The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-15-1999 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 15,1999—6:30 p.m. 2780 Kelley Parkway—Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Bob Sansevere AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the December 13, 1999, City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. OLD BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 1.#2525 Larry Jacobson and Vickie O'Neill, 635 Ferndale Road North, Variance. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). 2. #2530 William Wear, 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, Variances. (Staff; Paul Weinberger). VARIANCE RENEWAL 3.#2546 Christine Wood, 4005 North Shore Drive, Renewal Variances. (Staff: Wendy BottenbergV SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7;30 p.m. 4.#2522 The Bancor Group, Inc., Southwest Corner of County Road 6 and North Willow Drive, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). 8:00 p.m. 5.#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). NEW BUSINESS 6.#2540 Bradley Ho>1,2523 Kelly Avenue, After-the-Fact Conditional Use PermitWariance. (Stan: Paul Weinberger). 7.#2542 Bruce Hedblom and Carol Cline-Hedblom, 2601 Casco Point Road, Variances. (Stati Wendy Bottenberg). ■ 8. #2543 9. #2545 10. #2547 Ted Edin, 3025 Casco Point Ro?’'', Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). Kimberli and William Abbott, 470 Big Island, After-the-Fact Variances. (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg). 11. #2549 David Lovelace, 220 Big Island, Dock Permit. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 12. #2548 Mike Hilbeluik/John Vogt, 3850Watertown Road, Class III Subdivision. (Staff: Paul Weinberger). PLANNING COM^^SSION COMMENTS 13. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on October 25, 1999 and Novembers, 1999. 14. Other issues for discussion. 15. Planning Commission approval of minutes for October 18, 1999. 16. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on November 22,1999 and December 13,1999 17. Selection of work session dates in December to discuss an amendment to the sign ordinance. ADJOURNMENT --------------ri Public A ttendance Meetlng Daie //- /£■ /1 C ouncil 0 Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER X:\APPS\WPWlNli\l ISNPt'BLICJ^TT 1. \/rn /a ^ V /£’ ^A V ■ 2« / /1 T*r, . y L C C L- C ^ \ \* 3. '1.;:),--5d^/ PI H.*jL :2^uq 5. a hnci '/u-'-s AE\'.n/ P/i cA A */6 6. 7. 8./ O rvs ^ 1 r i 7Xv ^ /3, « ./ s 4r/v^. ■ ------------- J 9. f-4»- / lO.L ///CPtcK H-'rj'i'i 11. il vy" /Y !/ '^ (».'•<Li. '/' \i. le ^ ^ A /V , i.'i-r / I 2 j /' —' 13. ---------------------------------------------^ 7 14. (.0 rA 1 1 iJ ^ 0 K 2 5' 2Z 15. i\ly \L.t^t\I'., lYvA I'^'l ('(tc+f .- At" •i Public A ttendance Meetlng D ate C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 2. 3. 4. 5.. 6. 7. 8. 9.. 10., 11. 12.. 13.. 14. X:\APPS\WPW1N40\WFOOCS\FORMS\PUBI !C.ATT / TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Plai Jiing Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner November 10, 1999 SUBJECT: #2525 Larry Jacobson 635 N. Femdale Road Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acre) Lot Area:93,185-5,775(easement)= 87,410 s.f.(2.01 acres) This application requires the following variance; Section 10,28, Subd. 5 (B): Side yard Setback Regulations; To permit a side yard setback variance to allow an attached garage to be located 13.9' where 30' is required from the side lot line. Application Summary: The applicant's proposal to construct a detached garage on the north side of his home was tabled at the October 18,1999 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has submitted a new proposal for an attached garage on the north side of his home. The proposed attached garage is 612 s.f and located 13.9' from the side property line. The property is unusual that it currently has two curb cuts that connect a U-shaped driveway. The applicant seeks approval of a variance for side yard setback for the garage to be located 13.9* from the side yard where 30' is required. »»J525 Larry Jacobson 635 N. Femdale Road Variance 11/10/99 page-! ANALYSIS Lot Area: RR-IB Lot Area Required 2 acre (87,120 s.f.) Existing 2.01 acre (87,410 s.f.) Hardcover Calculations : Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcove*’Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 75’-250*54,900 s.f.13.725 s.f (25%)6.802 s.f (12.4%)7,694 s.f (13.4%) Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration : 1. The lot is heavily wooded with mature trees. The applicant wishes to leave them. 2. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance for side yard setback for the attached garage. #2525 Larry Jacobson 635 N. Ferndale Road Variance u/im9 page-2 Attachments A Application B Letter from applicant C Site Plan/Survey D Plat Map E Location Map F Hardcover Worksheet G Planning Commission minutes (10/18/99) H Property Owner's List 1 Permit Record J Neighbor's letter from previous proposal U2525 Larry Jacobson 6i5 N. Ferndale Road Variance I i/IO/99 page-3 •na'i -t afiii A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received *9 / Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION r- - , Site Address iyl)'-? A/> Fe^vQALE.- ^VAO, y l Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 1 ^ A m. A .A * A A « • AAttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired OcJ^ ^ ^_______________________ I (do) <(jo ru^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify)________ Zoning District: k^(-^ - \ \-\ "^'p-hC / \>\jC \ \_________________ (month/year) APPLICANT . Name f. Phonefhome> 41H-* V ________ Phone(work) 4>I2.- Address: a/ City: ______Zip:_S]32Hi Phone (home)OWNER (if different than applicant) ^ ________________ Name Phone (work) 72,"7^_ Address: ?^ ___________________ City:________________ Zip: r"! ^ *V ► Ifc. *> DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 1^,000 Describe request in detail: Ae>(o(.r-)-/o>-> ca ____________ ■:} (attach additional sheets if necessary)L.-J VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage 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._ '^<=5' ___ W I' ■iIWTMImu '6' HARDSHI/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS We li\ e on a private drive with 15 other homes. Almost all have 3+ garages. Our home has been appraised by the City of Orono for tax purposes at $370,000. We are at a hardship to sell our home for the appraised value with a two car garage. In addition, we need storage for a 19 ft. boat and a third car. The property only allows for an additional garage on the north side of the property, no other workable location exists. The south side has a high water table and drainage ditch, the east is close to the common road, and the west has no easy access because of the location of the septic tanks and drain fields. The temporary structure for the boat on our property is, also, not attractive to our neighbors. Vo >. _v t.,:J L >■• ^ 4* V 14TM Avm *'» >a 600 > • /•: •>vr:*'V.Clf^f ••• 12TH» 13TM AVE ■ AVE IITM^V^VE « 10TM AVE ■ 800 jiAEC 5I5- QUEENSLANO \M« 300 -..’£•»•.••!■ S'®-/®*"» • ’V." * (-.. : ,yV-- • WayaU H2<l 1 - * . V. ‘ • X Count ry Oub QUHNS IBnawaiB: •• 4. • • * • ^ ' r _j .-— olo o|o mrtATA mnr /;? / ^1 6 S o55 g^oo rag fi? ||I6NUUI0|U liotCVO g<,k I Ito - Ml O ir fEAVEI —5™h ^ ^ iv,. * . Wayzqta x f ^3' .g ;’ FERNOALE ."•'* '• • -4.. . * \.. .jp • .1 aT. • •..•• • i.-. > • -.. . '.: •-'.'• / 5 . ::• I . I - • • . * • •• . A .4 • • - . % ••. r• T-* • !• . i- •A AAMSET • % * • Breeiy Point \4 t* Cedar Point Looiou^^ '•rrr^ /WOX)DLANP ^ «> r . • •*.- •■.'•>,■ ' .. •• • •/ •M • »• • - :••f^ri 185, HARDCOVER CALCULA SETBACK ZONE: (CffiCLE ONE) 0-75* ^WORKSHEET 250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONl A. House /r\ to H » X X X X X X X X X 28:SJ. Z'T) Length fZ Widlh 2^f SJ. l\o 1 2.Z'^SJ.J'SJ. B. Garage ^u 24 SJ. nC. Driveway SJ. (-D '2T?loSrO SJ. D. Sidewalk 7<r lo 475" SJ. SJ. E. P«io/Deck3 X 20 *3,2jfP SJ. X *S.F. F. Landscape X BB S.F. Underlain X -SJ. By Plastic X SJ. G.X 24*^«sf. jm A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _____________ + B ____ + B SHfjoo X 100 X 100 SJ. S.F. % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length Width X X X 790 ; 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 IS <90 A B SJ. S.F. SJ. S.F.. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 - 'i SJ. A s J. B % V Gr Oiz) ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Sandra Smith, Jay Nygard, and Daniel Kluth. The following represented City Staff: Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Charles Kelley was present. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS ^ (#1) #2525 LARRY JACOBSON AND VICKIE O'NEILL, 635 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - VARIANCE. 6:31 p.m. - 6:44 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Larry Jacobson. Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to constmct a detached garage on the north side of his home. The detached garage will be 569 square feet and located eight feet from the property line. The property is unusual in that it currently has two curb cuts that connect an U'Shaped driveway. Variances to side yard setback are required for the garage to be located eight feet from the side yard where ten feet is required and to permit a crowding principal building variance to allow a detached garage to be located eight feet where ten feet is required from the principal building. Jacobson stated he has attempted to design the location of the garage in a site which would require the minimum amount of variances, but due to their odd-shaped lot, a variance is needed to the side yard setback. Jacobson commented he does have a signed statement from tne neighbor indicating that they are not opposed to the project. Hawn requested that the statement be included in the record. Jacobson indicated that in his opinion this is the best location for the garage, noting that the west side has a drainage easement and would require the removal of a number of trees. Jacobson stated they are requesting the detached garage for storage reasons. Hawn read into the record a letter from Dick and Joan Strand. 645 Ferndale Road North, indicating that they are not opposed to the project but do have a question regarding the difference between a detacned gi*'age versus an attached garage. The Strands would prefer an attached garage. Jacobson stated that an attached garage would require a larger variance. Page 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2525 Larry Jacobson, Continued) Lindquist inquired how far the detached garage would be from the residence. Jacobson stated that the garage would be located eight feet from the residence. Smith inquired whether the garage could be cownsized somewhat to reduce the need for a variance. Stoddard advised the Applicant to check with City Staff to determine whether a fire wall is needed due to the closeness of the garage to the residence. Stoddard stated he would like to see the garage conform to the side lot setback if possible. Hawn stated in order for an variance to be granted, a hardship has to be demonstrated, which has not been shown in her opinion. Hawn corr mented personally she would not be opposed to attaching the garage to eliminate the need for a variance to the side yard setback. Kluth commented that normally a hardship is d je to the topography of the land. Jacobson stated they would prefer an attached garage but it would require a greater variance. Jacobson submitted a drawing depicting an attached garage. Lindquist commented he would be in agreement with an attached garage, but that an updated survey is needed. Hawn stated that the Planning Commission has to vote on the plan that is before them tonight, but that an option would be for this application to be tabled in order to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan showing an attached garage. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that an attached garage would be preferred. Hawn commented that a plan for an attached garage would still need to be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission before it can be approved. Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would like; his application tabled tonight. Jacobson indicated that would be fine. There were no public comments. Motion by Lindquist, second by Kluth, to table Application #2525, 635 Ferndale Road North, to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan for an attached garage. VOTE: Ayes: 7, Nays 0. (#2) #252T1Wai5JEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT_:.£AIWTER*S CREEK BETWEEN SOUTH KATRI n XWAR5I+AND COUNTY ROAD>-OOI«6mbNAL USE PERMIT, 6:45 p.m. 7:02 p.m. The Certificate of Mailini Ftidavit of Publication lied. Rodne'iTWenck Associates, Consulting Engineer, and Eric Evenson7t3<i lireQtor, Page 2 RUN DATE It HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1ASM01 PAGE SO BATCH 505 r PROP ADOR fMIER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADOR OHNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR Sa 3A-lia-2S 11 0007 00555 FERNDALE RD N DANIEL D DANIELSON ETAL DANIEL D DANIELSON 555 NORTH FERNDALE RD NAYZATA HN 55S91 35 35-115-23 11 0009 50535 FERNDALE RD N L JACOBSON B V A O'NFZLL LARRY JACOBSON VICTORIA A 0«NEILL 535 FERNDALE RD N ORONO HN 55391 35 35-115-23 11 0010 00555 FERNDALE RD N RICHARD E STRAND ETAL RICHARD E i JOAN N STRAND 555 NO FERNDALE RD NAYZATA HN 55391 35 35-115-23 11 0011 00555 FEIMDALE RD N RICHARD E STRAND ETAL RICHARD E i JOAN H STRAND 555 FERNDALE RD N NAYZATA HN 55391 35 35-115-23 11 0020 00035 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED KAREN 5ELDEN FREY NILLIAH R COBB 793 FERNDALE DR N NAYZATA HN 55391 35 35-115-23 11 0029 00527 FERNDALE RD N RONNIE D JOHNSON BONNIE D JOHNSON 527 FERNDALE RD N NAYZATA HN 55391 35 35-115-23 11 0031 •0529 FERNDALE RD N J R THOHAS SNA THOHAS JOSEPH R 5 NANCY A THOHAS 529 FERNDALE RD N NAYZATA HN 55391 SB 35-115-23 12 0002 00725 FERNDALE RD N H J SONADA A H R SONADA HICHAEL J/HARGARET R SONADA 725 FERNDALE RD N NAYZATA HN 55391 35 35-115-23 12 0005 00735 FERNDALE RD N ROIL VXAULT RAYHOND G 5 LUCILLE VXAULT 735 FERNDALE RD N NAYZATA HN 55391 35 35-115-23 13 0001 00035 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED STATE OF HINNE80TA DEPT Of NATURAL RESOURCES TAX SPEC BUREAU OF RE HGT 505 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL HN 55155 TOTAL BATCH 505 00010 C X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE REST OF HY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE * . y y-v 01 (j?3>5 AJertM) ''=^yuodaJk /^c/. Permit Wo. PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit ■ifdi~525 a October 17,1999 To: From: Orono Planning Commission; Dick and Joan Strand, 645 Femdale Rd. N. We have reviewed the proposed application for Larry JacobsonA^ickie O’Neill, 635 Femdale Rd. N, application # 2521 The side yard variance requested effects our south property line. We have no objection to the requested variance. We understand that the request includes a variance for the detached garage to be 8 Ft. versus 10 Ft. from the principle structure and for the side setback to be 8 Ft. versus 10 Ft. We do, however, question the rationale for the differences between the side yard variance for a detached garage (10 Ft.) versus an attached garage (30 Ft). In our opinion, as a neighbor, it would be preferred to have an attached structure. In conclusion, we have no objection to the proposed variance application for Jacobson/O ’Neill, #2525. Signature; ______ 7. TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner November 9,1999 SUBJECT:#2530 William Wear 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Variances for Signage Zoning District:B-1 Retail Sales Business District Exhibits A B C D E F G H 1 J Application Plat Map Site Survey Proposed pylon sign plan Proposed canopy sign plan Site photos Sign suiv ey completed by Suburban Lighting, Inc. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 Resolution No. 2073 Revised sign plan (for consideration) The Planning Commission tabled the request by William Wear to locate new signage on the property not in conformance with the Resolution approving a sign plan in 1986. The applicant had proposed a 59 s.f pylon sign and two conoco, canopy signs. The monument sign has been reduced from 89 s.f. The Planning Commission reviewed the signage on the property and determined there was a substantial amount of signage that was not in conformance with the requirements of Resolution 2073. It was recommended the applicant revise the sign plan to allow 380 s.f.. which the property would be allowed if the zoning matched the use of the property. The Planning Commission made the following findings: 1.The use of the property is more in conformance with that listed in the "B-3" Shopping Center District. If the property is zoned B-3 the lot would be allowed 380 s.f. of sign space. A variance could be justified based on the use of the property is similar to that of a property in the B-3 District. The Planning Commission noted in 1986 the applicable B-1 zoning standards are not compatible with existing shopping center use and since 1980 B-3 shopping standards were found more appropriate when considering signage needs of the property. mid WilUam Wear 2160 Wayzata Blvd n/15/99 Page I 2. The Conoco station, as well as many other tenants, use an exterior entrance rather than a typical interior entrance associated with other malls. It may be appropriate to approve additional signage based on this need. This application requires the following variances: 1. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A): Within the B-1 District the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed 50 square feet. The property is allowed a total of 200 s.f. of signage based on frontage and building width along the front property line being 200 feet. The property owner ha^ applied for a variances to allow 380 s.f. of signage on the property, primarily for the new Conoco Station. The plan for a 59 s.f pylon is attached as Exhibit D. Two Conoco Logos (E.xhibit E) are proposed to be located on the canopy (2.5' x 8' each) totaling 40 s.f The pylon encroaches into the front yard setback. Based on Resolution No. 2073, adopted by the Orono City Council on November 10, 1986, the property is allowed the following: A. Building Signage 12 individual tenant signs to be located on the building. Each sign is allowed to be 2' x 12' = 24 s.f The total building signage was approved for 288 s.f. B. West pylon sign (Existing) Logo Sign - top {Orono Shopping Center) 5 ’ x 7.5' = 37.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' X 7.5' X 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. C. East pylon sign (Advertising has been removed, pylons remain on property) Logo Sign - top {time and temperature digital display) 3' x 7.5' = 22.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' X 7.5' x 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. D. Total signage permitted on site per Resolution No. 2073 = 573 s.f. The request is to aliow a sign plan that would permit the property 180 s.f of 'building' sign space. Included in the building sign space would be 40 s.f of signage on the canopy for two 2.5' x 8' = 20 s.f Conoco logos. Tenants would be allowed one building sign above entrance to each business, except businesses which are in the center of the mall or located on the south end of the mall. Each building sign would not be allowed to exceed 30" in height. The Planning Commission should discuss the west pylon on the property. The existing approval allows only the tenant’s name or logo to appear on the sign. The Commission should consider the future of signs on the pylon that are not in conformance or allowed by variance, and if signs should be allowed to be replaced once removed as any non-conforming structure or sign may not. H2S30 William Wear 2160 Wavtaia Bl\d iimm Page! 2. Section 10.40, Subdivision 6 (C): Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. The west pylon was approved 5' off the west property line and 1 O' from the front property line. The east pylon was approved 27’ from the front property line. The east pylon was located within the front yard setback. Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.61, Subdivision 3: Signs in "B" Districts. Existing Signage Suburban Lighting Inc. had completed a sign inventory on the property (Exhibit F). The survey indicates some signage on the building would not be permitted under the Resolution adopted in 1986. Existing Building Signage East Side MILK, (lls.f.) BREAD (16s.f) EGGS (12s.f.) MALL (6 s.f.) On page 3 of Resolution No. 2073, Paragraph 3 states "Building signage shall be limited to current tenant's name or logo. Building signage must be brought into conformance by May 31,1989." Orono Coin Laundry (25 s.f.) The building signage is allowed to be 2' x 12’ = 24 s.f. Red Apron (35 s.f.) Rowlette & Assoc. (11 s.f.) Existing Twin Pole Sign (141 s.f.) This pylon is in conformance with the staged sign plan approved. West Side TLG Classy Canine (20 s.f.) Sunlife Tanning (16 s.f) MALL (6 s.f.) Orono Coin Laundry (25 s.f) The Variances approved allow one building sign per tenant. »2530 millarn tTtar 2160 Wayzata Blvd. U/I5/99 Pag9 3 ANALYSIS The approvals granted in 1986 assumed the current location for Highway 12. Highway 12 will be relocated to the south parallel with the railroad tracks reducing existing Highway 12 from a major highway route to a local arterial. There has been some interest in scaling back future development of signage to accommodate a local arterial street rather than a State Highway. The concept of monument style signs can be seen along the highway at Super America and McDonald's in Long Lake. The proposed sign is designed to be 10' 6" in height, in contrast to the 26' it was approved to be under the previous development plan. The height can be compared to the Super .America sign which is 13’ 10" in height. It can be argued the previous proposal would allow the existing pylon to the west to remain as well as any building signage as permitted by Resolution No. 2073. The only change to the plan would be the replacement of a sign which does require a variance for location and allowable sign space. The most appropriate way to resolve the issue would be to approve variances for a signage plan to allow the building allotment of signage and the west pylon to remain under the previous resolution, with reduced signage for the Conoco station. Staff Recommendation Staff could recommend approval of variances based on the signage proposed would be allowed under the existing Ordinance if the property would be zoned B-3. Staff recommends the property owner show on a site plan the location of the proposed monument sign, and to design a sign and base that conforms to a smaller scale arterial street and utilizes materials used for the base of other monument signs in the locality. »25iO H'llham Wear 2160 Way^ata Blvd. n/IJ/99 Pop* (#2529 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 Continued) Mot:on by Stoddard, second by niilll I I i ~niTim"~* Tl-------- of Application #2529, 1453 Park Drive, to permit a variance renewal fora^IttC^pas^l^iacenUo street setback based on the City Council’s approval of Resolution #4213. VOTbr^ffRia T Miivs 0. (#8) #2530 WILLIAM WEAR. 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - VARIANCES. 7:50 p.m. - 8:31 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. William Wear, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to allow 129 square feet of additional signage for the new Conoco Station on the property located within the B-1 District. The B-1 zoning district allows signage based upon frontage of the property, which means that one square foot of signage is allowed per each foot of frontage on the property. The property is 200 feet wide and is therefore allowed 200 feet of signage based on the frontage. The Applicant is requesting an additional 129 square feet of signage. In 1986, the City Council approved variances to permit two pylon signs, one of which has been removed except for the two support poles. The poles were approved at 26 feet in height. The proposed sign is 17 feet in height. Based on Resolution No. 2073, adopted by the Orono City Council on November 10,1986, the property is allowed a 2' by 12* sign for each tenant of the building, for a total of 12 signs or 288 square feet. In addition, the western pylon sign was permitted with six plaques for a total of 112.5 square feet. The eastern pylon sign has been removed, but the property owner was allowed to have six plaques as well on this sign for a total of 112.5 square feet. Total signage permitted on this property per Resolution 2073 is 573 square feet. The minimum front yard setback for the pylon detached sign requires a 20 foot setback. The east pylon sign was located within the front yard setback, with the west pylon sign being approved five feet off the west property line and ten feet from the front property line. Weinberger stated that the approvals granted in 1986 assumed the current location for Highway 12. Upon relocation of Highway 12. the existing Highway 12 corridor vrill change from a major highway route to a local arterial. The City Council has expressed some interest in reducing back future development of signage to accommodate a local arterial street rather than a state highway. One possible option to resolve this issue would be to approve variances for a signage plan to allow the building signage and the west pylon to remain under the previous resolution, with reduced signage for the new Conoco station. City Staff is recommending denial of the variances based on the fact the proposed signage would not be allowed under the existing Ordinance and the proposed pylon style sign would be in contrast to the character of the area. Staff is recommending that they utilize materials more in keeping with other monument signs in the area. City Staff would like to work with the owner of the Conoco station to arrive at a suitable signage plan. Weinberger stated the use of the property is more in conformance with that listed in the B-3 shopping center district. If the property is zoned B-3. the lot would be allowed 380 square feet c: sign space, and a variance could be justified based on the fact the use of the property is simila*’ to that of a property in the B-3 district. A representative of Suburban Lighting indicated that they do have some options for reducing the Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 the lance into I of rthis the (#2530 William Wear. Continued) compliance. Lindquist 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 of 380 square feet. City Council Member Kelley suggested that the Planning Commission take into consideration what they would like to see for signage along the old Highway 12 corridor as weil as the new Highway 12 corridor, along with lighting and building materials. Kelley stated that most of these guidelines were established with the understanding that Highway 12 would remain 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 signage plan for the entire property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (M) igwe p^iwe p OROH0 REvi3ie f»TC>wpuL*rue B»e nwNAWoo.i».t> vmif The uvtificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. There wer^np public comments regarding this application. Hawn stated du^^fi the amount of information involved with this revision to the ordinance, in her opinion discussiono^is issue would be better suited to a work session. Hawn requested that the appropriate notice^given to the general public regarding this ordinance revision. Motion by Hawn, secondD)^luth, to table Application #2537, City of Orono Revision to Adult Use Ordinance to a Plaqp'ng Commission work session to be scheduled this evening. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. and ndry um lore in (#9) #2531 ROGER AND ELIZABETH Gft^N. 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - RENEWAL VARIANCES, 8:34 p.m. - 8:43 p.m. V The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publicatf(tn^ere noted. Roger Olsen, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant received variances to expanchqnd 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.XOlsen stated that he is having a difficult time retaining a contractor to do theqvork at a reasonable price, but that he would like to have the work completed within the next year. S. 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 Application # Date Received Amount Paid ^ASO> c/^ 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 / ^ \ j I / ^ Site Address 9lLD K. WajUIOJI) LD m ULKi Property identification Number .^4- ~ i I ft • 2.3 ~ 2. f ~ CDri .CLProperty Identification Number (P.l.D.) v^4~ I (h' Z,/ - Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_______f\/r)t/Fr 19lo^(month/year) • I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. a i Present use of property: __resident!^ X o ther (specify) LDlYU^iFTO {A [. Zoning District: E>~ I __________________________________________• *v APPLICANT Name WJii Addre^A/, R/til k^berrej Ulll Mr • I Phone (home ) L^3i'Ap3'AD30 * Phone (work ) L '7/)4.n City: /Ong IA)le' Zip: 53 356, [ . OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____ Phone (homeX Phone (work)_■1-1 Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST : (1 Estimated^ Construction Cost $ _____ rP/rf//)>/> A 1~fiDescribe request in detail: ( >n kG^I /J ^0 , k 'Mh u. Sff (dMAiua^ lUliCl _j y (attach^additional sll^ets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore )( Other (specify) tSt/ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult pr uijusu^l prope^y con di^tio ns prw^ting nitj compli k^\rivc<h(nLAj (attach additional sheets if necessary) L \ ::9.14 1:9.39 201. 51 iir.^33 198 95 Cl‘7L0r 8 1^38 Na9*^6'oVE H 507? 101. 17 (li^rV/OOD ’TTgF' ^■9s 1^5, \ 101.05 'SJ- 17 ^0- (22) 290. 96 OU" (31 153.42 DCC NO 2038792 353. 42 387*4 1'w 155.23 81.59 ° - JTlOT a 5.05 piiiiill ?>. 230.6 ! OV'^OT ■ 5 iigiipipg ! (32) 83. .N..' 204. 44 mmmmm z£5 9,.r''^'2^{^.vv:;::;;:;::::;;:v::;;X;X;:v::; O 200*53. 387*4 1 •£ (1) J4------7 PARCEL 242B / CL'TlOT f (5B) .---- 214.41 WAYZAT R/V) ZJ3 I—t * HA (59)ro « IN> 09cn 04 - %■h^-------(10) .• (11 (-48) Cd £1-^-447. J f 119.58 55.6 (36)(39) 80.01 175 :25.CI 205 50 (46) - cn t j s ; - 1 p i 0 >- 00uo 111205 LXJ IT> V Z ;C5 —\OD « (87) s c X tr\ / F-' LC (5. 6^® B 2.5 ’ 2.5 ’ 3.5 ’ 1.5 ’ 1.5 ’ 2.5 ’ 2 ’ 8 ’ V. J WESTERN ? r- ^ CONVENIENGE fffU'3 r- .•■ <-V 12 HI LIQUOR . ' -C. ... »* ^ -V. ' . . :. . . —* • m ■ 4****; '' •. -- >-■ ..<. t Unleaded i“;.'.r-r- V A'"' -v' .»•w* ♦-t" r . v: . t .* <■ . * s‘.»- unleadecT v: : f :* -i* ‘ n '■ _ Plu1-■• '-4; •.■;•• ■■ ::1 ? !l4jJ^ Ivli5* < • V • , » M •>'•■*«; \.\t ** — ► ‘ /3:\\3vV^^iasii.ii’ \. • • V. ■ '.I ^ t • - - « > < » « « AM A'JlV.’O,h>:-.; .r^ .t >.» Ip J'feKfj-irV : V'-.:Sv ' i--:rA-:-.i iSttliiB TWO LINES OF SIX INCH COPY •:* A J ♦ • 1 ^ vsi 6’ 89 so ft total 20 sq ft 15 sq ft 21 sq ft 9sq ft 9sqft 17 ’ 15 sq ft f'f>Pe>$e P (<)<o 4o o £>C(s4■J^.^C( Tuo*r^ Y'tlei c^re <30 £■. e*"’ frop^* • •' >1 'oM SIGNAGE roENTMCATlbN ^ CAPSULE SIGN PLACEMENT ON CANOPY FASCIAS Jobbers may choose from 6' and 8' single-face Conoco capsule signs to inset or surface-mount on their canopy fascia. The 6' capsule sign is to be used on vertical canopies which are 36" to 48" wide. The 8' is to be used on vertical canopies 48" and wider. Two capsule signs are permitted per canopy. While it is not mandatory at this time to mount a capsule sign on the canopy, it is recommended and will in the future become a part of the new image requirement Canopy- mounted capsule sign cans will be painted charcoal gray. Use of the capsule sign on a mansard-style fascia is prohibited. A mansard fascia should be con verted to a 36" or 48" three- panel, two-reveal canopy giving the facility a more contemporary appearance. Jobbers should be aware that local signage codes sometimes restrict the number and size of signs by a variety of formulas to determine allowable signage. In these cases, pole-mounted cap sule signs take precedence over canopy or building capsule signs. Capsule Sign Placement on Canopy Fascia I---I'lO*6' •j/. r. Conoco Edge of Canopy Capsule Sign Cans are Painted Chareeal Qi - Mf * * iv :• Conoco1 2:s £ ^ • 1-88 ^, $ t Ci. LL. •• •% .••I A' •• * • .; •»':1 ■.,1 "I;I fi9BEEZ&|( ’ t •• * 1i p-rji-vi ^ ‘ • I ,v. .-u*-- J-'; - - r \ .-4 . - *• >tv- ‘■' io. 7'-^--------------- n *. I ^ ^ I jfi /y> u cC. ■ ~i •1 ■ •• •• I •s-;''-. Vr. V. - L P r o ^ ^ ^ ^ Co^c>iS-^ £* , cf- UJ . ^ -o F j 35-ST S lO n-Lr c,*-**^*^1 **'» C ^ h> tn e S’F r Sum U I-F^-1 FT iV' a LL-—h ff (^ r of^ e> Col*^ L.a«>^iru —7.S Si . FT H § 10.61 permitted: )d. 2. Signs in "R" Districts. Within ”R" Districts, the follovring signs are SNameplates. POne nameplate sign for each dwelling and such sign shall not exceed two square feet in area per s^KJwe, and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces. X. 2. One nameptoe sign for each dwelling group of six or more units, and such sign shall not exceed six square feet per surface and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces. 3. One nameplate sign for e^b^^oe^ni^ed use or use by conditional permit other than residential and such sign shall no“t exceed twHt^^quare feet in area per surface. B. Illumination. Symbols, stames, sculptures ffl^btegrated architectural features on non-residential buildings may be illuminated by flood lights pr^Nt^d the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential disf^ C. Setbacks, Etc. Any sign over one-half square foot shall be seTbq^ at least five feet from any property line. No sign shall exceed eight feet in height above the avera^erade level. Signs may be illuminated but such lighting shall be diffused or indirect. Subd. 3. Signs in "B" and "I" Districts. Within the "B" and 'T' Districts nameplate signs and business signs are permitted subject to the following regulations. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. "B-r, "B-2" and ''B-4": Size. Within the "B-l", "B-2" and "B-4" Districts, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed fifty square feet. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 B. "B-3": Size. Within the "B-3" District, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. ORONO CC 381 43-1-84) ---------- § 10.61 C. "I": Size. Within any "I" District, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of foui square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property' not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 D. "B-l", "B-2" and ”B-4": Height. Within the "B-l", "B-2" and **B-4" Districts, no sign shall extend in height more than tvr'o feet above the highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building nor shall any sign be located closer than ten feet from any property line except that any sign over ten square feet may project two feet into any required yard area from the principal building. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 E. "B-3" and "I": Height. Within any ”B-3" or "I" District, no sign shall extend in height more than six feet in height above the highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building. No sign shall be located closer than ten feet from any property line except that any sign exceeding ten square feet may project only two feet into the yard area from any building. Subd. 47Purpose of Off-I^tteet^^icmg an^TCoading Requirements, kegulation oV ».r^street parking and loading spaces in this Chapter is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the pubil^ght-of-w«” and so to promote the safety and general welfare of the public by establishing minimu?H^equire*.T^Us for off-street parking, loading and unloading from motor vehicles in accordance>mi the iivlization of various parcels of land and structures. All applications for an occupancy certiS^ nil districts shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicatm^e location of off-street parking and loading spaces in compliance with the following requirements: Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. Application of ParkiHg^ules All Districts. In addition to the regulations and requirements set forth elsewhere in this ClSipib^^e following regulations and requirements regarding off-street parking shall apply to the required ahi^on-required- off-street parking facilities in all use districts: SoTlSg: Ordinance No. 172 EffecU^KDate: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 382 43-1-84) ^41 EOF City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2073 r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO HUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.61, SUBDIVISION 3 (A) & (D), ORDINANCE 13, SECOND SERIES FILE #1000 6 1009 WHEREAS, William Wear (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Section 34, Township 118, Range 23; Commencing at a point in Northerly line of State Highway No. 12 distance 149.05 feet Easterly as measured along said Northerly line from West line of East % of Northwest 1/4 thence North 2 degrees, 41 minutes, 23 seconds East distance of 334.52 feet; thence South 87 degrees, 18 minutes, 37 seconds East distance 200 feet; thence South 2 degrees, 41 minutes, 23 seconds West to Northerly line of said highway; thence Westerly along said Northerly line to beginning (P.I.D.; 34-118-23 21 0002), (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) & (D) and Ordinance 13, Second Series seeking approval of a staged comprehensive signage plan prior to the completion of the Highway 12 Planning Study requiring modifications in existing signage, allowing the installation of a second, independent pylon and limiting building signage at 288 s.f. (12 tenants each allowed a 2*xl2' location sign), this signage plan requires the following variances to the B-1 Commercial Zoning District standards; Ordinance 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) - Allowed Area For Signage Allowed = 200 s.f. Proposed = 573 s.f. Total Signage Area Proposed Variance *= 373 s.f. or 187 % Ordinance 10.61, Subdivision 3 (D) Allowed * 22 feet Proposed *= 26 feet Variance « 4 feet or 18% - Allowed Height For Signage Minnesota: HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Page 1 of 5 City of OR-OIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2073_________ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) & (D) and Ordinance 13, Second Series seeking area and height variances and a variance to the temporary limited development ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Council hereby approves a staged comprehensive signage plan for the property: A) Total Signage Area: Building Signage (12 x 24 s.f.) Pylon Plagues (12 x 18.75 s.f.) Logo Area (5' x 7.5') Time/Temperature Area (3' x 7.5') TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA 288 s.f. 225 s.f. 37.5 s.f. 22.5 s.f. 573 s.f. B) •'’he pro;'.e^ty is limited to two 26 feet high pylons desc as the west "Logo" pylon find the east "Time/i ftfipurature" pylon, the areas of each pylon are designated as follows: 1. West Logo Pylon 6 Plaques (2.5' x 7.5' » 1 Logo Sign (5' x 7.5') TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA 18.75 S.f. X 6)112.5 s.f. 37.5 s.f. 150 S.f. 2. East Time/Temperature Pylon 6 Plaques (2.5* x 7.5' = 18.75 s.f. 1 Time/Temperature (3' x 7.5') TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA X 6)112.5 s.f. 22.5 s.f. 135 s.f. 2. The existing west "Logo" pylon must be altered to meet approved 26 foot height by May 10, 1987. The east and west pylon must be identical and constructed of similar material. Building permits are required for the installation of the east pylon and proposed modifications of west pylon. Each tenant shall be allowed one plaque area space but in no case shall any one tenant be allowed to exceed 37.5 s.f. of single signage or the combined area of two approved plaque signs on each pylon. 3. Building signage shall be limited to current tenant's naime or logo. Building signage must be brought into conformance by May 31, 1989. Page 3 of 5 _ _1 sr City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2073________ STAtB ;Ca^|ilMlNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. On this day of /Jo b-e r 1986 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared LOith'cL^x) r- ^ rmahle X 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. HeNNfPtH COUN^ My oowiwminn «xptr«s 9-«.r. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of _1986, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 V \ r>6” 20 SI ft i]^jjfJljjjjjj_£l_i][jj'ji^[jigjuljiillilji^ujlilli[iihjJljiirtifttlti^iMl^iiifcii^‘«i^Vli^^ _ ipppp T'T ' ' i^T^.r! BopPPiiPli»l . </» • > M •■• ' •*, s* *, ,>V.’..\ ' ‘*1 V •. . \ /-^ V' ' ; f*- . '^^ •.» * t.. I V » 't-.- !i.:,S; ■:.• :'•••■j. i •■crM- \ ' • v:-;"'.vi •■- ^ ; tsP^Mm'. ■•; ■ 1>IW 2 LINES 6 INCH CHAN6EABLE LETTERS [ V.' r-6” osift 3*-6” 21 soft r-6” Osqlt ( r-6”so sq ft total M O *- <D • • <n S ON o CD -I ON to o>s 5a> i::: V. • l-H X 3 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner November 10, 1999 SUBJECT: #2546 Christine Wood 4005 North Shore Drive Variance Renewal — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:17,244 s.f.(.39 acre) Application Summary: On November 12, 1991, owner's of this property were granted variances to construct a detached garage and storage addition of 834 s.f. to be located 3’ from a street rear lot instead of 10' as required and 10' from the side or rear lot line instead of the required 15' for a structure over 750 s.f. Also, a variance to allow hardcover within the 75'-250' setback area at 4,817.2 s.f (57.48%), where 2,095 s.f (25%) is allowed and 4,165.7 s.f (49.7%) exists. The present owner would like to renew the variances on this property. Staff recommends renewing the variances. The lot is unusually shaped and does not have a functional garage on the property. A new foundation should be built and the cinder blocks put in by the previous owner be removed. Exhibits: A Application B Site Plan/Survey C Plat Map D Location Map E Elevations F Property Owner's List G Resolution #1687 (November 21, 1991) H Planning Commission minutes (October 21,1991) I City Council minutes (November 21,1991) J Staff Report (October 15,1991) K Permit Record H2546 4005 North Shore Drive Variartce Renewal 1 1/10/99 Page I Application #25’VS’ Date Received _/0^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) .•^(r Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 l(r&7 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number fP.I.D.’l </</ OOO^ mm mm • ••Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propert^cQuired vQ^Qi ______________^(month/year) I (do)(^on^)also own the adjacent parcels of land. Presentuse oTpro y residentialPresent use of property: X Zoning District: Z /s * 11^ APPLICANT Name C oiL, Ul';jpo^ other (specify). Address: A0C3€> tsjjaU-Tu Oit- City: n.e.ot>o__ijlM Phone fhome]^j[o\^ 6 -QSc^ Phone (worlO(^to\^ .*^l4 - SY OVTsER (i- different than applicant) Name _______— f^A<uug — Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:City:.Zip:. 3000DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ^ , Describe request in detail: OPLAA&tyt'_ 4 V v M -•r. .*•*■« •)s *> I *'l J^WdWiiUV IWVJiAWOU MAX VAVMUl. C/1 - I ^ V ~ r ~ --------------^ •* L lufcbD ^ ATTACHg-r) '^7^ • ....... (attach additional sheets if necessarj) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakediore yf Other (specify) ----------------- HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONiiirnONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propt fO **'!ditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: i=^)P(2 (attach additional sheets if necessary) • I iof5— iting i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: / Completed Application Form Certified Property O’Wriiers List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map fi’om Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. ^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/2" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include naaie(s) of applicant(s) if not current owiier(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vonr variance applica tion 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 pa>ment) 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. DateApplicant's Signature OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature ■Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plannin g Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent ar.end in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Gr A. . nings] Bay nay. ^1 son : ORONOfs Arm Crystal g£^ Shad^^)od Point ffl DEERINO ^•s V ^in3Tid=a^& S tOMMlI M "S* , MItllll --------iv«« ISLAND ...(^1 Fagerness Point 1* SMOKim K a-OaOTEAOAVf t-n TOt/V LA ! °! f{ i * 5 - Jm HTDUICMU Spring Park ;usi»f "'iTvjesat IM it It if «‘«8C(^o- Bay kNiOROh E L il^) f*. • FRONT ELEVATION HOE ecAL=: 74- s ro‘ 4/12 ROOF PITCH ALL DgPTH OPTIONS ore OOJBLB eARA6E DOOR 1x6 3C4s;r e*r.p rPAc • !6- CC. «=s?CV ^.^cscp - - rccRc A.'o ^t?cc»vf TYPICAL 12* LAP 5-C'!^o 5K:^t» /i/’O' £*PC6^P£ PP£'=C^J^£? C»JT5;SE CCP>«ER3 FOR LAP 6RArE F I 4 6RAr**. r: ^ I Jl o V :fnrW'y ^f=^' .-^L y Z4 ‘ 31. 4/12 ROOF RICH NTH optional PERSOrtCL DOOR 1 OPTiCVi, W>CCk-« 6«Ape 8 X 1^’ (50<l4.oC) TYPICAL LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 6h ;a ^p ‘ i».0' NDE 7A' J*rt«PTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROOF PITCH 2>i NTH OPTIONAL NW?Oli *v :?•<* /: vLUAR /— ^ • c? C> J T % » J i'. ;r-5 J J HUN DATE ia/lA/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST HATCH 501 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 07-117-23 0003 0A005 NORTH SHORE DR J M t R A S0DERBER6 JEROME M/ROSE ANN S0DERBER6 A005 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND MN 5530^ 36 07-117-23 <9^ 0066 OAOOO NORTH SHORE DR R J t M T NICOSXl ROSIN J I MARY T NICOSKI ^000 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 5536^ 36 06-117-23 33 0073 01560 NORTH ARM DR PATRICIA M LAWLESS PATRICIA LAWLESS 1560 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 5536^ 36 17-117-23 22 0009 03995 NORTH SHORE DR H RICHARD ZUCKMAN H RICHARD ZUCKMAN 1619 DUPONT AVE S MPLS MN 55903 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 1 36 07-117-23 99 0009 09009 NORTH SHORE DR P S i E A LUZAICH PETER t ELIZABETH LUZAICH 9009 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55369 36 07-117-23 99 0005 09017 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN F THEOBALD ETAL JOHN F THEOBALD 9017 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55369 36 06-117-23 33 0069 93960 NORTH SHORE DR LEAH MARIE VICKERMAN LEAH M VICKERMAN 3960 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55369 38 06-117-23 33 0071 01570 NORTH ARM DR MARY K RICE MARY K RICE 1570 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55369 36 06-117-23 33 0079 01550 NORTH ARM DR MARGARET PELTOLA MARGARET PELTOLA 1550 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55369 36 06-117-23 33 0075 01590 NORTH ARM DR EDDIE A LINDGREN EDDIE A LINDGREN 1590 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55369 38 17-117-23 22 0090 01635 CONCORDIA ST HOWARD R ALTON III HOWARD R ALTON III 1635 CONCORDIA ST ORONO MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 501 00011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF IMF MtNNrriN COIRITY DFPARTMFNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE UdlRu) * f • r • , /; ■ r. .. •T\ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3038_________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING . VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (D) AND (E), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE TO SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1687 WHEREAS, Robert J. Bilger (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 4005 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A (hereinafter "the property")? and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zohing Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) and (E) to permit a detached garage at 834 s.f. to be located 3' from a street lot line instead of 10' as required by Code and 10' from the side or rear lot line instead of the required 15' for a structure in excess of 750 s.f. Applicant also seeJcs a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit a net increase in hardcover within the 75-250’ setbac)c area at 4817.2 s.f. or 57.48% where only 2,095 s.f. or 25% is allowed. Applicant also see)cs approval for a 6'x32' section of dec)c installed without the benefit of a building permit resulting in a 192 s.f. of hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1687. The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. Property consists of 17,244 s.f. or .39 acres. Hardcover within the 0-75' setback area = 576 s.f. or 6.49%. Existing hardcover within the 75-250' setback area - 4,165.7 s.f. or 49.7%. & Page 1 of 6 •f rr-'y i- •' .p sJ •)i J CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3038_ _ _ _ _ 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 21, 1991 .and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: a) The triangular shape of the property. b) The unique location of property on a severe "S" curve. c) The property does not have a functional garage that can house cars during the extreme cold winter months nor the summer months. d) Over 50% of the area of this property is located in the 0-75* setback area. e) The property was developed before the current lakeshore development standards established in 1975. 4. •5. The City Ccancil finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance 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 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) and (E) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a detached garage/storage structure located Page 2 of 6 /< ^>* in.. V- CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3038_________ 3' from the street lot line and 10' from the side/rear lot line resulting in 4,817.2 s.f. or 57.48% hardcover in the 75-250' setback wh0£'0 only 25% is allowed and approval of an after —the—fact variance for a 6'x32' deck constructed without the benefit of a building permit at 192 s.f. of hardcover in the 75-250' setback area subject to the following conditions: X, Final approved hardcover at 4,817.2 s.f. within the 75—250' setback area is approved as shown on page 6 of this resolution. All structures scheduled for removal shall be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the proposed detached garage/storage structure. 2. The applicant shall provide detailed grading and drainage plans with building permit application for new construction. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, 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 0xpire on that date (November 12, 1992). 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 hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf o himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 6 i'i f . ^ /l O r-; . X Lot line setback the-fact fit of a >ack area e 75-250' of this shall be for the drainage (truction. property d must be Lthin one ance will CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3038__________ Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of November# 1991. ST: iTh b^othy Mf IHallin, City Clerk Property Owne^(s) ^ terms and lation of authority neanor. nd hereby >ehalf of agrees to title of STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of November, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. CAROLE A. HASEMAN NOTMT PUUB-4lfME90TA HENNEPIN COUNTY ITT oouuasBN OTira Notary Public Page 4 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3038_ _ _ __ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 88. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 / before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared CT. ni l-Jdr 0(^ne.r—- - - - - ■ . known to me to be" the persbn(4) d6sti:ribed in and who executed tne foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. “tSSST'LINDA S. VEE^^^^ , notary PUBUC • MINNtSOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My commission axplrM $-12«mi g&-<OF"■ MINNDOQTA .) ■ > COUNTY OF HENNEFIN ) On this ' jss. un tnis _ _ _- - - - - ««ay wj. - - -=- -'before me a Notary Public within and for sair. county, personally appeared p!. -- - - - -. 4 -i:r^known to me to be the persoWs) described in ana wno executed tne foregoing instrumentf and acknowledged tha^ he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. day of 199 WiT>\ S. VEE NOTARY PUBUC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My commission oplros 8>12-M Page 5 of 6 JJ. o ■ > *• . # / ally the uted tally 1 the :uted ^ Ly C ^\J /.i / /7. I -3/f.-5V4^ ill 'Wf \t h /€Jf^PW $m0^t. re n y Ml 5^4 w » J L-UL I i RESOLUTION #3038 LEGAL DESCRIPTIO?? situated. In the County •of Hennepin and State of Minnesota to wlti •Lot I except that part thereof bounded by a line beginning at the most Southerly corner of said •Lot: thence North on the Easterly line of said .Lot* 21 feet; thence Southwesterly in a straioht line to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Lot distant 20 feet Northwesterly measured along said line from the moat Southerly corner •of said Lot; thence Southeasterly along said Southwesterly, line,.20, feet to point of beglnnino* all of Lot 2; .and all that part of Lot 3, lylnr^* • easterly of a straight line drawn across said lotf which line begins, at a point In the northerly line of said lot 3; feet-vesterly measured along said northerly line from-the northeasterly corner of said lot,•..•.and runs In a straight line .235.3 feet to a point•distant 21.8 feet northwesterly from.and-at right angles to the easterly.line/of said lot 3 and thence continues -In.-the same direction to the aoutherly».llhe .of said lot, in Highwood, Lalce MlnnetonXa, according to the plat thereof on file or of record .in the off ice; of the Registrar I of Titles in and for‘said .County .. .•u. ‘ .. ■" 4 ¥<} / / 7 / Area y<;J»a ‘rcal-.‘ sq.. .ft-;»0.397 aefBS- • •• •>'..•* • . .. . .'I* ’ ';;•• •.\..:, Hirdcov (i„; ,q. gt.) ^ .{one Zons Ares*-. Hard(eover*’Area* * r " .0-75 • 8864 . 4 6,*.- 75-250 . 8380 • : ' r 4. 44 / \ \ I // / /t *' *. H'250-500 •mi 'I %*'V /i *v. v*<x 4i»i .4... • at • *.o ;0EN0TES-T|R0N • FOUND . •> .DENOTES-IRON -SET .?rrrDCN0TE9'*0IRECn0N OF SURFACE FLOW. . i m-DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION . ' ; ;fcid DENOTES' PROPOSED ELEVATION . , :• .. r; ,.• • PROPOSED = ELEVATIONS :LOWEST FLOOR • ' ‘ MX A oarage FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION \v \ N L4KE . MtHNZTOHKA' : ref WA7SA 7-0*f/ s 5t9.ZI \ \ \ i _____ —at |*4f CM<f aPlAT I iKCiPTiOA^ 9 • •■•KIM A. REAUME REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR 4IZ~S42>9559 413 HOPKIMS CSOSSAOaO WIMMCrONMa, MINNCSOTA ; 93345 BOOK 8 PAGE 31 PROJECT NO. 9/0390 SHEET • • . REVISIONS I HEREBY •-ERTIFY rH\T THIS SVEVFV. PL.X.*; OR REPORT WAS PREr.AREO .SV ME 03 US’OER MY DIRECT SUPESVIS ION A.S’3 THAT T AM A DULY REGISTERED LAVD SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE 7-9-9/REG. .\o. 1953 ’ ^ A RESOLUTION #3038 EXHIBIT "A" s:A:?r/cVAV.^vu!s'K.?s::'"»'« In^th^'soutUes^tirly^line^o^/^^^^ feet Northwest^erlyon the Soutnwesterxy iin Southerly corner of said Lot; leSthelsterly along said Southwesterly line 2° ^ °| a®s\^rriaht line drawn a'cross said lot, which line begins at a point in thTlegAtrar oi Titles in and for said Hennepin County, Minnesota. •?J) t.SJlV.- • ^ rtINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1991 (#2) #1695 THOMAS & ALICE STUCK AND JOHN M. BAUER, 4345/4365 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - A) SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT liBjc‘*iSEARfNG°8?20-2?57"?“r Thomas and Alice Stuck were present for this application. It was moved by Chair Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to approve the variance to the moratorium Ordinance #96, Second Series for Application #1695 to allow a subdiv’ision of a lot line rearrangement for 4345 and 4365 North Shore Drive, based on the unique characteristics of the lots, no new lots being created, and this rearrangement was suggested by the Planning Commission in an earlier variance application for the Stucks. Ayes 6, nays Gaffron explained that this is a request for subdivision of a lot line rearrangement to increase the size of the Stuck property and to place the existing garage within their property boundaries. Applicants are also requesting a revision in their prior variance approval to be allowed to construct the portion of deck that was previously denied, now that the property will increase in area. It was moved by Chair Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of Application #1695 for Thomas and Alice Stuck and John M. Bauer, for properties at 4345 and 4365 North Shore Drive, for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement, and to further allow the deck addition of 180 s.f. additional hardcover. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#6) ROBERT J. BILGER, 4005 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:30-8:39 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Robert Bilger was present for this application. Mabusth explained that the applicant is requesting setback and hardcover variances to construct a detached garage. Staff has suggested moving the garage 5' to the north to allow use of a proposed backout apron. A 15’ setback is required because the garage and workshop are over 750 s.f. and the garage would be 8' from the side lot line if moved 5' to the north. She noted that tne workshop is to the north of the garage. Bilger indicated that they intend to drive in and back out the entire length of the driveway and need to maintain the garage at the proposed location. Mabusth stated that the garage was recommended to be because of the backout apron shown on the plans.moved 8 I? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1991 #1687 - CONT. Bilger stated that would not be constructed. Mabusth noted this would reduce the hardcover percentages. Bilger also noted that he intended to remove the workshop/storage shed. Mabusth stated by removing both of these, hardcover would be reduced by 4-5%. She noted that there is also an issue of an after-the-fact deck addition which connects the front deck to the rear deck. Bilger explained that due to a car accident on his property, his •rfife was permanently crippled and the addition was needed for her safety. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of Application ^‘1687 for Robert J. Bilger of 4005 North Shore Drive, ♦’o allow the construction of a detached garage requiring setback and hardcover variances, and to appro’" the after-the- fact addition to the existing decks connecting front to rear, the hardship be.'ng the shape of the lot, weather in Minnesota during the winter, and the effort on the part of the applicant to reduce hardcover. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#7) #1688 JIM BURANEN, 1085 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - APPEALS - PUBLIC HEARING 8:42-9:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Jim Buranen and Lori Reineking were present. Mabusth explained that in 1990, the applicants were granted variance approval to enlarge their garage to house two limos. She noted that because of economic pressures, all four limos are now stored on the property and questions have been raised regarding the intensification of the commercial use on the property. Staff has advised applicants that a home occupatio* license would be necessary and it is doubtful all stipulations of the code could be met. She has explained to Buranen that the limos have been kept in the front yard and not in enclosures, there is excessive parking in the front yard by persons picking up the cars, and per the license no one other than residents of the home can work under the license; the grey area being these are not employees, but rather contract persons. She noted that the limos are currently stored outside. The applicants have requested, as part of the home occupation license, permission to build a detached garage structure to house the additional limos and other vehicles. I.. . To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building 6 Zoning Administrator October 15, 1991 Subject: #1687 Robert Bilger, 4005 North Shore Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Lakeshore residential, 1 acre minimum List of Exhibits ~ A - Application B - Applicant's Addendum C - Property Owners List D - Plat Map E - Adjacent Property Owner's Acknowledgement Form F - Elevation, South G - Floor Plan H - Applicant's Hardcover Fact Sheet, 0-75' Setback Area I - 1 A - Applicant's Hardcover Fact Sheet, 75-250' Setback Area J - Survey K - Staff Sketch Pertinent Ordinances - A. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (D) lakeshore lot. Allowed = 10' Proposed = 3' Variance = 7' or 70% - Detached garage, street yard of B.Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (E) - Proposed accessor^ structure at 834 s.f. must be set back 15' from si a or rear lot lines. Required = 15' Proposed = 10' Variance = 5' or 33.3% Staff Recommendation = 8' (Review Exhibit K) Variance = 7' or 46.6% C.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - 1, 0-75' setback area = 8,864 s.f. Existing per applicant's survey = 456 s.f. or 5.1 % Per site inspection = 576 s.f. or 6.49%* No removals proposed. * 120 s.f. of retaining wall located within 0-75' setback area. Review Exhibit J. Zoning File #1687 October 15, 1991 Page 2 2. 75-250' setback area = 8,380 s.f. Allowed = 2,095 s.f. or 25% Existing per applicant's hardcover facts = 4,093.7 s.f. or 48.9% Per site inspection = 4,165.7 s.f. or 49.7%* (72 s.f. for footpath) Proposed per applicant = 5,216.7 s.f. or 62.25%. Please note 72 s.f. of footpath area is to be removed because of swale to be installed within west side yard. Review Exhibits I, 1 and 2. Per staff recommendation = 5,336.7 s.f. or 63.7%. Applicant proposes no removals except for those improvements to be removed because of new construction. D, After-the-Fact Variance Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Applicants installed a 6' x 32' section of deck (refer to Exhibit J) resulting in 192 s.f. of additional hardcover within the 75-250' setback area or 2.29%. Applicant claims because of severely sloping topography this was an attempt to connect the front and side access deck to the rear deck and entrance to house. Description of Request Mr. Bilger proposes the installation of a detached garage and storage addition in the street yard of the lakeshore lot. Doors have been provided to the side with a turnaround or backout apron provided on the property. A garage structure is allowed 10' from the street lot line. The storage addition presents a zoning issue as only garage structures are allowed 10'. ^ Members may determine that that a mixed use structure would require a 35' setback. As structure exceeds 750 s.f., the accessory structure must be located 15' from side and rear lot lines. Structure is proposed at 10' from the west side lot line. Glenn Cook was asked to comment on the feasibility of the limited area for backing out from garage. Cook confirms that the backout apron will not work and recommends that the garage be moved 5' further north. Refer to Exhibit K. Structure would now be located 8' from the west side lot line. Note the improvement project results in 12.55% increase in hardcover. Applicant proposes the removal of portions of boulder wall (60 s.f.) and garage slab (28 s.f.) resulting from proposed construction. 72 s.f. of footpath will be removed as a result of the swale to be installed along the west side lot line. Cook confirms swale can still be maintained within 8' side yard. Zoning File #1687 October 156, 1991 Page 3 It should also be noted that if Planning Commission members approve staff proposal that an additional 120 s.f. of drive will result by moving garage 5' north. Hardcover proposed with staff's recommendation would be at 5,336.7 s.f. or 63.7%. The following is a list of existing or proposed improvements, the area of each and the hardcover percentage: 0-75' setback area Gravel drive = 392 s.f. or 4.4% 75-250' setback area Portion of deck constructed without building permit = 192 s.f. or 2.29% Existing garage and storage building = 319.5 s.f. or 3.8% Proposed storage/workshop addition *= 258 s.f. or 3.07% Staff would ask Plannnig Commission members who are able to visit the sight to review the gravel area. Do members feel additional gravel area can be removed now that turnaround is provided in the rear yard? Should the 392 s.f. of gravel area be removed in the 0-75' setback area....will it create exiting problems? Hardship Statement Review both application form and applicant's addendum. Exhibits A and B. Applicant notes the shape, size and unique location of property. In addition the addendum notes the need for a garage to house the family cars during both the extreme cold winter months and summer months. Staff would also add the hardship that over 50% of the area of this property is located in the 0-75' setback area. The property was also developed long before the current lakeshore development standards established in 1975. Additional Staff Comments Any recommendation of approval must include either removals of existing hardcover or reduction in proposed improvements to be consistent with previous actions of the City in granting hardcover variances. Isv L.... Zoning File #1687 November 5, 1991 Page 4 Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation Upon a site inspection of the property, the Planning Commission unanimously concur that there should be no removals of the gravel drive area within the 0-75* setback area nor within the 75-250' setback area. Any removal will restrict the ability to turn around on the property and would result in increased potential of accidents. One of the members noted this is one of the most hazardous sections of road in the City. This property is the most exposed to any potential hazard on the roadway. In response to staff's recommendation that the proposed structure be moved 5* to the north to allow for a backout ability, Mr. Bilger advised that backout aprons should not have been shown as he will continue to use the existing gravel drive surface for backing out on the property. This will reduce 30 s.f. of hardcover proposed within the 75-250' setback area. The applicant explained that he did not wish to move the gravel further north on the property because of the higher elevations and the additional costs and impact on the existing elevation. The applicant also advises that he proposes the removal of the existing garage and storage building to the north side of the property at 319.5 s.f. or 3.8% hardcover Final hardcover within the 75-250' setback area is proposed as follows; Existing = 4,165.7 s.f. or 49.7% Proposed = 4,817.2 s.f. or 57.48% Hardcover increase = 651.5 s.f. or 7.8i The Planning Commission also approved after-the-fact variance portion of the application that would allow a 6'x32' section of deck on west side of the house based on the severely sloping topography and the special needs of Mrs. Bilger. Mrs. Bilger sustained injuries when a car crashed into the rear of their home. The approval resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation. Hardcover within the 0-75' setback area will remain at 576 s.f. or 6.49%, hardcover within the 75-250' setback area is proposed at 4,817.2 s.f. or 57.48%. CITY OP^ ORONO VARIANCE APPLICATION * 1 ' V ‘ *** »* \ I * •; * I Initial Application Fdie $175. ($50.00 per each addit^nal —variance ) vR^H^ewal.^Variance yPee $100.00 ^ .v '' (no change from original ap'p^ication) ' « After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address U-OO*^ /V P______________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) 07- If —^4 Oq o§ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. umWik ni r’C*j vvH lhECK IL i'i'i- RECEIPi-Ti-^^^ W ^223670 COOl POiJ t\0/V / / APPLICANT Phone (home) Jr^'7/^^l Name J^Oo^RT' J- ■ Phone (work)—*>.A - - - A! VR- City: .M Zip:££Mii OWNER (if different than ar-licant) Name ________________ Phone (home) Phone (worlc) Address:City;Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY - Present Zoning District " I ^i___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setbaclc Variances ( yC Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Lot Width Hardcover side Rear)1 MS, ___I off Nebon Q^lity Products RQ 5oxa XD Mayer. Mn. 55360 (612) s ..y V* /mj . • •u HniiPS/flP'. ^fTl^rsmir T- SP/PP " au/z /’XoPef^P/- . ^ . cufu,K,r rffff- W/HT^ 5ff^ffS<=^'y3vKV/.Vlf^(Sr e:~f.T7CEH ey-pp'ipfpe, SUAtn^^ X It-4rr-/fE /T 7 . /J /D r y9 » RUN DATE oe/lA/91 OATCII 001 PROP ADOR CNNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER , NAME/AOOR 36 07-117-23 AA 0003 0A005 NORTH SHORE DR SUSAN H HALKER SUSAN BIL6ER AOOS N SHORE DRIVE HOUND MN SS36A 36 07-117-23 AA 0066 OAOOO NORTH SHORE DR R J BREZA < K A JOHNSON R J BREZA AKA JOHNSON AOOO NORTH SHORE OR ORONO MN 5B391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0HNER5 LIST 38 07-117-23 AA OOOA 0A009 NORTH SHORE DR JANICE F SEGNER JANICE F SEGNER A009 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 5536A 36 06-117-23 33 0069 03960 NORTH SHORE OR . R H ANDERSON APS ANDERSON RICHARD H A PEGGY S ANDERSON 3980 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 5536A REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE 1 38 07-117-23 AA 0005 0A017 NORTH SHORE OR JOHN F THEOBALD ETAL JOHN F THEOBALD A017 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 5536A 38 08-117-23 33 0071 01570 NORTH ARM OR ALICE V NELSON GLORIA J HAGEN 1570 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 5536A PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAKE/ADDR 38 08-117-23 33 0073 01560 NORTH ARM DR PATRICIA M LANLESS PATRICIA LAWLESS 1560 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 5536A 38 08-117-23 33 007A 01550 NORTH ARM OR MARGARET PELTOLA MARGARET PELTOLA 1550 NORTH ARM DR MOUND IVJ 55369 30 00-117-23 33 0075 01590 NORTH ARM DR KAREN K. NEHSTROM KAREN M NEHSTROM 1590 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55369 fVi •i V '%TI •» .•* V r' *9 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 17-117-23 22 0009 03995 NORTH SHORE OR CHARLES J MACIOSEK H RICHARD ZUCKMAN 1019 DUPONT AVE S MPLS MN 55903 38 17-117-23 22 0090 DAVID H t HOLLY M EISS DAVID A HOLLY EISS 1635 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 001 00011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. , DATE I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgeaent Pom Z’/ -rUnn^r^ of / g 7^ A J)r.Y.’ hbr-.r, , l HafSJi-------[print address] [print nameCs)! " ^ /E ^ nla-s "or the orooosed inprovenent or proposed use of thehave reviewed the plans or the p referred to as Land Use prooerty located at /r 5rr^f- F' ----- Application No. _____• . ^ a. ^ 4-’.,;,^ in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am I (we) or disapproval of the property or use but merely to t the prooosed neighbor's project or usethe improvement plans and that rne pro. requires Council approval. Property Owner I (we)[print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed UsI property located at________________________ Application No. ____ 1. j in evecut’ng this acknowledgement, I (we) am I (we) understand that xn * .L^^joroval of the property or use (are) not asked to Councii’that I (we) am (are) aware of but merely to thethe improvement plans and tnat rne p . recuires Council approval. Date Property Owner Date Property Owner If you have any information that may h\‘‘lu”wln^ L^^fng^%tfL “ a\^^“?t^irdalI-“ rt^:i^h/°s “cLduled meeting date. • .. .^. .*• ..r — - ; ;• V-• . - •. :--r« ^ -r.J : ^ «.*•. •.>:> .* '.-v;v /r.^t-\4r .j • • * •• • * • - « A* Mto.:*- •• • * *u *-•*• - • K;' • »jr** • r\ • .• * . • • • • r.- • ,. • I • j •V ••• •* .•• ' •* * 1 •• if-- % •*■ ■ 2'' >.:•••., f-. IT.---v. ................................ sijBmTRUSSDESiONTO, ______A m »TVTi^ TXTC^Dcr/ •PfOiv * . .X .. •**. •**. r if INSPECTOR AT :A<^rA ’.' «• - ............. * ** 'V*.*'.. C=«.^ r^ ■•Xa . . . "• -.-•«• % * > *.v- .v ,i •• t »*•• Ayv v .*v*- : . X V, ^ .U^ . |...r • •• 't ’ 7^«r : ‘.c-sv I (- • ' • ' - ” -‘ ■> ' , '* '•'* A % • • *7 •“ .■*•*■’ : -\ u > * - - ‘ * I ^ i •« / ..• • -•.?•:•<%-: «l » ' • »% •-» • "V • . ♦ ; ; » ' -j? • v% .^k».' ’ V. • •?>>: • * 1/2** ANCHORBOLTS REQ MIN: embedded IN MASONRY Ntt * ••■• ^ ’ A W^ T>TTT5 V« I2S ' . •• • * • . ‘•’i ■« n>*. , .' ■ ^ .• «i ■ •?"iT*-^<‘' .V'''•'/•'• ^‘I'l ‘ • • *v • .r T-ft?.* i c;V-'V **::.V *. • *. i t:.- •-*.. »jV - :•’ • ' *•* ^ .................................... IS Z^'JSVi w HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE o:je ) 0-75' ^^-25 ^ 250-500' 500-1000' -£xi4T44*e Hardcover in Zone A. House length width _______ X ________ SIF • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage — ■< - JT7 W '~±Z^ y >Z - c. Driveway D. S idewalk E. Patio / 3eck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING xxj/iLL G. Other ic = «■/ 377 = £/ ' 1??'" O'JfO / >,~ * . ” Z Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone S.F. 0 r't 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 B • • B 23H0 X 100 =/ ^ ?% CERTIFICATE I*I «!•:r SURVEY .SUSAN BILGfR LEGAL DESCRIPTION situated.In the Countv •Of Henn-ipTri and state of MlnJesSL t^iit- Lot 1 except that part thereof bounded by\ Une beginning at the most Southerly corner or •: Lot; thence North on the EasteJl^ line of Hid .Lot, 21 feet; thence Southwesterly in a strainhf line to a point on the Southwesterly llnn^or^^^ said Lot distant 20 feet Norhh!e«f-^,“ 3}on, s.ls Une ,r=„ the "o^ Soeth: of said Lot; thence Southeasteriv »inno Southwesterly line 20 feet to• U Of lot 2? end ,tl tS« p°rrirL^ wj;'" IIV.V.IV northwesterly from and at right anolH to the easterly, line of said lot 5’,“ thence continues In the same direction to the southerly line of said lot, in Mlnnetonlca, according to the plat thereof on file or of oHuie; fl!® the RegistrarOf Titles in and for said County. . Are« Of .Parcii; .i-,,3„o a,, ft.-o.lgy .aerds \ ■ *•• ••^fdcover ’ caTcuI V fone Tone 'Arear- ‘'HardcoverCalculations (In ’sq. ft. Area’ % Coverage 5. IX 40.9%.. .• OX 456 4,994 0 •• Kll ISgK m oInOtIS EwiflNO^ElEVOTIONhii) DEMOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION ■ elevationsLOWEST FLOOR ^ OARAGE FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION SURFACE FLOW ' %*♦ %^ - •»•#! t»yr • etrc e •» » •» • t Iv,\/rV .»r CERTIFICATE SURVE SliS/iN BILGfR - -rss: x ^Ine bo a DO nf SouthweauiL °f said Lot «Hstant°20^f* ly*^! Inc.along said llnS throat'JiJ f Of Said .Lob* m ^*^0 moat Soun^n*^) "***' "°hii th, pUt "i?‘";'‘»"''>. accJrdl'n' record In Che orr?i °" or or ’ Of Titled In and .{STL11"' "'9 ‘otrac . ••, ;®aio County. ■'*•■•• • - • •. \:» . ’J'f^PaccoV’iJ • ••• • .. °“’5 • '8864 -- ‘ '• i ‘ 75-250 .8380 ' 1 j • • • '• ’ f'- • ■ 250-500 .* • 56 V: 456 !• ■'•'•■' .1 • r. 4d094., • •• • • •, •• • «•• if. : • ••• •• ■ .V; ;*’.o •'>;^ * • IHsi”». aAf»AAC> t-uffEsr FLonn ------- FLO?? TOP OF FOUNDATION UKE . MINNETONKA , TefwATtK cyj9.7( K PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date Type of Permit 2‘fgy ’J^3o’^7q Wt duifi. jScek. L-^______ H To: From: Date: Re: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner November 12,1999 #2522 The Bancor Group Inc. Southwest comer of County Road 6 and Willow Drive North (Willow View) Zoning District: Comprehensive Plan: Site Area: Proposal: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) 58 Acres (51.81 Acres dry buildable) 25 Lot Subdivision - Single Family Units Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I J K. Application Planning Commission Minutes (7/19/99) City Council Minutes (8/9/99) Planning Commission Minutes (9/20/99) City Council Minutes (10/25/99) Engineer Comments Lot Layout — 25 Unit Development Plat Map Comprehensive Plan Map Property Owners List Resolution Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 - RR-IB Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 - Planned Residential Development ^1^22 The Bancor Group r County Road 6 (County Road 6 and Willo\% Drive Sorth) dubd'tvision/Rezoning ////5/99 page--! Summary of Request: The City of Orono has received a Preliminary Plat application for a 25 lot development on 58 acres for property’ located at the southwest comer of County Road 6 and Willow Drive North. The City’ Council and Planning Commission have reviewed this development as part of an application for rezoning. The proposed rezoning was denied by the City Council on October 25,1999. Please refer to attached Resolution (Exhibit K) adopted by the City Council on November 8,1999. The RR-IB zoning district allows, by conditional use permit, the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The purpose of a Planned Residential Development is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive stmcture to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents. Section 10.32, Subdivision 1. This application requires the following: 1.Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development - The R-1A allows a Planned Residential Development as a conditional use. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (H). 2. Class III subdivision approval. 3. Dedication of the platted right-of-way as public roads. The City changed its Comprehensive Plan to reflect medium density residential for the property located directly south of the proposed development. Medium density residential will likely be townhomes. It is the intention to extend Kelley Parkway to Willow from Old Crystal Bay Road. Properties located to the south of Kelley Parkway and north of Highway 12 are guided for office uses. Lot Layout and Standards The lots range in size from 1 acre to over 4 acres. The lots located to the east of the subdivision, on average, are smaller than those lots to the south and west. The PRD would allow the lots to develop at the sizes shown on the site plan, due to the overall density of the subdivision would not exceed one unit per tw o acres dry buildable. It is to the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council to determine if the layout is acceptable. Staff has concerns only with Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 9, Block 1 as the lots would require wetland mitigation for driveway access. The Grading Plan indicates the grading will occur within the wetland. f^2522 The Bancor Group 2^45 Count}' Road 6 (Count} Road 6 and HV//otv Drhe Sorth) Subdivision/Rezomng n/1 5^99 page-2 Road Dedication and Standards The roads are proposed to be developed to City Standard and dedicated as public streets. The roadways are required to be platted 50' in width and constructed with a 32' road width. The street plans indicate the proposed public roads meet the requirements of the subdivision chapter. Comments from the City Engineer for the latest plan were not available prior to this report being complete, but should be available for the public hearing. The road alignment appears to not create a concern for traffic safety. The Director of Public Services has reviewed the plan and indicated no objection to the proposed road layout and intersection locations. Hennepin County has requested the developer dedicate an additional 10 feet of right of way along the centerline of CSAH 6, for a total of 50’. This dedication will accommodate any future roadway upgr ing, paths, snow storage and utilities. The developer must also receive appropriate permits from tue County if any utility, trail or drainage work is required within the right of way. Wetlands and Stormwater Treatment Ponds The site does contain several City protected wetlands. Any proposed alteration of a wetland or land within 26' of the wetland will require a variance from the City. Wetland alteration will also require outside agency review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, DNR and the Corps of Engineers. All wetlands designated by the City of Orono are not included as lot area for the purposes of zoning. Wetland Delineation report, completed by KJolhaug Environmental Serv ices Company (August 25,1999) has determined the total acreage dedicated to wetlands within the 58 acre site is 6.54 acres. Acres Dry 51.89 Acres Wet 6.54 Total Acres 58.43 Any filling of wetlands will be mitigated on site. The previous proposal mitigated within the open space outlot to the north. The plan proposes three stormwater treatment ponds. Two ponds are located within the conservation outlot and a third is located to the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 1. The Three ponds would treat the runoff for approximately 2/3s of the development. Staff has briefly discussed this issue with Marty Campion, Engineer and Survey for Otto and Associates. Mr. Campion stated most runoff from the southern 1/3 of the development can be treated by a forth pond being located within the The Bancor Group 2^45 Count}' Read 6 (Count)’ Road 6 and Willow Drive Xorth) Subdivision/Rezontng 11/15^99 pagt-3 conservation easement of Lot 2, Block 1. This pond would capture the runoff from the east-west street and Lots 1 through 4. Only a small portion of lots 5,6 and 7 would not be treated by the pond. The stormwater treatment could be handled within the conservation easement with BMPs prior to entering directly into the wetlands to the south. Grading and Erosion Control Additional concerns addressed by the City Engineer involve the high water level of the ponds on the property. Most of the ponds do not indicate outlets to control the pond level. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review. Several lots show a lowest floor elevation less than two feet above the high water level of the ponds. More detailed grading plans shall be provided with the final plan set. All grading plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to City Council review of the Preliminary Plat. Access/Streets/T rails No lot within this proposed development would have direct access to Willow Drive or County Road 6. All lots would be required to access a newly platted street. The existing grade is generally even, therefore there are no issues with the slope of the proposed streets. Final plans should provide horizontal and vertical curve information for all streets. City code requires that a public street serv ing more than 10 units shall have a minimum paved width of 32-feet. A trail had appeared along Willow Drive and along the south side of County Road 6 on the original plan set. The intent of the trail was to connect to the larger regional system towards the school property and eventually west to the Baker Regional Park. A second small section of trail w'as proposed to connect this neighborhood with the school properties. The trail would provide future access to the Middle School property. Easements 1.Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. Subdivider shall grant Conservation and Flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation. 1^2522 The Bancor Group 2445 County Road 6 (County Road 6 and ITtllow Drive North) Subdivision/ Rezoning ! 1/15/99 page~4 4. 5. The Planning Commission must determine if a Conditional Use Permit is appropriate for the site. Does the open space being created allow a CUP to be granted? The Code and Comprehensive Flan allow the PRD to be approved as a land conservation tool and to improve the appearance of neighborhoods. Only one open space outlot is being created and the purpose of the outlot is for wetland and ponding use. The original plan for the site indicated trails being located along Willow Drive and CR 6. The latest plan does not address the need for trails. 6. The plan shows lots with the following setbacks. Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Side Adjacent to Street 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet 35 feet Staff has recommended the lots in Block 1 due to an average lot size of over two acres shall require setbacks for the two acre standard. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the proposed preliminary plat be approved, but subject to the following conditions; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The conservation easement be platted as a conservation outlot to be held in the ownership of the HomeowTier's Association. A conser\ ation easement would allow a house to be built to the easement boundary, but the property owner would not be allowed to remove or alter any vegetation to the rear of the house. Platting the outlot would ensure houses would be built allowing a minimum setback to the conservation areas. A detailed drainage, ponding and grading plan, with drainage calculations be submitted for City Engineer review and approval prior to City Council review. Detailed Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer (Exhibit F). A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. Trail easements shall be shown along Willow Drive and County Road 6. This may effect the ponding areas along Willow Drive. it2522 The Bancor Croup 2445 County Road 6 {County Road 6 and Wdlow Dnve Sorth) SubdiMiUon/Rezonlng lhty99 page-6 6.The subdivider shall dedicate an additional 10 feet of right of way along County Road 6 per recommendations of Hennepin County. ' 4 §2522 The Bancor Croup 2445 County Road 6 (County Road 6 and Wtilo\¥ Drive Sorth) Subdtvtsion/Rezoning 1!/I5i99 pap-7 L.... ■zsz'i- Application H Date Receiyed Amount Paid S /7Q^_ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION -----------------------------------^ ^ '^- Property Identification Number (PID) 2-ft- i‘8- Please check one - Property ^ abstract or Attach legal description to application. torrens? APPLICANT Name Address______ City Hu OWNER (if different than applicant) a . Name flu.. F P., Address MSPo Us.j si- '----------------- Pho"* (home) City ____Hij ZipPhone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size I 5*1.81 L.^1 Present use (check) n/ac.a»j 1* Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. ofumts Other (specify) * f" .i.. ■ > 7* Present Zoning District RR-l^ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes . ^ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildlmg sites) X • Subdivision for New Building Sites O Existing Units New Units 4^ Total Units Number of Building Sites ✓ if"" '-S Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) t Units per Acres 11. S Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) idsuiEaiadKiaiii ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19,1999 B [irZiiJA Steven and Susan V/llson, Continued) The cV^ficate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Steven Wi^on, Applicant, was present, jinberger stiWeinberger stated that the Planning Commission and City Council has recently approved a subdivision of a Igt line rearamgement for properties located at 325 South Brown Road and 2150 Abingdon Way. City Code requires that the Applicants dedicate drainage and utility easements along all newly created property lines, which have been granted along the new property line. However, the previou^^underiying drainage and utility easement along the old property line was not vacated at the time the subdivision was approved, which should be vacated. ? aff is recommending ap^val of this application. Wilson had no comment. Hawn inquired whether the Applied would be agreeable to affirming the agreement with Abingdon Way. WIson stated it would not be an affirm^n, but merely notifying the owners of each lot in this division that they are liable for each easerKent. Wilson stated he would approach the homeowners association requesting that the 60 foot pathway be eliminated from their agreement, which requires City agreement. Hawn inquired whether that portion was before Ih^Planning Commission as part of this application and whether any legal notice must be given to the ac^ioinlng property owners. Gaffron stated that it was, noting that technically actioiNw the Planning Commission may not be required. Gaffron stated that in his opinion no notice is required. There were no public comments. rquireo. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of ApjMication #2474,325 Brown Road South/2150 Abingdon Way, vacating the 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement along the previously existing property line between 325 South Bwwn Road and 2150 Abingdon Way based, and as a result of the lot line rearrangemei\the obligation to maintain Abingdon V/ay will be maintained solely by Lot 5, west of^t^e east 60 foot line, and not Lot 6. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#3) #2505 THE BANCOR GROUP, INC., V/ILLOW DR1VE/6TH AVENUE NORTH - SKETCH David Newman, Bancor Group, v/as present, along with Marty Campion, P.E., of Otto & Associates. Weinberger stated the Applicant Is proposing to develop a 58 acre parcel located at the southwest comer of County Road 6 and V'/illov/ Drive North. The Applicants have proposed a concept plan to subdivide the property into 52 lots, v;ith an average density of less than one acre per lot. The property is zoned RR-1B, which requires two acres per unit. The Applicants are requesting that the property be rezoned to R-1 A, allowing one acre per unit density, and to develop the Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19,1999 (#2505 The Bancor Group, Inc., Continued) property as a Planned Residential Development The purpose of a PRD Is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces and to counteract the effects of urban congestion. A PRD would allow the property to be developed at one unit per acre, with City sewer and water being available to th^e proposed units. This property could net sustain a rural style development with Individual septic systems due to the high v/ater table and soil types present. Weinberger staled that the property to the south may be developed at a slightly higher density, with a two acre density development east of V/illow Drive, a low density residential neighborhood north of County Road 6, and the Orono School Campus to the west. This development would serve as a buffer between the lower density residential development to the north and east versus the other land uses to the south and west. The Applicants are proposing a plan that would result In the nearest home being located approximately 225 feel from County Road 6. Several berms are being proposed throughout the development, and each lot v/ill be regraded to create walkout style- homes. Access to this development v/ould be off of V/illow Drive, v/ith no access off of County Road 6. City Staff recommends that the proposed intersection between the development and Shadowood Drive be aligned, whether it’s through the extension of the northerly road or the other curb cut being relocated further north, to eliminate traffic turning left. The access points are proposed to be approximately 200 feel apart. Weinberger stated that standard drainage and utility easements would be required, as well as parkland dedication. Weinberger stated the Applicants could have the option of donating 8 percent of the land value or designating a portion of the development for trails. Weinberger stated that the hookup costs for City sesver and v/ater will need to be discussed further. Weinberger noted that the City Council has established less restrictive zoning standards for other PROS, Including French Creek and Sugar,voods. Lindquist commented that he is hesitant to approve rezoning of this area due to the high density housing that is being proposed. Nev/man staled that the high density is necessary due to the connection costs for City sev/er and v/ater, noting that they have reviewed the costs Involved In this project and that In order to offset their expenses, upper market housing will need to be constoicted In this area. Lindquist inquired v/helher they have calculated the average lot size for this development. Newman replied they have not yet m.ade that calculation. Campion stated that they are contemplating lots that average around a half-acre, with the smallest being one-third acre. Stoddard commented that he v/ou!d like to see a residential development In this area, but that In his view the City Council may wish *o retain the two acre zoning. Stoddard stated he Is unaware of the economics Involved for this development, but that he personally would like to see larger lots. Newman staled that this is an expe.nsive parcel of property to develop, and that not ail the residences v/ill be constructed v/ith walkouts. Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19,1999 (#2505 The Bancor Group, Inc., Continued) Campion stated that the walkouts are necessary due to the high water table and soil conditions in the area. Newman stated that they have obtained two sets of soil borings because of the high water table and soils in the area. Hawn commented that the City is interested in providing more affordable housing and that the proposed high density will present drainage problems. Hav/n Inquired whether a landscaping plan has been developed in more depth. Newman stated they have not designed anything specifically for this development at this time. • Newman stated in his opinion this sits will never be developed for first time home buyers due to the high costs associated with developi.-g this piece of property and that they are contemplating houses, in the $350,000 range. Berg questioned whether the location of the access is an issue. Berg commented that she would also like to see lower density in this area, noting that In her view some of the proposed lots will be unbuildable due to the small lot size and large pond located in the area. Weinberger staled that the final location of the road will need to be reviewed once the layout of the units is determined. Newman stated they have not reviewed v/hether the lots contain suitable building pads at this time, which will need to be addressed. Lindquist remarked that the developer will also need to submit a drainage and grading plan, noting that some wetlanc'* do exist in the area. Stoddard stated in his opinion it is doubtful that any zoning under tv/o acres will be approved. Smith commented that the residents are starting to take the view that the holding ponds ' natural feature to the area and should be turned Into private beaches, which should not be encouraged. Smith staled that residents are also hesitant to have trails located close to their homes. Smith stated In her opinion the t.vo acre zoning should be adhered to. Newman stated that he Is committed to this project. Page 12 c ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 9,1999 (#2504 Warren and Tana Garrett, Continued) Jeh^n stated the Applicants are requesting variances in order to construct a 12 by 20* home additfes. an addition to the existing deck, and construction of an inground s-«imming pool. The initial ap^Mi^tion by the Applicant included a request to construct a split-rail fence alone he property lineXrom the driveway to the lakeshore. The Applicant withdrew the request for the feres at the Plannin^'S^mission meeting. The Planning CommiMwi recommended approval of the variances for the addition to the house, the deck addition, and thCTqoround swimming pool, but recommerded denial of the variances to allow construction of a five fobt^igh split-rail fence. Jenson stated that a mature stand ob^ees would prohibit the neighbors from having a view of the new addition and swimming pcol. • Garrett commented he has read the resolution^li^re the City Council tonight Garrett stated he will withdraw his application for the fence due to sbme complaints by one of the neighbors. The fence was designed to help deter trespassers onto hi^tjroperty from the adjoining Long Lake park, but the number of trespassers has declined this past ye; Mayor Jabbour stated that the Cihy does not like to have fence^nstructed within 75* of the lakeshore. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2504, anbo^opt RESOLUTION NO. 4332, a Resolution Granting a Variance to the AveraguXakeshore Setock to Allow the Construction of a 12* by 20’ Addition to the Home, an AddltlofK^^he Existing Deck, and an Inground Swimming Pool Surrounded by a Deck, and to Deny trte^^riances to Construct a Five Foot High 3-Rail, Split-rail Fence Along the South Property Chve from the Driveway to the Lakeshore. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2505 THE BANCOR GROUP, INC., WILLOW DRIVE/SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Marty Campion, Bancor Group, v/as present. V/einberger stated the Applicants are proposing to construct a 52 lot subdivision consisting of single family units over 58 acres located at the southwest comer of County Road 6 and Willow ^ Drive North. The Applicants have submitted a proposal to subdivide the property into 52 lots, an average density of less than one acre per lot. This is assuming the total property dedicated n-r right-of-v/ay, ponding and wetlands v/ill exceed six acres on the site. The property is currently zoned RR-1B requiring t.vo acres per unit The Applicants are request'ng that the property be rezoned to R-1A to allow one acre per unit density and to develop the prop^y as a Planned Residential Development. The purpose of a PRD is to enhance the appearanc^j neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces and to counteract the effects of uiten congestion. A PRD v;ould allow the property to be developed at cne unit per acre while allowng the lots to be less than one acre leaving the remaining land as open space by the creation of ccnse.'';ation outlots. City sewer and water are available to this property. Weinberger stated the. this property v/ould not be able to sustain individual septic systems due to the high v/ater table c soil types present in this area. Weinberger stated that the surrounding properties to this site include a two acre development cast ' Page 7 ~~ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 9,1999 (#2505 The Bancor Group, Inc., Continued) of Willow Drive, lov/ density residential consisting of two acre lots north of County Road 6, the Orono School to the west, and some possible townhome/office use along Highway 12 and Kelley Paricjvay to the south. This property may be appropriate to act as a buffer zone between the mixed uses surrounding the proposed development. Mayor Jabbour commented that a prior application was submitted for this property proposing approximately 42 units. Weinberger slated that the prior application proposed two acre density to the north and one acre density to the south, with the property being set up as a PUD. and did not appear before the City Council. Campion, Bancor Group, stated that the v/etlands were delineated a number of years ago and that a new v/etland delineation has been undertaken, which, in his opinion, will show that the wetlands are diminished from what v/as originally charted. Campion commented that there are a number of benefits to this proposal, such as this property acting as a transitional zone to the surrounding areas, with no access being proposed off of County Road 6. Bancor Group is proposing to preserve the natural environment as much as possible in this area as well as creating a trailway and open green space in this development. Campion stated due to the costs associated with developing this property v/lth City sewer and^ v/ater, the higher density is necessary. Campion commented that more housing in this area will be needed due to the nev/ Highway 12 corridor and the displacement of a number of families. Mayor Jabbour inquired v;hether the Applicant v/ould be v/illing to consider a two-tier zoning for this property. Campion remarked that they are not aware of the exact amount of v/etlands in this area, which v/ould impact the size of the lots, and that if they are required to have a minimum of one acre dry buildable. that v/ould mean a significant reduction in the number of lots. Mayor Jabbour inquired v/hether the Applicant wished to recess this matter temporarily to discuss some of these Issues v/ith the other Bancor representatives. Campion requested that they be allov/ed to discuss this matter. Item #9 follov/s Item #10. (Recess taken at 8:21 p.m. - 8:31 p.m.) (#10) DNR CONVEYANCE OF LUCE LINE PARCEL TO LONG RIDGE ASSOCIATES Gaffron stated that the DNR has determined that a portion of the south half of the Luce Line right-of-way v/est of the Orono Golf Course was in fact owned by Long Ridge Associates. Long Ridge Associates has agreed to deed the trail right-of-way to the DNR in exchange for conveyance to Long Ridge a portion of the trail right-of-way further east, adjacent to the Orono Orchard Road ^ bridge. The portion to be conveyed to Long Ridge is now and will continue to be used by DNR s * the public as a v/alking/driving access to the trail with the DNR retaining an easement over the s.n? for these purposes. Page 8 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 9,1999 (#9) #2505 The Bancor Group, Inc., Willow Drive/Sixth Avenue North, Continued Campion stated that the consensus of the Bancor Group is that they will not be able to proceed forward with this development if it is reduced by more than four lots. Campion stated that they are looking at approximately .85 dry tuildable acres per lot at this time, noting that the exact amount of wetlands has not been defined. Mayor Jabbour commented in his view his opinion regarding this parcel has changed sornewhat over the years due to changes in the community as well as the new proposed Highway 12 comdcr. Jabbour stated that according to City Code prior developers were given credit for wetlands when City sewer was available. Jabbour commented in his opinion this property should be used as a buffer zone. Campion inquired whether the City Council would be requiring one acre lots for this development. Mayor Jabbour stated this parcel should be developed as a PRD. with an average of one acre per lot Kelley commented that he personally is not in favor of rezoning this the two acre zoning maintained. Kelley stated he would be in favor of a PRD with t.vo acre zoning. Peterson commented that she also is in agreement with the two acre zoning. Kelley stated that in his view the value of the property should be reduced In order to make this development more economically feasible. Campion stated they will need to address these issues further. Gaffron commented that Sugarwccds was rezoned to one acre density. Mayor Jabbour commented in his opinion the City should provide some higher ^snsi^ within the City and that the Ciby Council should consider the possibility of rezonmg this property. Kelley stated he would be in favcr of clustering units on this property, which nisd to run sewer to a large nurr.ber of residences. Kelley commented he would l..<e to maintain the tv/o acre zoning for this area and is nor in favor of higher density housing in is Flint commented that he is troubled by the efforts to keep this area zoned at this is not a prime piece of real estate and that the school and County Road 6 do impact this property. Sansevere stated he is in agree.r.ent with Flint and that in his opinion this property could be rezoned one acre dry buildable. Campion stated that one acre dr/ tuildable would not allow thei.- proposed development to work, noting that the v/etlands and the streets need to be taken into account Mayor Jabbour commented that he would be hard-pressed to vote in favor of appH^^on when he has denied another similar proposal for this property. Jabbour stated he would b- mor favorable towards a develcpme.nt proposing a maximum of 44 units. Sansevere commented that the developer is proposing upper middle class housing for this area. Page io~ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 9,1999 ‘ •«) ("2505 The Bancor Group, Continued) noting that he would be in favor of higher density fcr this area. Mayor Jabbour commented that credit shculd be grven for the streets. Gaffron stated under a PRD the City has aiicwed credit for roadways, noting that no credit is given under a standard plat for streets. Mayor Jabbour commented that the Applica.nt will reed to appear before the Planning Commission with their proposal once these issues are addressed. Campion stated that they will continue to keep the buffering to the north and east, and will look at trying to achieve a one acre zoning under a PRD with credit being given for the streets. mu [AYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayb^Jabbour stated he has been contacted by cr.e of the business owners, the owner of the vacani^mmercial building adjacent to Highway 12 and Industrial Boulevard in Long Lake, regardingHhe possibility of constructing a se.*vice road to provide additional access to his business from Old CrWal Bay Road. Jabbour stated he explained to the property owner the process that needs to be foiv^ed and the City’s genera! philosophy regarding this matter. Jabbour cornmented that the City's cuhrent comprehensive plan, v.hich Is in the process of being updated, is being made obsolete in part be^^se of the new Highway 12 corridor. Mayor Jabbour stated tti^^the City should make a determination whether a frontage road is necessary In this locationaKl v/hethera frontage road is desired by the property owners In that area. Jabbour commented ttte^t the City has ta’Ken a position that they do not v/ant an exit ramp from new Highway 12 in this lo^tion. Kelley slated he essentially told th^^^crese.^tativs the same thing last week. Kelley commented that the traffic counts by Mn/DOT are ris^t always accurate and that their numbers tend to differ from the County’s numbers. Kelley comment=i,in his view the new Highway 12 corridor should be constructed first. Mayor Jabbour suggested that the City Adrr.inis^tor send a letter to the affected business owners informing them that this issue has been d!scussed\(jd that the City Council Is interested in their input on this matter. Mayor Jabbour stated he has spoken v<it." me president oNSreat America v/ho has stated that th6 Dakota Rail will officially be shut down Cctcber 15. 19S9. J^bour commented the next step is to meet with Hennepin Parks to discuss the Dakota Rail to Trail p^^ecL Kelley commented that he is a'.vare that tne Orcr.o Police DepartrneS^is ta’King some action regarding Big Island. Jabbour stated that the police are awa.'e cf the situation and are reviewing^^is matter. Sansevere commented that perhaps the number cf beats shculd be restricted inijjat area. Mayor Jabbour stated that in previous yea.*s the Fire Marshall limited the number ofVt^ate^ " Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20,1999 D (#2S2T>>Qfl.Haus. Continued) Haus inquired wR5l>iaLjrnprovemenls could be made to the existing garage located on the property. Weinberger staled a building made on the garage. Lit would need to be applied for prior to any improvements being Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to recorhTTTeq;jj^pprovaI of Application #2521, 4t3S Bayside Road, and grant a conditional use petn^J^permit construction of a garage with living space above it as a guest house on the prop&ft^^gubject to the condition that the guest house be connected to the existing septic system al ’lhfijime the new residence is completed. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 7:28 p.m. - 7:31 p.m.) • SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2522 THE BANCOR GROUP, INC., SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE NORTH ' * AND COUNTY ROAD 6 - CLASS ill SUBDIVISION, 7:31 p.m. - 9:03 p.m. David Newman and Marty Campion, The Bancor Group, appeared. Weinberger stated the Bancor Group has submitted a preliminary plat application for a 58 acre parcel located at the southwest comer of County Road 6 and Willow Drive North which presses to subdivide the property into 49 lots, with an average density of approximately one acre per dwelling unit. The Applicants are requesting that the property be rezoned to R-1A to allow the one acre per unit density and develop the property as a Planned Residential Development. A PRD is a conditional use in the R-1A District. The purpose of a PRD is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces and to couriteract the effects of congestion. A PRD would allow the properly to be developed at one unit per acre. average lot size would be less than one acre. The remainder of the property would be held by me Homeowners Association as open space. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing access through a newly platted street. no access to this development off of Willovr Drive or County Road 6. However, on five lots Willow Drive would be considered the rear yard. The proposed rezoning of the site would allow a higher density development. The property ^old not sustain a rural style development with individual septic systems due to the high water table an poor soil types present. It may be appropriate to utilize this property as a buffer zone betweeri me different uses surrounding the proposed development, with two acre density east of Willow Dnve, two acre density north of County Road 6, the Orono School Campus to the west, and possible townhome/office use along Highway 12 and Kelley Parkway to the south. Rezoning the property to sustain higher density housing may be appropriate for this area because sanitary sewer is available and would be a condition of approval. Development of this area as a ,, for the creation of conservation outlols along County Road 6 and Willow Drive, which would auow the highest concentration of lots being located within the interior of the property. The City s Comprehensive Plan suggests that this area might be suitable for a PUD. Newman stated following their last appearance before the Planning Commission, they reduce- the proposed number of lots for this development to 49 ar.d relocated the access north. stated this development would serve as a transition zone behveen the two acre density areas Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 ("2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) east and north and the school to the west and possible townhome/office use to the south. Newman stated due to the high water table and poor soils in this area, it is necessaiy to develop this area with City sewer and water, which dictates the need for higher density housing in an effort to help offset those connection costs. This development would also offer an opportunity for those people being relocated due to the Highway 12 project to remain in this community. Newman commented in his opinion this development would not significantly impact negatively on the traffic situation in the area and would be an asset to the community by providing higher income housing. The concept plan proposes a trailway to the east and north as well as betming and landscaping in an effort to help buffer the area from Willow Drive and County Road 6. Extensive open spaces are being provided as well as ponding and protection to the wetlands. Newman stated the Bancor Group has attempted to comply with Orono's standards and would be a valuable addition to the neighborhood and community. Campion stated they have received a copy of the City Engineer's letter and all the issues raised will be addressed at the time of final plat. Campion indicated they are willing to work with the City Engineer in an effort to resolve these issues. Newman commented since this is only the preliminary plat stage, some of these issues will be addressed later on in the application process. Hawn stated that due to the number of people in the audience who wish to speak regarding this application, it will be necessary to limit public comment to five minutes per speaker. Steve Johnston, 2330 Shadywood Drive, stated he is representing a number of people tonight, noting that he has resided in Orono for 12 years, is a civil engineer by occupation, and has become familiar with Orono’s Comprehensive Plan and ordinances over the years. Johnston remarked the Comprehensive Plan focuses on what is known as an urbanization cycle, which calls for extension of City services into areas where they are anticipating higher density housing. Johnston pointed out that the original Comprehensive Plan reiterated time and time again that urbanization will not be expanded into existing rural areas, which over time has been revised and now allows for carefully Integrated developments to limit the adverse affect on the surrounding areas, with a desire to maintain open spaces and natural environment as much as possible. Johnston noted that the sewer policy does call for City sewer in developments where the land is not able to support their own individual septic systems due to poor soils or high water table. Johnston reviewed an overhead depicting various proposals prepared by a consultant hired by the City on how this area can best be developed, noting that the number of lots proposed by the City consultant range from 14 lots to 20 lots, with the owner of the property proposing 22 lots at that time. Johnston stated when Amendment Two to the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City, it was determined that the City should remain at the two acre zoning. Johnston remarked that this area has been designated as a buffer area due to the wetlands and open spaces In this area. In order for rezoning to occur, the question normally posed to the Planning Commission Is what conditions have changed since the adoption of Amendment Two which would dictate the need for rezoning of this area. Johnston stated in his opinion the conditions calling for two acre zoning have not changed and that this area should remain zoned at two acres in an effort to preserve the natural environment. Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 (#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) Johnson indicated that although overall the development is calling for one lot per acre, the average density under this PRD would be approximately .55 acres, with the smallest lot being .4 acres. In the past Orono has suggested that every lot have its own recreational area, which is doubtful for this development due to the small lots being proposed. Johnston pointed out that there is not a significant buffer area being proposed between the residences and Willow Drive, which should be addressed. Johnston stated he would like to reserve the right to speak again should the Planning Commission indicate a willingness to vote in favor of the rezoning. John Grobe. 2350 Shadowood Drive, presented the Planning Commission with a petition signed by 48 residents In the area opposed to developing this area Into less than two acre lots. Grobbe indicated that a larger number of residents would probably be in attendance at tonight's meeting but are unable to attend due to the open house being held at the school tonight. Grebe stated that he moved to Orono because of the smaller community size and the rural environment, which he would like to see preserved as much as possible. Grobe encouraged the Planning Commission to deny this application, noting that in the past four years, all the developments which have occurred in the City has teen at two acres or more, and that the Impact of this development needs to be considered. Eric Menge, 340 Tumham Road, stated he is a life-long resident of Orono and would like to see Orono remain as more of a rural type community, with higher density housing being avoided. Tom Carlson stated he is moving to Orono due to the rural natural of the community. Carlson remarked he had the understanding that Orono had a two acre minimum zoning requirement, and if higher density is proposed for this area, it may open the way for other developers to propose higher density housing for the Orono community. Carison encouraged the Planning Commission to stick to the two acre zoning requirements. A number of residents in the audience indicated that they would like to see the two acre zoning preserved in Orono, and encouraged the Planning Commission to deny this application due to the high density housing being proposed for this area. Donna Crotteau, 2650 Silver View, commented that there are other developments that exist in Orono which are comprised of less than two acres, and that this development would help generate additional tax dollars for the City. Laurie Collick, Medina, stated she would like to see this area preserved due to the natural feeding area that currently exists for the wildlife. Collick commented she would like to see the rural nature of Orono preserved as much as possible, and if this development is approv ea. *t will open the door for more requests for higher density housing. Collick expressed concerns a> »iul r e impact that this development will have on the Orono Schccls, noting that there current!^ a snortage of classroom space, and that this development will also have a negative impact on the amount of traffic in the area. Collick urged the Planning Commission to deny this application. Cathy Johnston, 2336 Shadywood Drive, commented that Amendment Two to the Comprehensive Plan does recognize one acre housing, noting that this development will be hidden by a number of trees and is located close Long Lake, which has higher density housing. Newman, Bancor Group, stated that the realignm.ent of Highway 12 does present a basis upon which the comprehensive plan needs to be reviewed and perhaps revised. Newman commented that they acknowledge the neighborhoods' concerns regarding this development, but that an Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20,1999 (#2522 The Bancor Group, Continued) overall view of the development should be taken, noting that many of the lots will overlook open space. Newman remarked due to the high costs associated with developing this parcel of property and the poor soils and high water table in the area, it is impossible to develop this property at a lower density. Hawn commented that there are certain housing needs in Orono which are not currently being met. but that this proposal in her opinion does not address those housing needs. Hawn stated there needs to be a compelling reason to revise the Comprehensive Plan, which in her opinion has not been demonstrated tonight. Hawn thanked the people in the audience for their interest in this proposed development and in the future development of Orono. Kluth commented that the Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council, and In his opinion it is not within their jurisdiction to change the comprehensive plan. Smith stated that the Planning Commission does need to look at the future needs of th e residents in Orono, both near term and long-term, and that the City is receptive is looking at ott* er types of housing in Orono. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed housing is too dense for this area bui does make good use of the City sewer and water that is available in the area. Stoddard commenced he is in favor of two acre zoning, but would be willing to consider a proposal calling for 39 or fewer units on this property. Lindquist acknowledged that developments are generally economically driven, but that the Planning Commission does not look at the economic side of the proposed development but rather the impact that the development will have on the community. Lindquist commented that in his opinion the housing density should be reduced somewhat, with this high density housing being unacceptable in his view. Newman requested that direction be given from the Planning Commission on what they would like to see for this site. Kluth stated that the Planning Commission is not in a position to develop plans fora particular area, but that in his opinion housing in this area should be limited. Hawn stated that personally she would be interested in seeing smaller, more maintenance free housing for this area, with plenty of open space being provided. Kluth moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2522, Southwest Comer of Willovr Drive North and County Road 6, Class III Subdivision. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 9:03 p.m, - 9:08 p.m.) *‘*-*Cl CONTINUED NEW BUSINESS:"VUBLIC HEARINGS (#S) #2523 RONALD AND RITA ZEBECK,'*9^\Wll^.HURST TRAIL - VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 9:08 p.m. -9:41 p.m. Tim Oberg, Southview Design, was present. "'w, Page 10 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING minutes for OCTOBER 25,1999 ZONING AD\nNi:OR’S REPORT £ *(#4) #2519 MATTHEW AND ROBK^TALOCH, 4705 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4366 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESQ^^^ION NO. 4366, a Resolution Granting an Amendment to a Variance to Permit C^thtaictlon of an Accessory Structure Between the Principal Building and the Street. VOTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #2522 BANCOR GROUP, INC., COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WILLOW' DRIVE NORTH - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WILLOW VIEW Marty Campion and David Newman, Bancor Group, Inc., were present. Weinberger stated that the Applicant has submitted an application for a 58 acre parcel located at the southwest comer of County Road 6 and Willow Drive North. The Planning Commission and City Council has reviewed the proposed development as a sketch plan. Weinberger stated that the preliminary plat application requires a number of approvals for the subdivision, namely, rezoning of the property which is currently zoned RR-IB. The Applicants are requesting that the property be rezoned to R-1A to allow one acre per unit density* and to develop the property as a Planned Residential Development. The surrounding properties to this site include two acre density east of Willow Drive, low density residential north of County Road 6, the Orono School Campus, with the future middle school site to the west, and possible townhome or office use along Highway 12 and Kelley ParVtway to the south. It may be appropriate to utilize this property as a buffer zone between the mixed uses surrounding the proposed development. Develop nent of this site as a PRD w ould allow for the creation of conserv ation outlots along County Road 6 and Willow Drive, with the highest density of lots being Icvated .vithin the interior of the property. The Planning Commission has reviewed this application and is recommending denial on a six to zero vote based on the following: One, the Planning Commission is not in a position to change the Comprehensiv e Plan, two, if the property is rczoned, it should be to prov ide an alternate housing style or prov ide for a housing need not currently being met. and three, the proposed number of lots may be too dense. Weinberger noted that municipal sewer and water are available to this site, with the proposed dev elopment of the property taking advantage of the services available. Weinberger stated that the Applicants have provided three revised concept plans based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission and comments from the adjacent property owners Mayor Jabbour indicated that he would rather not review the revised concept plans at this time due to the fact that a public hearing has not been held which would enable the general public to comment on the revised concept plans. Jabbour noted that the City Council generally follows the recommendations of the Plaruiing Commission and that their input is desired before a decision Page 4 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25.1999 (#2522 Bancor Group, Continued) is made on any application. Newman stated that he agrees philosophically with what Mayor Jabbour is saving, but that m his opinion there is not a need for another public hearing to discuss the revised concept plans since the Bancor Group has taken the recommendations and comments from the neighbors into account when revising the concept plan, which is the purpose behind a public hearing. Newman stated he has met with Johnston, one of the residents representing a number of the neighbors, and review ed the revised concept plans with him. The suggested changes by Johnston have been mcorporated into the revised concept plans as well, with the revised concept plans being distributed to the adjoining property owners. Newman commented in his opinion it would be appropriate to look at the revised concept plans at this time since the directions of the Planning Commission and comments from the adjoining property owners have been taken into account when the new plans were being developed. Mayor Jabbour reiterated that he would like the input from the Planning Commission on the revised plans before the City Council proceeds on this application. Flint commented that he v^ould also like the input of the Planning Commission before this item is discussed further. Flint indicated that at this time he would rot be in favor of rezoning the propert>'. Sansevere stated that he attended the Planning Commission meeting w^-^* »hi j item was discussed and that he would like to gel input from the Planning Commission an; the public before he makes a final decision regarding this application. Mayor Jabbour inquired of the Citv ’ Attorney whether the rights of the Applicant would be violated if the Citv- Council does not proceed forward with this application at this time. Tom Barrett, Citv- Attorney, stated due to the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council has the right to deny the application. Barrett stated the issue before the City Council at this time is whether the property should be rezoned. Barrett inquired whether a formal request for rezoning of the property- has been received by the City. Weinberger stated that as part of this application the Applicant is requesting rezoning of the site. Barrett indicated that rezoning is mainly a political judgment based on the direction that the members of the City Council would like to see the City go. New-man commented that he would be willing to waive any judicial rights if the City- Council wishes to return this application to the Planning Commission. Mayor Jabbour stated that it would be his preference that this application go back before the Planning Commission. Jabbour commented that his vote will not be persuaded due to the popular opinion of the residents, but will be based cn what is best for the Citv of Orono. Jabbour slated Page 5 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25,1999 (^2522 Bancor Group, Continued) it is his opinion that rezomng of the property for this type of housing is not the best option for the City, noting that it impacts the adjoining properties, an alternate t\pe of housing is not being provided with this development, and there is a lack of open space being proposed with the subdivision. Newman stated that the plan being presented tonight is different due to the comments of the public and the Planning Commission, noting that the Bancor Group is willing to address the concerns and desires of the residents of Orono. Newman remarked that he was not aware that there was adequate support for alternate st>le housing on this site. Mayor Jabbour commented that he feels the City Council should adhere to the Comprehensive plan as well as being proactive in identifying the future needs of the community. Jabbour stated that he would be willing to vote on the rezoning issue at this time, but that his preference would be to resubmit this application to the Planning Commission so the proper public process may be followed. Flint commented that in his view the issue of rezoning should be looked at jointly with what the developer is proposing rather than separately. Flint stated that the area is zoned two acres and should not be rezoned until a PRD application is submitted that show s a compelling reason to change the zoning in this area. Newman stated that the poor soil conditions and high water table are two reasons behind the proposed higher density. Kellev stated that a PRD does make sense for this particular parcel of property. Newman remarked that they have taken numerous steps to develop a plan that would be suitable for this property. Newman inquired whether any portion of the application fees on this application would be refundable if they decide to resubmit a new application. Nfoorse stated that a portion of the fees may be refundable, noting that he is unaw are at this time how much of the application fee has been expended. Mayor Jabbour suggested that a vote on the rezoning be taken. With a new application being submitted that is more in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to deny the portion of Application H2512 dealing with rezoning of the property located at County Road 6 and W illow Drive North based on the recommendation and comments of the Planning Commission, with the portion of the application dealing with the subdivision being tabled at this time, with resubmittal to the Planning Commission for their review and comment. We'mberger stated that this application is also requesting an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Page 6 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25.1999 Jabbour amended his motion to include denial of the comprehensive plan amendment to guide the land use designation from two acre density to one acre density. Peterson seconded the motion. Mayor Jabbour inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application. There were no public comments. VOTE ON MOTION; Ayes 5, Nays 0. irMN-K* ar • H6) #2531 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTEiWVOOD ROAD - aNEWAL VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4367 Flint i^ved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4367, a ResoluHon Granting Renewal of Variances to Allow Remodeling and Expansion of the Existin^Residence Located at 815 Partenwood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. •(#7) #2538 RO^ND TORI JAFFRAY, 540 BARRETT AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION N0<4368 Flint moved, Peterson sanded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4368 a Resolution Granting VaNances to Permit Construction of Dormers on the Second Story of an Existing Reside!^ Located at 540 Barrett Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(w8) #2541 PAUL PHILLIPS, 2rHOSL\TH AVENUE NORTH, FINAL PLAT OF PHILLIPS WOODLAND TERRACE THIRD ADDITION - RESOLUTION NO. 4369 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to appr^^ and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4 j69, A Resolution Approving the Plat of PhillipsXji'oodland Terrace Third Addition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) REQUEST FOR DOCK ACCESS - DAV David Lovelace, Applicant, was present. VELACE, 220 BIG ISLANDL>^1 h^i *••• .‘k «• Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting dock access to his |>^openy located at 220 Big Island. Back in April, 1999, the City Council granted a lot area vaf^ce for this propertv* to permit the construction of a seasonal dwelling on the property. As of today's\[ate, the City has not received a request for a building permit from the Applicant The propertv is 4.3 acres in size and is landlocked. This property is one of several lots on Big Isiand that potentially will request dock rights. Weinberger stated that according to Municipal Code, installing, maintaining, keepwg or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way, when such a dock has been specifid^ly authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council, is allowed. Not more than one s^^onal dock Page 7 1 J/i i Bonestroo ^ ^ Rosene ^ TM Anderlik & \ \ !^ Associates Engineers & Architects September 15, 1999 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Bo.x 66 Cr>'stal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Willow View Subdivision File No. 139GEN-2522 Arce*'t* Arc Astae>Arfr. tnc >t at Affirrrtjitr^t CpporcuAtC/ €rr>ptc/t‘ ?* r:3Afs Czzz G 8one.:rso. ?£. • Josepn C Anc^'Uk ?£. • Mjrv L Scrv^ij PE • Gie**- ^ Coo>. • '?cse*t G Scr^unicnt. P£ • Jc'.'y a Souraor. ?£ • Izzif. ii f^ose-tf. p£ . E Turner P£ ^rd Sul.»n v» Eaertir. CPA . $<'• S* Consultants AiicciAit PfircPAIS How,»rd A. Sanford. PE • Keitn A Cordon. p£. • .7oce'C 7 P/efferte. P.E • 7icrard W Poster P£ • Oavid O LosHoca. P£. • 7ooerc c. dusse«. AiA • Var< A Hanson. PS. • •viicnaei r ffaurnann P£ • Ted <Fieid. PE • Kennetn P Andersen ?E • Mprt 7 7oifi. PS. • S.dr-y P yiMiiarrscn. P£.. L S • ^OCert F. <crsm»tn • A^nes M. Sing • A.fan 7 c< Scrmidt, PS. cfj St Paul. 7oc-e::er x iin'ar and Sc. C:oud. VN • \ii!wau«ee. U'eoi.:- ww^ ocnesrroo com Dear Paul: We have reviewed the preliminaiy grading and utility plan for the proposed 49 lot Willow View subdivision. The site is located west of Willow Drive and south of County Road 6 in the southeast quarter of Section 28. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Sanitary Sewer: The preliminary sanitary sewer design appears acceptable. It should be noted that the proposed temporary bypass lift station along T.H. 12 needs to be in place before sewer service can be provided to the Willow View site. Final plans should include plan and profile views of the proposed sewer, sewer service locations and sanitary sewer details. Sanitary services should be located 3-feet d .'wnstream from water services. All sanitary and storm sewer manholes are required to have an exterior s:.aling sleeve as manufactured by Infi-Shield or an approved equal. Any connections to existing manholes shall be core drilled and a rubber boot installed. 2. Water Main: The proposed water main shown between Lots 12 and 13, Block 3 should be extended westerly and tied into the 12-inch water main installed as part of the new Orono Middle School project. The water main alignment should coincide with the utility easement on the school property located just south of the soccer fields. We also recommend extending the 8-inch water main northerly to the intersection of Willow Drive and County Road 6. This will allow for a future connection to the City of Medina ’s water system. Final plans should include plan and profile views of the proposed water main, water main details and service locations. All water main shall be poly wrapped. 3. Grading: We recommend that the lowest basement elevations be at least 2-feet higher than the high water level (HWL) of the closest pond. Proposed basement elevations on some lots on Blocks 1, 2 and 3 do not provide this 2-feet of freeboard. We would recommend revising the grading plan or basement elevations to allow a minimum of 2-feet of freeboard. It appears that ponds located in Outlet C will flood the property to the south when they reach their HWL. We recommend revising the proposed grading plan so that ponded water is contained to at least 0.5-feet above the HV/X. Block 5 appears to have a low, landlocked area behind the homes. This will result in drainage problems and additional storm sewer may be necessary. An erosion control plan should be submitted for review. 4. Storm Sewer: The draft version of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan (SW'MP) shows that this site lies within the Long Lake drainage district. The proposed grading plan shows ponding throughout the site. It is unclear how all of the ponds are supposed to function. None of the ponds has an outlet shown. The pond in the northwest comer of the site has no inlet or outlet shown. The pipe shown between Lots 6 and 7, Block 3 outlets to a wetland. All storm sewer should outlet to a ponding area. All ponds should meet NURP standards. Ponds should have a 10:1 aquatic bench at the pond’s normal water 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul. MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax; 651-636-1311 level (NWL). All ponds should have an outlet structure and provided a minimum of I-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Riprap should be provided at all inlets and outlets. Storm sewer should be reinforced concrete pipe. Final plans should show plan and profile views of the proposed sewer and include storm sewer details. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for our review. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for their review. 5. Streets/Trails: Final plans should provide horizontal and vertical curve information for all streets. City standards do not allow for more than 10 units to be served by a cul-de-sac. City code requires that a public street serving more than 10 units shall have a minimum paved width of 32-feet where 30-feet is currently shown. We recommend that the trail typical section be revised to show 3-inches of bituminous. Street and utility record plans should be provided to the City after project completion. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. The developer wll also be responsible for all pertinent City charges including, but not limited to, trunk sewer, trunk water and park dedication fees. 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 i • >05(/) (/)Xrrtolcomc/rn Ytmr •j.w\ M ir^r/yi>Ci) ——/ ‘ \ G) © ( • ! -I •■ .. /••-;'• :;ii- • ;! «i }\ \ f<X v\r .»T ■ Vi i I? • '<*K fT :■>??<>?>• * • • • • 4 • ■ • m *•’* •j»***»***#*»*» iiiiP 1 f f 'i' 1 r:>t» y • f » ’ ^ /\ \iW j •'•'•«/- li-'') VV»"’.y w •i(0 ...r « / / • /<C\ \ • - ••» • •i • ? » I A by •ft r:x:tn 1 LOViJ ■i mMAh^3Y_■ I c K*. \ JlKf *•* w Vws^V ■fc'fAHy.i'V • !•* Al-„- -W‘ .;f- \ I t<. -1I'J’.V 'I- / I I *;••• *>-•■ •• . ' \ • • » -1 ■ > r"^ '*\\' /•'^;. I •• V 'iA'>*>Ovvv • »^ i\) /v ->AP-i L '>1 (y GVi^LLLL/'^ I -----------------------------------1/1 ^ ft ', //riJ \ \ \ I \ \ b.T m I .*. •-. •' %t J o I / h-. EiililBaDiiOQ * •» H la^v 1 'V ry:x :rMr .<• m •. \ \ o V» '/ / I mFi RUN DAI BATCH ! PROP Al OMNER t TAXPAVI NAHE/J PROP Al OWNER t TAXPAVI NAHE/I PROP Al OWNER > TAXPAVI NAHE/I PROP Al OWNER r TAXPAVI HAHE/J PROP At OWNER » TAXPAVI NAHE/J PROP Al OWNER I TAXPAVI NAHE/< MIH DATE 08/11/99 BATCH 504 OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAnC/ASDR 38 27-118-23 32 0002 ‘ 02300 SIXTH AVE N B 8 R O'ROURKE BARRY I ROBIN O'ROURKE 2300 4TH AVE N LONG LAKE HN S53S6 HENNEPIN COl"ITY PROPERTY INF0RI1AT10M SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST • 38 27-118-23 32 0884 01140 WILLOW OR N CLIFFORD ALFRED HILLSTROH CLIFFORD A HILLSTROH 1160 WILLOW DR N LONO LAKE HN 55356 REPORT NO. PX455401 PACE 11 30 27-118-23 32 0013 02350 SIUOOWOOD DR J F I J N CROBE JOHN CROBE 2350 SHADOWOOD DR LONO LAKE HN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 27-118-23 32 0021 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED FULLERTON PROPERTIES INC FULLERTON PROPERTIES INC 608 2ND AVE S HPLS HN 55402 38 27-118-23 32 0022 01020 WILLOW DR N JANES A B DERNADINE A JANES t BERNADINE COX 1020 N WILLOW DR LONO LAKE HN 55356 COX OPAO 38 27-118-23 33 0*04« JK 00900 WILLOW DR N T F * H T WOLF ^ * THEODORE F I NVRNA T WOLF 900 WILLOW DR N LONO LAKE HN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 27-118-23 33 0009 00760 DICKEY LAKE DR ADRANAH THOHAS ABRAHAH THOHAS 760 DICKY LAKE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 28-ll8>23 41 0002 01125 WILLOW OR N W L LESKINEN 0 0 H LESKINEN W L 8 D N LESKINEN 1125 WILLOW OR N LONO LAKE HN 55356 38 28-118-23 41 0005 88838 ADDRESS UNASSICNEDPROP ADDR OWNER NAHE • T 8 C CARROLL TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR THOHAS P CARROLL 2688 6TH AVE N LONG LAKc HN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 ;r8-118-23 42 0606 888311 ADDRESS UNASSICNED INO SCHOOL DIST 1278 lORONO) IND SCHOOL DIST 8278 (ORONO) AOHINISTRATIVE OFFICE 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE HN 55SB6 38 27-118-23 33 0010 00770 DICKEY LAKE DR C D LEUKUHA 8 J H LEUKUHA CHARLES 0 8 JILL H LEUKUHA 778 DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 20-118-23 41 0003 02450 SIXTH AVE N S 8 H BOULEY STEVEN J BOULEY 2450 COUNTY RD 6 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 28-118-23 42 0002 02700 SIXTH AVE N JOHN LEIN JOHN H LEIN P O BOX 177 LONO LAKE HN 55356 38 28-118-23 43 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 IND SCIXIOL DIST NO 278 ADHIN OFFICE- SUPERINTENDENT 685 OLD CAPITAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 33 8011 00960 WILLOW DR N KATHRYN H BODE KATHRYN H BODE 960 WILLOW DR N LONO LAKE HN 55356 38 28-118-23 41 0004 02500 SIXTH AVE N D H 8 W J ERICHSEN DIANE H ERICHSEN 2580 6TH AVE N LONO LAKE HN 55356 38 28-118-23 42 0003 82600 SIXTH AVE N T P CARROLL 8 C A CARROLL THOHAS P CARROLL 2688 SIXTH AVE H LONG LAKE HN 55356 30 20-118-23 43 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 INO SCHOOL DIST HO 278 ADHIN OFFICE- SUPERINTENDENT 685 OLD CAPITAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE HN 55356 JO ■fO RUN DATE Oa/11/99 BATCH SOA BROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR i_ _ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT HO. PX435AA1 PAGE 12 38 28-118-23 AA ODOl 80038 ADDRESS UNASSXCNED ORONO CENTER PROPERTIES ORONO CENTER PROPERTIES C/0 REXERSeORO LAW FXRH ASOO AATH ST W EDINA HN 55A2A 38 SA-118-23 22 0010 007AS DICKEY LAKE DR JANES FENSKE JANES E FENSKE 7*5 DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356' 38 33-118-23 11' 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSXCNED ORONO PLAZA ORONO PLAZA C/O RcXERSCORD LAW OFFICE ASOO AATH ST W HPLS HN 55A2A 38 '3A-118-23 22 0009 00755 DICKEY LAKE OR T 0 ESAU t H A ESAU TERRANCE ff I NARY A ESAU 755 DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE NN 55356 TOTAL BATCH SOA 00022 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE OK THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE( I •. •'t. .'•“V It y m esho;! CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _______________ A RESOLUTION DENYING REZOMNG AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WILLOW DRIVE NORTH PID 28-118-23 44 0001 - FILE NO. 2522 K. WHEREAS, Bancor Group, Inc. (hereinafter the "applicant") on August 18,1 999, filed an application requesting rezoning, a comprehensive plan amendment, conditional use permit and subdivision for a property located at the southwest comer of County Road 6 and Willow Drive North with the City for property legally described as; That part of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, Township li3. North Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian lying Southerly of the centerline of County Road No. 6 as recorded in Book 70, page 3844152 in the office of the Register of Deeds, Real Estate Division, Hetmepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, The applicant has applied to the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City'") for a subdivision of property* including rezoning the property' from RR-IB, two acre rural residential to R-IA one acre residential; a conditional use permit to permit the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development (PRD); and a Comprehensive Pl^ Amendment to change the land use designation of the property from two acre rural residential to one acre residential; and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono ’s Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 20, 1999, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon, and Page 1 of 4 8,1999, e permit w Drive 5, North irline of Register after "the acre rural operty to nendment one acre Minnesota the Orono ill persons k thereon; CITY of ORONO ^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLNTD, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requests for rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan amendment on a vote of 5 to 0 based on the following findings of fact: FINDINGS 1. The applicant had submitted a request for rezoning tlie property from RR-IB Uvo acre rural residential to R-IA one acre residential. The rezoning of the property requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow the property to be developed at greater than tw’o acre density. 2. The application was part of an request for a 49 lot subdivision and a con^tiorial use permit to permit the property to develop as a Planned Residential Development. 3 property contains a total of 58.43 acres of land, with 51.89 acres being diy buildable. On May 23, 1988 the City Council adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2. Amendment 2 was a result of a land use study along the Highway 12 corridor. The area east of Old Crystal Bay Road, north of Highway 12, south of County Road 6 and west of Willow Drive was guided for uvo acre density single family homes. The Comprehensive Plan states the wetlands and natural vegetation in the area provide an excellent transition between the more intense use planned for the south and single family 2-acre to the north. Utilizing this as a break, the area to the north will remain at the 2-acre rural residential standard. 5. Rezoning the propert>’ would not provide an alternative housing style or provide^ for a housing need not being met. This plan appears to provide the types ot housing that would be provided under the existing zoning. 4. Page 2 of 4 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._______________ 6. 7. 8. 9. p L Property to the north and east is guided and zoned for two acre residential use. A number of concerned citizens from the locality offered comments at the Public Hearing with the Planning Commission on September 20, 1999. Many local and future residents stated they chose to live in Orono and parts of Medina for the two acie zoning and rural character. Many e.xpressed one acre zoning may have a negative impact on the neighborhood and cause additional traffic using Willow Drive North and County Road 6. Rezoning the property will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The property can be put to a reasonable use under the existing zoning. Developing the site as a PRD under the existing RR-IB zoning would allow the property to serve as a transition between the low density 2 acre lots and non- residential uses. The Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 20, 1999 and recommended denial of the application on a vote of 6 to 0 and r'^ted the following facts: A.The Orono Community Management Plan was amended with Comp Plan Amendment Number 2 indicating the plan for the subject site is to develop at a uvo acre rural density development and the Planning Commission is not in a position to change the Comprehensive Plan. B.If the City of Orono rezoned property it should be to provide an alternative housing style or provide for a housing need not being rnet. This plan appears to provide the types of housing »hat would be provided under the existing zoning. C.The proposed number of lots (49) n.ay be too dense. A plan reducing the amount of developable lots would be more desirable. D.Municipal sewer and water are available to the property. The proposed development of the properly would take advantage of the services available. Page 3 of 4 • * CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _______________ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 8th day of November, 1999. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of November, 1999, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City ot Orono, a Minnesota muniv.ipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 r To; From: Date: Re: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner September 9,1999 #2550 Charles Van Eeckhoul 120 South Brown Road Zoning District: Comprehensive Plan. Site Area: Proposal: RR-IB. Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre minimum lot size Rural Service/Rural Residential (2 acre) 20 acres (14 acres dry buildable) Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Plat Map Section Map Site Survey Engineer Comments Property Owners List Wetland Map Shoreland District Boundary Map MUSA Map Planning Commission Minutes (May 17,1999) City Council Minutes (July 26, 1999) CMP 4-12 through 4-22 Land Use Policies Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 - RR-1B Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 - Planned Pvesidential Development 112550 Charles Ian Eeckhout 120 Bro\%n Road South Subdivision 11/15/99 page-I Summary of Request: The City of Orono has leceived a Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The request would require the following approvals: 1. 2. 3. 4. A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development - This would allow the property to develop at a two acre densiw using cluster development and preservation space. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is planed 40' in width where the City requires a minimum planed width for a private residential road to be 50'. Although the plat indicates a 28' paved width the applicant has proposed a 24' width road. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for property serving 7 or mere sites to develop the road at a 28' width. The subdivision will require a road crossing of a City Protected Wetland and locating a NURP pond within 26' of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD shall approve any wetland alteration on site. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUSA amendment shall be approved by the Cit>- Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to the site. 5.The DNR has expressed concerns w ith the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. Mr. Van Eeckhout would install sewer to the south boundarv' to provide service for the Fox Ridge Sewer Project area. Fox Ridge and Mr. Van Eeckhout's property are divided by the Trail. The DNR has stated it is opposed to the line under the trail. Long term maintenance appears to be the main issue. 6. 7. A small portion of the Tract G is platted to the center of Brown Road. Hennepin County has indicated it would require the west 33' be dedicated to the County for right-of-way. Tract G is owned by Mr. John Dunn. Mr. Dunn is not a co-applicant. He would be required to sign the plat documents and dedicate easements over the lot in favor of the City of Orono. The easements would be necessary for public utility and drainage purposes. The standard road easement would be required should it become necessary for the City to acquire the road and open it as a public road. ^2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11/15/99 f>ijge-2 8.A Homeowner ’s Association shall be created for the maintenance of the private road and drainage structures within the development. The owner of the 130 Brown Road property, southwest of the development and south of Tract G, has access from the private driveway within Tract G and shall become part owTier of a private road. Sketch Plan The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposal as part of the Sketch Plan review process. Please note the attached Minutes (Exhibits J and K). The City Council recommended to the property owner the City of Orono has no intent to rezone the property from the two acre standard. The Council has indicated they would consider developing the site as a PRD and make a provision for sewer service. Conformity to Zoning District Standards and Comprehensive Plan The RR-1B zoning district allows a property to develop as a PRD as a conditional use. Under the PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The dry buildable areas of lots 1,2,3 and 4 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dry buildable. The lots also are similar to the lots located north of the development in the City of Long Lake. The proposed setbacks shown on the site plan indicate a 35' front yard setback, 10' side yard setback and a 30' rear setback. The established setbacks are similar to other lots in Orono that are zoned 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. Lots 5,6 and 7 are located south of the proposed private road and be subject to setback standards for the RR-IB zoning district. They would be developed with an average size close to two acres. They would be a transition between the higher dei.siiy to the north and the RR-1 B two acre south of the Luce Line Trail. All lots appear to provide suitable building sites based on sewer ser\ ice being available to the property. Lot 7 is very wide and has very little lot depth. The property is bounded to the north by Long Lake Creek and the South by the Luce Line Trail. The rear yard setback is along the Trail. The front yard setback is 50', but Long Lake Creek is defined as a tributary stream and is within the shoreland protection area. A 75' setback for structure and hardcover is required the same as they apply to lakeshore areas. More detailed grading plans are required. The surveyor shall indicate on the plan set the OHWL of the Creek and 75' structure setback. ^2550 Charles ian Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision n/1 5/99 page-3 Access The City Engineer has commented (Exhibit E) the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. Further, he recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50' width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. The grades are a concern regarding driveway access to several lots on the property. It appears that existing grades exceed 40% on Lots 2,3 and 7. Driveway design on these Lots will be critical as the City recommends that driveway grades not exceed 10%. Access to Lot 7 across Outlot B will require the construction of a bridge or culverts at the stream crossing. The plans should provide a design for this crossing. Outlot B would be a shared driveway in favor of Lots 6 anu 7. The drive would be required to cross Long Lake Creek which is a protected tributary stream and subject to Orono's Shoreland Management regulations. A variance would be required to allow a driveway to cross the creek. Driveway locations and proposed grading shall be shown on the survey. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. The ponding location is shown on the preliminary survey. Final grading plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond normal water level. The outlet structures shall be provided on the final plans indicating the location and actual size of the pond. The City Engineer will require Best Management Practices in all areas where stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided for review by the City Engineer prior to further review. Sanitarv Sewer A MUSA amendment is required to allow sanitary sewer ser\ ice to the property. Sewer sen ice has been discussed and a feasibility report has been completed for the Fox Ridge neighborhood south of the Luce Line Trail. The report identified a pressure sewer system as the most feasible to ser\ e the neighborhood. The pressure sewer would be routed up South Brown Road to an existing gravity sewer on Watertown Road. This system would have the potential to serve properties north of Fox Ridge and south of Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. The Van Eeckhout plans include a preliminary design for sanitary sew-er to serve the site. The plans show a gravity sewer system that ties into an existing sanitary manhole at the south end of Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. This proposed system could potentially serv’e the Fox Ridge neighborhood if the DNR issued permits for to cross the Luce Line Trail. The proposed alignment as showTi would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended weslerl}' in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitaiy serv'ice. •2350 Charles I an Eeckhout 120 Broun Road South Subdivision II ism page-4 Surrounding Properties The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f. (approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-IB. Just to the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. , Easements 1. 2. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. Subdivider shall grant Conser\ ation and Flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75' of Long Lake Creek. 3.The DNR has made efforts to maintain a wooded and natural corridor along the Luce Line Trail. They have requested the applicant dedicate a 50' conservation easement over the southern portion of lot 7. Park Dedication Fee 8% of the land value, to be determined by the City Assessor, will be required for Park Dedication Fee. The City of Orono has established a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. Issues for discussion 1. 2. Access to the property is via a Tract G which is not owned by Mr. Van Eeckhout. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50' in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. The Tract should be in ownership of the Homeowner's Association as they will be responsible foi th;.* maintenance. Several lots would be served by driveways with severe slopes exceeding the recommended slope by at least 30%. U2550 Charles Ian Eeckhout 1 20 Bro \% n Road South Subdivision 11/13/99 page-3 3. 4. 5. Long Livxe Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek. A variance would be required for the alteration, however the building pad of the lot is restricted by the lot requiring a 75' OHWL setback. The private road would require the City approve land alteration and mitigation of the City protected wetland. Is the proposed lot layout acceptable with 4 smaller lots to the north and 3 larger lots to the south? Docs the plan meet the intent of the PRD for creation of open space areas. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the application to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues. A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided w ith safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 10% slope. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. E. City Staff, the applicant and the DNR shall determine if a permit can be issued to cross the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox Ridge. If it is determined the sewer service can not be completed the City shall review alternatives. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. The Planning Commission should provide some direction to the applicant regarding the road width variances for Tract G and the conditional use permit for a PRD. The applicant shall be advised the following information is requested to complete the review prior to a final plat application. 1.Detailed Grading. Drainage and Erosion Control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. t*2550 Charles I'an Eeckhout 120 Broun Road South Subdivision 11/13 99 page-‘6 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. 4. 5. 6. The Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. 7. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. M2550 Charles Van Etckhout 120 Brown Road South Subdivision 11/15/99 page~7 Application # 2-SS^ Date Received______ Amount Paid A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress________| Z-O Property Identification Number (PID)__________________ Please check one - Propert>’____abstract or — torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name ^ u n>.t2,L.v th \Aa; /Ti£tSKMe?u . Phone (home) City uo-t/'o tavicT Zipi?':>3^LPhone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) Citv Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels V Development Size N .Acres Dry Land Present use (check) Zo Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential: no. of units • Other (specify) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL “7 Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites » _ Existing Units 4.‘. »“ * 1 c New Units 7 Total Units /T 0 •' 1.:Proposed Gross Density Units per 1 Acres Minimum Lot Size Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land 4 Proposed Use (check)Residential Other (specify) ■) *. V Ti.* Ji • •• . Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & \ Associates Engineers & Architecis November 9. 1999 Mr. ' <ul Weinberger Zoning Adminislrator/PIanner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Van Eeckout Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Sonviroo. 7o5ert*. •iicc ^tes. Inc is €*n Affirm^itivc Act'on Ccportun,ty Employ Pnncv^H Otto G Boresr^oo P£ • Joseph C AndcrliK. PE • V«iirvin L SorvdM. Pf • Glenn R Cook. P£ • Resell G Sc-unicnt. PE • Jerry A Bourdon, PE • Robert W Rosene. PE . Richard E *-'ncr. PE and Susan M Eberlm. C PA Senior Consultants AjiofMfe Principals Howard A Sa^'ford. PE • Keith A Gordon PE • Robert R Pfefferic. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • Da/id O L;;nota. PE • Robert C Russe^ A i A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted < * e'd PE • Kenneth P Anderson, PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson, PE. L S • Rcce": F Kotsrmth • Agnes M Ring • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE Offices St Paul. Rochester Wilirar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wi Weosite wwwbcnestroc com •r E Dear Paul: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckout subdivision. The site is located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Streets: The proposed access to the site is across a parcel marked easement area. The parcel is 40-fcet wide. The ownership of this easement area is unclear. We recommend that the access to the property be platted as pan of the subdivision and not across an easement. The access should be a minimum of 50-feet in width to meet City stands ds for a public or private street. The proposed typical street sections do meet the City standards for a private street serving seven or more units. The typical st'eet section for station 0+00 to 4+00 shows an urban curb and gutter section while station 4+00 to the end shows a rural section with ditches. A method of conveying storm water from the urban to rural section should be shown on the plans. This may require flumes, swales, ditching or storm sewer construction. The driveway serving the existing house will need to be relocated so that it doesn ’t encroach onto Lot 6. Proposed driveway locations to all Lots should be shown on the plans. It appears that existing grades exceed 407o on Lots 2.3 and 7. Driveway design on these Lots will be critical as we reconunend that driveway grades not exceed 10%. Access to Lot 7 across Outlot B will require the construction of a bridge or culverts at the stream crossing. The plans should provide a design for this crossing. 2. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the wetland. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. A general location for a NURP pond has been identified on the plans. The final plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench lO-feet wide at the pond normal water level (NWL). The pond design should also include an outlet sU^ucture that provides I-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) should be implemented on all areas where storm water cannot be routed directly to the pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The City ordered and received a feasibility report for sanitary sewer to serve the Fo.x Ridge neighborhood located just south of the Van Eeckout property. The report identified a pressure sewer system as the most feasible to serve the neighborhood. The pressure sewer would be routed up South Brown Road to an existing gravity sewer on Watertown Road. This system would have the potential to serve properties north of Fox Ridge and south of Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. The Van Eeckout plans include a preliminary design for sanitary sewer to serve the site. The plans show a gravity sewer system that ties into an existing sanitary manhole at the south end of Apple Glen in Long Lake. This proposed system could potentially serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood if permission were obtained to cross the Luce Line and the parcel directly south of the Luce Line. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow the gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding proposed connections to their sanitary sewer 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636*4600 • Fax; 651*636-1311 r system. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road and determine whether a westerly extension of the sewer to South Brown Road makes sense. We can provide a cost estimate to extend the proposed sewer southerly to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood with gravity sewer if the City so desires. 5. Easements: Final platting should include 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way for C.R. 146. Drainage and utility easements should be provided S feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of- ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono RUN DATE 09/06/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONHER NAHE TAXPAYER NA})E/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HErMEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 36 03-117-23 11 0001 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL HAC HILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 9300 DEPT 26 HPLS HN 55^190 36 03-117-23 12 0003 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINN STATE OF HINN CDNR) aUCE LINE TRAIL I 36 03-117-23 12 0006 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 03-117-23 12 0009 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 03-117-23 13 0001 00350 BROWN RD S W F FARLEY 1 K G FARLEY WILLIAH 6 KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 DROWN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0007 01695 FOX RIDGE RD T J DAYTON i H DAYTON TOBIN J i HAE DAYTON 1695 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 03-117-23 11 0002 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINNESOTA STATE OF HINN CDNRI I LUCE LINE TRAIL) 36 03-117-23 12 0009 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S DROWN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 03-117-23 12 0007 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 03-117-23 12 0010 00130 BROWN RD S WALTER RICHARD HCCARTHY JR WALTER RICHARD HCCARTHY JR C/O FCI 332 HINNESOTA ST R2100 ST PAUL HN 55101 36 03-117-23 13 6005 01995 FOX RIDGE RD R t B HACK RAYHOND H HACK 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 03-117-23 21 0001 00025 DROWN RD S S DITTHAN i L BITTHAN SCOTT t L7SA BITTHAN 25 BROWN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 REPORT NO. PI935401 PAGE 29 36 03-117-23 12 0002 00036 ADDkESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL HAC HILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 9300 DEPT 26 HPLS HN 55990 36 03-117-23 12 0005 00120 DROWN RD S CHARLES E VAN EECKHOUT ETAL CHARLES E VANEECKHOUT 120 BROWN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 03-117-23 12 0006 00020 DROWN RD S JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 03-117-23 12 0011 00190 BROWN RD S DAL COLEHAN JR DOUGLAS R COLEHAN JR 190 BROWN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 03-117-23 13 0006 01995 FOX RIDGE RD D E KIRKHAN I J H KIRKHAN DAVID E I JOANNE H KIRKHAN 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 03-117-23 21 0007 00195 BROWN RD S JOHN H WINTON JOHN H WINTON 1319 HARQUETTE AVE 6903 HPLS HN C5903 C.) ) c C '-vC A ^ JlrU RUN DATE 09/06/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAhE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 36 03-117-23 21 0009 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINN STATE OF HINN (DNRI (LUCE LINE TRAIL) 36 03-117-23 21 0019 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN P EARLING JOHN P EARLING 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 39-116-23 93 0020 00032 APPLE GLEN RD K V BIGELOW t J T BIGELOW KENNETH ft JUDY BIGELOW 32 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 39-116-23 93 0060 00096 CREEKSIDE DR J T PASTER ft A L PASTER JAHES T PASTER 96 CREEKSIDE LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 39-116-23 93 0063 00069 CREEKSIDE DR HARY ANN HANSEN HARY ANN HANSEN 69 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 39-116-23 93 0072 00091 APPLE GLEN RD D J DUDINSKY ET AL DAVID J DUDINSKY 91 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 001936 03-117-23 21 02010 COLIN DR DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III 2010 COLIN DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 36 39-116-23 99 0003 00135 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EDHUND W F RYDELL EDMUND RYDELL 135 ORONO ORCHARD RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 39-116-23 93 0021 00026 APPLE GLEN RD JAYE ANN ZULLO JAYE ANN ZULLO 26 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 39-116-23 93 0061 00052 CREEKSIDE DR J L OHHAN ft R A OHHAN JOHN L OHHAN 52 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 39-116-23 93 0069 00093 CREEKSIDE DR R 6 ROACH ft K A ROACH ROBERT G ft KIMBERLY A ROACH 93 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 39-118-23 93 0073 00035 APPLE GLEN RD N E ft H J STRUZIK NICHOLAS E STRUZIK 35 APPLE GLEN RD S LONG LAKE HN 5535b REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 30 38 03-117-23 21 0018 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LLOYD S KELLEY LESTER S KELLEY 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 39-116-23 93 0019 00038 APPLE GLEN RD H E ft H B GUTHRIE HARY ft MITCHELL GUTHRIE 36 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 39-116-23 93 0022 00020 APPLE GLEN RD T W WOLLIN ft H R WILLIN THOMAS ft MELANIE WOLLIN 20 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 i 'i) 'f- /r-NV • •. • A ‘ * ■) i 72 39-116-23 93 0062 00056 CREEKSIDE DR H ft J BERNS MICHAEL E ft JOLYNN H BERNS 56 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 ft \li. -J U •• 72 39-116-23 93 0070 00025 APPLE GLEN RD S C FEDIE ft W L FEDIE STEVEN C ft WENDY L FEDIE 25 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 >1 r 72 5^-118-23 « 0874 01980 KENNEDY LA L R DANIELSON/N H DANIELSON LEE R I NANCY H DANIELSON 1900 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE NN 5535b r anm*ai-■r ■•Htr'^r-M-TTT I RUN DATE 09/08/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 72 S^-118-23 43 0075 01985 KENNEDY LA NANCY E PETERSON NANCY E PETERSON 1985 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE HN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 72 34-118-23 43 0083 00010 BROWN RD S D P t L A ERICKSON DAVID P I LISA ANN ERICKSON 10 BROWN RD S LONG LAKE NN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 31 72 34-118-23 43 0081 00055 VALLEY VIEW RD G W ANDERSON I S J ANDERSON GREGORY W 3 SALLY J ANDERSON 55 VALLEY VIEW RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0082 00018 BROWN RD S JUDY L KELLETT JUDY L KELLETT 18 BROWN RD S LONG LAKE NN 55356 I*. % ^ )) TOTAL BATCH 507 00040 f- , .) . > < J 9—.: u X. .‘s S ..“^1 m • ^ i I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION« TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE I ! mb'. . f Mimja uA..M <n.a«trJciM ____a a J, T.nz /?. 23 G SEC. 34, Til8, R. VIL. OF OROHO ------------------------ \(A*//•mi___>isT*ior J ORONO PLANNING CO\EVnSSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17,1999 #2488 GREGG KLOHN, CONTINUED Klohn staled he would like the application to be tabled. Hawn Inquired whether he would be willing to waive the 60 day lime limit. Klohn indicated that would be fine. Berg moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2488,4455 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans, and to extend the 60 day time limit to 120doys. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#11) #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Charles Van Eeckhout was present. Gaffron stated the Applicants are requesting to subdivide a 20 acre parcel to create nine sewered building sites ranging from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acres in area. This proposal would require rezoning the area from RR-1B, Single Family, 2 Acre, to R-1A, Single Family, 1 acre; extension of the sanitary sewer from the City of Long Lake; expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area; variances to the back lot ordinance; creation of a private road in a substandard corridor; variances to lot width; creation of a shared driveway crossing of Long Lake Creek; construction of a road or driveway through at least two delineated wetlands; creation of a wetland outlet for Park; and construction of an 800 foot private driveway extending from the private road to serve Lot 4. Charles Van Eeckhout staled that he has owned the properly for the past 29 years. Van Eeckhout staled that he has done other subdivisions vnthin the City of Orono and has made It a point to avoid the need for variances as much as possible. Before purchase of this property. Van Eeckhout commented that he checked v;ith the City of Orono regarding what regulations existed regarding possible subdivision of this area and that this proposal encompasses essentially v/hat he was told he could do at that time. Van Eeckhout stated that in 1975, the City rezoned this area, which changed this area from a one acre density to two acre, and that rezoning should be considered as a taking of value, and that this property should be allov/ed to be developed under one acre standards as he was originally told. Van Eeckhout remarked that he did not receive any compensation for the taking, which in his opinion decreased the value of his property. Van Eeckhout noted that a lot of new rules and regulations have been adopted by the City over the years, and requested that the Planning Commission rezone this area back to what it originally was at the time of purchase. Gaffron commented that the City of Orono v/ould disagree with the opinion that the rezoning was a taking. Van Eeckhout stated that he has quarter acre lots to the north adjacent to his property, one acre lots on the northwest, and one acre lots to the south, and wetlands to the east. Van Eeckhout remarked that In essence his property was spot zoned at the time the area was rezoned. Van Eeckhout commented that this subdivision would contain one acre lots, which in his opinion are Page 16 \ ORONO PLANNING COMNnSSION hxLETLNG MINUTES FOR MAY 17,1999 #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, CONTINUED sufficient lots, noting that two acre lots would cost more, and that due to environmental concerns because of its location by Long Lake Creek, this area should be connected to City sewer. A large number of trees also exist on the property which cannot be cut down. Van Eeckho'ut stated that he would like to have a forester out there to review the situation to determine whether some of the trees can be cut down to help the undergrowth grow back. Van Eeckhout stated he is willing to work with City Staff on these issues. Lindquist remarked that he understands Van Eeckhout's position on the taking, but that is an Issue for the City Council. Lindquist commented that in his opinion this area should remain zoned at two acres. Hawn stated she Is In agreement with Lindquist and that the Planning Commission does not do rezonlng. Hawn remarked that this area might be a potential site for a PRD and might lend itself to some cluster development. Van Eeckhout commented that In his opinion under this sketch plan there Is sufficient spacing for the proposed residences, noting that he would not have a problem with doing a PUD on this area as he has presented it tonight. Stoddard stated that he also concurs that this is an issue for the City Council to determine, noting that the Planning Commission is a recommending body and it does not appear that the Planning Commission would recommend rezonlng of this area. Stoddard remarked that the City also needs to make a determination on whether this area should be Included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Hawn noted that this application is driven by whether or not the Applicant can rezone this property and that issue should be resolved first before further consideration Is given to this sketch plan. Gaffron staled that the area south of the Luce Line Is zoned two acres, noting that Fox Ridge was developed back in the 1960s. Stoddard commented that the Applicant will also need to determine the type of wetlands that exist on the property. Van Eeckhout stated that in his opinion this area is incorrectly zoned wetland and he has farmed the wetland area on a regular basis. Van Eeckhout remarked that the wetland Is six feel above the water level. Van Eeckhout commented that In his opinion this area can adequately support nine stmclures. Lindquist stated that in his opinion this area will probably remain zoned at two acres. Hawn noted that it has was the consensus of the Planning Commission in a meeting regarding the comprehensive plan not to extend sanitary sewer to prevent denser housing. Hawn suggested the Applicant look at a PRD. Van Eeckhout noted that a PRD would require extension of the sewer. Hawn staled that a PRD probably would require extension of the sewer. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMIvnSSION MEETING NDNUTES FOR MAY 17,1999icems Marge t that he rthe in issue sdat :ing for Is the le City lolitan dgewas hat farmed ibove jpport nine irding the tested the #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, CONTINUED Gaffron remarked that If the Applicant took the total buildable acreage of the property and divided it by two, the Applicant might be able to put a maximum of seven homes on this property, and that clustering may help to preserve some of the natural features of the area. • . * Van Eeckhout commented that the City should take a long-range view as far as It relates to sewer Issues, noting that In his opinion eventually sewer will more than likely be needed In Orono. Gaffron stated this application will go before the City Council at their June 14th meeting, noting that no formal action is needed to be taken by the Planning Commission on this application. (#12) #2491 DEBORAH SHOLL, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN Deborah Shell was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant Is requesting a sketch plan review for a Class III Subdivision • for property located at 4100 Watertown Road, which consists of approximately 37 acres. Approximately two acres is classified as Orono Wetlands and appear on the City Wetland maps. The Applicant Is proposing to create two parcels, with one parcel being approximately 14 acres. 12 acres dry buildable, and the other west parcel would be 23 parcels. Weinberger stated that there was a conditional use permit on this property to allow the keeping of domestic animals for commercial purposes and to allow the continued use of the property for a public riding stable. Following sale of the property, the commercial use of the property has ceased. The property also contains two residential properties on one lot without a conditional use permit for a guest house. The lot was combined v/ith another five acre lot to the northeast in January of 1996. Weinberger remarked that two oversized accessory buildings are located on the property. Oversized accessory buildings are allowed In this district subject to the condition that not more than one oversized accessory structure shall be permitted on any property. An oversized structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet. The total footfrint area for the tv/o accessory buildings is 14,497 square feet. A number of variances would be required for this subdivision due to the oversized accessory buildings. Variances would be required to permit two oversized accessory buildings on one 12 acre lot where one is allowed; to permit two oversized accessory buildings larger than the 3,000 square feet maximum allowed for oversized accessory structures; and to permit 14,497 square feet for all accessory buildings where 6,000 square feet Is allowed. Variances are also needed for setbacks to the houses and the guest house. There are also some structures located on the property without a principal structure. Weinberger stated that the use of an accessory building for keeping animals for non-commercial purposes is a permitted use provided It Is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the available area standards, which requires that a minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. Weinberger staled that Watertown Road Is a City owned right-of-way. The Subdivision Code requires the north 33 feet of Watertown Road be dedicated to the City. The portion of the property dedicated is not considered as lot area. Page 18 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 26,1999 lA (#5) #2490 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present along with Tom Loucks, Planner. Gafifron stated the Applicant is requesting City Council direction regarding potential rezoning of this site to allow Wgher density housing. TTiis lot is comprised of 20 acres, with roughly 12 to 14 acres being dry buildable. This lot is located outside of the MUSA hut an issue for City Council consideration is whether this property should be developed with City sewer regardless of whether it is rezoned. A third item for consideration is whether Council believes the site should be considered for a Planned Residential Development. Gaffron stated the Applicant presented a sketch plan to the Planning Commission which called for iiine sewered building sites 'anging in size from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acre. The Planning Commission did not offer the Applicant much direction as they felt that the City Council should determine whether this property . hould be rezoned and whether City sewer should be provided. Loucks stated that this 20 acre parcel has unique characteristics, noting that the site abuts the City of Long Lake as well as the Long Lake sewer lines. The site is adjacent to some two acre developments as w'ell as a number of one-third to one acre residential developments in Long Lake. Loucks requested that the City Council consider the possibility of a PRD for this property. Loucks stated the proposed lots range from 15,000 to 20,000 feet to 1.5 acres wdth a diversity of housing being contemplated. The Applicant will attempt to preserve as much of the natural features of this property as possible. Gaffron stated that a zoning code amendment requires a 4/5's majority vote, noting that this property would not need to be rezoned in order to do a PRD if density standards are met. The number of units being proposed does exceed the number that could be accomplished through a standard two acre plat, and a PRD does not allow the City to increase the density, hence this proposal for nine lots on 12 -14 acres would require rezoning. Kelley commented that he is not in favor of rezoning, but would support a PRD with seven lots and hookup to City sewer. Mayor Jabbour thanked the Applicant for his efforts in attempting to preserve the natural characteristics of this property. Kelley remarked that he was unsure whether onsite sewer sites would be available on this site due to the topography and wetlands that exist. Flint inquired if the zoning is not changed, how a PRD would assist the Applicant. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 26,1999 (#2490 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Loucks stated under a PRD they would be able to have lots that are less than two acres as long as the density standard is not exceeded. Flint inquired what the density standard is for this lot. Loucks stated the area will need to be calculated, but in his "sdew there is approximately 16 acres of upland. Loucks stated they are willing to work with City Staff on this matter. Sansevere stated he was in agreement with Kelley on the density. Peterson commented that she also was in agreement with Kelley regarding the density. Mayor Jabbour stated that in his view a PRD would be appropriate, noting that he is amenable to extending City sewer to this property. (#6) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD - VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Rick Luzaich, Applicant, was present, along with Phil Reznick, Attomey-at-Law. Weinberger stated that the Applicant’s reforestation plan was denied at the last City Council meeting, with a revised plan having been submitted by the Applicant today. The Applicant is proposing to add a number of trees, which increases the canopy cover over the entire property. The City's consulting forester is recommending a minimum spacing of 25 feet which will allow for greater canopy coverage when the trees mature. Bedker is recommending that aiiy plan submitted by the Applicant restore a minimum of 90 percent of the estimated 14,450 square feet of tree canopy that was removed. The Applicant's plan achieves 83 percent canopy restoration 0'"'r the 25 year period. Bedker is ready to recommend adoption of the plan with the recommended changes. Weinberger stated the issues for consideration by the City Council include the right to review the subject property by City Staff to ensure eventual full restoration on the property. Staff is recommending that a letter of credit be on file with the City to ensure reforestation of this property as well. Reznick stated according to his understanding, the Applicant’s landscape architect was to meet with the City’s forester, which has been done, and the recommendations of the City’s forester 8 • • • LAND USE JUNE, 1980 tAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Orono's Land Use Plan is based upon the following goals and policies which in turn have been actively developed by Orono residents over the last 25 years. I AND USE GOALS 1. TO REINFORCE ORONO'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT. 2.TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE URBAN AND RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 3.TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR A VARIETY OF LOCAL EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. 4. TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES. 5. TO COORDINATE ORONO'S LAND USES WITH THAT OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. 6. TO COORDINATE LAND USES AND DEVELOPED DENSITY WITH THE PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GFNFRAL LAND USE POLICIES 1.THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) IS FIXED. Orono'8 Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Sewer Service Area (MSSR) are fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan and are legally described by Resolution of the City Council as shown on Map Mo. 6. 2.ORONO'S LAND USE PLANS WILL BE BASED UPON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES. Land use and development must assure the conservation, protection and preservation of sensitive environmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Plan. Land use policies will encourage the wise use and management of natural resources while prohibiting their misuse, abuse, overuse or exploitation. CMP 4-12 f I LAND USE JUNE, 1980 sSS°WMEf D^IN a S MD FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff decreasing the water quality. Deve ope use densities will be determined by comparxson between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. 4. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE THE ETONOmLSJl?“wCwJI MEkoD OF FLOOD PMTECTION AND STORM an“flo^plLns‘'3^”b^pro«cter£rom%^ and from alteration or destruction by . grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever » the City will acquire open space and flowage ments for conservation of these lands. SSV hL^ReSS?OV^RC~ in conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline M^^^^ement regulations for recreational development lakes, orono will prohibit overly dense within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be ^®'^®^°P® provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. 6. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM Shoreland areas, whether “"^^^itca^tare sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same ^perly development which can be destructive P^operly regulated. Natural vegetation in will be preserved insofar as practical and reason able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 LMULii^JUNE, 1980 7. DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION OF FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. Most of the City's identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected by regulations applicable to those areas. In addition, where floodplains do exist on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. 8. NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will include topographical Information, soil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project, whether public or private. 9. ORONO'S LAND USE PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR. Sufficient open spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air and recreation for all residents. 10. PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP OF LAND AND RESOURCES IS PREFERABLE TO INFLEXIBLE PUBLIC CONTROL. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of Improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. 11. ALL LAND 0^-JNERS MUST HAVE EQUAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES. No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and require ments of the Community Management Plan. 12. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY. Land development should respect and enhance neighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City, preserving the value of the land and the integrity, stability and beauty of the community. CMP 4-14 I I if 1 1 a ■ n i a I I n LAND USE JUNE, 1980 13. 14. 15. 16. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land developmen't should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required. Improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy Includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configura tions, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform. City- established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE Land subdivision or any development that results in Increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. CMP 4-15 MMiiiii LAND USE JUNE, 1980 -A lieu of lands the developer may be required o contribute funds for the municipal such lands or the improvement of such facilities proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase from multiple small developments. TT MH TaMn WTTT BE DEVELOPED UNLESS IT'S LOCATION AND PHYSICAL2SaSemstics for the proposed use in accordance WITH THIS PLAN. Land to be developed must be of such size, character and location that it can be safely used for the intended purpose without danger to health, without peril from fire, floo or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties. NO land will be permitted to be subdiviaea or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequate drainage, soil formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. URBAN LAND USE POLICIES, 1.THE MAJORITY OF ORONO'S URBAN AREA WILL BE RESER^D FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's urban residential neighborhoods Will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Low-densi y multi-family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. CMP 4-16 I i 0 i h k k LAND USE JUNE, 1980 2. 3. 4. 5. LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retaili commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature which would duplicate existing services in the neighboring town centers will be discouraged. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND LIMITED LAKE-USER SERVICES. Orono's residents and other lake users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat repair facilities v/hich are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono's Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses vhere appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public's general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer, and adequate transportation are available. THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE UNIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAS. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this land use is entirely consistent with Long Lake's neighboring industrial development. i CMP 4-17 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 6. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. The location and scale of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach „ upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses. 7. PUBLIC URBAN SERVICES MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL FUTURE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Commercial, industrial and urban-density residential uses will be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, adequate transportation, police and fire protection services are available. In addition, commercial, industrial and multi-family residential development will be permitted only where a municipal water system is available for adequate water supply and fire protection. 8. URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES. New land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water, sewer, drainage transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. 9. THE EXISTING URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono*s Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas. 10. THE DESIGN AND DENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. CMP 4-18 1 1 3 i } 1 11 J 1 tf i I and use JUNE, 1980 “■ ‘„?s5-sf’„s’ss,s;,!™Kt.s;r:r.r °™ ““ “ natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number per property and the amount of publ c wa available for private docking and boat storage. 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OP URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the * Minimum green belts will be provided with pro thinning of vegetation. Natural y®9®tation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LANH HSF POLICIES ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR PERMANENT LOW-DENSITT RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's rolling rural is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs marshland assimilative preclude expansion of the urban servxce area without Sajor envirLmental problems for * Th^efore, the ideal land use for that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service ^J®® (MUSA) is the planned low-density rural land use. Commercial and industrial uses will be permitted in the rural area. 1. CMP 4-19 Li LANDUSE JUNE, 1980 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR QUASI AGRICULTURAL LAND USES. Greenhouses, orchards, truck farms, riding stables and recreation areas such as large golf courses and park reserves are not possible in more crowded urban areas but they are compatible with rural residential properties. Thus, the total commercial activity of Orono is broader and more varied than if the City were all urban or all rural. RURAL DENSITY IS LIMITED BY NATURAL CONDITIONS. Development of rural Orono is naturally limited by a number of conditions including extensive wetlands, steep slopes and areas of high water table, which factors influence building locations and transportation options as well as the location and spacing of on-site sewage treatment systems. THE EXISTING RURAL AREA WILL NOT BE URBANIZED. Orono*s Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will no^ be expanded into the rural area. Municipal urban services will not be extended into the rural area or across open, rural lands. Rural land uses and rural land use density will -be maintained at a level to ensure that private on-site sewer systems will operate satisfactorily and that rural wetlands and drainageways will not be overloaded with storm water nutrient pollution. j RURAL LAND USES AND DENSITIES DO NOT REQUIRE URBAN SERVICES. Urban services are not compatible with rural land use. Extension of certain urban services, such as extensive public road maintenance or municipal sewer or water cannot be economically justified or easily provided to developments in rural areas or at rural densities. RURAL LAND USES DO NOT REQUIRE MUNICIPAL SEWER SERVICE. Orono*s soil, topography and low—density rural land use provide the ingredients necessary to ^ assure safe, adequate, permanent on-site sewage treatment and waste water disposal without hazard to ground water, surface water or the }.ublic health. CMP 4-20 1 I a ■ JUNE, 1980 LAND 7. 8. i i M 1 m rtTTT OP <;tirject to proven on-site sewage treatmentRURAL development WILL BE SUBJECT CAPABILITY. Future providingwill be contingent upon the developer pv::;.y . “nr;;;-.:';:::; The zonina area requirements tor t therefore be based upon minimum areas of ry buildari^ land exclusive of roadways, wetlands, streams or areas of high water a rural development must be self-supporting. All future development in the rural area «rlV required to be P««^^”“;=“PJ°ro^^ater supply, intended use, rovement maintenance,sewage treatment and in‘«nal impr services SO as to prevent extension of costxy into the rural area. rural land use densities will allow maximum retention of private wood and open space. low rural accommodate homesites withou a woods traditional vistas of open fields lands will then assure permanent habitat for orr abundant wildlife. Pf" 'prrXwill be provided on a large-scale Reserve Basis, but neighborhood or mini-parks are unnecessary because of the of available privately owned and maintained open space. 10 RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE ^INTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SU^^CE Sr RETENTION AND total population f “^““.““^'^.t^rftltrition :rll‘tn:iers^!'”«n^^ru»l land use protect all of our rural wetlands and ““Poland for future use as retention ponds and nutrient filters including t''® Q^^^ncreased^nutrientrecycled urban storm water for xnct filtration. 9. CMP 4-21 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 11. RURAL LAKESHORE AREAS V7ILL HAVE DUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The low-density residential land uses will automatically reduce environmental pressures on the shoreline. In addition, the rural areas will be subject to the same shoreline protection performance standards as the urban areas, including minimum setbacks, green belts, clear- cutting prohibitions and lake use regulations. Taken together, these factors should preserve to a large extent the original appearance of Orono’s rural shoreline as seen from the lake. THE LAND USE PLAN MAP NO. 6 INDICATES THE BASIC LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY: THE DESIGNATIOb OF ORONO'S URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA. The detaile location of the dividing line (the MUSA line) between the Urban Service Area and the Rural Service Area has been established by careful evaluatior of each of the elements of this Comnunity Management Plan. Environmental concerns, historic land use patterns, and the availability of sewer, transportation and other public facilities all enter into the local decision of actual MUSA line location. Orono's Urban Service Area identifies those portions of the City that have been provided with public services and facilities necessary to support urban types and densities of land use as defined by the Metro politan Council’s Development Framework Guide. Orono's Rural Service Area identifies those portions of the City that do not have urban serv ce. and are not planned to have urban services. Orono’s Rural Service Area is intended to permanently accommodate General Rural Land Uses and^ housing densities defined by the Metropolitan Council, and as distinctly different from a Commercial Agricultural region. Orono’s MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 has been legally describ* and established by City Council Resolution No. 1135 adopted April ' 198 This Resolution is included in the CMP Appendix. The detailed location of this line will not be changed without further official action of the City Council. Orono's MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 is consistent with the broad-brush location of the MUSA line as drawn by the Metropolitan Counci Orono's MUSA line location is consistent with the MUSA location and land use plans of adjoining municipalities. Orono's MUSA line location direct affects the detailed land use and facilities plans of the City. MAP NO. 7 INDICATES THE DETAILED LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY, IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE LAND USES AND DENSITIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD. This land use map will form the lasis for land use zoning decisions. CMP 4-22 __L k6mMinnesota Department of Natural Resources Region 6A Trails & Waterways, 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Office (612) 826-6764; (Fax) 826-6767. •• ^ I *J'.'2 1999 November 10,1999 Q';T\ V,i .i lvJlSlO City of Oronc Paul Weinberger PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Weinberger, This letter addresses concerns regarding application #2550 submitted by Chuck Van Eeckhout to the City of Orono Planning Commission for a subdivision and conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. Please include this letter in the project file documenting the state's concerns. The proposed subdivision will create 7 building sites on 14 acres. Lot number 7 runs along the entire southern boundary of the development and borders the Luce Line State Trail. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails & Waterways Unit manages the multiuse recreational Luce Line State Trail. There are several concerns regarding this application. One, that the proposed development does not adversely effect the water drainage along the state trail or adjoining state property. A second concern is that the standard setbacks be adhered to in planning for this development. This would apply to septic systems, retention ponds, and buildings. This includes outbuildings as well, and should be clearly disclosed to future landowners. Sewer plans are a third. This plat identifies a line running from north to south with an endpoint at the Luce Line State Trail. At this time there is no request to this office for permission to cross the trail. We would not be in favor of a sewer crossing at this point. Future maintenance of the sewer would be difficult at this location on the trail. Access from the west is poor due to Brown Road South being an overpass. The next access street from the east, Orono Orchard Road is almost 3/4 mile and has a steep grade for the horse trail only; the main trail passes over the road. The fourth concern is that the developer and future landowners be made aware of property boundaries and not damage the landscape or remove vegetation on state property. A covenant could DNR Information; 61 : l.S(K»-7h6-f>(KM) • TTV; 6i: 296-54S4. \n Oppfufunit) Hmphncf Who Vjluc*» DivcfMi\ 0% Printed on Rcc>».!etl f’uper (.'onijinine j Minimum ot lO'r Po\t*Con\umcr Wj>ic I be placed on the property prohibiting the alteration of topography or vegetation adjacent to the trail, This has been a problem in the past when adjacent landowners create private access trails to state land. A recommendation to the developer and the City of Orono would be to establish a conservation easement of 10 to 50 feet along the entire southern border with the Luce Line State Trail. This would benefit both the landowner and the trail users by providing a buffer zone of vegetation screening the homesite from the trail. Typically, conservation easements allow landowners to limit future development or alteration of vegetation on their property in order to protect natural and open space. It is a voluntary and permanent legal agreement where the landowner retains ownership and the right to use the land within the terms agreed upon in the conservation easement. The DNR would be willing to work with the developer to establish an agreement that would be beneficial to both parties. Please address the above concerns and discuss the conservation easement possibility in the project review and keep us informed of future plans for this development. Thank you. CO k. Suzann Willhite Metro Trails & Waterways Specialist cc: Martha Reger ’v fL *r TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: (. Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner September 9,1999 #2540 Bradley A. Hoyt 2523 Kelly Avenue Conditional Use Permit Zoning District: Lot Area: (Existing) LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) 53,170 s.f. Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J K Application Plat Map Property Owners List Site Topography 1990 Survey 1999 Survey Comprehensive Plan pg. 3-20 Comprehensive Plan pg. 4-13 Applicant Letter (10/1/99) Applicant Letter (10/29/99) Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Summary of Request Mr. Hoyt filed a general land use application for an aRer-the-fact conditional use permit also requiring variances for hardcover. The application is a result of a request made by the City of Orono to allow the property to comply with Code requirements and have necessary permits issued. The CUPs and variances result from lakeshore land alteration that had occured on the property. Staff indicated to the applicant the property can be restored or file an application for after-the-fact permits. The applicant has chosen to apply for the necessary permits for any work that has been completed on the property. The surveys indicate work within 75' of the lakeshore, please refer to Exhibits E (1990) and F (1999), as to the change in grade on the property. Mr. Hoyt has stated he did construct a retaining wall in his letter dated Ocober 29,1999 attached to this report, but also stated he had not regraded within the 75' lakeshore setback. The property surveys indicate substancial regrading has occured on the property. Regardless of how the regrading ^2340 Bradley A. Hoyt Conditional Use Permit 11/15/99 Page I has occured, it is required permits be issued. If no permits are issued the property must be returned to the condition as shown on the 1990 survey. The most recent survey indicates the slope has been regraded creating a flat area on the lakeside of the boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately 5-10 feet into the lake. The surveys indicate the 929.4' shoreline has been extended into the lake. Based on the surveys the following is a list of the ordinances which we believe have been violated when grading and retaining wall work was done. Code Section 10.03 subdivision 19. Land Alteration; Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the Council: B. C. Fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property. All of the above-referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed only with "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Subdivision 21. Land Alteration; Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the following land alteration activities: 1. 2. Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building. Any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. 10.55 Subd. 8. Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Section and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. U2540 Bradley A Hoyl Conditional Use Permit 1 1/15/99 Pag€ 2 Subd. 16 (J) (2). Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75 ’ of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. 10.56 Subd. 16(L) & 10.22 Subd. 2 Retaining walls constructed constitute hardcover within 75' of lakeshore where no hardcover is allowed. A variance is required. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75 ’21,700 s.f.433 s.f. (2 %) none (0%) 433 s.f. (2 %) To permit hardcover for the retaining wall. 75'-250'27,800 s.f.9,630 s.f. (34.64%) 6,950 s.f. (25%) 9,630 s.f (34.64%) none 250'-500'3,670 s.f.400 s.f. (10.90%)(30%) 0 none 500’-1000'0 0 0 (35%) 0 none Issues for Discussion 1.The application made by Mr. Hoyt is only for the retaining wall which the applicant has stated. The Planning Commission can make a recommendation on this item for the conditional use permit. The wall is hardcover and does require a hardcover variance. 2.Regardless of how the regrading occured, the property must have permits issued for the work after-the-fact. This includes conditional use permits for the regrading. U2540 Bradley A. Hoyt Conditional Use Permit I I/I S/99 Page 3 L.. 3.Would the Planning Commission recommend the application be approved if the application involved no situations that require after-the-fact approvals? The Comprehensive Plan and Code address the issue of shoreland protection and do not allow extensive land alteration or hardcover within the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback. Please refer to Exhibits G and H (CMP 3-20 and CMP 4-13) policies within the Comprehensive Plan stating the position of the City of Orono as it relates to shoreland land alteration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the application for a conditional use permit be denied based on the adverse impacts of hardcover within the shoreland area. A second alterative is for a tabling of the application to allow additional time for any enforcement action, although it is important to send direction to the property owner the need for additional after-the-fact applications for the land alteration that has occured and has been depicted on the latest survey. 540 Bradley A. Hoyt Conditional Use Permit !1/15/99 Page4 ----- A Application # ^ Date Receh ed" Amount Paid ^ ^00 ^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION , . ^ Site Address Tvpe of Application to be Filed ^ I ^ ~fACT ZUrType of Application __________________________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0 0^^ APPLICANT Name H • Address v A \/L. Phone (home) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______ Phone (work) L/!} City t_______Zip, Phone (home). Phone (work). Address City Zip. Date Pr^e^ty Acquired ________ I (do) fdo n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERiNDTS - _____$ 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 (month/year) r-------^-v :) I y 5% Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more )C Grading; seawall; retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) N yC After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule » '1 "so 1 30*^ y ✓ 9 9 u<✓ 9 .... 9 • « 9 LYl=710 » * -X 6*^ Su' t04) (loi; 3^. :«I u t02jC'6uUOO)(90) (69J C ' ^A%\» \ (102) f (f)(92) (93) (W: 2«(101) 104.3 3D » ■J •sr* * V V%>r, i (85) ‘•'^ xc ?4) :rr^3 *K. ...•' hM.zr\'. - ■S!10REL^H9 __t" V •'^-I - — _.v \ \ / / 'CoC tio ir.2*n \S 2_t 1 9' i (61) rrsT :cc « ’»4b!45-' --------t04.fi0 --------- I8« « •—3\5.32 -------------- 300 Nwsrjv* -,sj:i' % '^'Xv^ X x<; < '8) --L. : S • >■•• !•' *'V^ 1 f«. m ■ >* .*• \v» (4^^^74- '*•*o ' • > ■ ^ y 4? -!;f ^‘•o V ^ '/ § ^ I - ri3) , »»ru i ' RUN DATE 09/08/99 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 11 0022 02525 KELLY AVE K G HEINBACH IRE HEINBACH K G HEINBACH IRE HEINBACH 2525 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN 55331 38 20-117-23 11 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DAVID J DELANEY DAVID J DELANEY ^800 CASANITA RD EXCELSIOR NN 55331 38 20-117-23 12 0039 02523 KELLY AVE BRADLEY A HOYT CONTINENTAL PROPERTY GRP INC 253 LAKE ST E WAYZATA NN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0098 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323 38 20-117-23 12 0059 02503 KELLY AVE DTL ONE INC JOHN E KUPFER 2503 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 501 00915 38 20-117-23 11 0023 02595 KELLY AVE R H PONZETTI I B A PONZETTI ROBERT H/BARBARA A PONZETTI 2595 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN 55331 38 20-117-23 12 0037 02509 KELLY AVE C I C NADLER CHARLES I CANDICE NADLER 2509 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN 55331 38 20-117-23 12 0096 02505 KELLY AVE BRADLEY A HOYT CONTINENTAL PROPERTY GRP INC 253 LAKE ST E WAYZATA NN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0052 02999 KELLY AVE R V DAHL INS DAHL SYLVIA A BERTAGNOLI 2999 KELLY AVE EXCELLSIOR NN 55331 38 20-117-23 12 0055 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED KELLY COVE HNOWNRS ASN/ORONO KELLY COVE HNOWNRS ASN/ORONO 2997 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN 55331 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 9 38 20-117-23 11 0029 03333 SHORELINE DR NGT COHPANY SUPER VALU STORES INC CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO BOX 990 NPLS NN 55990 38 20-117-23 12 0038 02515 KELLY AVE DAVID R HARDTEN DAVID R HARDTEN 2515 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 38 20-117-23 12 0097 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BRADLEY A HOYT BRADLEY A HOYT 253 LAKE ST E WAYZATA NN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0053 02501 KELLY AVE TODD JONES TODD JONES 3555 CO RD NO 99 NINNETRISTA NN 55369 38 20-117-23 19 0019 02565 KELLY AVE E J SCHROEDER ET AL TRUSTEES E J SCHROEDER 2565 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR NN 55331 5 ; )*.f tj I • •.V (• * N Hh* \ -« •V o rtby certify thot this survey hos been prepared or under my direct supervision and that I om o licensed Lond Surveyor under the iows of the te of Minnesoto. FFIN ft GRONBFf^G, ifVC. La. k S. Gronberg Minnesoto^cense No. 12755 CALE * I INCH « 30 FEET ATE J APRIL 30. I902,r.^ ATOM : MEAN SEA LEVEL NOTE :NOT ALL TREES ON TRACT HAVE BEEN LOCATED (P //w* / P;m A*’ . ;•! f » • ' uT ■' '' '• !/ . / o ' !'•o > • c? V '. / • »' .r /o \ ■ 6«*»^ V ■. V \ •f.' I I / I / / '' ''A 1' 1 / / / \ V V VJSj .‘S’ •.V PNVTRONMENT JUNE, 1980 6.THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza Study, the 208 Hater Quality Management Study, and Orono's Surface Hater Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that require protection as part of the City's storm water management program. It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Hater Management Plan. 7.PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHl^L INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. 8.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 vlll be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive '.ays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment 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 soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. 10. LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new channels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian access where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner's desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds.»>• CMP 3-20 'W LAND USE JUNE, 1980 3. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. 4. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease** ments for conservation of these lands. 5. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. 6. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reason** able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 October I, 1999 ■I Mike Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Orono, Minnesota Application for Conditional Use Permit of Bradley A. Hoyt for Property Located at 2523 Kelly Avenue, City of Orono Dear Mr. GatTron; On behalf of Bradley A Ho>l, enclosed and hereby submitted is a General Land Use Application for an After-the Fact Conditional Use Permit for landscaping work performed at 2523 Kelly Avenue. I understand that Mr. Hoyt's application will be submitted to the planning commission at its review meeting at the ne.\t available opportunity. When Mr. Hoyt obtained this application from the City, Mr. Paul Weinberger of your office placed an *‘x” next to “S250.00 Land Alteration" and an “x” next to “Grading and filling designated wetland or fioodplain" Since Mr. Hoyt performed no land alteration within the wetland or floodplain, we do not believe that Mr. Weinberger’s designation is appropriate. The only appropriate designation, if applicable, would be “Grading, seawall, retaining walls withis 75' of lakeshore", as alleged in the City’s counterclaim against Mr Hoyt in his lavvsuit pending in United Stales District Court, Case No. 99-CD-1034 (JRT/FLN). Since the only portion of that designation that may be applicable is “retaining w all w ithin 75' of lakeshore" wo have appropriately checked and modified this box We have also checked and hereby submit an “After- the-Fact Fee" in the amount of S500 00 for processing this application. Please be advised that Bradley Hoyt makes this request for an After-the-Faci Conditional Use Permit based upon the request of the City of Orono and its attorneys, Greene & Espel, P L L P . and by making this application, in no way intends this application to constitute an admission of any liability of the allegations contained in the City of Orono's counterclaim 1 . ^ — J J ■ ^ 253 East Lake Street, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 ii- We trust that Mr. Hoyt's application will be treated in a fair and objective manner, notwithstanding the pending litigation between the parties. If there is any way to expedite this process, please let me know. ■ Very^ly.^ours, / l^kJ^heridan f A tkI' 'i'’ • » / > 3n _ • ^ • We trust that Mr. Hoyt's application will be treated in a fair and objective manner, notwithstanding the pending litigation between the parties. If there is any way to expedite this process, please let me know. / y Very trAly/^ours, /'^ licKT.^heridan i JH iJ 1 CONTINENTAL Pro pert V Group, Inc. U October 29, 1999 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55356 Re: Request for Further Information on Application No. 2540 Dear Mr. Weinberger: I write in response to your letter of October 8,1999 in which you request the following additional information relating to my application for a conditional use permit on my property located at 2523 Kelly Avenue: The survey you have provided to us indicates existing structures and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, however the survey is required to show previous and existin; topography over the entire property. ‘g 2)Cut and fill calculations for the amount of fill, in cubic yards, that has been added within the 75 ’ lakeshore setback. In response to your first request for a previous and existing topography over the entire property, I am unable to fully comply with your request because I am not in possession of a preexisting topographic survey of my property. However, I have had prepared an existing topographic survey, a copy of which accompanies this letter. I do not understand your request for a topographic survey of the entire property when only lakshore area is the subject of my application. During the Spring and Summer of 1998, wind and rain storms toppled several tress, which was likely to cause the soil to erode on the hill facing the shoreline of my property. For this reason, I placed boulders on my property to prevent erosion of the hill. Other than this landscaping, no change to the topography has taken place. In response to your second request for cut and fill calculations within 75 feet of the lakeshore setback, I reiterate that nothing has been added or removed from the property other than the boulders placed at the edsze of the hill. No soils were added in connection with the landscaping, and the grade is substantially the same as it was before the trees were 253 East Lake Street, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Mr. Paul Weinberger October 29, 1999 Page 2 toppled. I can give you no additional information on this issue other than what has already been provided. If there is any specific information you would like to know other than that which you already observed on the property, please let me know. Sincerely, Bradley A. Hoyt c: William R. Skolnick, Esq. B rad U<?yt HARDCOVERX^^^ULATIO iN WOKAbtUblt I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 25-500’ ^tt/ 500-1000' 2. 9 Z7-5 EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Lenfdi X X X B. Garage C. " Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • COA^f". Co'AlL /faUL4/ fil _____________ X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X O. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _• + B . Width S.F. S.F. S.Fr S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •S.F. ^3o S.F. S.F. S.F. - I S.F. i33 S.F. X 100 zxnoot S.F. ’2.00 t % S.F. Width S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.r. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B • ^ n tj • 1 .1 1 • •• V..- .i'n; S.F. X 100 - S.F. S.F. % A B ' 14 >4» . B rao HARDCOVER CALCULATU2il>VOi<K5tlJb:t i SETTBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ (is^^ 25-500’ EXISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X ____ ■* S00-1000<^ Ct/4l^CtJ Lengih X X X B. .Garage _ C. Driveway _ D. Sidewalk __ E. Patio/Dcck+■ Pc?(Zc.H- 17.3 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • 40 ( X X X X X X X X X G. Other R ock om TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ -i- B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _ _ X Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patto/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ B ^ • *•••• • Widih SOO& S.F. • • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • • •• ( Zbiot S.F. ________ S.F. 5.4 102 ss(y &■ S.F. .S.F. S.F. ,S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 t S.F. zy.mot S.F. - • Width • • X 100 - 14 ’ A-*”" V ............•>' S.F.• S.F. S.F. S.F. » • •• S.F. A S.F. S.F. • if S.F. S.F. r. ' 1 Si .*• •• S.F. S.F.• S.F._ S.F. S.F. t • • • S.F.• S.F. S.F. % A B Wdv-r HARDCOVER CALCULATlOiN WOKK5 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250* EXTSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Lenfch X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X • *•••• • . E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _ _ _ X Length B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • B . 500-1000' 2-2T-7 Width S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. . S,F. •S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4oj> X 100 f&.Jo S.F. S.F. % !A - • B S.F. Width S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 - S.F. S.F. % A B • ••mi 1 i TO: FROM: DATE: 7 Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner November 10,1999 SUBJECT: #2542 Bruce Hedblom and Carol Cline-Hedblom 2601 Casco Point Road ^■ariance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 Acre) Lot Area:18,570 s.f. This application requires the following variances; Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) (2): Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit 6,310 s.f. (42.57%) of hardcover in the 75-250' setback area where 6,310 s.f. (42.57%) exists, and 4,642.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Secti »n 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. To permit three season porch and deck replace an existing deck that encroaches 21' into the average lakeshore setback. Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing second story deck (10.6' X 32.4') and replace it with a 10.6' x 23.4' three season porch and 10.6' x 9’ wood deck. The applicant is not increasing the size of the space, bui changing its use. The space will consist primarily of the three season porch and a small portion (10') on the end will be deck. The hardcover amount in the 75'-250’ setback area is not increasing, it w ill remain at 42.57%. The applicant seeks approval of a hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback area and average lakeshore setback. a25-f2 2601 Casco Point Road Variance 11/10/99 Page I 1 Lot Area: ANALYSIS LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre)100' Actual 18,750 s.f. (.43 acre)50' Hardcover Calculations : Land 125% lOs.f. ucture cisting gdeck Distance from shoreline Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0’-75'3,750 s.f.0 s.f (0%)237 s.f (6.32%)237 s.f (6.32%) (no changes to this area) 75'-250'14,820 s.f 3,705 s.f (25%)6,310 s.f (42.57%) 6,310 s.f (42.57%) y deck k.The :onsist dcover verage Structural Coverage : Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 18,570 s.f Allowed: 2,785.5 s.f (25%) E,xisting: 2,533.9 s.f (13.6%) Proposed: 2,533.9 s.f (13.6%) Statement of Hardship : The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. M2542 Bruce Hedblom 2601 Casco Point Road Variance 11/10/99 page-2 Issues for Consideration : 1. Residence was constructed in 1972. It was at that time located closer to the lakeshore than neighboring homes. The lot is an unusual shape due to its location on Casco Point Road. 2. There have not been any additions or changes to the residence since it was built in 1972. 3. There are four areas that have either landscape fabric or plastic within them. 4. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variances. Exhibits A Application B Site Plan/Survey C Elevation D Plat Map E Location Map F Average Lakeshore Setback G Hardcover Worksheets H Property Owner's List I Permit Record i H2542 Bruce Hedblom 2601 Casco Point Road Variance 11/10/99 Page-3 _ ft Application #ZS'VZ. Date Received Amount Paid g'go 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_____26oi casco point road ' 20-117-23-24-0036Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey NOVEMBER, 1984Date Property Acquired_____ I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: x residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: LK^XQ,__________________________ (month/year) ^ APPLICANT •Mamg BRUOE HEDBLOM & CAROL CLINE-HEDBLOM Address: 2601 casco point road_ _ _ _ City:. Phone fliome^ 612-471-0242______ Phone (work^ 612-474-6177 (BRUCES WAYZATA_________ Zip: 66391 _P 9 4.^ i OW*NER (if different than applicant) Name_________same__________ Phone (home). Phone (woric). Address:City:.Zip:. f ) •' Vdi' ‘=.'1 ) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 65,700,00----------- Describe request in detail: roNSTPucT three seaso n porch in place OF EXISTING d eck , (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side V Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property condiuons preventmg compliance with Zoning Code rggnirgments: our lot is quite narrow , and »’p;g-SH A£gD ” DUE TO ITS LOCATION ON CASCO POINT WHERE THE POINT CURVES._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) . • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information mast be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be conMdered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. JtUh X 7. 8. H/A Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of ovvners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map fi’om Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/a" 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 S'/a" x 11" for reproductioiL Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views provide one (1) copy 8'/a" 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 Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or co- jultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is yue and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature 7 7w>^/<7/yWPate 10/13/99 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorkes 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 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council- If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Ml n&' rf"' Z9J- % <% K*1 ilf r. ''< •“i \ ■' ; €i: '-m» •*• , i i / /fT'r / n SCHOBORQ 1 hsrsby carttfy that this plan, surv^/ or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Ragistared Land Surveyor under the laws of the State ofMInnesou.^ ^ /O JOB# land surveying Book • Pege ? INC. Seal# . mm a*. M. u ae ■’*<>01 Ditow. MN an Dotor ^j_ Ragixtration Nn 14700 That part of Block 1« and that part of Lot part of abandonad Orono Avanua* all in •¥!: Park* Ind Piviaion*» daaeribaf aa coaRtnci* Lot 141# dpriji9 parhi thanca Mortbaaatarly Una of laid Lot 141 a diitanca of f4*S fa« Northwaitarly* daflactlag to tha laft 101 < La<a Minnatonka* aald Una harainaftar rafr Northarly along aaid iflore to tha l«orth Ur tha point intsraaction of tha >forth lin* parallal with and 10 feat iiorth«*aaearly Iz tho Maatarly lina of Lota 14« IS* 14 and 1* of Lot 1. Spring Park* 2nd Oivialon*; that* line to its intarstetlon vith tho SoutJ\eaa* thenca tiorthwosterly along tha oxtanai?o o. beginning• according to tho recorded piat - \t c?A I V o • *• -l*^”', - ■9SI p •lEra lEi ;i rff^i j, fsr07im^. n ^Bi WdA'U HEM IS: I: ;??i ND’Mm^ L'jns ;rrai >«MR3 MUSfiOWID KAMTSttURTlV V - UOU«» _ 1... -GOOSE — ISLAND ' tiS^ ;uou«» • . : ^SHADY ‘ . ISLAND C. Driveway SP(o/< D. Sidewalk Si>uK & Pado/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 4(>, T // 'Z'Z- X X X X X X X X X 3<7 Z 8 /87h G. Other^r kjfiCL / A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B t4’8ZO * B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE /\/0 Aj£ A. House ___________ X, Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pado/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 . - X 100 - SJ^. /<• SJ. SJ. SJf. 2J8>0 1^ 7^ /2(L ZZTTz Zz Ts^/0 SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. S.F. % s 100 - SJ. S.F. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ, SJ. SJ. 5J. SJ. SJ. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. SI. SI. % A B ■A ) : - i A B HUN DATE 10/11/99 HENNEPIN roUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1935A01 PAGE 5 BATCH 502 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER . NAME/ADDR 56 20-117*23 21 0031 02565 DUNWOOD^’ AVE W L 91ELKE X C M BIELXE WARREN t/CHRISTINE M BIELKE 2565 DUNWOODY AVE WAVZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 21 0032 0^565 DUNWOODY AVE SYLVIA L BLANCHARD SYLVIA L BLANCHARD 2565 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 21 0035 02596 CASCO POINT RD P D t P Z FITZGERALD PATRICK FITZGERALD 2596 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 20-117-23 29 0031 02635 CASCO POINT RD MARILYN B THORNE ET AL MARILYN B THORNE 2635 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 29 0032 02623 CASCO POINT RD JEN STINSON JAMES L t NAOMI L STINSON 2623 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 29 0035 02617 CASCO POINT RD 6 L MAROUARDT/J M MARQUARDT GARY L I JOAN M MARQUARDT 2617 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 • PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 20-117-23 29 0036 02601 CASCO POINT RD BRUCE J HEDBLOM ET AL BRUCE J HEDBLOM AND CAROL J CLINE-HEDBLOM 2601 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 36 20-117-23 29 0036 02616 CASCO POINT RD JOYCE A TWEDT JOYCE A TWEDT 2616 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 29 0039 02696 ^:asco point RO J W I B J ESSEN JEFFREY a BARBARA ESSEN 2696 CASCO PT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 20-117-23 29 0092 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED PAUL J a MARY E RASTER PAUL J RASTER 2600 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 502 00010 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DAT EF. ^ I i a!: ^4' Uf i;'.I*;:r. I* t. ... • '• i ’.3 A L ; r'l .-am Permit No. 3 ^a^ address <=^<^0) ^JLi/;a fjofct^^^LlP r PERMIT RECORD Cate 9-\0, .at. W-/g-75 7 'J'T 3 7 ' a ^-7 ^ ^vpe of Permit /! PuJd % 'yyiLjG^ I \ * TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner November 10, 1999 SUBJECT:#2543 TedEdin 3025 Casco Point Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 Acre) Lot Area:15,370 s.f. (.35 acres) This application requires the following variances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. To permit the deck to encroach 58' into the average lakeshore setback. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit a hardcover variance to allow 7,032 s.f (77.9%) where 6,960 s.f (77.11%) exists and 2,256.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C): In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. To permit 3,661 s.f (23.8%) of lot coverage. Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to replace an existing second stoiy deck on the back of the house. The deck, floor boards and joists that were built into the house originally are rotting. The deck extends 4' from the house and is the full width of the house. In addition to replacing the existing deck the applicant is proposing to add a small section onto the deck. The section would be approximately 6' x 12' to allow a sitting area. The house was built in 1959 and has not been added onto. The driveway is shared with neighbors through an easement and the lot is undersized for its zoning district. >*2543 Ted Edm 3025 Casco Pomt Road Variance I h 10/99 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area: Hardcover Calculations : Structural Coverage: 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. #25-f3 Ted Edin 3024 Casco Point Road Variances PC-1 1/10/99 Page-2 LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre)100 ’ Actual 15,370 s.f. (.35 acre)50' 4 Distance from Shore Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0'-75'6,344 s.f.0 s.f (0%)628 s.f (9.9%)628 s.f - no change 75'-250'9,026 s.f 2,256.5 s.f (25%) 6,960 s.f (77.11%) 7,032 s.f (77.9%) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 15,370 s.f Allowed: 2,305.5 s.f (15%) Existing: 3,589 s.f (23.3%) Proposed: 3,661 s.f (23.8%)- (6'xl2* added area) Issues for Consideration: 1. The residence was built in 1957 in its current position. There have not been any additions or changes to the original residence. The lot and average lakeshore setback is unusual because of the lot configuration to the north. 2. The joists of the deck are rotting and were built into the house and need to be replaced. 3. There are a number of landscaped areas with plastic underneath. 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation! Staff recommends approval of the variances to rebuild the deck the same dimensions as exists. Exhibits A Application B Letter from applicant C Site Plan/ Survey D Plat Map E Location Map F Average Lakeshore Setback G Hardcover Worksheets H Property Owner's List 1 Permit Record »2S43 TedEdin 3025 Casco Point Road Variances PC-1 1/10/99 page-3 A Application # ^ 3 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received Amount Paid Z ^ PROPERTY INFORMATK^ ^ ^ 3 f / Site Address 3^3,9 _ — Property IHentification Number (P.I.D.1 3^0 ' 1H ^ ----yH "--------------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. , , v ■ Date Proirty Acqu^^^ >1 ____________________^Cmonth/year) I (do) no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. ^ ^ ^ Present use of property: V residential ___other (specify)^------------------------------- / ^ Zoning District: L 1 (L_______________—— --------------------------— --------- APPT ICANT (home)j£_7i:lilLiZ ------- "-^4 R. Phnnft fwork'4 — "'K 4 Address: 3oZY Pr-City: 2>Zip: S~:> 3^^ 0\\*NER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). i j Address:.City:.Zip:. ^V: .\rDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estiinated Consttuction Cost $. (attach additional sheets if necessary) -A *, ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements;__________—---------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All .of the .following Information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour applicarion to be considered complete; ) 1. 2. 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 rna^ fi-om Hetmepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8Y2 ” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. ^ Date / 0 I 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 jjiyestigation and verification of this request i^jzrl ??Owuei's Sign^e-— V \ .CVTt L -'f (Date Applicant must have all submittals into the Ciw offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I ^ e Ok Theodore & Judith Edin - 3025 Casco Point Road - Orono Description of Request - from page one A need to rebuild portions of the deek from second floor - home built in 1959 - Deck extends 4 ’ from house, full width of house, w ith door leading directly from living room. As such it is the main and natural exit to the lawn and lake beyond the house. - Several undcrl>ing supports show signs of rotting - a danger in the near future - Surface of the deck was attached with regular nails, now some boards are rising at the end point where they arc attached and cannot be nailed flat anj- longer - nails do not hold down - Some of the deck boards arc show ing cracks and curling on the outer edges Our request is to; - Strengthen the supports where they arc showing rot - Replace the deck with boards attached properly with screws, spaced to drain water below • Replace the railings with horizontal “spacers ’ most likely - installed to current code for spacers between each post - Add a small section, approximately 8'at the deepest point, and wide enough for a small table about 4 ’ diameter and 4 small chairs. Sec two rough drawings as ideas for deck extension The entire roof overhang above the deck is very generous and collects the water from the roof which drains down on either side of the house, and into the ground/lawn beneath and cither end of the deck Our plans arc to retain the lawn/grasscs beneath the deck extension, with no hardcover added. The only area we have changed, involving hardcover, is behind the garage. The replacement was fabric with “slots ”- draining the rain fall into the ground on purpose, to support the growth of large pine trees which grow along the north side, behind the garage. As a result, wecMs do grow in the summer, but the pine trees do flourish. All rainfall on the south side of the home drains from the roof, above and beyond the rocks and plastic in this area, onto the grassv areas be> ond them and drains into the lawn below the house on the lake side. The two drain pipes which accomplish this arc in place at all times but are removed during the winter months so ice docs not back up into the gutters above them. Likewise, the rain from the entire north side of the housc/garage drains into gutters and is carried into the ground from two points at each end of the gutters. If necessary to make a trade-off we w ill remov e the plastic from the area below the entire present deck and add a few plantings. Q‘J ‘^r-H\1 IQ e> /I o V EXISTING HARDCQVKR IN ZONE A. House UAIUJLON LK yvU.V.,1 1U;N »* Ui\.lvdlll:<L 1 X & SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 250-500’ 500-1000’ Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patic/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZON^ A - B S5 ZB i^a 4Z> 42Z X 100 Widih X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F." CO hc RF TF S.F. s.F.-oe« s.F.-STone V s f.-R ock A s S.F. S.F. S.F. 628 i S.F. t S F. 9 .q » % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.n S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B / UAKJJLUVLK \ I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING RARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length X X X B. Garage C. Drivewav X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck • X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - 3 ' * I* jV 250-500' , • G' 1000’ 3S09 s F " Width 220 27 1471 029 X 100 Width X 100 3 p S.F. *^®nE WA S.F.-WO#0 V/A S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.^ • S.F.-RO«< ARC S.F. S.F. S.F. i S.F. A <=1026 ± ’ S.F. B 77.11 1 % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.P.* • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % • — - - a :. .X. . MM DATE 10/19/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI935401 PACE IS BATCH 500 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 20-117-23 39 0001 03035 CASCO POINT RD T BERTHIAUHE/r KACHENHEISTER THOHAS B BERTHIAUHE 3035 CASCO POINT ROAD MAYZATA HN 55391 3S 20-117*23 34 0002 03025 CASCO POINT RD T R EOIN OJA EDIN THEODORE 0 JUOITH EDIN 3025 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 3S 20-117-23 34 0003 03015 CASCO POINT RO R 0 LAURIE ETAL R e LAURIE 3015 CASCO PT RO WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 3S 20-117-23 34 0012 03045 CASCO POINT RD R A KASTENS SBC KASTENS RICHARD A/BARBARA C KASTENS 3045 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 3S 20-117-23 34 0018 03055 CASCO POINT RO JOHN P DENNIS ETAL JOHN P S EVY C DENNIS 3055 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 34 0024 03005 CASCO POINT RD JAHES R S CATHERINE NARTZELL JANES R t CATHERINE HARTZELL 2407 CASCO PT RO WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 506 00006 * !V I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 5 -X- Permit Mo. sai 7-7 a lULX UMl / Vi' 3 c c9 b Cci^oac Ar^v^ PERMIT RECORD Date ^yygr 4fJ^ 7 7 -fS- 7^ C/./q-qd -^'3 /■J /3-q t- 1 Type of Permit Utoi<ujjp Lj^ i*os^top I C/'/' /^L^.6 /^ u, .y f> 7-» I ■ ' -«-■ - -yiUddUBMiBBSdttBnfiBiiiiliiiiai TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner November 10, 1999 #2545 Lou and Marilyn Fegers 3590 North Shore Drive Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 Acre) Lot Area:13,954.5 s.f. (.32 acre) This application requires the following variance: Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations: Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit 2,515.9 s.f. (38.9%) where 1,662.4 s.f. (25.7%) exists and 1,613.6 s.f (25%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to construct an attached garage (24* x 30') to the west side of their residence. TTie two stall garage will be three floors. An upstairs and a lower walk out will be for storage, the middle for parking. The property owners have purchased the lot to the west and have legally combined the two properties. The property currently does not have a garage servicing it. The attached garage will increase the hardcover in the 75'-250' setback to 2,515.9 s.f (38.9%) where 1,662.4 s.f (25.7%) exists and 1,613.63 s.f (25%) is allowed. Part of the current driveway will be turned into grass when one is constructed for the new garage. Average lakeshore setback is not an issue with this application. ^2545 Lott/Marilyn Fegers 3590 Sorth Shore Drive Variance I I/I 0. 99 Page-1 ANALYSIS Lot Area: LR-IC Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) Existing 13,954.5 s.f. (.32 acre) Hardcover Calculations : Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75'7,500 s.f.0 s.f (0%)219.9 s.f (2.93%) 219.9 s.f (2.93%)-no change 75’-250'6,454.5 s.f 1,613.6 s.f (25%) 1,662.4 s.f (25.7%) 2,515.9 s.f (38.9%) Structural Coverage : Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 13,954.5 s.f Allowed; 2,093.18 s.f (15%) Existing: 1,038.1 s.f (7.4%) Proposed: 1,698.1 s.f (12.1%) Statement of Hardship: The applicants should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. U2545 Lou/Marilyn Fegers 3590 North Shore Drive Variance 11/12/99 Page-2 \ Issues for Consideration: 1. The property does not have a garage. 2. The lot to the west has been combined increasing the lot size, but still smaller than required in the LR-IC district. 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance to construct a two stall garage dependent upon the applicant getting a new survey and hardcover calculations to match the drawings before the City Council meeting. Exhibits A Application B Site Plan/Survey C Plat Map D Location Map E Hardcover Worksheets F Staff Hardcover Worksheets G Plan and Pictures H Property Owner's List I Permit Record H2545 Lou/Marilyn Fegers 3590 North Shore Drive Variance 11/12/99 Page-3 > ■ t Application # Date Received /O ~i f Amount Paid 2 SO ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3S^O y^nnXW o Property Identification Number fP.I.D.1 ^8-117-23 3*/ 007.7^ Attach legal description to appUcaticr if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired______________________________________ I (do) (die net) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property: X residential Zoning District: L R- ) other (spccLf>), applicant Name l.oo--Vr>a.tzt\nn Phone fhome ’l V ^ 1 S' ^ Phone (work)V.' Address: o Ki nre-Tk- oiz.^~X?f7. City: VDa Zip: S‘^3*y|_ / OVT'ER (if different than applicant) Name ______________________ Phone (home). Phone ^vork)_ i Address:City:.Zip:. o oDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost OQC . Describe request in detail: Pk\\glp.V,v> \ Cc4n- ) L->p g>~Vc, c, VtJ<lAV^OL>t ?£ (attach additional sheets if necessarv) . * ;/ *•*! VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side X Hardcover Rear Lot Coveragec^ . » * u. 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 reqmrements: __________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information mast be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour applicarion to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. y 5. 6. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910):^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons vtith an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best^f his/her knowledge. Applicant's SignaturT^^7g?^(^^L^.^>.i V Date f cp-t 9 ^ 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 J O-'/ - Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 3 5 TlUXI lHOCil IITH ^ •? Jikeviev' 400 • • #. ^ V. Coir.; _____<JourM MAP 61 y 41 Jennings' Bay r. Cplf X •K'■- Cwrte ..Ms"* winmicw »ft ■• - r •« A X\. . ryT' Z /r. :• •• : -5 5 ;y *8.' ‘.USX------ S ) ^ 1 -----=-----^/»v ------^ V i- » . " y »*7 '^■'' 4k orw*!!! i ..Vr.'....--"* aco •••ii: •®\v ,... A ■Mill 400 ]^YFor«r 1= |g 4, f§^'- •M*0WlwVUvf * AiUlU tarrison [‘ y\.<^. :<, SkogsbtrgFdni West .t ll\rp3 'l;:;^RRJNGt!S5= ""^*0 -800 ... ■ .xC V: > Vir4u«4.rrcil *1%: N 41 . . •* •'\• •• :.;rv 1'’™ ;;Ts v\\Vv>>«'>V' 4r •• . ...-: 4-i r . __^v •, 'O ^.4 V ’• ^ 1 • •j:'• • /. •" ■• -.V'l-; ■■ f I • 4^ ‘'v • • •. • M *• - ‘ • . **. : .• . • :%.*••. *.• • •.. • • * • V. , -» * .* .Tv^-* •• V*;'.' •0H«S fOMf orono A Arm ,^\\^ - ■ 2./(wl /'. J' ' ^/S -v;/•.• :•. .■ /iTo\ r . - CrvKtnf ' —i • f* ®\ V' •* ^ •. ** Bch/uPoint . * Crystal Bay '* ood Point 'A' * n DEERJNO M Si >MUlf| PO;uaoAu 10 Foivnesj Point • MO^ l«11 ; . Bay ] • • •••,•.•• . ?. -A Lshyei; - , ,...... .. ,. , ., ■ ■' ■•■. . •• •" --■. /.'•.■■V;A€ouotryC ub • ;./// . ? : •• ■' ^ ‘ • ^’ • •• ‘X - • J/r<L • • ■ •• • • -• ■ 'J D C^GOOSE -'-.ISUND • |g 1 .2-*cr^ BEACH . Lafayetdfayette Bay k// Carman s ..............— MMSOOK VAT ORON fltWCH Ull M c ___Lake © ^ORONa^ ‘<f# 1600 #*. 4: • • : Y •• V ,.. . ^v\ ..;■*-•• * i >• .wm 4 • V3/ • *. y Jiuntington Point _____i Bit «•••.*. -rM SHADY SPRAY isla H \ • .• .• f J HARDCOVEIKIACUIATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) /0-7S* EMSTINC HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House ________ Lcngih 75-250'250-500*500-1000' Width B. ‘ Garage C. Drivew^ D. Sidewalk X X X E. -P«WI«c F. Liiidscq)e C • ^ Undcrlidn 0^ By Plastic _____________ G. Other X X X X X X X X X 7^ !(,y 57, ^ /<r A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * B -7<'^0 B 7<r?o X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Pado/Deck F. Landscape Underla^ 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 _ _ SE. SJF. SJ. S.F. SJ. SI. SJ. SI. SJF. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. _ S.F. _ _ _ _ _S.F. ~z71^ % X 100 - S.F. SJ. SJ. SJF. SJ. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. % A B A B »* '.-i HAIUDCOVER CALCULATIQSL^ORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ ^5-25oO 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House _________ X ____ ____ ■ 500-1000' Lcagrh » V B.‘ Siaxage^ Driveway D. Sidewalk ■20 T’ <■ .tlF* K Patio/Deck rctfeef^foiicH /V. 3 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 5 G. Other CToot^ rO)/ z -2. X X X WUih 2 X X X X X X X •X X /d c ^•<i~ /?r z TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE /-> A A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /2^*f B 5"x 100 B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lensth WidA X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk 24 3d X X X X Z6 E. Patio/Deck/ViCtC x 3 » ^ F. Landscaoe• Underlain By Pl.utie G. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /37A^ - B 2 X 100 - /o^7.7 SJ. 11. < JLo. 6 -z4 /5' /0 ‘V 3G 30/^4 7wrr SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. % •/. ^oOO 'iz.r SR. S.F. SR. SR. S.F. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. S.F. SR. SR. /?7/. 5^ SR. 'n4^4.<r SR. zj. y % A B A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250 ’ 250-500 ’ 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. PaliOi^Dtek q A X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic ______!_________ X X X 2^ G. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B 150.0 + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X X B. Garage 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 A B 16 7, y- ss rs ri'D IS. X 100 X too X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _S.F. _____S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 1^, 6 ‘l^) A B S.F. A SJ. B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET <^s-2so:::> iso-soo* A. House SJIot I Length B. Garage C. Driveway X X X Width /0.5 D. SMewtttk- DecK X X X X E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other Ret ___________________________ X 131._________ X ^ X X9 5iCCi a A S: SA TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 500-1000* toQ ‘1.1 S.F. 75 32.S L2£L c?4 I0;6 3<p I(c(d^.‘4- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A 1 (cG) ^-i-B 63 454. S X 100 =0£T. 7 % A +B X 100 =% PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House <A6». /X 4 54. 4 S.F. Length /v.‘i X Width sa J05I-4 S.F. X S.F. X =S.F. B. Garage X 30 ss nSiO S.F. C.Driveway X xn lr> OO S.F. X =S.F. D.Sidewalk 5kp6 J5/5 X S3 ‘75 S.F. X =S.F. E. mlaus Patio/Deck cU CiC JLO X 5 =3 -to S.F. rvtiaoi) ret. u-Cill 46 X =S.F. F.Landscape / CL >3.5 X 6 SS S.F. Underlain X JL »12 S.F. By Plastic X S.F. G.Other 5/c<t/3 ^cp A X b /c.?S.F. A X /5 « lOTOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B U43A.'5 X 100 m -%5U5^. C-*/04.5’ ^9 S.F. S.F. % A B 1^ A B O p o eed a Lou - VT^a^Rilur? 3 5*^ C> Nl c> r TVx S Fo R e ~~OtZ.. Luclu^-z.os\c\ , Y>)M SS3^{ ' xO.*" \ ('/6) ^ CCviT f^ ^%<a% ^^Slc : #.^ . -'t;: fl V^ - * •* '• rr-. ^ ^ . c>o oW\. ■ '\e ’ M i. I l.„.J---------—}. .GRou.ni Lftvel. . ♦ - -• i—{ . - - t L..-.. » -- * 1-- - -I - T k _I - 'a • — • • * —t - -’ -f • - 4..• 'I—r— .1 t * • -r •• I I i ‘ *♦-----------U .._4_. ...r' \ * :j:_i...\ •i-. I DOIUJO__ I I I ..«. - -. • . ♦-.» . « I I J?.R.Oipa^e,^=L- Xc<\tl.- -^*iX 50 •• • • — ^e.vrten T 3r*?0 He>»e\Vv SV»oee,”\)R. WH5S3qi ♦ • ------------- « /...............-•-t gf __Oye R.V>eajk A qqR5 ••-f i1 , _ _ 1 I ' i i* 1 I -I- I I i I I f ‘ ■ I • # — —»——• — - * \ * • ^ ^ i Soc^e.— L6u.;e»2. . Lu>o\KooX Le-ve\ ----r •C.e.menT SloOo. S!0.ue«\icccA."Oc>oR. . ■ • • 1.^U*lJ5^aLisLS». I----- ♦ —• • ♦ • - •• I ! .Woo^c*. X^ •i- ■i - .« . - *i - • • — ^~-4-•---—. / _i__^ : - ! QcjC??.cr?T PlooR. « -i. « • - • • •-• • I- . -4 • • • • »«• • - t"—«........... -•- —— - • -f • • - • I ! ., .» --• — _ ^ -i. — f “- 0 • • • • • , *- * • • • . 'PRopo*elioR.e. — Lv V>7 N SS 1 n*'i/Twi.i I. . T^nr.*'r .<<'. iLv .. . . w - » . • ...... • 1 ____________d. —♦ •-r i . - t I r 1 .U. • - ------• » ■ ■ am4^— - •-♦ •* » ------------------1- > .. ^ . - t t 1 I-.. '*—; ~ t • • * , - . . • irnaTtViin . . • • .gjx..f?-u .! 1-- . . ..• r • 1 •••••• • ---------'» . -*..- -4------♦----------i • *“ ’ ‘ • 1 ’ ' • 1 ...; -4- H...1 ♦ *i -• •• 1 ;• ‘ » 1 :! • M « • -.p^- • •• k. - . • • • *u «\* •i I_______t I________ .-1 ■ ' • r - ' • . L-;: . 1 ___ i.. - . — • • ♦ :?^V 56' ^-foig.gu:^e CI rc Oi- . — - • . . ♦ - • . ••* -•• .. •♦ - ♦ ^ ^, . . • <4 - • -.1 4 ------i - • —- • • i I .a .n • •«. —— •«— • —. • * • • - ♦ ♦ t I I •««i -4. I I I I I . ■ -—- -• - • ' • 1 I *. .. 4 — • ► 1 • - «- • - • I --• •• ♦ • —. .Tsf^Dp^^e^ ^4'.y6^^^<uw^c- Ld u * yr»A»iiA4rt F^c^e.R.s» . "bS^O NorSTi ^\non.^ ~^tz. loCLx^tuC?reK , yyJti 5*^3^ I • \CN \ - - i ' iMiT'-Tf.’■Hti tt«ia-*ini . .I IT—- 3 _ll %NVmne'Von Ka».y 'C* ‘ • I I i 5 • \...................1 I I ! f ------1— • ^cind*m&o^. e>r? .. ___--^ors.. ;. i» * K. ’•-.im .. & j 1 1 1 CLV) . * I I ________j-. i. ilo- ■-•r ... 1 ns ^acie * \ . 'Q P T i •| i • - •• 4 . —-I. ----------- -i 4 - . ----- _____ i-----a.. L ! • • •• • -# m '.M#* •» • I J----------r*;...t -----L - .1 ~ ♦—— 4 •• i ! : n1 * 1 , *11 ! <1 ! ' 1 1 \1 1 1 ►-■-~-1 1 ' r— Jc^JU. -._ . — 4 -------- I 'x: ■ I ^. i- _ - I- El'w -f r ^ -• - .. » ... - 4 — 1 ' ■ . • -• ...... 1 I !.—i „4 _ ^ : ! i ■ V •*.. —. •- -♦ —4—- y/yy •Ti - I .4 n — u 4 .— 4-Ml - •<■ i "4 . •• »—• "f** “ j~— !** ' * !..l-.i!-n • - «I • I 4 - • •«* • 4 1 01d*Davvt ;Rct4^,.7v)BW.«.; k 5*0 '#• - - • I ! t • •• • • i '%' • - * ♦ ----- I. \Ti ..^4—• -.......... .-«« . *. -—i — - . h-—. >. ■ ..i.• • * - • ' » —*.... * k •- ...* ■• .-Hous.e,. X34»' . 1____ • •—%. Ffoioer^ * - • Uftvu VcwoH . . ------ . • *« • O C>- ..a. ti o I i 4 • •I . -----------------------------------------•-------------I- . • . . .1 I 4 J ♦ * l! * •A '#• I i • A t->4 *•1 r<^opc'ba.\ -^Rcm Loo 3 O Wo rTTH hc> rie. 'Ti R. bjO.v^-z.co'Vtv, 'O'l M S'S' / Mm ri-1^- ^■' t.-/.’ •; a/^ v-S^h'v-; fr--- . tz1 Ronrr Yiev^ G- 0^1 b) ^1 ]fe m yr? ■ » D . • "iF r • \4^!' I' : ^ih -.% *4 . ____ felY; 7/ -,v '« * . ' •-Kinr o'- ' • ' r- ■ *'V Z5oc.K V \ lO u Jes\ S lAfi. V \ e u^ RUN DATE 10/06/99 HENNEPIN CCNJNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI935901 PACE 21 CATCH 505 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR S8 08-117-23 34 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSI6HED HENNEPIN COUNTY HENN COUNTY 38 08-117-23 34 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN COUNTY HEm COUNTY 38 08-117-23 34 0011 03605 NORTH SHORE DR LAURENCE A JONES A WIFE LAWRENCE 0 ARDELL JONES 3605 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0019 03570 NORTH SHORE DR DONALD JEROHE LAHONT DONALD J LAHONT 3570 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0020 03580 NORTH SHORE DR WADE P .DAVIS WADE P DAVIS 3580 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0022 03590 NORTH SHORE DR L E H FEGERS LOU i HARILYN E FEGERS 3590 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0023 03598 NORTH SHORE DR L FEGERS I H E FEGERS LOUIS FE6ERS/HARILYN FEGERS 3598 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0025 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARH 8402 BURROUGHS RD W DEER PARK WA 99006 38 08-117-23 34 0034 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 ij 'V. 5S 0B-117-2S M 0055 03550 NORTH SHORE DR T C ANDERSON I I D ANDERSON T C I X D ANDERSON S550 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HN 55301 30 OS-117-23 3A 0056 0^587 NORTH SHORE DR S R 0 J S SUNDRY STEVEN R t JANNA S SUNDRY 3587 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 08-117-23 39 0059 01928 BALDUR PARK RD THE HELI ROTH TRUST KENT I LORI ROTH 1928 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA HN 55391 (to V. TOTAL BATCH 505 00012 - . -■•1 ^ i ■.1^ ._ _ 7^ Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 10-20-99 10-20-99 12-20-99 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Harvn and Orono Plar.nng Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gatfron, Senior Planning Coordinator^"' November 9,1999 #2547 Kimberli & Willi Abbott 470 Big Island After-the-Fact Variances and CUP Zoning nistric*: RS Seasonal Recreational District (5 acre) LotSizc: 43,726 s.f. (1.00 acre) McCloud. Applicants request approval of ^ ^ ^ constructed without the existence of a lakeshore retatmng issue for Planning Commission proper permits sometime between 198 stairway to consider is how much of the t\iensiy^ ^ question is within the 0-75’ should be allowed to remain in place. All normally allowed. This would also ™r:;?am Tr.y"°...... ^ Pertinent Code Sections. ........... guhd. g - Prohibits grading, hardcover, and structures within 75' of shoreline. ,-:..t07, qubd.9 . ,n RS district, allows no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures within 75’ of the shoreline. q_____ 19 - Prohibits changes in grade or cons^ction/aiteration of retaining walls fn I Steshom propen7 without a conditional use permit (CUP). in 66 Subd. 16 (Adopted 75’ of lift, landing, or lockbox within 75' of shoreline. 30 2nd Series - Waived fees Sge eaused by thri987 'superstorm , effect.ve 7 .7 »/ tnru ^2547 Kimberli & Willi Abbott 470 Big Island Variance/CUP November 9, 1999 Page 2 ilso :e. e- )rary or List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of request/hardship statement E - Survey (Existing as of 1-30-91) F - Selected exhibits from Applic. #1627: 1. Gaffron letter to McCloud 1-23-91 2. McCloud application and letter of request 2-22-91 3. City Engineer's comments 3-11-91 4. Staff memo 3-12-91 and selected exhibits: a) As-Built Deck Plan b) Staff Hardcover Review c) Lot Area Variance Draft Resolution 5. Planning Commission Minutes 3-18/20-91 6. Notice of Planning Commission Action 3-22-91 7. Building Inspector letter to J. Bruce Homes 4-9-91 8. Gaffron letter to McCloud 6-19-92 9. Wall design calculations by Liesch Engineering 12-30-92 10. Staff memo 1-11-93 11. Proposed plantings by The Village Craftsmen Inc. 1-18-93 12. Planning Commission Minutes 1-19-93 13. Notice of Planning Commission Action 1-27-93 G - Gaffron letters to McCloud 9-27-94 and 8-15-97 H - Staff sketch re: suggested deck removals I - Photos g walls Various n 75* of stmrway. lakeshore Application History Mr. McCloud purchased this property in 1985. The 1987 'superstorm' resulted in severe erosion damage to the shoreline. Some time between 1987 and October 1990 McCloud constructed an addition to the house including a large deck, and also a massive retaining wail, stairway and deck system at the shoreline, all without the required permits. McCloud made an after-the-fact application in Februar>’ 1991 requesting that the site improvements be approved as built. Please review the staff memo of 3-12-91. Planning Commission on 3-18-91 tabled the request, advising McCloud to provide a plan for modification of the deck/stairway/wall system in keeping with the provisions of the staff recommendation, i.e.: 1. Approval of land alteration CUP and variance for retaining walls subject to: Remove, of all decks except portions necessary as walkways between stairways. »2547 Kimberli & Willi Abbott 470 Big Island Varlcmce/CUP November 9, 1999 Page 3 Modification of retaining walls to eliminate all portions in excess of 3-4' high, applicant to submit revised plans for City Engineer and Planning Commission approval of additional walls to be constructed between remaining walls. Maximum allowed width of remaining walkways and stairs is 4*. Applicant to submit a planting schedule to provide for vegetative screening of the remaining retaining walls. Such schedule shall detail the type, location, number and size of plantings. Upon approval by the Planning Commission, planting schedule shall be adhered to with completion of plantings within 12 months of completion of retaining wall modifications. 2.Approval of a hardcover variance only for the retaining walls and 4' walkway/stairway system (hardcover percentages to be determined when revised proposal is submitted/approved). 3.Recommend Council adoption of "automatic lot area variance" resolution in conjunction with resolution of after-the-fact variance application. 4.Applicant to obtain necessary after-the-fact building permit prior to modification of the retaining walls and stairway system. 5. 6. Deck by cabin shall be modified to eliminate encroachments into the 0-75' setback. Recommend that McCloud finalize the subdivision of the adjacent lakeshore strip (this was later completed). Concurrently, the Building Inspector was working with McCloud regarding the addition to the cabin, for which no construction plans were available. Further activity on this application did not occur until December 1992 at which time a structural review of the walls was submitted by Liesch Engineering, followed by a landscape plan by The Village Craftsmen. On 1-19-93 Planning Commission again reviewed the application and tabled it, directing McCloud to: 1.Provide registered professional engineer certification for the retaining walls (the Liesch report was not signed by a PE). 2. Provide plans to modify walls such that terrace widths do not exceed 3'. 3. Provide plans for removal of retaining walls serving merely to support the deck, 4. Bring this back to Planning Commission after ice-out so the site could be viewed. U2547 Kimberli & Willi Abbott 470 Big Island Variance/CUP November 9. 1999 Page 4 In spring 1993 staff met with McCloud's representatives on site, but no further activity occurred. Staff letters to McCloud in 1994 and 1997 yielded no action. The pending sale of the property now provides the City with an opportunity to resolve this long-standing violation. Review of Current Application The Abbott application is simply a request for retention of the walls and stairway. Their request does not clearly specify whether they will accept removal of most of the decking, and the current application does not provide the plans that were required per the 1993 Planning Commission direction. It would be inappropriate to merely require removal of portions of the deck system without having information confirming that the deck removal will not have negative structural effects on the retaining wall system. The need for the retaining walls is apparent; the bank is steep, it eroded in 1987 and would likely continue to do so absent some form of retention system. The need for the s'ainvay is also apparent; again, the bank is steep, and the City has long acknowledged that lakeshore properties with steep shorelines should be allowed a means of pedestrian access to the shoreline, subject to keeping such access stairs limited in width and visual impact. No need or hardship has been demonstrated for the extensive decking in the 0-75' zone, in staffs opinion. Hardcover Review The original surveys in 1991 indicated 0-75' hardcover of 1,315 s.f. or 10.1%. Staffs 1991 review indicated it slightly higher at 1,408 s.f. or 10.9%. The structure reductions proposed in the City Engineer's letter of 3-11 -91 would result in a reduction to approximately 419 s.f. or 3.2%. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is approximately 8%, well under the 25% limit for this zone. See Exhibit F4b. Cabin Addition The 20'x30' cabin addition constructed without permits meets all required setbacks. Staffs recollection is that the foundation and underpinnings of this addition could not be suitably inspected, and the addition permit was never issued. A permit should be issued after the fact, with a disclaimer regarding the structural integrity unless suitable information can be supplied. Lot Area Variance In 1983 each Big Island Record Lot was given the opportunity to be granted an 'Automatic Lot Area Variance'. McCloud returned the paperwork for thi.s in 1985 but it apparently was never finalized. Staff recommends that the lot area variance be granted for us one-acre lot. 1 U2547 Kimberli& Willi Abbott 470 Big Island Variance/CUP November 9, 1999 Pages Staff Recommendation Staff recommends as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Approval of land alteration CUP and variance for retaining walls and stairway to remain, subject to; a) Removal of all decks except portions necessaiy as walkways between stairways. Also, removal of any retaining walls serving merely to support the deck. b) Modification of retaining walls to eliminate all portions in excess of 3-4' high, and to result in terrace widths not exceeding 3’. The intent is to create terraces that can be suitably planted to screen the wall system. Applicant to submit revised plans for City Engineer and Planning Commission approval of additional walls to be constructed between remaining walls. Applicant to provide registered professional engineer certification for the retaining walls. c) d) Maximum allowed width of remaining walkways and stairs is 4'. Applicant to submit a planting schedule to provide for vegetative screening of the remaining retaining walls. Such schedule shall detail the type, location, number and size of plantings. Planting schedule shall be adhered to with completion of plantings within 12 months of completion of retaining wall modifications. Approval of a hardcover variance only for the retaining walls and 4' walkway/stairway system (final hardcover percentages to be determined when revised proposal is submitted/approved). Applicant to obtain necessary after-the-fact building permit prior to modification of the retaining walls and stairway system. Deck near the cabin shall be modified to eliminate encroachment into the 0-75 setback zone. Applicant to obtain after-the-fact permit for cabin additions constructed without permit. Recommend Council adoption of "automatic lot area variance" resolution in conjunction with resolution of after-the-fact variance/CUP/building permit application. Options for Action Planning Commission may recommend approval subject to staff receipt and approval of design pl^ as specified in item 1 above prior to scheduling this for Council action; QR Planmng Commission may table this item pending receipt of plans for Planning Commission review. Tabling wjH rCQWIS an extension of the 60-dav review period because there is no December Planning CommissiOD meeting. h 2.5-V7Application # Date Received /o ^ Amount Paid ^00 ^ 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-conforming structures $250.00 yCC.cO ^Af:sr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address MlO oi&Site Address M oU:f __________________ _____ Property Identification Number rP-LD."! Z3» M H ~ CO/JL------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired. --------------------(raonth/year) ») (^ n^ also own the adjacent p^eb^of ther (specify). APPLICANT . , i Name ^ W;ctT Address: Phone (home)_fJ2i:2i£i. Phone (work)__^£|iil!^ ritv; Zip: Phone Hinme^ Phone ?work^ '•fW'.6 ~~ ^:h V^ % i /« z> -I .1 \ ) Zip: <^7^ OW^NER (if different than applicant) Name H^^lcti(rl___________________ Address: ^d.nj^JUC/) Q(:aCL City: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Co^ $. Describe request in detail: QJ(^ HV(.t-i.I21.fad \'ni ''.ni£ k aiitLv nti tti<v>vi rf-nif'nmJ wf------------- TrlT (attach additiotlal sheets if necessaiy) lA'-rIreiwf -lynt- m flu- c-ie' sciicAt' m-t- ‘ ffv I i I' f L1 I f ^ I■era imAV n y A VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback: ____ Lot Width Front ___Side X Hardcover . ^ *___ IVI fit in Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore fit Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual grope/ty c^diUons preve-^.v ^ compliance with Zoning Code requirements: —fl /^mrr (attach additional sheets if necessary) /> REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All.-Of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property 0\vners 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).:ilc Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/S" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (jjrovide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT ’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Adrmnistrator, 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 ^ true and correct ^o the best of^s^er knowledge. Applicant’s Signature^44^/ I Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature DateJ i, - ' ^ Y 7-7 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning OfSce of this change prior to the meeting. 1006.67 — 156.3 320.76 \ 10±r-* >v"L20) \ \ r» • Wimmm: i-: ••••; wxK’x-x-t-iS'-x-x^ i* * .. ' ■S' . Wk <ci- I • • !•»% Mtf • •••• 5lT^ •• «.•*>•«* trktrrii- i«AC^ r«.*«** »*MS r.«»4* . ' M Sm * • • f* I «• *4 Ca « •• MMSi*** t I :>>• • SIC ISL%' r.*.' «••' /r RUN DATE lO/ia/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIAS5A01 PACE le BATCH SOS PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 3B 22-117-23 14 0003 00740 BIG ISLAND HENN CTY PARK RES DIST HENN CO PARK RESERVE DIS P O BOX 294 MAPLE PLAIN MN SS3S9 38 22-117-23 41 0002 00470 BIG ISLAND SAMUEL A MCCLOUD SAMUEL A MCCLOUD P 0 BOX 216 SHAKOPEE MN SS379 38 22-117-25 41 0003 00460 BIG ISLAND NANCY L FARNES NANCY L FARNES 2710 FOXGATE DR MINNETONKA MN SS30S PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 23-117-23 32 0002 00460 BIG ISLAND NANCY L FARNES NANCY L FARNES 2710 FOXGATE DR MINNETONKA MN SS3Q5 38 23-117-23 32 0010 00460 810 ISLAND NANCY L FARNES NANCY L FARNES 2710 FOXGATE DR MINNETONKA MN SS30S 38 23-117-23 32 0011 00460 BIG ISLAND NANCY L FARNES NANCY L FARNES 2710 FOXGATE DR MINNETONKA MN SS305 Sba PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 23-117-23 32 0012 00460 BIG ISLAND NANCY L FARNES NANCY L FARNES 2710 FOXGATE OR MINNETONKA MN SS30S 38 23-117-23 32 0018 00490 BIG ISLAND T 8 P HANNA TED R HANNA 14115 KNOLLWAY DR S MINNETONKA MN 5S30S 38 23-117-23 32 0019 00500 BIG ISLAND EUGENE A NELSON EUGENE A NELSON 9720 3RD ST N E BLAINE MN 55434 ^ A ( ‘ PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 23-117-23 32 0020 00250 BIG ISLAND FRED A BRUNTJEN FRED A BRUNTJEN BOX 584 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 23-117-23 32 0062 00480 BIG ISLAND J I C PANOZZO CELIA PANOZZO 40219 EYOTHA MAY ONAMIA MN 56359 38 23-117-23 32 0072 00470 BIG ISLAND SAMUEL A MC CLOUD SAMUEL A MC CLOUD P O BOX 216 SHAKOPEE MN 55379 4 PROP ADDR ORNER NAHC TAMPAYER NAHE/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 505 00012 A>6 bciuiH/ titiif IKluiMio-l' C'^cUtiijyts ckm(Ln[( ifuf 2m.u^{{ U>(Lv fyif KLa^td- Mo id SUiMS w tk Bo's ivMucU Of -fc/'US j?i^f>eyh0 kod jia o d.iO'x^, {o JM ill BPJ mdj B)ji tkii itU- l/l/UnJu-fniMiy, Oh tihd tuiw cu MMuiia ^ UfiUl Coski Mdici id AQp tixe. itwyiCAj ■ tl'\o djeALAxn i-'| A^IhuoU'Uj knUU m(4iA^p&^aoL.l ou .Mzu Alucu ^ iOiudx (A fdedici cU mj h tl'h' Mitp y^u'Jo. iv'i ^'^[A^tdAj'vj-Owf^ ■bocjiXl'WA haO-d(W)<hA/ Couhit' ho mjAuAyhi-iYiL Hn M vuv^ oocoo Cm\pU&/. 0'> i<h/u^j the ^tctci/vcL inhU/uoh^ oi ft) ■fui viMin/iOc 100X1 , LVh/ch ■fuu'^cL cf L n Jdilao ^hixoMi^- sh'iiUuTX' kas>^ I?' ijfXlS L'Olfh MqyptXL ^............... ioM^ ^\o\j\joirm^CoJ. HwJ ' JAfpCAkj Ih now pllXU^n soJU. 1 ‘knjo noLcds h ls& M'sA'^d, hi \JU joJ-ou'w^jj kfiiL i‘i> Utj Jb kxs 9>cUi <« It yuyeAjy^ dj it .nttTUAS cai. ^cu\A im\ ■hthfhkA' diiz^MPwcCujyo oAd' pftxd^ i/btiM h /Ke- CO'koU. ?. >« •■ *-v. ! * • • V # • F- 1 ~ crrv ’ OF ; OHONO — ^ ’j CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323•Municipal 0£5ces On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January 23» 1991 Samual A. McCloud Law Office 5101 Highway 55 Minneapolisr Ml-I 55422 Re: Big Island Record Lot #22 Dear Mr. McCloud: During the City's October 1990 inspection of ^^e septic system serving your cabin on Big Island, the foliOfcing observations were made: 1. A major addition to the cabin has been recently constructed. This ad_dition_did not erist seotic systems on Big Island in - . An a+.-FnTm ^^trrd{a°crnr^to”-ht”c“fbi1f^\'’sl \%Ta» tV^f-^e™ construction. /he"“oMs'^ Z\T Jd direct :r^°^n\^c°e"s wlic^^hav’/ been recently completed, since this lakeshore constructio was not there in i985. You are hereby required to make the fact application for construction of the addition such as well as the platform deck system abutting the cabin. Such application must be received in this office by February 15, 1991. variance for^ this structure. Failure to meet this Deadline will result in issuance of violation citations. the location of structures within the property. BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 assessing ADMINISnUnON A n.NANCE - 473-73SS FAX-4734)510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 >RONO 23*Municipal Offices eptic owing ent ly oected ‘files atform e new :ructed direct etback • 1970s. ed for o have ruction sr-the- i cabin , Such , 1991. ^ e the ck zone ebruary ie”fact ne will IS w'ill rifying Sam McCloud . ^ j Re: Record Lot #22, Big Island January 23, 1991 Page 2 of 2 An application is MPG/tln Attachments; _.1. Building Permit Application 2. Variance Application ^ 3. Zoning Code Section 10.31, Subd. 8 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building s Zoning Administrator Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Tom Barrett, City Attorney cc: nUC WORKS-473-7359 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 "fit* ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Big island Record Lot #22 L.$ L'.L I I bt" 'v/Tu^v im rt af 7 T-• w*w*-if' “i, / w r*r»fTtfc- i • • r..rrift.. f :.u\ fvWV ni '-'j. a.*T :r* /•„ w / t V \ .-if *• k. w ' a V c r r7f“ r- * •: *; • -r; i.• ; f *uv 7 rrui • n i •- .»».• 11:.w-w X f. - i j, JL 23-117-23-01-001523-117-23-01-0013 Property Identification Number (P.I.D. )23- ii7-23-oi-ooi4 22-117-23-41-ooQl Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) 533-9621 Name Samuel A. McCloud Address ; 5101 Highway 55________ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (worlc) 542-9801 City: Minneapolis I mam m»m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m ma Phone (home) Zip; 55440 Name Same as above. Address: Phone (wor)c) City:Zip: Date Property Acquired April, 1985 (month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Seasonal Recreational_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property Seasonal Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $30.OOP.00 Describe request in detail: After-the-fact var iance from 0-7^' lalfAchriro zone for retaining wall/deck/stairway structure (See attached statement).____________ mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm • -• mm mm ■ m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setbaclc Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) Other Setback - lakeshore CITY OP ORONO - variance APPLICATION f O Initial Application Fee $175,00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-tha~raot Fees (Double aoolicaticn fee) 5X Q PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Big island Record Lot #22 23-117-23-01-0013 23-117-23-01-0015 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 23-li7-23-oi-ooi4 22-ii7-23-4i-oooi Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) 533-9621 Name Samuel A. McCloud Phone (woric) 542-9801 Address: 5101 Highway 55 City; Minneapolis Zip: 55440 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Same as above.Phone (worJc) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired April, 1985 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT OSE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Seasonal Recreational Present Use of Property Seasonal Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: ant-nmahic lot area variance and combinatio n of tax oarcels . I VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setbac)c Variances"!FYon Side Rear) Other Automatic Lot Area Variance • • I yV- V #• ; •X. . % /• •« •. • ; ' ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SAMUEL A. McCLOUD VARIANCE APPLICATION I am applying for an after-the-fact variance from the City of Orono with respect to a retaining wall/stairway/deck system that was built on my property in 1987. In particular, I am seeking a variance from the application of city ordinances that restrict structures and hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. I purchased this property in April, 1985. The property is located on Big Island and faces southwest. Most of the property is gently rolling and is situated on a hill above Lake Minnetonka. The portion of the property that is adjacent to Lake Minnetonka is very steep, with an angle of approximately 30 degrees. There are several large trees and other ground cover located on this steep slope. During the "storm of the century" in July, 1987, a massive portion of the hill adjacent to Lake Minnetonka washed out, taking with it the stairway which extended down towards the shoreline and two (2) large trees. The aftermath of t?ie storm resulted in an extremely sharp incline down to the shoreline and a bowl shaped depression in the hill. Shortly thereafter, I hired a contractor from western Minnesota to build an addition to the existing cabin and to build a retaining wall/stairway/deck system to preserve and strengthen the eroded hillside, provide access to the shoreline and prevent further damage to the hill in the event of another heavy rainfall. The contractor provided me with a bid for the •j ; wall/stairway/deck system”*" which, I was informed. included the cost of all permits to complete the construction. The contractor also told me that he would see to it that all of the proper permits were acquired prior to construction. Obviously, to my surprise, I have now learned that the necessary permits and variances were never obtained. I am requesting that the City of Orono issue a variance so that the present structures, as constructed, may remain in their current state. This includes the retaining wall/ stairway/deck system on the hill adjacent to the lake and the deck located next to the house, which barely encroaches into the 75 foot setback zone. The topography of the property, the washout of the steep slope, the destruction of f^e stairway and the loss of two large trees created a hardship situation that warrants the variance. Obviously, I was not responsible for creating the washout of the hill and the associated damage. I was faced with a situation whereby a heavy rainfall in the future could further erode my property and could ultimately place the home on the property in jeopardy. The structures, as built, serve several useful purposes that warrant your attention: 1. The retaining wall system is necessary to control soil erosion and water run off. The retaining wall system is more efficient in this regard than other systems, such as those that use erosion blankets. With the use of erosion blankets, there is a greater chance of rainwater flowing directly into the lake ■ t u ana erosion of topsoil into the lake. Furthermore, erosion blankets tend to be temporary measures and their effectiveness is dependent upon the ability of ground foliage to ultimately adhere to the hillside. On the other hand, the retaining wall system creates pockets and terraces for the water to collect and percolate down through the soil and creates barriers to halt the erosion of the soil on the hillside. In addition, retaining walls are not temporary remedial measures but instead are permanent solutions to the particular landscape problem. 2. The retaining wali/deck system actually promotes the purposes of the hardcover ordinance by assisting the slow, methodical percolation of rainwater through the soil. The spirit and intent of Orono's hardcover ordinance, is to ensure that rainfall run off will be cleansed by filtering through grass or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. Without the retaining wall/deck system, rainfall would most certainly wash down the steep hill directly into Lake Minnetonka. On the other hand, the retaining wall/deck system impedes this direct flow into the lake by causing rainfall to hit the horizontal deck area, collect on the deck and then pass through the openings between the deck boards, much as if the deck were acting like a coffee filter in an automatic drip coffeemaker. This process decreases the amount of erosion and also allows the rainwater to seep more slowly into the ground. 3. The retaining wall/deck system provides protection to the trees on the hill by controlling erosion and the loss of soil around their root systems. It is important to note that 3 no trees were removed from the hillside to accommodate the construction of the retaining wall/stairway/deck system. On the contrary, great care was taken to build the structure around existing trees to ensure their longevity. 4. The "zig-zag" design of the stairway is necessary be%^ause of the extreme slope of the hill and provides a safer means of descent to the lakeshore. The drawings submitted along with this application show that the hill drops 17 feet over a 36 foot span. This creates an angle of 30 degrees. The zig-zag nature of the stairway and the landing room on the deck, afford more protection to an individual if he were to fall on the stairway. 5. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, the retaining wall/stairway/deck system does not jeopard'ze the integrity of the locality. First, the entire structur- is made of wood and has remained in a natural wood color. Secoi.J, during the seasons when Lake Minnetonka is most heavily used, the entire structure is not readily noticeable from the water because it is partially concealed by foliage on Furthermore, the structure is not visible to a good portion of the main body of the lake since the property is tucked back into one of the bays that comprise Big Island. Finally, much of the horizontal decking material is not visible from the water since a good portion of the deck is located on top of the hill. For all of the above reasons, I respectfully reguest that the City approve my request for a variance so that the retaining wall/stairway/deck system and the deck next to the house may remain in their present positions. the hillside. tv 2 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Otto G BonesJDa PE Aoeerr W. tosene. PE. Joseph C Andertk. PE. Mjmn L Sohraia. PE. ffchjid E Tbmer. PE. Germ R Cook. PE. Thomas E PE. G SchorchL PE Susan M. Etem C^A. Keen A. Gordon. PE Richard W. Foscec PE DonakJ C. Burganx PE. Jeny A. Bourdon. PE Mark A. Hansoa PE Ted K. f«id. PE. Mchaef T Rautmann. PE BoOert R Pfefere. PE Oavd O Loskcca. PE Thomas W PKewi. PE. M<had C. lyncr. PE James R. Maiand. PE Kenneth P Andenoa PE. Mark R. BoRl PE. Rooen C. Russek. AJ A Thomas E Angus. PE. HoMra^ A SanM. PE Oan<4 i Edgertoa PE Mark A Setx PE Phiip X CasM^fl. PE Ismael Martmez. PE Mark O Wafti PE Thomas R. Andersoa AIA Gary F R/ander. PE. Maes B Jensea PE ■ L. PfkBp Gfivei la. PE Rene C. Piumart AJA Agnes M. Rmg, AiCP Jerry O Pwzsch. PE CecJko ORvSet P£ Rooert R OieOiOMr. PE Gary W Monea PE Charles A Enckson Leo M. Pavvelsky Hadan M. Olson March 11, 1991 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Mike Gaffron Re: Me Cloud (Big Island) Our File No. 139-1627 Dear Mike:• • We have reviewed the deck construction in the 0-75 ’ lake shore area on the Me Cloud property @ Big Island. The deck was constructed over a series of retaining walls that protect the lake shore bank. The bank failed during the big storm of 1987. We would recommend that a majority of the deck be removed. The cross hatched area would indicate the stairway and deck that could remain in place. The retaining walls will have to be modified because they do not appear to be stable in all cases without the overlying deck. The owner should be required to provide a new plan with the modified retaining walls and proposed deck and stairway area. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:dh 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Frcxn: Date: Michael P. Gaffron^ Asst Planning s Zoning Administrator March 12, 1991 Subject: #1627 Samuel A. McCloud, Record Lot 22, Big Island After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - RS, Recreational Seasonal Application - After-the-fact request for hardcover and structure variances in the 0-75' zone. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exh’bit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Application Letter of Request Plat Map Property Owners List Request to Adopt "Automatic Lot Area Variance" Survey Deck Plans (as-built) City Engineer's Comments Hardcover Review by Staff Photos 8/90, 1/91 Letter to Sam McCloud 1/23/91 Letter to Carter Delaittre 2/19/91 Re: Application #889 "Automatic Lot Area Variance" Resolution Pertinent Code Sections - 1. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Prohibits grading, hardcover and structures within 75' of the shoreline. 2. Section 10.31, Subdivision 9 - In RS zone, allows no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures within 75' of the shoreline. Limits hardcover to 25% in the 75-250' zone. 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 - Prohibits changes in grade or construction or alteration of retaining walls, without a conditional use permit issued by the Council, 4. Ordinance 39, 2nd Series - Waived fees and allowed staff to issue permits for repair of the 1987 superstorm lakeshore damage, effective 7/27/87 through 8/31/87. Zoning File #1627 March 12, 1991 Page 2 of 5 Summary - Applicant purchased the property in 1985. The 1987 Super Storm caused a slumping failure of the lakeshore bank. The applicant hired an unnamed contractor from "western Minnesota" to build an addition to the existing cabin and build the retaining wall/stairway/deck system. The contractor obtained no permits from the City. This construction work was found by the City during the 1990 septic system inspections of Big Island, and the property owner was duly notified of the violations. The Building Department is treating the after-the-fact permit application for the cabin additions as a separate application, not requiring a variance. The application before the Planning Commission is for after-the-fact variances and conditional use permit to allow the retaining wall/deck/stairway system to remain as-is. Pertinent Facts - 1. Prior to construction of the existing deck/retaining wall/stairway system, a stainvay approximately 4' wide and 40' long provided access from the lakeshore to the residence on the property. The steep bank merits some type of stairway system to provide access. Hardcover with this previous stairway is estimated at just over 1% of the 0-75' zone. 2. Exhibit I indicates that existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone is approximately 10.9%, including all portions of the deck/retaining wall/stairway system in the 0-75' zone and landward of the 929,4' elevation. A portion of the hinged deck extends lakeward of the 929.4' elevation. Such structure appears to be prohibited by LMCD regulations. Section 2.12, Subdivision 2 (B). 3. The applicant hired Edgework Builders to provide an after- the-fact plan of the retaining wall system, however Edgework Builders was not involved in the original design or construction of this wall system. Staff would request confirmation from Edgework Builders that all of the cribbing and deadman construction as shown on the plan is in place. 4. City Engineer Glenn Cook has visited the site and viewed the structure, and has recommended the following: A, The majority of the deck should be removed. B. Portions of stairway and deck walkway could remain in place to provide access from the shore to the cabin. Zoning File #1627 March 12, 1991 Page 3 of 5 C. The retaining walls will need to be modified because they are already showing signs of instability, and because in some locations the overlying deck structure to be removed does enhance the stability of the walls because they are so high. In discussions with the Engineer, staff determined that one optional solution would be to lower the portions of retaining walls exceeding 3-4' in height, and add additional walls between the remaining walls. This would likely provide the necessary stability while allowing spaces for additional plantings to help screen the walls. Additionally, this would eliminate the need ror railings extending upward from deck sections. The storage area adjacent to the main stairway would be eliminated. The final hardcover in the 0-75’ after these reductions is estimated at less than 4%. Discussion - Please review the applicant's letter of request. Applicant points out five specific useful purposes for the structure as built, and indicates that the topography and obvious potential for bank erosion create a hardship situation that warrants the variance. While a number of trees tend to somewhat soften the visual appearance of this structure as viewed from the Lake, there is question that this type of deck structure is in total non conformity with the letter and intent of the zoning code, and further, does not conform with various land use policies contained in the City of Orono Community Management Plan. The City of Orono has a track record of requiring pre-existing non- conforming lakeshore structures to "de-intensify" or disappear as they fall into disrepair, and approval of new construction and hardcover of the magnitude of this structure would be unusual in the 0-75' zone. Additional Issues - In 1983, Orono rezoned Big Island and defined "Record Lots" which recognized historic patterns of use and ownership, intending to keep substandard, commonly owned lots permanently in common ownership. Record lot property owners were offered the opportunity to be granted an "automatic lot area variance", generally allowing them specific continued rights to use their properties for standard single family seasonal recreational uses. Zoning File #1627 March 12, 1991 Page 4 of 5 The McCloud property was owned by Eugene Nelson at that time, and common ownerships involving Nelson's relatives ultimately resulted in the current Record Lot designations. The automatic lot area variance documents were never finalized by Nelson, however, during his sale to McCloud in 1985, it was determined that a lot line rearrangement subdivision was necessary to properly allocate the lakeshore between Nelson's property and Record Lot 16 to the south (please see the 2/19/91 letter to Carter Delaittre). The 2/19/91 letter summarizes the history of Subdivision application #889 which was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in 1985 but got stalled out at the Council level due to the neighboring property owner's objections and lack of followup. The City would have granted the automatic lot area variance as part of the subdivision approval had that subdivision been finalized. In the meantime, the City technically cannot issue any building permits to McCloud until the automatic lot area variance has been granted. It is staff's position that, while the defined time period for "automatic" lot area variances has past, the City has been fairly lenient in holding to the time limitation for other Big Island properties as long as other Issues are resolved in a timely manner. Approximately half of the property owners executed their automatic variances in 1984. The rest have been dribbling in over the years as properties are sold or as property improvements occur. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends as follows: 1. Approval of land alteration conditional use permit and variance for retaining walls subject to: a) Removal of all decks except portions necessary as walkways between stairways. b) Modification of retaining walls to eliminate all portions in excess of 3-4' high, applicant to submit revised plans for City Engineer and Planning Commission approval of additional walls to be constructed between remaining walls. c) Maximum allowed width of remaining walkways and stairs is 4'. Zoning File #1627 March 12, 1991 Page 5 of 5 d) Applicant to submit a planting schedule to provide for vegetative screening of the remaining retaining walls. Such schedule shall detail the type, location, number and size of plantings. Upon approval by the Planning Commission and Council, such planting schedule shall be adhered to with completion of plantings within 12 months of completion of retaining wall modifications. 2. Approval of a hardcover variance only for the retaining walls and 4' walkway/stairway system (hardcover percentage to be determined when revised proposal is submitted/approved). 3. Recommend Council adoption of "automatic lot area variance" resolution in conjunction with resolution of after-the-fact variance application. 4. Applicant to obtain necessary after-the-fact building permit prior to modification of the retaining walls and stairway system. 5. Deck near the house shall be modified to eliminate all portions encroaching into the 0-75* zone. 6. Recommend that Mr. McCloud and the owner of Record Lot 16 jointly request (in writing) reopening of subdivision application #889 at the City Council level to resolve the issue of the strip of shoreline in front of Record Lot 16 for which McCloud is still fee owner and tax payer. 7. Table application pending receipt of revised plan for walls and stairs/walkways and receipt of a planting schedule. The above recommendations constitute a partial approval/partial denial of the requested variances. If Planning Commission feels that special circumstances justify granting of additional deck areas or walkway widths, please give applicant specific direction as to those parameters. SAMUEL A. McCLOTO VARIANCE APPLICATION PLEASE NOTE: The attached as built drawings and plans were prepared by Edgework Builders. Edgework Builders did not construct the retaining wall/stairway/deck system shown in the drawings and plans. #1 4 0-1 s' * /2,^6,o) foitnoN OF P^c^ /Jefi^ HOi^f€ T)aa^^l/^ALL S.ySTV'/^ /r'T jLA^:.c^ Ho crC, CiA^M ^ CA<£H^^ ></69 2o >'lo S.zyi^, z. jo.z yr !U, I + ^”7 ^ S O -V ^76. vso'> - Vo vv 3 fi 6<90 //6» /6B //o^ 2^^af/Je1 AJ) w Cs ^t> T7i5 AJ Z ’,yj{ CrU^ rf2>f J i * • • ••' f • * /t gp 1 1 •!* '«5" x/<?— 5-TAI /2- OJC:^/§ > V r 32-Oiy-fJ&Fi 1 ‘■1 XI2.5: w t • /qy)m*m 2t.200 /3. t.‘JSrVK«r*Ji*Y q y n j^. 3. 1^ 4. (c>o r ;/Zl^ . /AJ i^~epr,L Oeck HO ~ 3, zn 0^ *' -r H City of OROJNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._________________ (L. APPROVING A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR RECORD LOT NO 22 PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 246, MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.31 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1.Tht c Samuel A. McCloud is {kkk) the owner (s')/tax payer (15^) of record of the following described property located within the RS Seasonal Recreational Zoning District of the City; Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 2. That in adoption of Ordinance No. 246, the City Council reviewed ownership, development and use patterns on the islands and has deter mined that all the above described property combined is and shall hereinafter and henceforth be one "RECORD LOT" as defined in Section 10.31 of said ordinance. 3, That all the above described property when combined as one RECORD LOT is still less than the minimum lot size required for new lots in the RS District, but that this RECORD LOT is being used and/or may be used in the future for any permitted use in the RS District without adverse affect upon public health, safety, or welfare. CONCLUSION The City Council of Orono hereby grants a lot area variance to the above described RECORD LOT based on the above findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. This RECORD LOT including all the above described property combined shall henceforth be continued in common ownership by the same person or persons even if recorded as separate lots or tax parcels, and it shall not be subdivided, sold in parts, reduced in area or otherwise separated without application for and approval of a subdivision by the City. This condition shall not preclude future sale or transfer of the complete "RECORD LOT" as a single unit. 2. Granting this variance means this RECORD LOT may be used for one- fanily seasonal recreational use without a structure; or a single new seasonal dwelling may be built; or an existing seasonal dwelling may be used, improved, added-onto or replaced; all without requiring further City Council review of lot size, but subject to strict com pliance with all building permit, setback, hardcover, on-site sewage treatment and other performance standards for development in the RS District. 3. City of ORONO ■mi* RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ 2: RECORD LOT NO. 22 RESOLUTION NO. Graiit^this variance shall not vest any rights in the property other than as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 246, and shall not preclude a future City Council from amending, modifying or otherwise limiting development rights and/or performance standards in the RS District. 4.The undersigned has read and understood the terms of this re.r;olution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, agrees that the above described property constitutes a single RECORD LOT; agrees that the RECORD LOT use may be so limited by the City; and agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. 19_. ATTEST; Adopted by the Orono City Council on the day of Dorothy M. Hallin, City Cleric,__ C. Lutler, Mayor /' (1) Property Owner(s)(2) STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this ^ay of within and f o_x, s'a i d Coun£y ,/per sona 1 ly appeared 1985, before me, a Notary Public n/y/^Z._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Icnown to j me to be the pe'rso'n(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instru- | ment, and aclcnowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free | act and deed. i ;! BARRY L. HOGEN ^ NOTABY PUBLIC —MINNESgriT :1 NO^ HENNEPIN COUNTY^> My Commiuion Expirts J«n. 13. IMf J > 1» ► BLIC^ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES This document is being recorded for the benefit of the City of Orono per Minnesota Statutes 386.77. State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exempt This instrument was drafted by: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 exhibit a resolution no.cty other hall not otherwise in the RS »r.olution if agrees :ORD LOT; ity; and title of County, a''po!nt on^hreaIt"^°" as\e|!nntog 26^00 feet south of iha "distant ^stan^P^rJ': ‘he south Jie’of :y Public ’"known to 'g instru- ie\r) free le City of i * ^‘4 *• •/ ) 4 • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 13, 1991 (58)ZONING FILE n626-TRAFF CONTINUED questioned what r.aca r.i.s application unique. Kellev resccncec that the Planninu Car.nission looks apolication in a unique light, ana that each nust have a hardship. Ke said, "We are already granting you the lot a lot width Variances. If your lot was undeveloped and received municipal sewer, it woulc probably navo^ to rema wav. From my point of viev;, this is a buildable lot, will either add on to the existing house, or start over, why I am indifferent. I nave no problem with the Varia that matter. I do not want to see you compare the way a we address your application with what wo have done ir cases. " at each proven rea and had not in that and you That is nee for n which other Traff asked Hansen if his opposition stems from the concerns raised by the Mitchells. Hanson replied, "No. I have done enough building to know that something can be constructed on this lot without requiring a Variance." Kelley reminded Traff that in the event the Planning Commission does recommend denial, he cou ^d still ta.;e the application to Council for thair deciding vote. Bello'ws suggested that Mr. Traff bring back a schematic oc the floor plan" to give the Planning Com.mission a better understanding of his hardship. The Public Hearing was continued. (#9) ZONING FILE 11627-SAMUEL A. MCCLOUD RECORD LOT #22, BIG ISLAND AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING Samuel MuCloud, and his Attorney, v present for this matter. rter DeLaittre, were Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 3:42 p.m. , and ar.ked Gaffron to present his opening commenus. Gaffron summarized the issues involved with Mr. McC-oud's ;gicolicat ion, as outiin*jd ^n his March 12, 1991, mem.c. He dlsplaved a sketch and photo of the retaining wall/stairway/deck system" that had been constructed on this property without proper permits. Ke added that the retaining walls were installed to restore damage to the bank that resulted from the 19S7 Superstorm. Gaffron said, "The City Engineer has examined the structure in terms o: the necessity of the retaining walls. He determined that the width of the bank does need some kind cf a - 15 - •V a?j; I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD tMARCH 13, 1991 (#9)ZONING FILS #1627-MCCLOUD CONTINUED suocorr svs-er.. Hs is si^cescir.z ir.ar v;3-iS •.;iir. a r.eicnc exceedip.c * cr.rse or fcur feet te lo-.varec and that: sor.e interior v;ails be added. Tne City Engineer has inoicaten tnat tae stabilitv' of the existing '.vails is c'jestionabie. r.e aiso^ s^awed that the lo'.ver '.vails '.vould be easier to screen cron, tne la.<e. CeLaittre stated that there is a protected '^etlaid tha^ exists from the M:.nnetonka Power Sn-aadron property to .Mr. McClouds. He said, 'The 1937 stern washec out the existing stair*.vay an.h took oat f.vo trees. A najor portion of the hill washed away leaving a bo'.vl shaped depression. following that, Mr. McCloud rlred a contractor to build an addition on the cabin, and the cont:. ictor suggested that the bank should be restorec with a retaining '.vail systen. He infornen Mr. .McClcuc that he would obtain all the' necessary pernits. We found out, after-the-fact, that ha had no-c cbtain the p.ernits. Tne structure is presently in place, and v;e believe it does controx the erosion on the propert'/. Tnis stcucturc ooes meet the inten.. th*^ Cit'/';; Kardco'ver Ordinance, i.n that it allo'ws water to percolate into the ground. The horizontal members of decking do have spaces in Pet'.veen them, which allows the rain to filter th-ouch. The scair'.vav '.vis c.tnstructed in a zig-zag manner to limit'the distance one '..'ould fail if that were to occur. There if quite a bit of vegetation that would screen th.e structure from the lake in the Summer. The structure has a natural wood color. Because of the sharo crop on the hii: and the terracing o. retaining '.vails, the railings on the to? and second level serve a safet'/ puroose. Vi'.t.nout the raili.ngs, so.mecne couic fall o^x the edge and fall c':ite a distance. There ;vere no complaints from the neighboring propert'/ o.vners about this structure, and I co not b“^ieve there have bean an'y since then. .-Ir. McCloud does have a~ fairly significant financial stake in this structure, and t-o rsc0iv0 spprov^l for i- »o rGrTiSin. Hanson cuss-iensd w’narh^r MrClouc *v*ou-d hav's any r0cours6^ financially# throacr. the contractor. DeLaittre replied, "Mr. McCloud has tried to contect Lhc builder, but has been unable to locate him." Bellows stated that she could not possibly approve such a structure in this location. She said. "I am sorry, but I believe it is an owiier's responsibility to make s'ure that a contractor has in fact obtained the necessary permits. The City requires permits to be posted on the construction site. I believe this structure is extremely over-built and appropriate. It should be cut b.ack to provide a Tiinim’um stair'.vay access and whatever retaining walls are necessary to support the bank." Hanson stated that he totally agreed with Bellows. - 16 - iMidy I A 1 t t : I4 ■ i t a H •:;3 A? 4a PLANNING COMMISSION MERTING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#9)ZONING FILE M627-MCCLOUD CONTINUED McCloud asked f ;r t-'.e CMOorcuni v/ to r.ake s tr.e additionax points. He statsd that tr.e fVccrir.r p-. tde decks ate _at ground level, and, therefore, are invisible irc~ tne lake, ana chat the onlv portion of the structure that is visibic, is the retainin- walis." He said. "The City Engineer has recornnended that I o.nly the retaining v;alls, w::irh are cerinitoxy recuir^?d to prevent the bank fro~ further erosion. T.-.e design of^ the floor decking is such that it traps small quantities or water in betv/een each olank, which prevents water from just running do\/n the bank. It promot.-:s percolation of rainwater throughout the whole svsten. ' T-ie City Engineer also recommended leaving at least a portion of the steps.* Tne only other aspect of this that ju3y bo disturbing to viev; is tne storage area. The rataining v/all does ey.tend "behind the storage area. I would be happy to rer-ve the front wall of that area, but there will still be wall behind it." Hanson interjected, "I 'would just like to say ^ concerned about the visual impant or this structure. McCloud explained further. "Tho railings, or some other form of restraint, will have to re.main in place to prevent someone from walking off the edge. A barrier ./’.ll bo necessary regardless of 'whether or not the floor decking remains. I guess my question then is what v;ould you '..'ant me to remove? ' Kelley explained that the City'- Hardcover Ordinance does view decking as hardcover. Bellows reminded M.cCloud that the City Engineer has stated that the retaining v;al.’.s are failing. McCloud said, "Neither myself, nor my engineer, could find signs «‘>f the retaining walls failing. I v/ou.-.d ha-.e to respectfully disagree with the City Engineer's opinion in that regard. I would also note that the City Engineer states that the floor decking enhances the stability of the walls. If in fact, the v/al.ls are failing, I './ill of course repair them." Kelley s.iid. "In opinion, seme hardcover can remain, including access to the lake. You ace entitled co have access. The decking ho'wever should be removed." McCloud asked Kelley to address the railings. Kelley replied, "Tho railings are needed in accordance with ,he retaining walls exceeding a certain height." Mabusth stated that railings are needed when the wall height exceeds )0 inches. - 17 - I'•1 I >I t ,1 I; 1 j(^ 4^i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#9)ZONING FILE S1627-MCCLOUD CONTINUED McCloud nskec f ;r r^'.e cijporvjr.iv/ ro rr..yke sD-e additional points. He stated that tne flccr.r.z f. tde decks ace at grcu.nc level, and, therefore, are invisible frer. the lake, and that the onlv oortion of the structure that is visible, is the retaining gineer has recomnencec that I keep whinh are definiteivm required to ercsicn.Th.s desicn of the floor acs small cuantitiesm of water in betv/een each olank, which prevents water from just running do\/n the bank. It promot.vs percolation of rainwater throughout the v/hcle svsten. T'le City Erigineer also recommended laav'ing at least a portion of the steps.' Tne only other aspect of this that tnay bo disturbing to vtev.* is tne storage area. T!ie retaining v;all does extend behind the storage area. I would be happy to rer-ve the front wall of that area, but there will still be wall behind it." Hanson interjected, "I v.-ould just like to say that I am not concerned about the visual impact oz this structure. McCloud explained further. "Tho railings, or some other form of restraint, \/ill have to remain in place to prevent someone from walking off the edge. A barrier ./ill bo necessary regardless of whether or not the floor decking remains. I guess my question then is v/hat would you './ant me to remove?" Kelley explained that the City'- Hardcover Ordinance does view decking as hardcover. Bellows reminded .McCloud that the City Engineer has stated that the retaining wal.'.s are failing. McCloud said, "Neither myself, nor my engineer, could find signs «»f the retaining walls failing. I would have to respectfully disagree with the City Engineer's opinion in that regard. I would also note that the City Engineer states that the floor decking enhances the stability cf the walls. If in fact, the v/ai:.s are failing. I will of course rep-air them." K'elley s.iid. "In oy opinion, some hnrocover can ramain, including access to the lake. You are entitled to have access. The decking however should be removed." McCloud asked Kelley to address the railings. Kelley replied. "Tho railings are needed in accordance with the retaining walls exceeding a certain height." Mabusth stated that railings are needed when the wall height exceeds JO inches. - 17 - >'■• •• f,‘:< teiS ■iSt^ :> ‘ V ’■'% 1^ m m r-5 V PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING riELD MARCH 18. 1991 (#9)ZONING FILE ?1627-MCCLOUD CONTINUED Kelley sl:ated that there are 3;»veral e.cistinc retaining v.'ails v/ithin the City of Orono that v;ould orovide exarrioles of how tne issues of safetv and e-:osicn control can oe addressed. Kelley explaintid the options available to Mr. Mrcioiid for proceeding or tabling his application. McCloud asked the Planning Conr.ission if they concurrad v/ith the Staff recotimendatidns presented in Goffron's nerr.o. Gaffron reviewed the reconnendations included in his memo. McCloud stated that he would v/ork further with prepare a revised plan, a^d requested that tht- Commission m.;ike a ■notion at their re-convened meeting this application. Staff to Planninc to table The Public Hearing was continued. (#10)ZONING FILE #1628-MARK & SARA FINNEY 4195 HIGHWOOb ROAD VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Kelley opened the Public K.jaring at Sara Finney was present. 9:05 p.m.. noting that Mabusth showed the plan for the replacement foundation and the proposed addition, stating that an average lakeshore setback Variance would bo r.-icuired. Sne said, "I w.is advised this evening by Jim Hanson, who d..d go beyond the fenced area, that there is structure within the lakeshore yard." Hanson said. "There i;*. a complete stair^/oy wii:h bench .seating, and intermediate storage area, not entirely dissimilar i:o what -we s-aw in the McCloud application. I would approximate that there is 1,300 s f. of ground cover in the 0-75' area. I discussed the structure v/ith Ms. Finney v/ho informed me th^t the structure was installed two owners ago. Permits ’..*ore nvit obtained, nor were any Variances grant**d for that strucfcre. In this case, I whole-heartedly support the a.-ldition plans the Finneys are proposing, but I v/ould ask for trade-offs."' Kelley asked Finney to state her hardship for the requested Variance. Finney replied, "The house has otie bedroom and is one and a half stories. The basement is functional as a sv/imming pool at best. v;e have the s.vme circumstance discussed in an e.nrlier application this evening, with our driveway being above the level of the house. When it rains, the writer comes d(.*wn the b^ck sidewalk into our basement. W*e are hoping to put in a solid v;all foundation. Tlie square footage of .louse nov/ rs 900 s.f. Tne - 18 - J • • J CCM.MI3LU0M ( :>i:-0.)NVi:Nr%) 5HM.0 MAiUTH .iO. 1091 , };-15:;0NLN0 file J 16.>(i-TKAFF CONTI NUEU e -.A '.^kc tic '-t i .iv.m tan® o ■lo.itnof.c cj.'..: “.'not .1 va I :c >. z\\n ao .t.c . tl»e r atrtj t * unai, ^ ^ C ^ ‘t 0L ^ ^ lit? 1 - n ; n.: -:.)r..“. i sa io:»Lhov w:>-.:lJ retirtr.end atcroval O'.ot V. i;:.i a.»j area Variance*, i: all otner raquire.'r.on’..s stated that she -..a ild rooonmenn acoroval of a Lot v;;at:. ana aroA Variance a*>cause tna hards.nip runs with the .*••. rccni tO'.i th*a l«'t i' oiiLcacie, ana i•• *n . 1 •i. « . « is s?w-ar*2d. V w • i:jn:r i :i‘00 "‘ou: . Av-.'s- i.'■A • •*'•1 l*.?v , Nay .•^.*>** \ ^ t* 1 . •rJlLLONING FILE U627-SA.M MCCLOUD RECORD LOT #22, BIG ISLAND AFTER-TUE-FACT VAR 1ANCES-CONTINUATION OF FUULIC IIKARINC was r?ov*?d b'* Hrnso'i. scjcnu''c by 3oliOws, 11 . n - . V2 7 , as • 'S'*-• ■ • f'.t' a.':' ’..'art. r-.o table Vat ion , ^v.'s- - ..1 'S-v . 'HO) /.ON INC KILE ^ I b /:! -SARA a MARK K I :iNEY 4l9Ii HlGflWOOD ROAD VARIANCE-CONTINUATION OK PUHI.IC HEAR I NO ci 1 r a r I n n o y w\ty - •' s;r,. %ollov ro-conv*jnod the KuoLic -.•sari:’.' it ■• : .'6 a.. .. a r a »■ i out-’d 4. t Plannin *. Cor.ir.i.ss •• on ‘ s v:o. s r*o :arci . i a.'.5 arc 1. ic.it im«. •• *•t:i*s a'.■*• r 1 c*■’ . .1 kCl''-horc sotoa«.N. LiatiS .':i a.-'ico; .‘labustli li 1 ^ W •. : loon acL*s to • • • ^ • • « ••t:ic . • -• • -o 0''“cr 1 so.i ' I . •: '.»a ^ L.* .inn a ta 11 way . .’MC’.istn roclioj. “Wo wore utwiclo :o moot Sara on--'ito^ bur vii-.i h.ivo an or par*.-:n 11 y tj .;isou:;.a tiio structure '•tc.h hoi. * a co.:< ’.vhioh woi: .d ry.'oar r-• n t -'..-.•t the uiLvs lanarnc .^candarus. F lO struct.:ro is so:ora.\i:nateiy oicnt vo.-s o..i. Lt :;:ay bo a:roi oi'v la t*a lor th .• Plannin: .c.mmiss i on .o inoLuae in tho’i* roocm;" ind j t lo.: a it.’.tomont portainir.-j 4... -'2,^1 Swructa-*o b*.*iia t. ro^'nic'd as i :ion-co:i: ormi u; s tractui _ ^.ic Cit’-* c-inn s ; ; I f.i.ico*.? t.i.it tao lui . i oa;i c .• «»i - c»? -ii.vj t.o do.:k .It suo;: »:.vo tmt it c*.'tor ior.-> to«^. ‘'"Vroi'ui o •■ •' * structural top-iirs thic a •'n>cossarv will hive to bo .11 *Crove : l:y t.h*' (.•;*■• ”*- .• • '•a.Mj.un .% I r i!'Outi 1.1‘« *.i w i. nc: t- .iis n jn - con i t rni structure in i rr.ann.’i a i i:*v. -nt t.hjn t.;o way suv.h structure arc ;; j r.1. - V .1 a d 1 o s s t.’':, *. 11 o«i v '• • ^ * . a . i y u:;.:*'rstood the innoc* '.co o. tn.-* Kin::'. *:- i*’..: t:i*.' oun-'i • t-.*’ prc:''rty prior to the.r.. :•*.'L L y»r- .i •• <*.'.i •.*• ;.i t " ••.i.iros lO d, tv w 1 i •• H .• •% , » «• t ••.nre.*’.'; i *d v:y ocho:.. no.s u mko. to assure tn.'s property -“r : :ar.-: i::-: 1 •’k-’/.h ..r*: structure. ; • I* ' •• • ■• It t'.•• in.'Lud*: .anau.i ' ' i CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN ZONING FILE NO. 1627 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION F-i= 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 3/22/91 TO:Samuel A. McCloud COPIES TO: Carter DeLaittre 5101 Highway 55 % Lambert & Boeder Minneapolis, MN 55422 1000 Superior Blvd Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 3-18/20-91 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled pending receipt of a plan for modification of deck/stairway/wal 1 system in keeping with the provisions of the staff recommendation in the memo of 3/12/91. Planning Commission generally indicated agreement with the staff recommendation, and advised applicant to work with staff in formulating acceptable revisions to the structure. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional Information. Deadline for the April 15 meeting is April 5? or May 10 for the May 20 meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. -CITV CITYof ORONO Post Office Boi 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Office OF lORONO On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka April 9, 1991 James Bruce Homes 539 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Re; Big Island Recorded Lot 22, Orono MN Dear Mr. Bruce; 1.Specific Building Flans - Details and sections of roof structure — Beam? Collar ties? 2.Specifications - Engineering required on foundation. Review of your application will not continue until ^^e noted items are received. Failure to submit required items immediately may result in delays in issuance of permits. Please contact the Building s Zoning Department at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official cc;Sam McCloud 5101 Highway 55 Minneapolis, MN 55422 Carter DeLaittre % Lambert & Boeder 1000 Superior Blvd. vrayzata, MN 55391 LO/lsv BLILDING 4 ZONING - 47J-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTR\TI0N 4 RN-VNCE -473-735S FAX-47M510 PUBLIC WORKS - 4*5-735 F-2> /' t .*o 'I *• •• •> “ 0\w N/i ^'/ CITY of ORONO June 19r 1992 Munidpal Offices Post Office Box 66 Cr>sul Bay, Minoooto 5S323-0066 Samuel A. McCloud 5101 Highway 55 Minneapolis, MN 55440 RE: Legal Combination, Big Island Parcels Dear Mr. McCloud combine Lots 9, 10, and 11, Morse Island Park, with the portion of Government Lot 3 abutting the lakeshore. then forward it to the Hennepin County Tax Records Department and proceed with filing of the subdivision. Since your Certificate of Title already reflects it would appear there is no need to revise your deed or Mr. Bruntjen as a result of the subdivision. Rpaardina the deck revisions and the building addition, ha’s conttcted me and notes that he and David Anderson will be working toward submission of a plan which the Orono Planning Commission will find acceptable. Once the City Council agrees to such plan, the deck revisions can be completed. Because the subdivision approval expires August “' time is o£ the essence in returning the legal combination form. Pleas return it in the enclosed envelope. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 473- 7357. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron _ . . . ^ uAssistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Enclosures; Legal Combination Request Return Envelope MPG/lsv telephone -473-7357 • FAX-473-0510 1 i LIESCH ENGINEERING eORPOl^TION 13400 15th Avenue No.« Plymouth, MN 55441 • 612-559-1423* FAX No: 559-2202 December 30, 1992 [lEC 31 1*^-2 k i; Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay Orono, MN 55323 RE: Timber Retaining Wall Review for Samuel A. McCloud, Big Island, Lake Minnetonka, Orono, Minnesota Dear Mr. Gaffron: Liesch Engirjering Corporation was retained by Samuel A. McCloud to review the structural integrity of the timber retaining walls located on his Property on Big Island - Lake Minnetonka per the City of Orono’s request. Based upon review of the attached drawings, sheet 1 and 2 dated February 19, 1990 by Edgework Builders, it is Liesch Engineering Corporation’s opinion that the retaining walls design appears to be structurally sufficient for the intended function of resisting the present lateral earth pressure. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 559-1423. Sincerely, LIESCH ENGINEERING CORPORATION Galen A. Peterson Structural Engineer cc: Mr. Samuel A. McCloud Mr. David Anderson Attachments mawrltrl 22892c/GO '_33 12:26 B.A.LIESCH flSSOC. BRUCE A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC. XtNO ! »7Ti PAGS P.2-'3 ' 7 SUfljfCT gstVMtKI/^ V«/A// 1^400 lam A mtaa M • Mnnaaoolit MN 5S4t1 • 612469>i^ v/>yi coMPUTcofeidl^ONrclI^eHceKEoey (VCTE £ MO . ^566.T10m") P0|2 T>^ K^TAXfMtl- VVA4.C. WAiciA ^✓£Zvi5 T?\E cfec^. ^ all v VACC^p l\A.V£ T>V£ iAMff QvjikKr/ry }. QiM£>a^OM<> D cadman ^’V j| comTTkiuooS 4 •> -. AKcAo^^ AZs ctJi^n^'^cos y«.yio >ie£ cocateo seA»Mo tae fAltogS We^^je. ^ TfiefeSPb^E. T^a ^v appear 'TO 5e capable Q^VECOpM^ rCJLC pAi£*vE &Al27U P2£Ciro(ZE. ^ W/TAOO-r lCKia»-/,hirT T7:^5 of BAct:r>U MATL.^ AT50ME T3;£ nDCLCPW/KlCr PEt-AT»V£L.V C ok1< EevATiv'E y/At-je*»: sj I I 5 ‘WAci.' l%\ < S 'Si.' / > Z ^ ^ / , / 5o C P<<SiJr-t^S- 3CsO pi-? / ^ iH If; ''^ p^K rl .2/3.Of.0«E ^,TYP JfiN 15 >93 12!27 B.A.LIESOl fiSSOC.BRUCE A. LIESCHASSOCIATES, INC.on>v.&'.;s • r: tc iNi v:13400 15m Awnu» M • Mlnn«oooik. MN SS441 • 61^SSl^U^3 ^/Z40E_ tXS*-r, T.:91^^•. t ^ *.+53 AVJ) . . P.3-3JOS NO.Jj >UE_2ist«jficr -gSr^fKtitJ /V yjoAJj 7 g\/> \<AM xA^^loo T^ • />/7rkt<^ w<v»CHECKEDBY OKIE^ V t ‘/z K S/2 “PKAIiei? R£TA/M/n «V wa Ic ^oe. a r ?p + pr. r.S. -2 » -----Pl?oM 57OTC^ gcJO t U&JiiOM ^ • • Ui£ A fACTWZ oF safety 2 Pei2 6^0 ^>4^f?islfie2nsiCr .. . p/ZAcnce.. ^ 2. Ifj^C^. 1 , 5^q »t?£. Cac Tive Fo'^ca.) 2 P** ^ 2,2 ^*^5S ^ \\^s j 0 Pp = 5CsO ^ i.Z K 0.4rS& » A- -^?p •»-?. S. I od? I/-PI-oXuo-\\ (ff=AS5we 2esiit\M-r ‘ 'l ' To^cs) l.OS^ ^ . r- / ^ •' ~ “ 5'^.IP loyp-lpXwaU 5^0 0-?*w«\V ^ wAL.L?» .4?PsAt2 TO gfc c .A?AB c _£ \ Or <t/pfogr<>46r TU& c.vr^eAe &a (2TA p/issSues. .1 l.Tri.i!CL.3»t2.' 7 1=^/0)iCL TO:FROM:DATE:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City AdministratorMichael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator January 11, 1993 SUBJECT: #1627 Samuel A. McCloud - Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing List o£ Exhibits A - Plans submitted for structure revisions B - Letter and calculations from applicant's Engineer C - Planning Commission Minutes 3/18-20/91 D - Planning Commission Action Notice 3/22/91 E - Memo and Exhibits of 3/12/91 Sunmary o£ Request Please review the memo and exhibits of 3/12/91. A deck/retaining wall/stairway system was constructed at the lakeshore of this Big Island property some time between the 1987 super storm and the 1990 septic system inspection. Applicant subsequently made an after-the-fact variance application, requesting approval to keep the structure, which was before Planning Commission in March 1991. After discussion. Planning Commission tabled the variance request, directing applicant to provide a suitable plan for modifying the structure per the City Engineer's comments, i.e.: A. The majority of the deck should be removed. B. Portions of stairway and deck could remain to provide access. C. Retaining walls to be modified as necessary. Applicant completed the required subdivision/combination for this lakeshore strip in February 1992, and his agent, David Anderson of the Village Craftsmen, has submitted a proposal for modification of the structure. Discussion Applicant has submitted a letter from Galen A. Peterson of Liesch Engineering Corporation indicating that the design "appears to be structurally sufficient for the intended function of resisting the present lateral earth pressure". Clearly the applicant would prefer to not modify any of the walls. The City Engineer was not willing to confirm the ade<^acy of the design given that so many assumptions were (necessarily) made as to soil types, connection methods, etc. Staff would also note that Mr. Peterson did not sign his work as a registered engineer. Given the Zoning File #1627 January 11, 1993 Page 2 above, Planning Commission should consider Peterson's letter as merely an opinion that the wall is structurally sound, but certainly it's no guarantee that it is adequately designed and constructed. Similar to the recent Koehnen application in the Minnetonka Bluffs area, note that the building department normally requires an engineered design for any walls or wall system in excess of 4' in height. Aside from the issue of structural stability, the two issues of safety and visual aesthetics remain. From a safety standpoint, staff has requested that the stairway be generally enclosed with railings so that there is no direct walkway access to the terrace areas above the walls. Then, we would suggest that plantings be of a density along the upper edge of each wall to discourage foot traffic on the retaining wall system. The visual aesthetic issue is primarily a matter of screening. We have asked for a planting schedule showing type, height and placement of plantings to help screen the face of the walls (not received as of this writing). With wall heights ranging from 3 1/2' to 5', prior discussion has suggested that adding intermediate walls may allow for greater wall coverage by plantings, although it can certainly be argued that plantings can be chosen that will provide screening. The visual impact was not apparently as great a concern as the hardcover issue with the Planning Commission in March 1991 (see Minutes). Hardcover Please review the hardcover facts in Exhibit I of the 3/12/91 memo. 0-75' hardcover as built is 10.9%, but would reduce to 3.2% under the current proposal. This includes 40 s.f. (0.3%) which is part of the deck attached to the house, which encroaches about 4' into the 0-75' zone at one corner. Staff Recommendation Given that the City Engineer cannot confirm the adequacy of the existing wall system, if it is to remain and the City is to issue a building permit, the applicant must agree to not hold the City liable if the walls should fail. Under the assumption that a proposed planting schedule will be available for review at the Planning Commission meeting, you should determine whether the proposed plantings are aesthetically adequate so as to screen the wall system as it currently exists, or whether modifications should be required. ues rail 1 be 3uld aate ther Zoning File #1627 January 11, 1993 Page 3Planning Commission's optional courses of action include the following: 1. Approve wall system as is, with the removal of decks but retaining the stairways as proposed. 2. Require modification of the walls for aesthetic purposes to allow better screening. 3. Require removal of the walls and deck in their entirety, leaving merely the stairway, applicant to find some other method of bank stabilization besides retaining walls. 4. Other. Approval of the request as proposed (with no modification of the walls, decks to be removed, stairs to remain) should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Planting schedule shall be adhered to and completed within 12 months of completion of the retaining wall modifications. 2. Hardcover variance granted only for the retaining walls and the walkway/stairway system, as well as the 40 s.f. of deck near the house. (Option: require that deck near the house be modified to eliminate all portions encroaching in the 0-75' zone). 3. Recommend Council adoption of "automatic lot area variance" resolution (see 3/12/91 memo). 4. Applicant to obtain necessary after-the-fact building permit prior to modification of the retaining walls and stairway system. Further, applicant shall obtain the necessary after-the-fact building permits for the additions to the residence (which the Building & Zoning Department has determined meets all pertinent zoning standards). 5. Applicant shall agree to hold the City harmless from any liability if the retaining wall fails at some time in the future. Note that applicant did pay the after-the-fact fee for this variance request. •_J>r JI- ra:. a- I T he Villa Minnesota L EH INC.F~l Dear Mr. Gaffron.1 ^ Jan. 18,1993. Subject #1627 Samuel A. McCloud After having read Mr. Peterson's letter regarding the structural integrity of the retaining walls "as built", the letter that* I've recieved did not go as far as I had hoped it would in description of structural on the walls. At this time it is after business hours and I am unable to get a better clarification on this matter. However, Mr. McCloud has egreed verbally to sign any disclaimer regarding the retaining walls in "as built" condition. Regarding Planting schedule. Our proposed plantings will be; 1) At lowest level,(closest to lake). Evergreen trees,of a type that will grow to a height of at least 6 feet, and will become full,and "bushy" 2) on all subsequent levels, hedge type bushes, that will grow to a minium height of 4'-6" and will be full during the normal growing season.(to be of a hearty variety,so that they will continue to come back each season with little or no maintenance. 3) Top level: Flowering wild rose bushes. Will grow to a min imum height of 3" and have sufficient"stickers" to keep any one from getting close enough to the edge of the retaining wall to fall off of the retaining wall. I apologize for not having gotten to this any sooner,but the package regarding this matter arrived in our office while I was out on a long weekend. Sincerely David T. Anderson V.P. The Village Craftsmen Inc. 701 W. Highway 7, Excelsior, MN 55331 • Phone: (612) 474-0981 1 J The V illage craftsmen, Inc. Minnesota Liscense 0005766 il- Z Mr. Mike Gaffron Re: Mr. Sam McCloud Additional information on Plantings for Bottom Tier: Globe,or Juniper Arborvitae,Fir tree that grows to approximatly 6' in height and is very thick and bushy.lt will be ideally suited for blocking from view the first tier on the timberwall. Second Tier; Gold Flame,or Anthony Water Spirea. A very full bush that will grow to 3'or3'-6" in height. When in season, it will do a very good job of hiding the timberwall,and will also act as a barrier to prevent anyone from falling over the edge of the wall. Third Tier: Same as Second Tier. Fourth Tier: Japanese Red Barbary,or Emerald Mountain Honey suckle. Once again,a very full bush during the growing season but with the addition of very nasty "stickers" to prevent anyone from getting to close to the edge of the retaining wall. Grows to approximatly 3' in height. We feel that these selections will be more than adequate to screen the timberwalls from view,as well as provide enough of a "safety barrier" on top of the higher timberwalls to prevent anyone from getting injured. Sincerely David T. Anderson V.P. The Village Craftsmen Inc 701 W. Highway?, Excelsior, MN 55331 • Phone: (612) 474-0981 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JANUARY 19, 1993 ROLL The Orono PI arm 1 ng CommI ss I on o" 1 orl ' Chair .rc:tr§ha';7eV"slhroed^\' Candace ^ ?-prer,n.eT?h"; c”a^u\Vn."»el“"r alTd'* doLl’ten Hur „ere present, lhair Beflows oil led the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. fJM) 4M627 SAMUEL A. MCCLOUD, big ISLAND RECORD LOT 22 — VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 -- 7:25 P.M. David Anderson was present for the application. Mabusth reviewed the former aPPHcatlon for the?hat involved a lot line rearrangement nHarch^93^ the-fact varlanoe deal ng with time after the extensive stairways, deck attached to the existing residence and al I T^^he^^ Iakesho% has been reduced and Proposed .V® ' u i ch the applicant proposes to minimize retaining ® ”t w, th p^ The applicant proposes ^«Yar5«ve;'?rlhiT?^ i-e^ersus 10.B* existing. Anderson reviewed the types of plantings he proposes for the property. Cohen asked what comprises the 3.2* hardcover proposed. j !„.• to the 1987 storm, the property had Mabusth explained P/,'°''.T° „hlch comprised a stairway to theapproximately 1*0-75' hardcover wnj The 3.2* proposed lake necessary because of th h attached to the dwelling, hardcover Includes the 40 s.f. or ee allowing the retaining walls Chair Bellows expressed concern "pones" for the decking, and to remain, which pl%iE?|cLt from rebul Iding the deck questioned what Is to ff^Smg Inspector felt about theareas. She asked how the b H plantings versus the railing along K have been approved before In other Mabusth stated plantings as such have been app 1ocatIons. 1 minutes of the orono planning commission meeting HELD JANUARY 19. 1993 ZONING FILE «1627 - CONT. Rowlette felt they should be given the opportunity to review property prior to making a decision. ®°*’riled^*rthln^®theT-7t- zone.*and%%ee\^lYth Row?et\e that they be allowed to Inspect the property. Chair Bellows Indicated ^•^®P5at?on* by ^a^^*cens°d engineer. She ootnion. not a signed recommendat Ion by a i i c ^ ^ ^ potential for fe t if this were approved ghe felt the deck attached We decks to be rebuilt In ihat should be reducedto the residence Is enormous, and she felt xna to meet the 75’ setback. andsrson stated his client would not object to reducing the size of the attached deck. Chair Bellows ^^^gested tab! Ing^ ^ the^^appHcat g^gi^gg^lng to be applicant t.lme to complete *1-- Qf the retaining walls; 2) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 'to support decks to be removed. ,„,tall.d Johnson asked how "'^Js^ow'^iJch^wat' buYlV*to”Vupport the 5:ck7ng^'"He'';^PP0?t^%^^rMea of retaining the slopes that In from the storm. Anderson stated he couId not answer that guest Ion. It was moved by Cohen, ^sfaJl^Re^o^’d Lot t7al low thei;s27 for Samuel A. McCloua B, additional applicant time to revise ms p p reaulred documents. Ayes 5, nay w w th« applicant resubmit his proposal In Chair Bellows recommended the property, time for the Planning Commissio F ’ rTTY OP ORONO ZONING PILE 1627 p 0. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION Crvstal Bay, MN 55323 ACTION 473-7357 ^ DATE OP NOTICE: 1/27/93 McCloud COPIES TO: David T. Anderson ftSl ShwaySS The Village craftsman, me. Minneapolis, MN 55422 type OF APPLICATION: Variance _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DATB'or«EETiNGr’i/i9/9r'” VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Conunission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below notes and special CONDITIONS: Applicant to do the following; 1. Provide registered professional engineer certification for the retaining walls. 2. -Provide plans to modify walls such that terrace widths do not exceed 3'. 3. Portions of retaining walls serving merely to support deck must be removed. of additional information. Deaaiine June 1, 1993. If you . desire^ fr°om tSe" cti^Re^^d^ a?tel ?r;T^rrnS ™ap”p"otli '^rthTpmnnU Commission. Isv f •5I0NInc. September 27, 1994 CITY of ORONOMunicipal OfficesStreet Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address:P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 •nil ation :hs do ipport gceipt Lng is anning after Mr. Samuel McCloud 5101 Highway 55 #1' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 Re; 470 Big Island Dear Mr. McCloud: I am advised that you have applied for the homestead tax credit for your pro^rty on Big Istod. This is to advise you that per the municipal code sections attached, a conditional use permit is required for RS District occupancy exceeding 180 days in one year, or regardless of the duration of use where a homestead credit is claimed. I am enclosing the conditional use permit application form for your use. Additionally, I stUl have an open file on your Ulegal lakeshore deck. This application was tabled by the Planning Commission in January 1993 pending your revised proposal, which has never been submitted (see Planning Commission action notice dated 1121193). It is imperative that this matter be resolved as soon as possible. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have questions on any of the above. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. cc; Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Rolf Erickson. City Assessor Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 i I GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 August 15,1997 Samuel A. McCloud P.O. Box 216 Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: 470 Big Island Dear Mr. McCloud: I am receiving inquiries from parties interested in purchasing your property on Big Island. Please be aware that I still have an open file on your illegal lakeshore deck. I thought we were making progress on this in 1993 but the matter is yet unresolved. Please contact me at 473-7357 to discuss what steps are needed to put this to rest. •.* 4 • .*• •• ^Tfv F VA^l-S |S% 'pi ••4 r - ■5? ■"•''’Cl ’Y f^‘ * '111 ^ * ~ r ?Tiic^ i K . 11 • * i Iff'' 1,. -K Sfc'- - ^ < r ■- :'IT JAWi/lAfZ.'Y 0 ■ .•'' Ill ‘ ^i it I .. 1^2 -^rrirri * .<1; V r-;. . ‘ MsiilP- *^- i»-}!3.^'a-air»?f ■';:: f /llffM«9%' '-i - ^ // TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator (ROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:November 9,1999 SUBJECT:Request for Dock Access 220 Big Island Exhibits A B C U E Big Island Address/Ownership Map Enlarged East Area Map Enlarged West Area Map Resolution No. 2038 City Council Minutes (August 25, 1986) Approving Resolution No. 2038 Summary of Request David Lovelace is owner of the property located at 220 Big Island. The property is an inland tc)t without lake access. Mr. Lovelace has applied to the City of Orono for a dock permit per Municipal Code Section 10.31, Subdivision 5 (C). The City Council has preliminarily reviewed this item. Please refer the to the enclosed City Council Minutes from October 25,1999. On April 12,1999 the City Council granted a lot area variance for the property located at 220 Big Island to permit David Lovelace to construct a seasonal dwelling on the property. As of the date of this memo the City of Orono has not received a building permit. The property is 4.3 acres in size and is land locked. The access to the lot is via any of the undeveloped public roads. A major issue for the property owner is dock access. This property is one of several lots on the Island that potentially will request dock rights. Municipal Code Section 10.31, Subdivision 5 (C) allows installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way when such dock has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the Council. Not more than one seasonal dock will be approved for access to any one property. In review and approval or denial of such permit, the Council shall consider the width and topography of the right-of-way, the number of property owners requesting dockage at that location, the plan of the proposed dock, and conformance with City and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dock regulations. The Council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit. Permits are not required for any person to walk on or over any platted public right-of-way or any platted public park when •.luch use is made without altering the natural state of the land. No permit shall be required for any person whose property abuts a platted public right-of-way or a platted U2549 David Lovelace 220 Big Island 11/15/99 Page I I j public park to control weeds or brush, seed, sod, mow or otherwise maintain said right-of-way or park in a neat and presentable manner. The Code states permits issued are valid for one year, shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the Council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the City to the permittee at least thirty days prior to the anniversary date. Any formal requests for permits on Big Island require the public hearing with the Planning Commission. Notices are handled similar to notices for conditional use permits and require a 350' mailed notice to adjacent property owners. The following is a list of PIDs of all land locked tax parcels on Big Island: 130 Big Island 23-117-23 22 0002* 220 Big Island 23-117-23 23 0028 (Has been approved recently for a lot area variance) 230 Big Island 23-117-23 23 0033* (Dock Permit issued in 1986) 240 Big Island 23-117-23 23 0003 23-117-23 23 0004 250 Big Island 23-117-23 32 0020 310 Big Island 23-117-23 32 0046 23-117-23 32 0047 23-117-23 32 0048 23-117-23 32 0049 480 Big Island 2 ‘ ' -3 32 ..o62 490 Big Island 23-ii '‘4'i 2 0018 500 Big Island 23-117-23 32 0019 580 Big Island 23-117-23 31 0031* 590 Big Island 23-117-23 3 1 0020 (Has a dock through right-of-way) * Developed property Not all the lots listed above are buildable lots. Only a few actuall> are developed with a dwelling on the property. The issue is whether dock access can be provided for the additional lots on Big Island. Overnight camping and day use is permitted on all lots on Big Island. A total of 15 lots have been identified as separate parcels that can be sold by the property owners at any time. Many of the existing lots without lake access are commonly owned, several by property owners with direct lake access. Is.sues for Discussion 1. Should the dock rights be for property owners without any other access? U2549 David Lovelace 220 Big Island 11/15/99 Puge2 2. 3. 4. Many of the lots are commonly owned but have not been combined into a larger tax parcel. Potentially the individual lots could be sold to several owners that may request access in the future. The permit approved by the City Council (Resolution No. 2038) permitted a dock in favor of property located at 230 Big Island. A condition of approval was any other requests for docking at the Bay Place site would cause the permit to be immediacy revoked. The City Council has reviewed this item with Mr. Lovelace and has provided direction for the applicant and staff. Please refer to the enclosed City Council Minutes from October 25, 1999. 5. The following are uses permitted on Big Island. (Section 10.31 , Subdivision 2) A. Seasonal Dwellings. One family detached dwellings used for seasonal recreational use not to exceed 180 days in any one year, and not to be the owner's "principal residence" for homestead tax credit purposes. B. One family^ seasonal recreational use of land without structures, or with accessory structures only, such as tent camping or day-use only. Accessory structures permitted on land without a principal structure shall be limited to one or more of the following: a) Docks conforming to City and LMCD Code requirements b) One storage building not to exceed 120 square feet in area c) Firerings or barbeque pits d) Open deck or screen house not to exceed 300 U2549 David Lovelace 220 Btg Island 11/15/99 Page} 620 • WEBSTER HILL- 610 - KENNETH K PLUNKBl 600 - GEORGE ADAMS___ 570 • SBLDON ROBB 560 - IX)N HENDl-RSON SSO-RP.FAUSJR, S40-ROD1NAFC1LBANE 530 - BIO ISIJVND, INC. 730-V. WILLIAM MELIN 520 • BIG ISLAND. INC. \ \ I ;v WM] K> lo H o K- # f 750 - JEAN A. OBGGENI ls> ^ I-* VO 00 ^ ^ 5 r i? " C J5 ^ 9III V o « rO OV O 3^ 51 §5 ^ LO pOr*i D 5?o Cj !r> (0 O ^ O H m P C •V XM o X » U) > 2 ^ 3 n Hf O m a 33 - p 5? p m CD §5 t </> rw(/)5 ? a CO rm (/) 3: § Ssig l“" iiy r- P 00 r> V o X3! O 3! XM 3J VJw 2 no G 3 t 0r 0 nr o ■o c* <05a s CO S (A r > o BUN -jean A. deccendorf u3 RECREATION POINT c CHAEL WEINER ERYL RAMSTAD HVASS BERT BRUDER WILLIAM BRYSON ITY F. PRINCE HES A. R JOHNSON INTON KNUDSON •TREY PERSON ECHO BAY cs ^ o f-l'mmt, City of OROIVO o RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2038 A RESOLUTION PERMITTING A PRIVATE DOCK ON PLATTED UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY BAY PLACE, BIG ISLAND WHEREAS, the City of Orono has received a request for a private dock on platted unimproved right-of-way known as Bay Place on Big Island tc serve as access to inland property; and WHEREAS, as per Section 10.31, Subdivision 3 of the Orono City Code allows for the installation of a private dock on unimproved platted right-of-way on Big Island to serve as access for inland properties. MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a private dock is permitted on platted unimproved right-of-way known as Bay Place on Big Island tc serve inland property to Lots 19 & 20, P.I.D. No. 23-117-23 23 0033, with the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. The installation of the dock length not to exceed 100 feet Setback from extended lot lines: 0-50 feet in length 10* 51-100 feet in length 15* Dock sections not to exceed 6* in width One boat per dock for residential use only (LMCD regulations) The permittee agrees to maintain the area in a neat anc presentable manner at all times and agrees to hold the City harmless for ever from any and all claims resulting from actions as a result of the issuance of this permit, ur>e of the right-of-way, or use of the dock while this permit is in force. Should there be any other requests from inland property owners tc use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties, this permit is automatically revoked. This permit may be revoked by the City at any time for any reason in the future upon review and revocation by the Orono Council. The property owners agree to remove all structures within 30 dayj of permit revocation or termination and if no removal, agree to ai assessment of the cost against Lots 19 and 20 of Big Island. The City of Orono further reserves th. right to review thij permit for any reason as deemed appropriate. Adopted by the City Council of the City of '7/rono on the 25th da^ of August, 1986. ^Difjuithy M.^^HairirT, City Clerk Tim Adams, Acting Mayor MimTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 25, 1986 11061 COOK lONTINUED Larry Cook was present and submitted the letter of approval from the Butterfield's. Acting Mayor Adams stated that he was comfortable with ^the Planning Commission recommendation subject to •plicant being put on notice that he is only allowed a mdvimum of three horses on the property. Coui^lImember Frahm asked applicant if he proposed a ridings ring. He also noted that a conditional use permit required for any training done. Mr. Cook ^^ted that he planned to have a riding ring which wou^i^ be located approximately 50' from the property lin Councilmember feahm questioned whether the original proposal of 10' rtom the semi-commercial use property would be more app^priate in order to maintain more distance from the strictly residential area. Mr. Cook noted that theS^ is also a natural screening of mature trees between hi^property and the Butterfield property. It was moved by CounciImembe^vGrabek, seconded by Acting Mayor Adams, to adopt Reso^^ion #2037 approving a variance to construct a barn 5^L from the property line (per Planning Commission's recomm^dation) subject to a 3 horse limit. Motion, Ayes 4, N2^ 0. MAYOR'S REPORT: There was no report from the Mayor CABLE TV REPORT: Acting Mayor Adams stated the at the ]\^t Cable TV meeting the budget was approved noting th^^hilosophy in which Cable TV budgets their monies. He l^so noted that approximately 1/3 of the households in Orono are being hooked up to Cable TV. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: DOCK PERMIT ON PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY - BIG ISLAND RESOLUTION #2038 City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for a dock permit on a parcel of land (an interior lot) that has had a dock on the City right-of-way for the past many years which is currently undergoing a change of ownership. Since the City does require a permit to allow them to have a dock on City right-of-way, staff msam MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 25, 1986 «DOCK PERMIT CONTINUED recommends that this be permitted subject to the owner being liable to any use related, that the dock be maintained appropriately, and effective until such time as there are other requests from other inland properties requesting a dock at the same location. It was moved by Acting Mayor Adams, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2038 approving a dock permit on a platted unimproved right- of-way known as Bay Place on Big Island to serve Lots 19 and 20, P.I.D No. 23-117-23 23 0033, until such time as there are other requests from other inland properties requesting the installation of a dock at this location. Motion, Ayes 4, Mays 0. BIG ISLAND BOARD OP GOVERNORS City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the ^ Island Board of Governors made a letter request in exly August to be put on the agenda, in which staff responded by letter requesting that they contact staff eJifead of time to no avail. Present for this matter were: Donald A. Mi^J^er, Stuart H. Gorney, Alan Wiedorf, Joe Backus, and J^nce Bartlett. Don Miller explained that the Chairn^ of the Board of Trustees, Leonard Carlton, haa^^een out of town therefore was unable to respond to staff's letter. As former Chairman of the Boar^^nd friend, Mr. Miller was asked to speak on behalf o^^hairman Carlton and the Board of Governors. Mr. Miller reviewed the^^rocess that was undertaken in order for the vets t^^etain possession of the Vets camp. He explained t^ areas of concern while trying to rebuild the camp n^ing that most of these problems existed for years prior to possession of the property, than a year ago, by the Board of Governors. 1) City/nas issued 3 citations for the storage of fish b^ses on the island, noting that the fish hous)ire have been stored on the island previous years anii^his is the first year the Board of Governors _ had any control. He stated that the issue is now tied up in the court system between the city and the owner of fish houses and the Board of Governors is caught in the middle of the issue. 8 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25,1999 Jabbour amended his motion to include denial of the comprehensive plan amendment thtfuide the land use designation from two acre density to one acre density. Petauon seconded the motion. Mayor Jabteur inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application. There were nllDublic comments. VOTE ON MOTK^; Ayes 5, Nays 0. -(#6) #2531 ROGER ANb^LIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - RENEWAL VARIANCES ^^OLUTION NO. 4367 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, t^^mrove and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4367, a Resolution Granting Renewal of VarlMces to Allow Remodeling and Expansion of the Existing Residence Located at 815 P^cnwood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#7) #2538 ROB AND TORI JAFFRAY, 540 RESOLUTION NO. 4368 lETT AVENUE - VARIANCE - Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RES^DLUTION NO. 4368 a Resolution Granting Variances to Permit Construction of iV^ers on the Second Story of an Existing Residence Located at 540 Barrett Avenue?N^TE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. “(#8) #2541 PAUL PHILLIPS, 2140 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, FINaI^LAT OF PHILLIPS WOODLAND TERRACE THIRD ADDITION - RESOLUTION NO. 4369 Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 436! A Resolution Approving the Plat of Phillips Woodland Terrace Third Addition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) REQUEST FOR DOCK .ACCESS - D.AVID LOVELACE, 220 BIG ISLAND David Lovelace, Applicant, was present. W'einberger stated the Applicant is requesting dock access to his property located at 220 Big Island. Back in April, 1999, the City Council granted a lot area variance for this property to permit the construction of a seasonal dw elling on the property’. As of today's date, the City has not received a request for a building permit from the Applicant. The property is 4.3 acres in size and is landlocked. This property is one of several lots on Big Island that potentially will request dock rights. Weinberger stated that according to Municipal Code, installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way, 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 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25,1999 (U9 Request for Dock Access, Continued) wll be approved for access to any one property. City Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on development of a dock policy relating to inland lots on Big Island without lake access. The Code states that these issued permits are to be valid for one year and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the City Council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversaiy of the date except upon written notice from the City to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. Weinberger statid that any formal requests for permits on Big Island do require a public hearing with the Planning Commission or the City Council and notice to all adjacent property owners within 350 feet. Weinberger remarked that the issues for the City Council to discuss tonight include whether dock rights should be for other propert>’ owners without any other access. Some of the parcels on Big Island are held in common ownership but are not combined for tax purposes mto one tax parcel. Potentially the individual lots could be sold to several owners that may request access in the future. The permit approved by the City Council per Resolution No. 2038 permitted a dock in favor of property located at 230 Big Island. A condition of approval was any other requests for docking at the Bay Place site would cause the permit to be revoked inunediately. Lovelace stated he understands the concerns of the City Council, noting that there is currently a dock access that has been granted by the City. Mayor Jabbour commented that that dock access would need to be rev oked if a new dock access is granted. Lovelace stated that he would not object to sharing this boat access with the adjoining property owners. Mayor Jabbour stated that according to LMCD code, the Hock must be located 25 feet from the property line. Sansevere inquired how many boats could be accommodated on that 90 foot parcel. Mayor Jabbour stated that a minimum of six boats, which should take care of the landlocked parcels. Jabbour stated the general public has access to the lake through Cit>-owned docks and that the City Council should recognize the present laws governing docks. Lovelace stated he was aware at the time he purchased this property that the land was landlocked and that the City has an ordinance allowing the landowner to request dock access. Lovelace stated he is requesting a permit to allow the dock access, and that an option would be to share dock access with the adjoining neighbors. Page 8 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 25,1999 (^9 Request for Dock Access, Continued) Gaffron stated an issue to be reviewed is whether the roadways constructed on Big Island were intended for general public access or whether they were constructed to provide access to the properties. Gafiron stated a number of complaints have been received regarding security due to the general public utilizing those roads. Kelley commented he would be in favor of a dock at this location, with the Applicant being required to have the license renewed yearly. Lovelace acknowledged that maintenance of the dock would be his responsibility and that he would retain the appropriate liability insurance coverage. Sansevere inquired how maintenance of the dock would be handled if there were multiple owners. Mayor Jabbour stated that a homeowners association would need to be created to oversee the dock. Jabbour suggested that a dock be provided, with a public hearing being held to enable the local citizens to comment on this issue. Lovelace stated that some of the residents of Big Island do currently share docks. Lovelace acknowledged that he is not legally permitted to leave his boat at a public dock for an extended period of time. Kelley suggested that the length of the dock be linu.ed. Mavor Jabbour stated that the dock should not exceed 24 feet. Moorse indicated that City Staff will prepare a resolution outlining the items discussed for review and approval by the Citv* Council. OR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Jabb'9ft^|n^cated that a number of meetings regarding consolidation of Long Lake and Orono have beei^tekj^vith issues dealing with land use currently being discussed. Jabbour stated that a member of the coftsqWation committee pointed out that the City Council does not have the authority to deny an applica^ntif it is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances. Jabbour invited the general public to attend solidation meetings Flint inquired what progress has been made on the DakolN^i^to Trail project. Mayor Jabbour stated that the October 14th deadline has been extendtet^O days. Jabbour stated it was his understanding the railroad will cease to operate at that Page 9 To:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner November 9,1999 Re:#2548 Mike Hilbelink/John Vogt 3850 Watertown Road Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: Comprehensive Plan: Site Area: Proposal: Exhibits: A B C D E F G Application Location Map Plat Map Site Topography Option A Opt! )n B Permit Record Mike HtlbelinkJohn Vogt 3350 lyatertown Road Subdivision 11/15/99 page-l RR-1 A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 Acre minimum lot size Rural Service/Rural Residential (5 acre) Approximately 21 Acres Subdivide 21 acre parcel into a 3 lot rural residential development. The applicants have proposed nvo alternatives A and B. The proposal would require: 1. 2. 3. 4. Approval of a private driveway for a property to serve a three lot development where a road would typically be required for a three lot subdivision. Variances to approve a subdivision resulting in a bam to be located within a required side yard adjacent to street setback. Septic sites to be reviewed and approved by staff. No testing has been completed. Approval of a subdivision with an outlot dedicated to a riding ring in favor of proposed Lot 2. (Shown on Plan A as Outlot A)._________________________________________ I ■ ................................................. / Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.27 One Family Rural Residential Zoning District 2. Section 11 Subdivision Requirements Conformity to Zoning District Standards and Comprehensive Plan The property is in the five acre minimum lot size zoning district. Lot requirements are as follows: Setbacks Lot Area: Lot Width: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard Adjacent to Street: Rear Yard: 5 acres "^00 feet . ''0 feet 50 feet 100 feet 100 feet Lot I Lot 1 as proposed on the Sketch Plan (Options A and B) would be defined by the City Code as a back lot. Back lots are defined as lots not having direct access to a public or private road. Lot 1 would be required to meet 150% of lot requirements for lot area, front yard setback, side yard setback and rear yard setback. Lot 2 Lot 2 would contain the existing structures on the property. The property has a primary residence, barn and swimming pool. The bam is located entirely within the 100' side yard adjacent to street setback as proposed for an outlot. The applicants shall provide a detailed survey with dimensions to determine if the bam is an oversized accessory building. Bams are also required to meet a minimum 75 setback to the lot line. According to the survey the bam also encroaches into the 75' required setback. The property does not meet the required 300' lot width at the front yard setback. If the setback were defined to allow the east property line to be considered as a front lot line the house is within 100' of the property line, requiring a variance. .A variance was approved in 1995 for a swimming pool to be located closer to the street than the principal residence. The pool was constmcted the same year. The Council made a finding that the proposed pool will be located appro.ximately 500' from Watertown Road. The pool would not be visible from Watertown Road and adjacent properties. Subdividing the properties would create a ^2343 Sfiki HilMink/John Vogt 3330 iVa/ertoun Road Subdivision n/1 3/99 pagt-2 I lot between Watertown Road and the pool. Lot 3 has required frontage along Watertown Road. Staff has concerns about direct access to Watertown. If a private road is constructed within Outlot A. The lot would become a comer lot and the lot width would be measured along the private road. If the private road is constructed the lot would not meet the minimum lot width required for the zoning district. Private Driveway Standards and Road Standards for Subdivisions Watertown Road has been defined as a collector street. A collector street functions to collect traffic from local streets and move it to neighborhood activity centers or to intersections with arterial streets. Local land use access is permitted but is regulated as to location and number with direct access to be avoided whenever alternative local street access is available. The Director of Public Services has reviewed the lot layout and has recommended Lot 3 not be granted direct access to Watertown Road. The property is located on a curve creating a public safety concern. The Comprehensive Plan discourages any direct access to collector streets when local streets are available. Since the property is being subdivided it would be appropriate to require Lot 3 to have access to a private road shared with Lots 1 and 2. Private roads serving three lots are required to plat a right-of-way 50’ wide and construct a private road with a minimum paved width of 24'. A cul-de-sac platted 100' in width with an 80' developed turn around is required. The applicants shall be advised one tree shall be planted for every 40 feet of front.ige along the road unless a waiver is granted by the Council. The applicant shall communicate with the property owner to the southeast about the road as the adjacent property may be subdivided in the future and access to potential lots could be via the road built within this subdivision. Park/Trail Easements The Pari. CcMunission will review this proposal if it goes forward as a preliminary plat. Staff would recommend a park dedication fee be collected for two new residential sites. The park dedication fee is calculated as 8% of the land value to have a ma.\imum fee of $4,900 per new lot. Septic Reqivirements In the rural sections of Orono sewer service is not available. Each lot is required to demonstrate two suitable septic sites. Soil tests and septic design is required with application for preliminary plat. H254S \fike Htlbe I irk/John fog/ 5850 lyaterfomt Road Subdivtstjn 11/15/99 pagt-J Issues for Discussion 1.The Code would require a private road built to City standards be developed to serve three lots. 2. The bam, if developed with an access outlot or a private road would require a variance to remain on the property. It is within the required front yard setback, and within the required 75' setback for all bams. 3.Outlot A is an outdoor riding area for horses that the applicants indicate would remain in ownership of the property owner of Lot 2. The City would request the properties be combined should the request be approved. Staff Recommendation The property could support three building sites under the existing zoning, but the request would require a number a variances. Staff has concerns about a shared driveway 700’ in length and serving more than 2 residences. Watertown Road is r collector street. The Comprehensive Plan discourses any direct access to collector streets when local streets are available. Since the property is being subdivided it would be appropriate to require Lot 3 to have access to a private road shared with Lots 1 and 2. 42S-tS Mtke mbtUnkfJohn Vogt 3850 Waterto\bn Road Subdivision 11/1 y 99 page --4 % j Application ft Date ReceiTed //“ Amount Paid ^^el5f),CO A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . , , Jp Site address ^ ^/)0^^ Property Identification Number (PID) //f* g^. C^OQ. Please check one - Propert>* >Cabstract or ____torrens? Attach legal description to application. Name /—//LSeU^K. / ---l/o6/ ---- Address B5~ <3cLOe,K) Ui^^ju ' OL. Phone (home) ~~ /<x- 7 City Oveo'VtO /99 a/___________Zip 5^g>Phone (work) V 7<^ -S± ^ ^ 0^^'NER (if different than applicant)^ / Name PtEUE 4- CJ/><.'OY S rzxj^rJ /Qn __ n/Zc'>io Address City /T)aJ Zip Phone (home) ■‘^^7^’'3^ _ Phone (work)^^^Z_^^’ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / Present use (check) Present Zoning District R KJ2-7^ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for Ne\^Building Sites Number of Building Sites A A Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) /Units per o Acres S~ AC-Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land >C Residential _____Other (specify)_________ ^^2.: *. •>. ••• D Ml --------C v^///!////I - '-^ '! i=f:'---.y,'Jj{'^:^^)\ )))\\\\\\ , il II li! I . / \ y / ! / I/h//,' ’y/P^^ * { / //': // Il! ( \' \ ,-V "■' •' : • (. I' ' ■•■' vs 'X «• •* '' :■:-v''X-j \ x< •;\ >(A.' a A. \0A' ■ \ V- •/ i\" y \ ' >-V^—'tv Mi :^v'\\ X *0«, • l\ \ \ • f«f 9 " ' 'K'^ ^ 'Av * \ /^\\^ Af:A^ta \ ' ■'\ ■ ''c '-\’V » i '• » , ' l ' ( •\\ R#\ \ V «!• t *1 !i \\ n VA*'; ;ei5 Iff A' ou t <\ out o e I • L‘ J r ,\' «w V \W\\\A N V N \'V \ a'ii'V ^ I f //.Yj / / / i V / » 11 / t-Ji »• A • V * |«« •! 1 —, :\ 'X \ Ar~ KM 1 N i.\\ i 'tl- \ SlV^ij\\ V(0[^ ^ «A A >v'><\^--TA:rrri-rs3 ' I \ \' \ » \\A » \ \ I ' I ‘ I• I • I N m 'AN '■ r'v m'\\ \ \': '• /.• ■■ '/ I i n III.* I • / ^ »f _____V \ 9 « * ••• • ^ • « - r • • t • •* •• • • ••••••4 ♦ • • •• *•• ••••« >*• •• •• ^ • 4 • • ••••«•» I • •• «•••• • •• • 4* ••••••#»• •« 4 4* ^ 4 44 44« • • « «•- •« t< # •• • 4# m—m$ I i • 4 ' 4 44 • 4 4* • I •• ••44 » 4 44 • 4 444 I M*** • 4* 4# «»«4fl44 ••• •• 41 #«• . • • • • *#•• 1 • « • » «4 • • 4444W »»• •tf#^***##* *44«« • 44 • 4 44 4- I4* 4 4« 4 •» .t • 40 *« •• fmitm I •« # •••••• • ••• ««-«i «• •• • « • » r «A*«« *• • i • • « • »•• • • •• • • «••«««§ ••• »• •» •»«* • •• • • •••« •/«//4/c (A/or ■■ ■ ■ '0« • •••«••• o*«n N IV % »Ma*xa» ••••• • •• •7 4 6, SO A/8y^os'zo'*u/ A/89* Of *2o'*l / iS2.l3 9 s K 7. s t /c. 2? »»• •• • • mmfma <• « •••. • •• # • ‘t*# M «• •••*•»#»•••« L«• •• • • •#«»#• < ,•.••• • • •• • • • #•* • •••«« » •• '/ 7 // ’/ f J ' . . .V J f.ri .y •■ ^.■4 .-.7i. /rX .. •f *•?•\ -r • w •••« • '• • • ••«« # • I • «» « # t« I •• • • • •• •• » ««»»•• •• *• bTULET riLli iC^-r.PERMIT RECORD MCS iJ % ♦ ^ (t tn 4 N -f^-4I-;• / PERMIT NO.- / y/5 DATEn-QSl TYPE 0? PERMITS(Lfu^ /(oO"7 /-ST.-'v't P^.jUuCUjO ^ nos Sl-S><^- •i‘1 nih J'c3 "'i 9 TvtISiL /7<3<7 .^nP9 (U'/9jJU , nss .P^s^__y-;-V7 S ,»Ji . 1%Q~6-^'^ 9-/jT/i' • #?",o. ^;rs'-s'1^'Tvn • • • •• « • • . %.-.- >v-/.. •//*;•.• • /? ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Chair Elizabeth riawn, Commissioners William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg. Sandra Smith. Jay Nygard, and Daniel Kluth. The following represented City Staff; Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Charles Kelley was present. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6;30 p m. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2525 LARRY JACOBSON AND VICKIE O'NEILL. 635 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - VARIANCE. 6:31 p.m. > 6:44 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Larry Jacobson, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to construe: a detached garage on the north side of his home. The detached garage will be 569 square leet and located eight feet from the property line. The property is unusual in that it currently has two curb cuts that connect an U-shaped driveway. Variances to side yard setback are required for the garage to l*e located eight feet from the side yard where ten feet is required and to permit a crowding principal building variance to allow a detached garage to be located eight feet where ten feet is required from the principal building. Jacobson stated he has attempted to design the location of the garage in a site which would require the minimum amount of variances, but due to their odd-shaped lot, a variance is needed to the side yard setback. Jacobson commented he does have a signed statement from the neighbor indicating that they are not opposed to the project. Hawn requested that the statement be included in the record. Jr ,.*bson indicated that in his opinion this is the best location for the garage, noting that the west :•» Je has a drainage easement and would require the removal of a number of trees. Jacobson stated they are requesting the detached garage for storage reasons. Hawn read into the record a letter from Dick and Joan Strand, 645 f erndale Road North, indicating that they are not opposed to the project but do have a question regarding the difference between a detached garage versus an attached garage. The Strands would prefer an attached garage. Jacobson stated that an attached garage would require a larger variance. Page 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2525 Larry Jacobson, Continued) Lindquist inquired how far the detached garage would be from the residence Jacobson stated that the garage would be located eight feet from the residence. Smith inquired whether the garage could be downsized somewhat to reduce the need for a variance. Stoddard advised the Applicant to check with City Staff to determine whether a fire wall is needed due to the closeness of the garage to the residence. Stoddard stated he would like to see the garage conform to the side lot setback if possible. Hawn stated in order for an variance to be granted, a hardship has to be demonstrated, which has not been shown in her opinion. Hawn commented personally she would not be opposed to attaching the garage to eliminate the need for a variance to the side yard setback. Kluth commented that normally a hardship is due to the topography of the land. Jacobson stated they would prefer an attached garage but it would require a greater variance. Jacobson submitted a drawing depicting an attached garage. Lindquist commented he would be in agreement with an attached garage, but that an updated survey is needed. Hawn stated that the Planning Commission has to vote on the plan that is before them tonight, but that an option would be for this application to be tabled in order to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan showing an attached garage. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that an attached garage would be preferred. Hawn commented that a plan for an attached garage would still need to be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission before it can be approved. Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would like his applicatio. tabled tonight. Jacobson indicated that would be fine. There were no public comments. Motion by Lindquist, second by Kluth, to table Application #2525, 635 Ferndale Road North, to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan for an attached garage. VOTE: Ayes: 7, Nays 0. (#2) #2527 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT - PAINTER'S CREEK BETWEEN SOUTH KATRINA MARSH AND COUNTY ROAD 6 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 6:45 p.m. 7:02 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Rodney Cole, Wenck Associates, Consulting Engineer, and Eric Evenson, Executive Director, Page 2 **1 r rt .............4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2527 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Continued) were present. Weinberger stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to permit excavation, dredging and disposal of materials and restoration of a 1,250 foot section of Painter's Creek In Orono. The section of Painter's Creex between South Katrina Marsh and County Road 6 has become obstructed by sediment deposits and failed trees. Complaints have been received from neighboring property owners due to the sediment and log jams causing some minor flooding. Weinberger stated the MCWD would be required to obtain temporary work easements for access to the creek and complete the work. The proposed project would affect approximately a half dozen properties in Orono. Weinberger commented that the excavated material cannot be placed on private property without the proper permits being issued by the City of Orono. The Applicant has indicated that the excavated material will be taken offsite at this time. If any of the proposed dredged material were to be placed on private property, land alteration permits would be required, and over 500 cubic yards of fill on any property would require an additional conditional use permit. Weinberger stated that Creekwood Trail is in this area, which is a owned, controlled and maintained by the Painter’s Woods Homeowners Association. The MCWD is not currently proposing to utilize this road to haul materials in and out. However, the City does have underlying road access and utility easements, the City has not exercised its right to take the road as a public road. The Applicant will need to gain approval from the Homeowner's Association in order to use Creekwood Trail should it be necessary as a haul route. Due to road restrictions that begin in the spring, the City of Orono will have the authority to stop hauling on the project until restrictions are lifted if the project is not completed. City Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit to the MCWD for excavation and dredging within the floodplain subject to the following conditions. Number one, the MCWD obtains easements from all property owners to permit work to be completed on the property. Number two, all excavated material is properly disposed, any que.stions regarding the disposal of material the MCWD shall contact staff. Number three, the City Engineer reviews and approves the plans prior to City Council approval, and number four, prior to commencing construction, the MCWD shall provide to the City of Orono a haul route map. Hawn inquired what roads the MCWD will be utilizing in the hauling of the excavated material. Cole stated that they will be meeting with the affected property owners to discuss this project further, but that at the present time they are intending to utilize the east side of County Road 6, which will be somewhat less disruptive. The east side of County Road 6 is more open and flatter, with fewer trees. Cole indicated that a haul road will be constructed to enable the MCWD to excavate the creek. Cole commented that a meeting was held last Monday night for the local neighbors. Cole noted that no one appeared at the meeting to express any concerns about this project, but that he did receive a phone call from one gentleman who was concerned about the removal of trees and the impact that would have on his property which is currently for sale. It was recommended to the property owner that he contact City Staff with any questions or concerns he may have. Weinberger indicated that he did receive a phone call from the gentleman. Cole stated that the gentleman was informed that this project would require the removal of trees Page 3 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2527 Minnehaha Creek Watershed Pistrict, Continued) and the extend of the work to be completed. Smith inquired how often this type of work would need to be performed on the creek. Cole stated that this type of work needs to be completed periodically depending on the amount of storms in the area. Cole stated that they are also looking at a site in Minnetrista as well. Lindquist inquired what the MCWD would do in the event a private property owner would not grant an easement over their property. Cole stated that they would look at condemning the land, but in all likelihood the project probably would not get done if easements are not obtained, which would create a bigger problem in the future In terms of flooding upstream. Cole commented that eventually the project will need to be done to prevent further flooding. Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments concerning this application. Clark Salinde, 1580 Homestead Trail, Medina, inquired whether the MCWD had any work scheduled for the entire Painter's Creek. Cole indicated to his knowledge there is not at this time. Salinde requested that the restoration work be completed according to the proper procedures of the MCWD. There were no further public comments. Motion by Stoddard, second by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application #2527, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, granting of a conditional use permit to permit excavation, dredging and disposai of materials and restoration of a 1,250 foot section of Painter's Creek between South Katrina Marsh and County Road 6 in Orono, subject to the four conditions outlined in the October 18,1999 Planner's Report, subject to disposal of all materials offsite, with the MCWD obtaining the necessary approvals for said disposal, and further subject to restoration of the area being completed according to the best practices of the MCWD as previously completed. Cole commented that he does not have a problem with the imposed conditions. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2535 JAMES D. RENDER, 1315,1335 AND 1355 TONKAWA ROAD AND 3430 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CLASS III SUBDIVISION, 7:02 p.m. - 7:38 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. James Render, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing a three lot Class III Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Page 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2535 James D. Render, Continued) application. The subdivision would involve four existing conforming lots being reduced to three lots consisting of slightly less than one acre per lot. On June 8,1998, the City Council approved the Plat of Tonkawa Shores, which created three approximately .5 acre parcels to be served by a private outlet, shown on the plat as Outlet A. The Applicant currently owns Lots 1, 2, and 3 within the Plat of Tonkawa Shores. The proposed subdivision includes an existinn lot located at 3430 North Shore Drive, with the current property lines being relocated to create three larger parcels. Weinberger stated this area is zoned LR-1C, which has a 0.5 acre minimum lot size. All of the proposed lots would exceed the minimum lot size for properties in the district. Outlot A would serve as access to the property. Lot 1 would include an existing lot located at 3430 North Shore Drive and the west half of Lot 1 , Tonkawa Shores Addition. Lot 2 would include most of existing Lot 2 and the east half of existing Lot 1. Lot 3 is currently being developed with a single family home. This lot would increase slightly in size and has an existing drainage easement for stormwater treatment. All three lots are served with municipal sewer and have been fully assessed for sewer, but would be served with private wells. Weinberger stated that the City Council has previously approved a variance for Outlot A permitting the road to be platted with a 25* width. An eight foot roadv.fay easement is located south of the Outlot allowing a total of 33 feet dedicated for the private road. A second variance was approved for the private road allowing the road to be developed 16 feet in width where 24 feet would be required for a private road. The road agreement was amended to allow for a 20 ’ width. Outlot A has been platted to end five feet short of the west boundary of the property per City Council's intent, whicri requires the City to deal with the owner of Lot 1 should the City ever wish to make the road connection to Birch Lane. The Planning Commission needs to consider whether Outlot A should be extended to include that portion of Lot 1 and provide a future link to Birch Lane should the connection ever be required. Weinberger stated that the old easements will need to be vacated and new easements dedicated ten feet along the exterior property lines and five feet along the interior property lines. Park dedication fees have previously been paid, with no additional park dedication fees being required. City Staff is recommending approval of the application subject to the following conditions. One, that the City Engineer reviews and approves the drainage plan and stormwater treatment within the development. Two, Hennepin County approves the access to Tonkawa Road. Hennepin County has approved the existing lot arrangement and access for the underlying lots. Three, new drainage and utility easements are dedicated to the City of Orono. Four, underlying drainage and utility easements are vacated, and five, final plat approval is subject to the MCWD approval of all grading and drainage improvements. Render stated that he has been approached by an individual interested in purchasing a bigger lot in this subdivision, which has prompted this application. Render stated ihat no additional roadway will need to be completed if this subdivision is approved, as well as no additional grading other than what was previously granted. Render remarked that there are no drainage, roadway, or grading issues than what has already been previously approved. Render stated that a neighbor since approval of the previous subdivision application has approached the City requesting access to this private road. The City agreed to permit access to this private road in exchange for the width of the road being increased from 16 feet to 2a feet, and the T'tumaround was relocated to coincide with his driveway. Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2535 James Render, Continued) Hawn stated that the City has received two letters from some residents regarding this application. Weinberger stated that both letters express some concerns regarding the easement access for the property, especiaily the property iocated at 3430 North Shore Drive, and indicated a desire that any new easements would not affect their properties. The letter from Gerald Ray, 3440 North Shore Drive, requested that the City take into account any current easements assuring access into the property. Weinberger stated that mort of the raised concerns were discussed at the time the original application was approved. Hawn inquired whether the driveway would be utilized for construction on any of the sites. Render indicated that it would not be used for construction purposes Lindquist commented that it is doubtful there would be permitted access to the roadway even though an easement does exist across their property located at 3430 North Shore. Render stated that the purchasers of the property would expect casual access to that roadway. Weinberger stated that City ordinance would permit the property owner to utilize that portion of the roadway that is within their own property lines, but City Staff would recommend at the time of final plat that the resolution contain language indicating that all access be gained from the newly created private road. Weinberger stated the ordinance presently only allows one curb cut per property, and essentially what would exist would be two curb cuts. One of the concerns regarding full access along the easement to serve Lot 1, the private road could potentially become a short-cut rather than utilizing Tonkawa Road. Render stated that the private road would not be used in that fashion due to the topography of the land. Render commented that the property owner is probably expecting an easement right to use that road to gain access to the back side of their property, noting tnat one of the lots currently does have that easement. Lindquist stated that the primary access is off of Tonkawa Road. Hawn inquired whether there were any persons in the audience who wished to speak regarding this application. Dave Lindberg, 3440 North Shore Drive, stated that there is an expectation among the neighbors that the easement to the old driveway would be vacated. Lindberg stated that one of the concerns expressed by the Rays deal with the portion of the driveway located on 3430 North Shore. Stoddard stated that the Planning Commission will not be vacating or granting any easements tonight, and suggested that the Applicant obtain a new survey depicting the easements. Hawn commented since tho ordinance states one curb cut per property, the easements will need to be reviewed. Weinberger stated that a finding could be made recognizing the easements across 3430 North Shore Drive, which would allow access for the adjacent properties through the private driveway. Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2535 James Render, Continued) The final resolution would state that the only curb cut for the new Lot 1 would only allow access through Outlot A and not access to the existing private driveway. Lindquist indicated that the Planning Commission really does not have the right to vacate existing easements, noting that the easements go with the property. Lindquist stated that one curb cut will be allowed off of Tonkawa Road. Stoddard suggested that the Applicant meet with City Staff to discuss this issue further. Hawn suggested that the Applicant meet with the neighbors as well to discuss this issue. Weinberger requested that the Applicant provide title information relating to all the easements that currently exist prior to review by the City Council. Lindberg stated that in the original application the road stopped five feet short of 3430 North Shore, and inquired whether the new Outlot A would still stop five feet short of that property. Stoddard indicated that the property owner is acquiring that piece of land. Render remarked that there will still only be three houses accessing that road. Hawn commertted that at tht lime the original subdivision was approved, the City Council spent considerable time determining whether there should be a through road at that location and came to the conclusion that a through road would not be desirable. Motion by Lindquist, second by Smith, to recommend approvai of Appiication #2535, 1315,1335 and 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3430 North Shore Drive, for a Ciass III Preliminary Plat Subdivision, subject to the five conditions contained in the October 18, 1999 Planner's Report, and further subject to the Applicant submitting title information depicting the location of all existing easements. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Kluth Opposed. Kluth stated he was opposed to approval of this application due to the concerns regarding the easements expressed by the neighbors. ZONING AMENDMENTS (#4) #2536 CITY OF ORONO REVISION TO THE ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.50 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, 7:38 p.m. - 7:40 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger requested that this item be tabled. There were no public comments regarding this amendment. Motion by Kluth, second by Berg, to table Appiication #2536, Industrial District Ordinance Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Item #5 follows Item #8. Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2535 James Render, Continued) The final resolution would state that the only curb cut for the new Lot 1 would only allow access through Outlot A and not access to the existing private driveway. Linaquist indicated that the Planning Commission really does not have the right to vacate existing easements, noting that the easements go with the property. Lindquist staled that one curb cut will be allowed off of Tonkawa Road. Stoddard suggested that the Applicant meet with City Staff to discuss this issue further. Hawn suggested that the Applicant meet with the neighbors as well to discuss this issue. Weinberger requested that the Applicant provide title information relating to all the easements that currently exist prior to review by the City Council. Lindberg stated that in the original application the road stopped five feet short of 3430 North Shore, and inquired whether the new Outlot A would still stop five feet short of that property. Stoddard indicated that the property owner is acquiring that piece of land. Render remarked that there will still only be three houses accessing that road Hawn commented that at tht iime the original subdivision was approved, the City Council spent considerable time determining whether there should be a through road at that location and came to the conclusion that a through road would not be desirable. Motion by Lindquist, second by Smith, to recommend approval of Application #2535, 1315,1335 and 1355 Tonkawa Road and 3430 North Shore Drive, for a Class III Preliminary Plat Subdivision, subject to the five .conditions contained in the October 18, 1999 Planner's Report, and further subject to the Applicant submitting title information depicting the location of all existing easements. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Kluth Opposed. Kluth stated he was opposed to approval of this application due to the concerns regarding the easements expressed by the neighbors. ZONING AMENDMENTS (#4) #2536 CITY OF ORONO REVISION TO THE ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.50 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, 7:38 p.m. - 7:40 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger requested that this item be tabled There were no public comments regarding tiiis amendment. Motion by Kluth, second by Berg, to table Application #2536, industrial District Ordinance Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Item #5 follows Item #8. Page 7 i i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 CONTINUED NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#6) #2528 DAVID AND PATRICIA YORKS, 2825 CASCO POINT ROAD • VARIANCES, 7:41 p.m. - 7:46 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Patricia Yorks, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated that the Applicant is proposing to remove old rotting steps on the rear of the residence and replacing them with maintenance free steps and a covered porch entry. This proposal will decrease the amount of hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. Bottenberg noted that the Applicant has previously removed some landscape plastic on the west and south sides of the house decreasing the amount of hardcover in the 75-250' area. Bottenberg stated a variance for hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is required to permit 45.4 percent hardcover where currently 25 percent is allowed. Yorks indicated that the steps to be replaced are located at the main entryway to the house and not at the rear of the residence. Yorks stated that they are proposing to replace the steps due to their deteriorating condition. Smith inquired whether there currently is a covered porch entry. Yorks stated that the covered porch entry is new. Lindquist noted that the structural coverage will not change, with the hardcover being decreased in the 75-250' setback. There were no public comments regarding this application. Motion by Smith, second by Berg, to recommend approval of Application #2528,2825 Casco Point Road, to grant a variance to hardcover in the 75-250' setback to permit removal of the existing steps to be replaced with maintenance free steps and a covered porch entry. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#7) #2829 BRENT BENTROTT, 1453 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES, 7:47 p.m. - 7:49 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Brent Bentrott, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated that the Applicant is requesting renewal of a variance which is set to expire on December 14,1999. The work presently it derway and is expected to be completed later fthis fall. City Staff is recommending approval of the variance renewal based on the City Council’s previous approval of the variance. There were no public comments regarding this application. Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2529 Brent Bentrott, Continued) Motion by Stoddard, second by Kluth, to recommend approval of Application #2529, 1453 Park Drive, to permit a variance renewal for a side yard adjacent to street setback based on the City Council's approval of Resolution #4213. VOTE; Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #2530 WILLIAM WEAR, 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD • VARIANCES, 7:50 p.m. • 8:31 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. William Wear, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to allow 129 square feet of additional signage for the new Conoco Station on the property located within the B-1 District. The B-1 zoning district allows signage based upon frontage of the property, which means that one square foot of signage is allowed per each foot of fro.itage on the property. The property is 200 feet wide and is therefore allowed 200 feet of signage based on the frontage. The Applicant is requesting an additional 129 square feet of signage. In 1986, the City Council approved variances to permit two pylon signs, one of which has been removed except for the two support poles. The poles were approved at 26 feet in height. The proposed sign is 17 feet in height. Based on Resolution No. 2073, adopted by the Orono City Council on November 10,1986, Ihe property is allowed a 2' by 12' sign for each tenant of the building, for a total of 12 signs or 288 square feet. In addition, the western pylon sign was permitted with six plaques for a total of 112.5 square feet. The eastern pylon sign has been removed, but the property owner was allowed to have six plaques as well on this sign for a total of 112.5 square feet. Total signage permitted on this property per Resolution 2073 is 573 square feet. The minimum front yard setback for the pylon detached sign requires a 20 foot setback. The east pylon sign was located within the front yard setback, with the west pylon sign being approved five feet off the west property line and ten feet from the front properly line. Weinberger stated that the approvals granted in 1986 assumed the current location for Highway 12. Upon relocation of Highway 12, the existing Highway 12 corridor will change from a major highway route to a local arterial. The City Council has expressed some interest in reducing back future development of signage to accommodate a local arterial street rather than a state highway. One possible option to resolve this issue would be to approve variances for a signage plan to allow the building signage and the west pylon to remain under the previous resolution, with reduced signage for the new Conoco station. City Staff is recommending denial of the variances based on the fact the proposed signage would not be allowed under the existing Ordinance and the proposed pylon style sign would be in contrast to the character of the area. Staff is recommending that they utilize materials more in keeping with other monument signs in the area. City Staff would like to work with the owner of the Conoco station to arrive at a suitable signage plan. Weinberger stated the use of the property is more in conformance with that listed in the B-3 shopping center district. If the property is zoned B-3, the lot would be allowed 380 square feet of sign space, and a variance could be just fied based on the fact the use of the property is similar to that of a property in the B-3 district. A representative of Suburban Lighting indicated that they do have some options for reducing the Page 9 piMaaQMn ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2530 William Wear. Continued) proposed sign down to 14 feet. Wear indicated that some of the existing signs could possibly be removed to reduce the total amount of signage on the propedy. The owner of the Conoco Station indicated that in order to compete with the other gas stations in the area, it is necessary to have as much signage as possible. Lindquist inquired what the total square feet of signage is that exists on the building currently. Weinberger stated that currently there is 324 square feet of signage on the property, and with the new sign being included, that would raise the total to 453 square feet. The property currently, without any variances, is allowed 200 square feet of signage. Stoddard noted that per Resolution No. 2073, the property is entitled to 573 square feet. Hawn commented that currently some of the tenants are in compliance with the signage ordinance while others are not, and that perhaps all the signs located on the property should be brought into conformance. Wu'^.r stated that the application pertains only to the Conoco Station. Hawn stated that the Planning Commission needs to review the entire property as it pertains to the signage, and that perhaps an exception could be made in the case of the laundry tenant since they have entrances on both sides of the building. Lindquist commented that if the property were zoned B*3, they would be allowed a maximum of 383 square feet. Lindquist inquired whether there were any height restrictions on signage for this property. Weinberger stated that under City Code, they are allowed up to 22 feet on this property, with the proposed sign being 17 feet in height. Lindquist recommended that the total signage for this property be limited to 380 square feet and submit it to City Staff for their review and approval. Smith commented that the tenant signage should be consistent with the exception of the laundry tenant. Hawn stated that u revised plan should be submitted giving the overall signage for the entire property, noting that the curren'. signage is not in compliance with the previous resolution. Hawn indicated that she would be comfortable with allowing this property to have the maximum amount permitted under the B-3 zoning district. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a revised plan should be submitted detailing the total signage for the building. Wear stated that a permit has been issued for every sign currently located on the property. Berg stated that an overall plan needs to be submitted in order to bring the entire property more in Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2830 William Wear, Continued) compliance. Lindquist stated he wouid iike to table this application to ailow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan, and that he would not be opposed to total signage in the amount of 380 square feet. City Council Member Kelley suggested that the Planning Commission take into consideration what they would iike to see for signage along the old Highway 12 corridor as well as the new Highway 12 corridor, along with lighting and building materials. Kelley stated that most of these guidelines were established with the understanding that Highway 12 would remain 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 signage 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. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn stated due to the amount of information involved with this revision to the ordinance. In her opinion discussion of this issue would be better suited to a work session. Hawn requested that the appropriate notice be given to the general public regarding this ordinance revision. Motion by Hawn, second by Kiuth, to table Application #2537, City of Orono Revision to Adult Use Ordinance to a Planning Commission work session to be scheduled this evening. VOTE: 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. Kiuth inquired whether the hardcover that was requested to be removed has in fact been Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#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. Herman and Manlyn Crawford. Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting variances to the rear yard setback and hardcover to permit construction of an attached garage to the existing residence. The attached garage would be located three feet from the rear yard setback where 30 feet is required and for hardcover In the 75-250 ’ setback where 26 percent exists, 29.08 percent is proposed, and where 25 percent is allowed. The 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 his lot. The Applicants had no comment regarding their application. Hawn inquired whether the existing garage was included in the hardcover numbers. Bottenberg stated the existing garage is included in the hardcover numbers. Smith inquired whether the deck will be replaced or whether a new deck is being added along the garage. Herman Crawford slated that the size of the deck is being reduced. Kluth questioned whether the gravel driveway was included in the hardcover numbers. Bottenberg stated that the driveway was included in the hardcover calculation. There were no public comments regarding this application. S.mith 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, which Page 12 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2532 Herman and Marilyn Crawford, Continued) will amount to a reduction of .08 percent. Nygard commented that there are two spots with plastic, one located by the deck and the other one on the opposite side. Mr. Crawford stated he would be willing to remove the plastic underlayment. Motion by Kluth, second by Smith, to recommend approval of Application #2532,4745 North Shore Drive, granting of a variance to hardcover in the 75-250' setback to allow 29.08 percent hardcover and granting of a variance to the rear yard setback to permit construction of an attached garage to the existing residence as depicted in the submitted plan. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#11) #2534 W. DUNCAN MACMILLAN, 1820 FOX STREET - VARIANCE, 8:47 p.m. - 8:59 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Derrick Peterson, Contractor, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a 30 by 30' garage addition to the northeast side of the existing garage. The 900 square foot addition does require a side yard setback variance. The doors on the garage would be on the east side near where a parking pad is currently located. Bottenberg stated a variance to the side yard setback is necessary to permit the location of the garage 16.82 feet where 30 feet is required from the side lot line. City Staff is recommending approval of the application. Derrick Peterson stated he was representing the Applicant. Stoddard inquired because this was a guest house with a garage connected to it whether it would be classified as an oversized accessory structure. Weinberger stated that guest houses are not considered accessory buildings and would be considered a dwelling unit. Weinberger stated that a conditional use permit is needed for a guest house. Lindquist inquired whether there was a hardship in this case. Peterson stated that they are attempting to preserve the historical significance of the property and to preserve some mature trees that exist on the lot. Kluth inquired why the garage could not be constructed off the back of the residence. Peterson commented that would reduce the amount of offstreet parking available on the site. Hawn stated in order for a variance to be granted, a hardship relating to the lot needs to be demonstrated, which has not been demonstrated in this case. Hawn commented that there appears to be ample space on the property to construct the garage without the need for a variance. Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2534 W. Duncan MacMillan, Continued) Peterson reiterated that they are attempting to maintain the historical significance of the residence. Ktuth inquired whether histoncal significance of a property has been considered in the past when determining hardship. Hawn stated to her recollection the Planning Commission did consider historical significance on one other piece of property as it related to a boathouse. Lindquist commented he does not see a hardship in this case. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a hardship has not been demonstrated in this case. There were no public comments. Hawn noted that the property owner is a part-owner of the adjacent parcel, and if the residence is sold, that situation wilt disappear and the Planning Commission should consider these as two separate parcels. Hawn inquired whether a lot line rearrangement had been considei ed. Weinberger stated that a lot line rearrangement would work in this case, noting that he is unsure about the intent behind relocation of the property lines. Kiuth noted that a modification to the driveway has previously been approved. Lindquist stated that the Applicant has the option of tabling this matter tonight or having the Planning Commission proceed with a vote. Peterson commented that he was unsure what hardship he would be able to demonstrate, and that he would like this application to be tabled. Smith stated if the application is tabled, it would allow the Applicant to explore other options that may be available. Motion by Lindquist, second by Kiuth, to table Application #2534,1820 Fo> r.treet, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#12) #2538 ROB AND TORI JAFFRAY, 540 BARRETT AVENUE - VARIANCE. 9:00 p.m. • 9:03 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Rob Jaffray, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to cnonge the roof line on the existing house. The roof line will be changed to accommodate dormers. The dormers will allow for more headroom in the second story. Approximately five years ago this Applicant was granted a front yard variance for a 2 1/2 story addition. The front setback granted was 25 feet from the street line. The Applicant is requesting a variance for front yard l etback to be 25 feet where 50 feet is jquired. Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2538 Rob and Tori Jaffray, Continued) City Staff is recommending approval of this application. Jaffray had no comment regarding his application. There were no public comments. Motion by Smith, second by Kluth, to recommend approval of Application #2538, 840 Barrett Avenue, granting of a variance for front yard setback to be 25 feet where 50 feet is required to allow construction of a new roofline. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#13) #2539 JOHN AND BECKI SUNDET, 684 TONKAWA ROAD • VARIANCES, 9:04 p.m. - 9:31 p.m. The Certincate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. John Sundet, Applicant, was present, along with Kathy Taylor. Builder. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a new attached garage and a main floor master bedroom to the residence. A detached garage is currently located on the lot approximately 200 feet up the driveway from the residence and will be removed once the attached garage is constructed. A variance to the hardcover in the 75*250' setback is required to permit 39.26 percent hardcover where 25 percent is allowed as well as a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Weinberger noted that the hardcover in the 0-75* setback as well as the 250-500' setback will be reduced with this proposal. City Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the reasons for hardship. Also, Staff has concerns regarding the grade of the driveway to the residence, with some grading being proposed to reduce the grade of the driveway to seven percent. Sundet remarked that the hardcover will be reduced in the 0*75' setback as well as the 250*500' setback, with the structural coverage being limited to 10 percent where 15 percent is normally allowed. Removal of the garage near the roadway will improve the appearance of the properly. Sundet stated the adjoining property neighbors have submitted letters of support for this application. Sundet stated the motivating factor for this application is the fact that his wife suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and they are attempting to relocate the master bedroom on the first floor. Katherine Taylor stated they are willing to work with Staff regarding the slope of the driveway, which could be reduced somewhat. Taylor stated a house located in this same vicinity with a similar driveway Is proposing to do essentially the same thing. Taylor commented that some grading and retaining walls will be necessary with the regrading of the driveway. Lindquist inquired whether the adjoining property owner utilizes their driveway. Surdet stated to his understanding the adjoining property owner utilizes his own driveway, but It is possible that he uses this driveway at times. Sundet remarked that access will be cut off. Page 15 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2539 John and Becki Sundet, Continued) Hawn inquired whether retaining walls will be necessary on both sides of the driveway. Taylor stated that they will need to do some grading on both sides of the driveway and that retaining walls will likely be needed. Taylor noted that they will be reviewing the hardcover in the 0-75* setback to see whether they may be reduced in the future. Lindquist inquired what the hardcover consists of in the 0-75' setback. Taylor stated that some timber edging planter areas and sidewalks are located within the 0-75' setback. Taylor stated that the existing deck does extend slightly into the 0-75 ’ setback and that they would like the deck to remain. Weinberger stated that approximately 85 feet of the deck lies within the 0-75' setback. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to reduce the size of the deck. Taylor stated that due to the construction of the deck, they would be unable to reduce tiie size. Hawn commented that the hardcover is an ir>sue in her opinion. Taylor remarked that the hardcover is being reduced in the 0-75' setback as well as the 250-500' setback. Sundet indicated that he would tike to replace the stairway in the 0-75' setback, which will further reduce the hardcover in that zone. Stoddard commented based on the overall plan showing the reduction in hardcover in the two zones, he would be in favor of this application. Lindquist noted that the structural coverage is under the permitted 15 percent. Smith inquired vrhether the grade of the driveway needs to be addressed at this time. Weinberger stated that they will need to submit a survey prior to the City Council meeting for review and approval by the City Engineer, noting that the proposed grading work should not impact the adjoining properties. Weinberger pointed out that a four foot retaining wall is permitted under City Code. There were no public comments regarding this application. Motion by Stoddard, second by Smith, to recommend approval of Application #2539, 684 Tonkawa Road, granting of a variance to hardcover in the amount of 39.26 percent in the 75-250* setback and a variance to the average lakeshore setback to permit construction of an attached garage and a main floor master bedroom to the residence, subject to the submittal of a grading and drainage plan prior to the City Council meeting for review and approval by City Staff. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Item #14 follows Item #15 (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to schedule a workshop for October 27.1999, at 8:00 a.m., in City Council chambers, to discuss and make a recommendation to the City Council on an Adult Use Ordinance. (#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 27.1999 AND OCTOBER 11.1999 Stoddard stated he attended the September 27,1999 City Council meeting where he addressed the members of the Council regarding the possibility of regulating the use of phosphorus in this area. Stoddard inquired whether Gaffron would be willing to draft something regulating the use of phosphorus which could be provided to the local nurseries and Chemlawn. City Council Member Kelley commented that he personally does not like government regulating the use of this product and that public education regarding the impact of using phosphorus might be more benehcial in reducing the use of that product. Kelley noted that policing of that ordinance would be difficult. Stoddard stated that he would like to continue to pursue this matter. Nygard noted that Plymouth has passed an ordinance regulating the use of phosphorus. Stoddard commented that he will discuss this matter further with Gaffron. Stoddard stated that he also discussed the use of other possible options to replace the plastic underiayment that is currently being utilized by a number of residents in the area, noting that people tend to resort to chemicals to reduce the weeds once the plastic is removed. Stoddard commented that he would like some other options to be available. Hawn stated it was her understanding that the pervious fabric tends to become clogged up after a period of time and becomes non-pervious. Smith suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission could get an update on the newest technology. Stoddard commented that one option might be to limit the plastic underiayment in the 0-75’ setback. Smith commented that she does not want to get into a debate over which brand of pervious fabric is better. Nygard stated he attended the October 11,1999 City Council meeting, and reported that the Luzaichs did not appear at that meeting. The City Council proceeded to pass their version of the reforestation plan for this property. Gaffron stated that the City has filed an action against the Luzaichs. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON OCTOBER 25,1999 AND NOVEMBER 8.1999 October 25.1999 - Smith November 8,1999 • Kluth (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20,1999 Motion by Lindquist, second by Smith, to approve the minutes of the September 20,1999 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0, Abstained 1, Berg Abstained. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION, CONTINUED Smith inquired whether some type of consent agenda could be implemented to handle the applications that do not require a lot of discussion. Weinberger stated that some other communities do have consent agendas for the Planning Commission. Gaffron noted that a public hearing needs to be held at the Planning Commission level for these applications. Stoddard requested that City Staff review what other communities are doing in regards to a consent agenda at the Planning Commission level. City Council Member Kelley commented that now is an ideal time to look at future planning along the old Highway 12 corridor as well as the new Highway 12 corridor as it relates to power lines, signage, building materials, among other items, and suggested that perhaps a design review committee be established to review this matter indepth. Lindquist suggested that this matter be discussed in a joint work session to see if some type of joint vision can be arrived at. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Lindquist, second by Smith, to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn, Chair Page 18 i ■ *1 Itf t k