City Council. Dayton commented he is unable to give a definite time for when the plans will be completed. Weinberger noted the next City Council meeting is scheduled for October 9*. Dayton stated the looped driveway provides access for the school bus, which encompasses a significant amount of traffic to and from the facility. Dayton stated the Arts Center is continuing to address the issues outlined in the Planner’s Report, with a second loading berth being unnecessary at this time. Dayton indicated the Arts Center is in the process of completing the lighting and other plans for this facility at tliis time. Hawn recommended the Applicant have the plans for this project completed prior to appearing PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 {#2626 Minnetonka Center for the Arts, Continued) before the City Council. Dayton stated the Arts Center is considering a crushed rock surface for the parking lot in an effort to help reduce the amount of hardcover on the site. Dayton noted they currently have a gravel surface on the existing parking lot. Stoddard noted the proposed facility is 30,000 square feet, with the parking area consisting of 21,000 square feet. St^dard inquired whether those numbers are accurate. Dayton stated to his knowledge those numbers reflect usable square feet and are accurate. Stoddard comr.iented it was his understanding the lower the cooling tower, the better, and requested the Applicant explain the need for the higher cooling tower. Dayton stated the higher cooling tower was designed primarily with economics in mind and is designed to contain all the mechanical equipment needed for the building. Dayton stated the cooling tower has been designed to be efficient as possible, as well as provide access to the upper level. Stoddard stated he would like to see the height of the cooling tower reduced somewhat as well as compliance with the signage ordinance. Dayton indicated the Arts Center would be willing to remove the signage from the cooling tower or reduce the size of the letters. Lindquist inquired what the anticipated noise level will be from the cooling tower. Dayton stated the air handlers will be contained within the spaces, with a heat pump system also being contained in the cooling tower. Hawn commented she would like to see the height of the cooling tower reduced somewhat as well. Lindquist inquired whether die lighting and signage plans will be completed prior to the City Council meeting. Dayton stated they would be. Lindquist stated he would like to see the signage ordinance complied with. Valene Theis, Hill School, stated she w ould like adequate steps taken to insure the safety of the children during construction of this facility. Theis requested fencing be installed around the construction area while work is ongoing and that notice be given to the school when the asbestos will be removed. Theis stated she was fme with the parking lot in the proposed location. Nancy Rochr, 4355 French Creek Drive, stated she is in support of the project but would like to PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (U2626 Minnetonka Center for the Arts, Continued) see sufficient screening along the property line. Wehr stated she will be able to see a significant portion of the building, and requested that bigger trees be planted to help screen the facility. Hawn inquired whether the landscaping and lighting plans could be made available for review by the neighbors. Hawn suggested a meeting with the adjoining property owners be held in order to discuss their concerns. Oslund stated they will have fencing erected during the construction phase. Oslund stated they are aware of the children in the area and will be taking appropriate safety measures to protect them. A resident on French Creek requested that the neighbors also be notified when the asbestos is to be removed. Oslund stated normally when asbestos is removed, the building is sealed off and should not have any impact on the neighboring properties. Dayton stated due to the feet the money for this project is being donated, they arc not able to guarantee the number of trees to be planted. Stoddard stated a landscaping plan has been submitted, with the City requiring that the Applicant follow the approved plan. Stoddard noted strict restrictions are in place regarding the removal of asbestos, and requested that this facility be classified as a school. Steve Kennedy, French Creek Drive, stated he is in support of the project, but would like to see traffic exit further to the east away from French Creek Drive. Gaffiron stated because the existing building will still be there during construction, all traffic will be diverted to the left side of the building. Hawn inquired whether the road could be moved slightly to the cast. Dayton stated they have discussed this issue with the residents of French Creek, but feel this location is the best to serve the needs of the construction vehicles due to its straighter alignment. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application ff2616, Minnetonka Center for the Arts, 2240 North Shore Drive, subject to the submittal by the Applicant of detailed landscaping plan, drainage/grading plan, lighting plan, and provisions for screening of dumpsters and fencing during construction, and further subject to the other conditions outlined in the September 15,2000 Planner’s Report, with the understanding the signage will be reduced in order to comply with Orono’s signage Ordinance. The Applicant is also advised that bituminous blacktop is being recommended for the parking area and that advance notice must be given to the adjacent property owners regarding asbestos removal, with the facility being classified as a school regarding the removal of the asbestos. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Nygard Opposed. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 Nygard indicated he voted in opposition to the motion due to the number of unresolved issues that still need to be addressed on this application. (Recess taken from 9:20 p.m. - 9:25 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED (#2) #2604 NARROWS SALOON - JAMES ANDERST, 3380 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:25 p.m. - 10:07 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. James Anderst, Applicant, and Peter Johnson, Attomey-at-Law, were present. Weinberger stated this application was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting due to the absence of the Applicant. The Applicant is requesting site plan review and conditional use permit for live entertainment. The City of Orono had issued a building permit to allow additional remodeling of the Narrows Saloon, which includes expansion of the bar into the former Minnetonka Photo space, now vacated. The property is located in the B-1 Retail Sales Business District in which a Class II Restaurant is defined as a restaurant which serves intoxicating liquor or has live entertaimnent. Expansion of the building requires the owner to obtain a conditional use permit since Class II Restaurants are allowed by conditional use permit. The City Council did vote to allow the remodeling to continue even though a conditional use permit should have been required before to expansion of the building. Weinberger indicated City files indicate no conditional use permit has ever been issued for a restaurant on this property, with the use requiring a conditional use permit since at least 1967. The B-1 Zoning District also requires that a commercial site plan review be completed prior to a building permit being issued. Weinberger stated the tavern use would be expanded into the former Photo Shop, increasing the floor area by approximately 1,000 square feet. The restrooms are being expanded to provide handicap accessibility. The site plan also indicates a stage that would be located in the southeast side of the building for live bands, with all use of the building being confined to inside the structure. The outdoor seating arrangement depicted on the plans is not proposed to be built for some time. Weinberger stated most of the parking for the Narrow's Saloon would use the Municipal lot located behind the building, with the area around the parking lot being zoned commercial. The City Code requirement for retail and service is one space for 150 square feet of floor area, with the total number of parking spaces that would be required being 154. The parking area contains approximately 90 spaces. The Public Services Director has recently reviewed the parking in the Navarre lot and has indicated the parking lot appears to be functioning adequately. Weinberger noted it is not possible to create new parking areas on the property, with some limited parking being available along Shoreline Drive. Weinberger stated the busiest hours PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#2604 Narrows Saloon, Continued) for The Narrow’s Saloon would be evenings and weekends when there would be little demand for parking spaces in the lot. The new Snyder’s Store located across Shadywood could also provide some additional overflow parking if needed. Weinberger stated the Applicant is not proposing any changes to the lighting on the exterior of the building, with the Applicant in the process of designing a sign plan. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has adopted a noise ordinance, with the primary concern regarding live entertainment is the noise generated by the band. Weinberger indicated this property is not adjacent to residential property, and recommended that all loading and unloading of band equipment occur at the rear entrance of the building to avoid blocking of any traffic areas. Staff is recommending that the interior design of the building take into consideration the noise that is generated by the live music from within the building. Weinberger noted the hours of operation for the live entertainment have not been provided, with the normal hours for the tavern use until 1:00 a.m. City Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit and site plan approval for The Narrow’s Saloon based on the following conditions: 1. All improvements are subject to fire code standards. 2. Use of the building shall be limited to the hours as established by the Planning Commission and Council. 3. Noise shall be held to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance. 4. A two-door system shall be used to not allow excessive noise when customers are entering or exiting the building. 5. The sale of intoxicating liquor requires the business have a valid liquor license with the City of Orono. 6. Any other conditions the Planning Commission requires of the live entertainment use of the property. Peter Johnson, Attomey-at-Law, indicated that the Applicant’s lunch business is not very well developed ar>d should not create any parking problems in the area. Johnson stated they are plaiuiing a double door on the rear door and will comply with the noise ordinance. There were no public comments concerning this application. Hawn noted one resident did express some concerns regarding the noise from the tavern at the last meeting and some safety issues relating to the traffic. Hawn encouraged the ^plicant to work with City Staff as much as possible in order to reduce the amount of noise generated. Kluth read the minutes of the August 21 Planning Commission meeting regarding the comments expressed by the resident. PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#2604 Narrows Saloon, Continued) Anderst stated he has spoken with the neighbor. Lindquist inquired what the guidelines were for the noise and hours of operation. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit requires that all other sections of the City ’s Code be followed as well as any other conditions that may be imposed by the City. Hawn inquired why Staff is not recommending additional parking for this business. Weinberger indicated no on-site parking is available for this business, with no significant increase being anticipated in the parking needs for the business with the expansion. Hawn expressed concern that the Planning Commission may be setting a precedent regarding the amount of parking for this business. Weinberger stated the area surrounding the Narrow’s Saloon is zoned commercial, with the use of the building not changing. Weinberger stated the businesses in this area have always relied on use of the municipal lot located in the rear, with the lots not having any on-site parking available. Weinberger stated the other businesses were taken into consideration when considering the amount of parking that would be needed. Kluth inquired whether the amount of parking could be based upon the number of customers to the business. Anderst stated he is entitled to have one customer per every 15 square feet of space. Anderst stated his estimate of the total number of customers that would be able to fit within the building would be 150 occupants. Kluth commented normally people who frequent this t>pe of business ride more than one to a car. Anderst stated the amount of retail space has not changed. Johnson stated the issue of parking is offset by the fact that the other businesses are closed during his peak hours of operation. Weinberger indicated there are 90 parking spaces available in the municipal lot, which does not take into account parking available on the street. Johnson stated there is a large parking area available in comparison to the size of the establishment, and in his view the parking should not present a problem. Stoddard suggested a stipulation be placed on the number of customers who can be inside the facility in order to limit the amount of traffic in the area. Anderst stated his business is relatively small compared to some of the other businesses in the area. PAGE 18 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#2604 Narrows Saloon, Continued) Lindquist pointed out the woric on the building has already been completed and that the Applicant needs to operate his business within the law. Lindquist stated he is unsure where the additional parking would come from if the Applicant were required to provide additional parking. Kluth inquired how the work could have been commenced prior to the conditional use permit being issued. Anderst stated he applied for a liquor license, and contained within the liquor license was the additional square footage. Johnson stated the liquor license contained language notifying the City that he would be leasing 2,000 square feet, with an option to expand to 3,000 square feet, as well as a footprint for the liquor store. The Applicant also disclosed that the purchase of the building was contingent upon approval of that option. At the time the building permit was issued, the conditional use permit was not raised. Anderst stated he was not notified he needed a conditional use permit imtil the time the footings were inspected. Anderst stated the building inspector missed the fact that footings were being poured at the time the building permit was issued. Kluth inquired when the construction was completed. Johnson stated the Applicant appeared before the City Council in July regarding this matter, with the City Council permitting continuation of the construction at that time. Stoddard moved to recommend approval of Application #2604, Narrows Saloon, 3380 Shoreline Drive, subject to no further expansion to the business. MOTION DIED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND. Smith stated it would be her understanding the Applicant would need to come back before the Planning Commission and City Council if he wished to expand his business further, and at that point the City would act on his application. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission has wide latitude in the placing of restrictions on this business to protect the character of the neighborhood and business climate which abuts a residential neighborhood. Hawn inquired whether the size of the business could be limited. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could restrict the size of the business as part of the conditional use permit, but that a future City Council or Planning Commission may elect to change that. Johnson stated in his opinion the Planning Commission is making its record right now by noting its concerns relating to expansion of the business. Johnson stated the Applicant will need to appear before the Planning Commission if he chooses to expand the business. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (^2604 Narrows Saloon, Continued) Anderst stated he has spent a considerable amount of money to improve his business, which in turn has improved the character of the neighborhood. Anderst commented that some of the other businesses in the area have not taken steps to improve their business. Kluth stated the Planning Commission appreciates the improvements the Applicant has made to the building, but that issues relating to traffic and noise need to be addressed in order to insure that he will continue to be a good neighbor. Hawn stated she would like to see double doors on the front of the building as well. Anderst stated the front door docs have signs requesting the door be kept closed at all times, which has worked fairly well. Anderst stated it would be difficult to install a double-door system on the front of the building. Smith inquired what the Applicant’s hours of business were. Anderst stated the bar is open until 1 ;00 a.m. Hawn inquired when the band would quit. Anderst stated the band quits at 12:45 a m., with all patrons being out of the building by 1:20, Stoddard inquired whether the outdoor seating depicted on the drawing is included in the 3,000 square feet. Anderst stated it is not. Hawn noted that issue is not before the Planning Commission tonight. Hawn reiterated she would like to see double doors on both entrances. Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, recommending approval of Application ff2604. Narrows Saloon, 3380 Shoreline Drive, subject to the conditions contained in the September 14, 2000 Planner’s Report, with the added condition that the live entertainment will end at 12:00 midnight, with the doors of the establishment being closed at 1:00 a.m., and no further expansion of the business without review and approval of the Planning Commission. Kluth inquired when the Applicant has the live entertainment. Anderst stated he has live entertainment on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Lindquist Opposed. Lindquist indicated in his view the Planning Commission may be putting undue restrictions on his liquor license and that further clarification should be obtained regarding the ordinances that control this business. Hawn stated she W'ould like to withdraw her vote in sup;«. a of this motion and would like to PAGE 20 1 1 a ' ak r.W * I ■ a# AA ’ 1 t I I •iiiiiti I -r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 see additional information regarding the operation of this business. (#3) #2608 PHILIP AND KAREN SKOOG, 280 TONKA AVENUE - VARIANCES, 10:07 p.m.- 10:11 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Philip Skoog, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting variances to construct an addition to the rear of the residence and a two stall attached garage with living space above it. The addition to the rear is a 13.6 by 18 foot dining area. The dining area will be constructed where the deck is currently locat^. The two stall garage is proposed to be 22 by 24 feet. It will be on the south side next to the existing one stall hick-under garage. Bottenberg indicated a variance to the front yard setback is required to permit a 43 foot setback to the property line to construct an attached garage 43 feet from the front lot line where 50 feet is required. A variance to the rear yard setback is also needed to permit a 39 foot setback to the property where 50 feet is required. The dining area and garage additions will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 9.9 (jercent where 6.6 percent exists and 15 percent is allowed. Hardcover in the 500-1000’ setback area would increase to 13.3 percent where 11.39 percent exists and 35 percent is allowed. City Staff is recommending approval of this application. Skoog stated the house is similar to the other houses in the neighborhood, with a one stall tuck-under garage currently. Smith indicated she does not have a problem with this application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn stated she also does not have any problems with this application. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2608, Philip and Karen Skoog, 280 Tonka Avenue, granting of a front yard setback and rear yard setback variances for a garage and dining area additions. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#4) #2609 ALAN AND MAXINE OPHEIM, 1985 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 10:12 p.m. - 10:15 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Alan Opheim, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting variances to change an existing concrete patio P.AGE 21 I WP ‘A k . . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (^2609 Alan Opheim, Continued) into a three season porch, with the porch to be constructed on the existing concrete slab which is located 6.9 feet from the side lot line where ten feet is required. The e.xisting concrete slab and proposed three season porch is located approximately 80 feet from the OHWL and encroaches into the average lakeshore setback by 73 feet. The porch will not alter the views of the adjacent properties. A variance to the average lakeshore setback is required to permit the structiu*e to encroach 73 feet into the average lakeshore setback. A side yard setback is also required to permit a 6.9 foot setback to the property line where ten feet is required. Bottenberg noted the structural coverage on the lot will increase to 13 percent but is still below the allowable 15 percent. The three season porch will not result in an increase in hardcover coverage in the 75-250 zone. City Staff recommends approval of the application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application ^#2609, Alan and Maxine Opheim, 1985 Fagerness Point Road, granting of variances to the average lakeshore Setback and side yard setback VOTE; Ayes 7, Nays 0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (UT) #2610 JEROME J. HALL, 80 LEAF STREET, VARIANCES, 10:16 p.m. - 10:30 p.m. Jerome Hall, Applicant, and Mark Gronbcrg, Surveyor, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting approval of an afrer-the-fact variance to permit replacement of a deck within the 75 foot setback to a protected tributary. The Applicant has indicated the pre-existing deck was not safe and needed replacement. At the time the Applicant applied for a building permit, it was discovered that it was within 75 feet of a protected tributary. A variance is required to allow hardcover ^^ithin 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of a tributary. The deck would continue to provide a landing for a sliding glass door located at the rear of the house, with the Applicant requesting an additional six feet at the south end. The additional six feet would not be required for access to the door. City Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit replacement of a deck and adding six feet to the size of the deck based on the following fmdings; 1. A deck has existed for man> years in the location of the new deck. The additional six feet of deck would be located 70 feet from the lakeshore and partially outside of the 75 feet setback. PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#2610 Jerome Hall, Continued) 2. The house and deck were constructed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. 3. The deck would not encroach closer to the creek than the pre-existing deck. 4. The deck is located on an area of the property that is generally flat and does not slope directly to the creek. This condition allows for surface water to infiltrate into the ground better than property with varying topography. Gronberg indicated the creek is not pristine pond but rather acts as a holding pond prior to reaching the dam. Gronberg stated the creek does meander from time to time and it is difficult to determine the exact pathway of the creek. Hall indicated he was not at home at the time the deck was removed and replaced. Hall stated his builder apparently applied for the building permit afterwards. Smith inquired whether the homeowner expected the contractor to follow the proper procedures for construction of the deck. Hall stated he did. Smith inquired whether an afler-the-fact fee would apply in this case. Weinberger stated an after-the-fact fee to his knowledge has not been applied to this application. Weinberger stated he was not aware this was an after-the-fact permit until after he had viewed the site. HawTi stated had the Applicant come in prior to construction, he would have been told that he could replace the existing deck but could not add any additional feet within the 75 foot setback. Hawn stated if the additional deck is allowed, it could set a precedent. Smith stated she would like to see an after-the-fact fee applied in this case. Lindquist commented there is no hardship in this case to allow the additional six feet. Smith stated in other similar situations the Applicants have been requested to reduce the size of the deck. Hawn inquired why the Applicant expanded the deck. Hall stated he expanded the deck to make it nicer. Smith inquired whether some other hardcover could be removed elsewhere in this area. Hall stated there is not. Hawn reiterated that the Planning Commission would not have allowed the additional six feet PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#2610 Jerome Hall, Continued) in the first place. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2610, Jerome J. Hall, 80 Leaf Street, with the understanding the Applicant can only replace the existing deck in the amount of 174 square feet. Hawn noted 60 square feet of the deck would need to be removed. Smith inquired whether the deck has been completed. Hall stated the deck is only SO percent completed. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #2611 MARLYS MCCARTY, 225 TONKA AVENUE, EASEMENT VACATION, 10:31 p.m. - 10:37 p.m. Marlys McCarty, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant has requested a vacation of a drinage and utility easement located through the center of the property. A 20 by 100 foot portion of Brook Street on which the detached garage is currently located was vacated by the City of Orono in 1984 per Resolution No. 1619. The property owner has recently acquired the property north of the vacated Brook Street. The property owner has stated the current location of the easement is an obstacle and deterrent in plans to improve the property. The Applicant would like to construct an attached garage to the existing house. A condition of the vacation was that the property owner grant to the City a utilities and access casement over the northerly 15 feet of the vacated Brook Street. Weinberger stated in exchange for the 15 foot easement, the property owner would provide an access and utility easement over the south 15 feet of the property. TTie new easement would make it possible to provide sewer service and access if the lot to the west ever required the access. There is a sewer stub made available about 100 feet north of Tonka Avenue to provide service to the property north and west of the Applicant’s lot. Weinberger stated to vacate an easement a finding must be made that no public purpose exists for the easement. The relocation of the utility and access easement would still allow the propert)' to the west to gain access and sewer connection. Providing access to the north lot would no longer be required since it has been acquired and combined with the Applicant’s lot. The City of Orono has not received written confirmation back from all the utility companies at this time. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission could make a recommendation of approval with the condition that all utility companies have agreed to the vacation and relocation of the easement. PAGE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (^2611 Maryb McCarty, Continued) City Staff is reconunending approval of the easement vacation and relocation to the south 15 feet of the property subject to the condition that the City of Orono receives confirmation from all utility companies agreeing to the easement relocation. There were no public comments regarding this application. The Applicant had no comment regarding his application. Stoddard stated he does not have a problem with the application. Kluth inquired whether it is likely that all the utility companies will agree with the easement relocation. Weinberger stated he does not feel there will be a problem. Weinberger stated this application will not proceed forward to the City Council until confirmation is received from all the utility companies. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2611, Marlys McCarty, 225 Tonka Avenue, vacation of easement and relocation to the south 15 feet of the property subject to the condition the City of Orono receives confirmation that all utility companies have agreed to the easement relocation and the new easement is granted in favor of the City of Orono prior to recording the easement vacation. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#9) #2612 DONALD MACMILLAN, 2550 FOX STREET, VARIANCE, 10:37 p.m. - 10:42 p.m. Dan Johnston, Contractor, appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has requested a variance to permit the construction of a 40 by 40 foot accessory building between the principal structure and the street. The accessory building is proposed to be one and a half story, with the half story being a loft. The accessory building will be used for storage. The lot is approximately 350 feet wide and 900 feet deep. The Applicant ov ns the front lot and is in the process of combining them as one parcel. The residence sits on the rear of the property approximately 700 feet from the street. A variance is needed to allow the accessory’ building to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. The proposed location for the accessory building is already prepared due to a different accessory structure which was located there until 1997. The lot is wooded and the location would not require any trees to be removed. Bottenberg indicated a number of trees currently exist on the lot which w’ill screen the accessory structure from the street and adjacent properties. Bottenberg noted the accessory building meets all setback requirements for the RR-IB zoning district and the square footage of the building meets the size restrictions of the oversize accessory structure ordinance. PAGE 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 #2612 Donald MacMillan, Continued) Bottenberg stated Staff has received a phone call from Bill Smith, 2585 Fox Street, in support of the project. City Staff recommends approval of the variance provided the building permit is not issued until the two parcels are legally combined. Johnston stated he does not have any comments regarding this application. There were no public comments. Smith inquired what the purpose of the storage building is. Johnston stated it will be used for storage of personal items, possibly a boat. Johnston noted there presently is no other storage buildings located on the lot at this time. Smith inquired whether any animals will be housed in the structure. Johnston stated it will not be used for animals. Kluth inquired what the hardship is. Smith stated there was a building there at one time. Johnston acknowledged the building permit will not be issued until the two lots are legally combined. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2612, Donald MacMillan, 2550 Fox Street, granting of a variance to permit the construction of a 40 by 40 foot accessory structure between the principal structure and the street with the understanding the building permit will not be issued until the two lots are legally combined. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #2613 JAMES AND DEBRA RENCKENS, 3020 WATERTOWN ROAD, VARIANCE, 10:42 p.m. -10:45 p.m. James Renckens, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a 24 by 36 foot accessory building between the principal structure and the street. The accessory building will be used for storage. The lot is approximately 460 feet wide and 1,170 feet deep. The residence sits approximately 678 feet from the street on the rear of the pre^rty. The accessory building will be approximately 40 feet from the side lot line. Lo<»tion of the building 40 feet from the side lot line precludes its future use as a horse bam. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to landscape the area by the accessory building and berm along the street, which will aid in screening the building from the street and the PAGE 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18.2000 (#2613 James Renckeiu, Continued) adjacent properties. The accessory building meets all setback requirements for the RR-IB zoning district, with the square footage of the building being within the 1,000 square foot maximum allowed for standard accessory structures. City Staff recommends approval of the variance. Renckens indicated he has no comments concerning his application. Smith inquired whether there were any other possible sites for this building. Renckens stated any other location would interfere with the enjoyment of the adjoining neighbors ’ properties. Bottenberg noted there is a fiur amount of wetlands on the property. Renckens stated after consulting with a landscape architect and his builder, they feel this is the best location for the building. There were no public comments regarding this application. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2613, James and Debra Renckens, 3020 Watertown Road, granting of a variance to allow construction of a 24 by 36 foot accessory structure between the principal structure and the street per the proposed plan. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#11) #2614 JOE AND SUE HAUS, 4485 BAYSIDE ROAD, VARIANCES, 10:45 p.m. - 10:58 p.m. Joe Haus, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to permit a recently remodeled accessory building locat^ in front of a new principal residence that will be constructed on the property. The property was purchased last year, with the Applicant receiving approval for a guest house on the property by the City Council. The Applicants have elected not to construct the guest house and would rather build a new residence and remove the existing residence following receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new house. Weinberger noted the property does not have direct access to a road and is accessed via an easement for driveway purposes along the west property line of the property to the northeast. The building in question is located along the north property line where the driveway enters the Applicant’s property. The building is located approximately 530 feet from Bayside road and 200 feet from the nearest adjacent residence. City Staff is recommending approval of the variance based on the following findings: 1. The building has existed as a legally non-conforming structure and was recently remodeled. PAGE 27 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#2614 Joe and Sue Haus, Continued) 2. The building is located on a prq>erty without frontage on a road. Access to the property is via an easement over the lot located to the northwest. The building is located well behind all other residential structures along Bayside Road. 3. Natural vegetation adequately screens the building from view from adjacent structures. Haus indicated he would like to keep the building for storage. Haus stated he does have the support of his neighbors regarding this project. Kluth inquired whether there are any wetlands on this property or what the hardship is for the variance. Haus stated it is an existing structure. Hawn stated the hardship needs to be imposed by the land. Haus conuncnted the land consists of different elevations which makes it difficult to locate or access the building anywhere else on the property. Hawn inquired whether it is possible for the Planning Commission to grant a variance to permit the structure for a limited number of years. Gaffron inquired what the life of the building is. Haus stated he just put new 25 year shingles on the structure. Gaffron stated something could be filed on the chain of title. Hawn commented in her view the structure should be relocated off the lot line. Hawn indicated she would not be in support of this application since this would be considered new construction. Haus inquired whether a variance would be granted for an accessory structure in front of the existing residence. Hawn stated the application could be tabled if the Applicant wished to review his options regarding the location of the structure. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2614, Joe and Sue Haus, 4485 Bayside Road, to allow the Applicant time to review his options. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#12) #2617 DOUG OLSON AND BARBARA BOWERS, 2601 LAFAYETTE ROAD, VARIANCES, 10:58 p.m. - 11:02 p.m. Doug Olson, Barbara Bowers, and Skip Leaven were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to construct a second story addition to the existing residence. The addition is a continuation of an ongoing remodeling ^ ;oject. The proposed addition will be approximately 1,500 square feet and over the east portion of the existing residence. In 1996, variances for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover were granted for Phase II of the remodeling project. This project of the project consisted of additions to the existing residence, including a room expansion on the south side of the house in the 75>2S0' zone and a second story addition above the central portion of the house in the 75-250’ setback. In addition, the entire house and addition got a new 12:12 pitch roof system replacing the low 3:12 pitch roof. Bottenberg stated a portion of the existing house consisting of approximately 30 square feet is located in the 0-75’ setback zone. Further, the entire house is located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The house sits on a point of the lakeshore. A variance to the lakeshore setback is required to permit construction of the second story addition where a portion of the existing residence is located within 75 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka. A variance to the average lakeshore is also needed to permit the structure to encroach 70 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Bottenberg indicated no hardcover changes are being proposed in the 0-75’ setback or in the 75-250’ zone. The City of Orono permits a second story to be added w hen the footprint of the building is not increasing regardless of hardcover excesses. Lot coverage by structures is currently 8.8 percent, which will remain the same. Bottenberg stated the adjacent residence to the southeast is on somewhat higher ground and may currently enjoy minimal views over the existing residence, which may be reduced by the second story addition. However, the main views of the lake for that house are to the east and is not affected. Existing vegetation also acts to limit the neighbors’ view of the lake. Skip Leaven, Designer, presented a model of the proposed addition. Leaven pointed out the existing structure and the proposed addition. There were no public comments regarding this application. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2617, Doug Olson and Barbara Bowers, 2601 Lafayette Road, granting of variances to permit construction of a second story addition to the existing residence. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#13) #2618 JOHN WALKER, 1368 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE, 11:02 p.m. - 11:06 p.m. John Walker, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to extend the front wall out four feet along a 20 foot section of the residence. The Applicant is remodeling the existing residence and is requesting the extra four feet for garage space and a second floor bathroom. The existing residence was built in 1930, prior to current zoning standards. The residence is located 4.5 feet from the side lot line. Bottenberg indicated the Applicant has tried very hard to remodel the existing residence within the zoning codes as much as possible. The 4 by 20 foot bump out will allow the Applicant to work within the existing floor plan. The first floor is for additional garage space and the second floor is for a bathroom off the master bedroom. The Applicant is also constructing an addition to the northwest side of the residence and has been issued a permit for construction. The addition meets all the setback requirements for the LR-IB zoning district. Structural lot coverage will increase to 7.1 percent where 4.2 percent currently exists. Hardcover in the 500-1000’ setback area will be increased to 20.9 percent where 18.1 percent exists. A variance is needed to permit a side >'ard setback of 4.5 feet where 10 feet is required. City Staff recommends approval of the variance. Walker commented the house is rather old, possibly dating back to the 1930s. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2618, John Walker, 1368 North Arm Drive, granting of a side yard variance to permit the remodeling of the existing residence. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#14) #2619 PAUL AND DENISE AASEN, 577 PARK LANE, VARIANCE, 11:06 p.m. -11:22 p.m. Paul and Denise Assen, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit additions to an existing residence. The additions would be for a living room, mud room, and a covered entrance to the existing house. A variance to hardcover is needed in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback, where 58.2 percent exists and 25 percent is allowed. A variance is also required to permit a structural addition six feet frx>m the north property line where ten feet is required. A structural coverage variance is also necessary to permit 1,911 square feet where 1,579 square feet exists. In addition, a variance to permit the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback for the family room PAGE 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (M2619 Paul Aasen, Continued) addition is needed. The Applicants are proposing to reduce the total hardcover on the property by removing part of the driveway that is not required for maneuvering vehicles. The building additions have been placed mostly over areas that contain hardcover. New hardcover would include the construction of a sidewalk to connect the garage to the house. Weinberger indicated the house is located 2.4 feet from the north property line, with the addition of the mud room being six feet from the north property line. The additional four feet encroaching into the setback would be to allow for a one-half l»th to be located within the mud room. Weinberger noted a large portion of the existing residence is located within the average lakeshore setback No flirther encroachment is proposed than what exists The Applicants have prq>osed to increase the structure an additional 332 square feet. Staff has notified the Applicants of the structural coverage limitations on the property and the need to show a h^dship to require additional structure. Weinberger indicated the proposed plan does not depict any proposed decks or patios on the lakeside of the house. The hardcover that is proposed within the 75-250’ setback does not allow for any additional hardcover in the future without a variance. Weinberger stated this lot is one of several 50 foot lots along Park Lane that are non-conforming due to the lod width and lot size requirements. All the surrounding properties are zoned LR-IB. City Code allows lots that arc less than 10,000 square feet to have more than 15 percent structure. The lots are permitted to have 1,500 square feet of structure. City 9^* is in support of variances to maintain the screen porch area within the average lakeshcre setback, and supports the reduction of hardcover on the property. Staff is not in support of the additional 332 square feet of structural coverage on this property since it will exceed the ti> jximum 1,5000 square feet allowed by Code. Paul Aasen stated they are experiencing a hardship due to the extremely small lot. Aasen stated this is a two bedroom house, noting he has two children. Aasen stated he has attempted to minimize the impact to his neighbors. Aasen stated one option that he has explored has been relocation of the garage. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn stated the Planning Commission generally does not approve any variances to structural coverage. Hawn stated she is not prepared to grant any more structiual coverage than what is existing. Aasen stated he would be willing to eliminate the deck in order to reduce the structural coverage. Smith concurred that she would like to see the structural coverage not exceed what’s existing. PAGE 31 MINI I ts OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 (#2619 Paul Aasen, Continued) Lindquist commented he does not have a problem with the application outside of the proposed structural coverage. Aasen indicated they have attempted to minimize the driveway as much as possible in order to limit hardcover on Ae property. Aasen stated they are attempting to create more green space on their lot. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2619, Paul and Denise Aasen, 577 Park Lane, granting of variances to hardcover, lakeshore Setback, and average lakeshore setback to permit additions to the existing residence, with the understanding the structural coverage on the lot will not exceed what is currently existing on the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 21,2( Nygard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the minutes of the August 21,2000 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPP^SENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS AUGUST 28,2000 AND SEPTLiVIBER 11,2000 Nygard stated he attended the September 11 meeting where Mayor Jabbour indicated he would not be running for another term as well as Charles Kelley. Council Member Peterson indicated she would be running for Mayor. Stoddard stated he attended the Park Tour. Kluth stated he attended the August 28 City Council meeting where the open house to discuss the comprehensive plan was mentioned. (#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Havrii noted a notice is included in their packet for a joint meeting between the Long Lake and Orono Planning Commissions scheduled for September 26. (#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 25,2000 AND OCTOBER 9,2000 September 25 - Hawn October 9 - Berg PAGE J2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18,2000 ADJOURNMENT Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11:42 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting vns adjourned at 11:42 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn, Chair PAGE 33