The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-20-1998 Planning Packet•• V ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers January 20,1998 6:30 p.m. AGENDA Council Representative: 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 February 9,1998, City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS Conditional Use Permits 1.#2289 Jon Pendleton, 350 North Arm Lane. Conditional use permit to seasonally allow a horse in the LR-IA Zoning District. (Staff: Brad Bressler). 2.#2290 Steven and Elaine Silus, 3225 Casco Circle. Conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the south property line to allo w a driveway and retaining wall. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). NEW BUSINESS Preliminary Plats 3.#2316 Mike Hilbelink, having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive. Preliminary plat for a 3 lot Class III subdivision. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Lot Line Rearrangement with Variances 4.#2315 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe, 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue. Lot line rearrangement, and variances for lot area and lot width. (Staff: Brad Bressler). 5. 6. 8. 9. 11. 12. Variance Renewals #2330 Robert Beutler, 1331 North Arm Drive. Renewal variance for lot width to construct a new residence. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Conditional Use Permit Amendment #2328 Freshwater Foundation, 2500 Shadywood Road. Conditional use permit amendment to update current tenant listing and to allow a corporate research center tenant. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Conditional Use Permit 7. #2318 C.N. Ostrom & Sons, for Jeanne Mithun, 755 Ferndale Road North. Conditional use permit for a guest apartment in basement. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Conditional Use Permit with Variances #2312 Claus Weiler & Renee Meerkins, 1135 North Arm Drive. Variances for an oversized accessory structure and side yard setback. A conditional use permit to construct an accessory structure in front of the principal residence on a through lot. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Variances #2320 Christopher & Mary Smith, having an interest in 3650 Casco Avenue. Variances for an average lakeshore setback to add a bay window over an existing deck. (Staff: Brad Bressler). TABLED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. 10. #2322 Steven N. Filips, 2570 Thoroughbred Lane. Variance for a fence within 50' of a rear lot line on a through lot. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). #2325 Lake Country Builders on behalf of John & Cindy Olson, 950 North Arm Drive. Variance for bluff setback to add a porch and replace an existing deck to an existing residence. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) #2296 Robert Bredeson, 1395 Rest Point Road. Variances for lot area, lot width, lakeshore setback, structural coverage, rear yard setback, and hardcover to construct a new residence on a vacant lot and a fence forward of the lakeshore setback. (Staff: Brad Bressler). 13. #2319 Ron Lauer, 1040 Tonkawa Road. Variances for hardcover to remove an existing residence and construct a new residence. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). 1 #2323 Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomije, 3120 North Shore Drive. Variances for hardcover to build an addition to an existing residence. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Request for Finding of Substantially Similar Use #2331 Mark Gillett having an interest in 2160 Wayzata Boulevard. Request for finding of substantially similar use to allow a go-cart business to locate in the Orono Mall. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Zoning Code Amendments 16.#2332 An amendment to Section 10.44 of the Zoning Code to add car sales as a conditional use permit in the B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District, where they are currently not allowed. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). WITHDRAWN AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. 17.#2333 An amendment to the Section 5 40, Licensing of the Municipal Code of Ordinances, and Section 10.02, Definitions, and Section 10.20, Subd. 4, Accessory Uses, to define home occupations and establish regulations. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). 18.#2327, Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road. An amendment to Section 10.44 of the Zoning Code to allow coffee shops, bagel and pizza restaurants in the B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District. (Staff Mike Gaffron). Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances 19.#2326 Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road. Variances for hardcover and front yard parking setback and a commercial site plan review to construct an 11,000 sq. ft. retail/service center building. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). Sketch Plans 20.#2321 Don Anderson, having an interest in 905 OH Crystal Bay Road, to subdivide the parcel into 8 lots for residential development. (Staff: Mike Gaf&on). 21.#2324 James Render, having an interest in 1365 Tonkawa Road, to subdivide the the parcel into three lots for residential development. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). 22. #2329 Bob Waade, having an interest in 3280 and 3290 North Shore Drive, to develop townhouses in the LR-lC-1 District. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). Public A ttendance Meeting 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 3. 1 /'f ^ ■-/ rX%f^ . (a\ j / e ^^L' li)' cJAt^^^e. C-Iccile S«:> 1 ^ L. cjf O 1 a" 1 j vv N l>\'2-0 N]ov-4I\ <^VloR.'^ . {-ie,p3 ^ ”T|f<5P^ct^C•kB^t r> L tsj 7. h/______ y -r-) 1 ./AC.A'/3i>i ,v a w 5 1 ) __ ^,P 3>i 0«:vK^--- 0 ty ij i il3 3 ^ - « % //O b/.'l '•1 ^ t' L- ^ '^F?S -T 1. r (/ V y 09139S.4 \ 0> I ^ I E III ◄I Ssss SSfiS s!i< »!!am nti iili i 3I i S £ 0| 'S ? i ^1 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator / FROM: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE:January 2,1997 SUBJECT:#2289-Jon Pendleton 350 North Arm Lane Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area:191,664 square feet (4.4 acres) Application: This application was tabled at the October 20, 1997 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant and pending the receipt of a certified survey per Planning Commission recommendation. The applicant is proposing to keep one horse on his property during the summer months (approximately April through November). A conditional use permit is required for the keeping of a horse in this zoning district. Two possible pasture areas are proposed. Attachment F shows where the pastures are proposed to be located. Pasture #1 is 1.14 acres and Pasture #2 is .67 acres yielding 1.81 acres total. The applicant had proposed the construction of a bam and the keeping of two horses year round on the property in a previous application in 1996. The application was withdrawn.___________________________ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 9.13, Subd. 13; Regulation of Horses Section 10.02, Definition 5: Animal Unit Section 10.03, Subd. 15; Non-Encroachments Section 10.20, Subd. 3(M); LR-IA Conditional Uses, Animals Section 10.56, Subd. 3, Definition 1; Animal Feedlot Section 10.56, Subd 13; Conditional Uses in Shoreland Areas Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (N,2); Animal Feedlot Standards U2289-Jon Pendleton 350 North Arm Lane Conditional Use Permit January 20, 1998 Page ! 1 it Findings: 1. 2. 3. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Horses are allowed as a conditional use in the LR-1A zoning district. The comprehensive plan addresses the issue of keeping horses on pages 4-20, #2 and 4-29 "Rural Agricultural Land Use". According to these two sections, quasi-agricultural uses are permitted, but "will be analyzed and reviewed on an individual basis to assure appropriate safeguards for the environment and the neighbors". That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safely or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. An inspection of the proposed pasture areas was conducted on September 8, 1997 by Jeremy Geske, a University of Minnesota extension educator specializing in animal feedlots. Mr. Geske has indicated that the proposed pasture sites will not negatively affect the neighborhood or waterways. Runoff containing manure should also not be a problem if the pastures are properly maintained. His recommendations are attached as Attachment G. The keeping of a horse on the property would not be out of character with the neighborhood as the horse is currently kept on the property across the road to the west from the subject property. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. According to City Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 3, Definition 1, a confined area allowing more than one acre for each animal unit is not considered a feedlot. Pasture #1 meets this definition, however Pasture #2 is subject to feedlot standards as it provides less than 1 acre per animal unit. The previous proposal was considered a feedlot as two animals were proposed to be kept on less than 2 acres of pasture. Pasture #1 is not subject to the 300' setback requirement from the OHWL, while Pasture #2 is considered a feedlot and is subject to this setback requirement. Pasture #1 has proposed a fence located 75' from the OHWL, meeting the lakeshore setback requirement and Pasture #2 has proposed a fence located approximately 300' from the OHWL, meeting the feedlot setback requirement. H2289^Jon Pendleton 350 Sorth Arm Lane Conditional Use Permit January 20, 1998 Page! i A minimum of 2 acres of pasture area is required for the keeping of one horse according to Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision (3,M). This code section also makes a provision that when pasture is not required for feed purposes, the two acre requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the City Counc»'.. The applicant has indicated that additional feed will be provided on site for the horse. If both pastures are utilized, a total of 1.81 acres would be available, nearly meeting the two acre requirement. Mr. Geske has advocated in his letter (Attachment G) that the horse be occasionally rotated between pastures to relieve pressure on vegetation. Combining the two pastures is not possible as a 30' drainage easement separates them. The proposed fence would not exceed 6' or be located within the 75' lakeshore setback. Fences not exceeding 6' in height are considered non-encroachments and are not subject to zoning district setback requirements. There is no defined setback requirement for fences from property lines. The applicant is proposing locating the north fence for the pasture directly behind the property line. There are no codified setback requirements for pastures from drainage easements, structures or septic systems. The City Septic Inspector has noted a 10' setback from the septic system is the advisable guideline. Pasture #2, the nearest proposed pasture to the septic system, would be located 25' from the system at its closest point. An accessory structure to shelter the animal is not proposed, nor is it required for the seasonal keeping of an animal. Staff Recommendation: Staff reconunends both pastures being approved, with Pasture #1 being the primeuy site as this is preferred by both the applicant and neighbor to the north. Pasture #2 should be iLsed occasionally to relieve pressure on the vegetation of Pasture #1, as Mr. Geske has recommended. Staff recommends approval of the proposed setbacks from the OHWL for both pastures. Pasture #1 meets the required 75' setback and is not considered a feedlot and Pasture #2 meets the required 300' setback and is considered a feedlot. Staff recommends approval of Pasture #1 at 1.14 acres and Pasture #2 at .67 acre for a total of 1.81 acrei. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application based on the findings of the extension educator subject to the manure being composted on site according to best management practices advised by Mr. Geske. U2289-Jon Pendleton 350 North Arm Lane Conditional Use Permit January* 20, 1998 Page 3 Attachments: A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Surs'ey Showing Location of Proposed Pastures Jeremy Geske Letter U2289-Jon Pendleton 350 North Arm Lane Conditional Use Permit January 20. 1998 Page 4 CITY OF O Application it ^SE^^^LICATION Date Received S/^^/**v Amount Paid trD /i 4^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address_______^>5^ A>cr-H, ^_____________ Type of Application to be Filed Ofg. Ctr»^4^ (__ ._ ( S Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name ^ c .t /Vi Phone (hom ^ *{1'L - ^ Address 3 (ly^ City Ofx.\c Phone(workjj '7‘Lc -cno ^ g Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name —^ Phone (homeX Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Properg^cquired _______________________ I (do) (^IwO^lso own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application V__$175.00 Residential Accessory Use ____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District_______ Present Use of Property yc Residential Other (specify). 1 Uiara-T' INDEPENDENCE MAMSN MOCI Cil MMMMM * %> MOU fR BsrlGotfCbo •AaTTIg ranvwl* rat Muaca n (nS\ MINNETRISTA SEE MAP 75 m~"^ Jennings Z ZbO MfiL, L a i^c mmrt 4 ■ Baker Park Reserve k liCO % MEDIMA r i:»co Jis^TTOTKTOrar" •V i R CT CT. r—— i—.• A o A Jtif NW T HEN Permit No, O yj^ S/p'h^ <5ifi 2>^ vS'?^/ /53 PERMIT RECORD Date /6 -9 h /O v/-^3 /A/7 y3 /a- y? 'fo' £ Type of Permit >r-3Z\j> 7 d . o • ** _____ *PioNmi um 9i0Nti9t * am, no<m anoinearlng ¥ ^ 2422 £nttfprit« Oftvt MtndotQ Hfights. MN 55120 (612) 661-1914 FAX:6ai-9468 625 H»9h»Qy 10 N C Bloin*. UN 55434 (612) 763-1880 FAX: 783-1663 Certificate of Survey for: JON PENDLETON 3M NORTH ARM LANE Si „ 145.00 2^! ♦N89*4<*39‘W ^ N89*48’39*W 231.50 Mf - fO ^ * 4? N89*48*39*W ^^//////////?^. 'C/y r “bi I S'^.................. <;^AS11IR£ NO. 2a » or CHANNa PER PUT S89*46*39*E ^drainage at uttutyEASEMENT PER aAT 1012.66 »*0tt MQAOSCO CNAOCS SHO«M PtM ONAO n G KAM If n OTC: H mDmC OmC n SOn S 9iOm AAC roft nomnnim, amo %o«cal locahon or sniucMs »«.▼ sa AUCMitciUAi. n.ANS ron im^mc and rouNOAnoM omcn ^oni . MO SrCC#K S0A.S WvCsnCATiON mas SOm CO mPUTCO Ot 1»cs COT it tk suiTvCTOA. IX smTAMjrv or soi.s ro suAronr ix SAConc nousc MOAOSCD IS Mor IX xsaop «s«utt or ix suavctoii . piinpft^pn uQug’ npvATinti LOWEST aOOR ELEVATION: ______ TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATWN: ______ garage aAB ELEVATION: ______ MorC; im anTtncATc oocs mot auiaoiit to »<o« ca «xnts otxn txam IMOSC SMO«M ON TX xcoioco rUT. XTt CONTKACTOfl MUST ¥tAVT 0«X«AT W»Ol note Ma A mCS mm arc Ia SO On am a SSUXO OAltRi M 000 00 OCN01CS oasiMO aivAitCN ( ooaoo ) 0CN01CS r roromd clcvaiiqn ::____zz 0CNO1CS ORiMAflt MO UflUTV CAXMCNf --------— OCMOm ORRMAOC ftov OWCCnOM » OCMOItS MQHUXMr —a ----OCMOTCS OmCT NM WE HEREBY CERTIFY TO JON PENDLETON THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATKM OF A SURVEY Of THE BOUNDARIES Of: LOT 2. BLOCK 1. MARKOE ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCMROACHMENTS. EXCEPT AS SHOWN. AS SUR^CVCO BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION THIS 17TH DAY Of NOV. 1097. P.A. SCALE : 1 INCH - 100 FEET ilTl 93306.00 SWK ________ PIONEER pjjp^^yC;. ^^John C^Larson. iHk. Rtg. No.T5555 Minnesota Extension Service University of Minnesota Dakota County 4100 220th Street West Farmington MN 55024-9539 (612) 891-7700 TDD: (612) 891-7749 FAX: (612)463-8002 E-mail: dakota@mes.umn edu .Sent. 8, 1997 TO; Mr. & Mrs. Pendleton FR: Jeremy Geske, Extension Educator sr~". RE: Sept. 5 farm visit I wasn’t sure who to address this to, so I'll send it to you along with a copy for you to forward to the appropriate people. As I understand it, the Pendletons are hoping to build a small pasture and a riding arena (which could also serve as a second pasture) to keep their one horse during the summer months (approx. 6-7 months, April- Nov.). The horse would be boarded over winter. Currently, the horse is boarded year round. I assume the reason I was asked to inspect the site is because of the concern over manure, considering the proximity of the lake, a small creek and a septic system. I’m not familiar with the local setbacks for these regions, but the Pendletons will comply with regulations and build their fences accordingly. The plan would be for both the pasture and riding arena to maintain a cover of vegetation, which greatly reduces the potential for run-off to carry manure into the lake. In addition, one horse w ill not produce manure in large enough quantity to be a major concern. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium from the manure should be utilized by the existing vegetation. Their are plans for the lot to be cleaned occasionally, and the manure composted. 1 can’t see manure building up in significant quantity to become a pollution hazard. If I understand correctly, there are about 4 and 1/2 acres of land; however, 1 would like to know how many acres will be available after the setbacks are taken into consideration. This would help us determine if supplemental feeding would be necessary. The amount of horse traffic on land also has an impact on the vegetation. Having two pastures, so the horse could be rotated every so often, would relieve some of this pressure. The Pendletons indicated that they have a very good working relationship with a veterinarian, and with the family that sold the horse to them. They have given me every indication that the have the desire and the resources to take care of the horse, and are very anxious to comply with all regulations. Based on our visit and the inspection of the land, I do not see any reason to deny the permit. If the permit is granted, I would like to visit the site late next summer to see if the pastures have maintained the vegetation. If the pressure from grazing and horse traffic reduces the vegetation too much, one could simply board the horse at another site. Since the horse is boarded part of the year an>'way, this shouldn’t be a problem. When selecting a site for composting the manure, choose one that is not in the path of runoff, and preferably out of view from the public. If necessary, we could also look at diverting clean water runoff away from the pastures. I hope this letter meets your needs for this permit process. Don’t hesitate to call me at 891-7704 if f can be of further assistance. I would be glad to provide information on such things as composting manure or horse management. f UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. U S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. AND MINNESOTA COUNTIES COOPERATING TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:January 2, 1998 SUBJECT: #2290 Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit--Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre), Sewered Lot Size:22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) Background:This applicant has been tabled or postponed several times. The applicant has requested that this item be placed back on the January 20th agenda. NOTE:A large packet was delivered to you in December regarding this item. Please bring it to the January 20th meeting. If you need another copy, please contact staff before the meeting. Application:The application is for a conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the south property line to allow the driveway and retaining wall to extend into the side yard to provide more space to get in and out of the garage. ANALYSIS A conditional use permit is used to authorize and regulate a specific use in a specific district as indicated by the Zoning Code. Grading within 5' of the property line in a residential district is a conditional use. Uses that are classified as a conditional use are reviewed on a case by case basis to determine if the use is appropriate in the proposed location and are consistent with the stated purpose of the zoning district. H2290 Elaine and Sieve Silus 3235 Casco Circle CUP 1/20/98 page~l 1 1. Is the proposed location of the conditional use in accord with the objectives of the Zoning 1/ Chapter and the purposes of the district in which it is located and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan? Tlie subject lot meets the minimum lot area requirement for the zoning district. It does not ‘ meet the minimum lot width requirement which contributes to the problem of siting a three- car side loading garage with an adequate driveway. The subject lot was granted previous variances for structural coverage, average lakeshore setback and hardcover. The principal structure meets the required 10' side yard setback. The Zoning Code provides for normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission. One of the guidelines to determine if a grading plan should be referred to the Planning Commission is whether grading or alterations would propose any changes in elevations within 5 ft. of the adjacent residential lot lines, except for drainage swales and ditches. (Section 10.03, Subd. 21 (3)). The comprehensive plan does not specifically address grading within 5' of a property line for the installation of a driveway and retaining wall. In the Land Use chapter of the plan, statement #15 states; "All physical improvements must conform to cityjtandards. 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." Grading within 5’ of the property line to allow a driveway and retaining wall may be considered a physical improvement to the subject property. How’ever, staff believes that this plan statement refers to new development. There is no clear policy direction in the plan that relates to rebuilding on a site and locating driveways. In the Environment chapter, statement #13, the plan states that on-site water retention facilities will be required for development projects whenever necessary to maintain or improve the existing storm water runoff patterns. The policy also states that no development will be permitted to adversely impact it's neighbors, or the City, by changing drainage patterns or by otherwise adversely affecting storm water drainage. #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle CUP 1/20/98 page-2 The proposed driveway and retaining wall plan includes a curb that will intercept water flowing from the north to the east and south across the property from the road. Runoff would follow the curb and drain along the side yard. Previously there was a shared driveway between the subject property and the adjacent property to the south. Please compare the two topographical maps from before and after the construction of the new residence to understand the drainage pattern. 2.Does the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity? r V; The adjacent property owners have writtep ’a letter objecting to a retaining wall and driveway being located 2' from their property line. -The Planning Commission needs to discuss whether the grading to accomplish the proposed driveway and retaining wall would be materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. A conditional use permit may be revokable, may be granted for limited time, or may be granted subject to such conditions that the Council may prescribe. The conditional use permit may remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and consider the following issues: 1.Should the 5* setback for grading be reduced to 2' to provide a driveway and retaining wall? What are the consequences of reducing this standard for other lakeshore lots that do not meet the minimum lot width requirements? 2.Does the proposed grading improve drainage? What impact, if any, does it have on other properties? 3.Would the grading within 2' of the property line negatively impact the adjacent property? ***' What conditions could be placed on the conditional use permit to negate or eliminate any negative impacts? If the Planning Commission finds in the affirmative to the above three questions, then the conditional use permit should be approved. If the Planning Commission finds that the application should not be approved, then staff should be directed to work with the City Attorney to prepare in detail written reasons for the denial. #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle CUP 1/20/98 page~3 i CtTYOF OPONO nlciEdo^i £§ Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 612 471 7152 Dec 31. 1997 iJAN 6 199Q Dear Planning Commission, We are the next door neighbor to the North of the Silas property. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend tonight ’s meeting since we made travel plans over this date several months ago. We realize we have voiced the following points in prior meetings, however since some time has elapsed since this issue was last tabled, we would appreciate it if you could read these points again in lieu of our absence. We wish to oppose the variance request of Steve and Elaine Silas (3235 Casco Circle) for construction of an 80 ’ long , 4’ high retaining wall within 2’ of our property line. We ask that the planning commission uphold the Orono city code which states that the wall must be 5’ from our property line. Our reasons for opposition are as follows: ** Moving the wall will add at least 175 square feet and possibly up to 400 square feet of hardcover. Elaine Silas has indicated to me that they are already at the edge of the hardcover limitation. She said excess hardcover is the reason that the shared fence and the shared driveway that we have used for the last 17 years had to come out. which we allowed with no compensation offered or given to us. ** The Silas house is quite large for the lot size, with the roof line well above the adjoining homes. With the now 4’ elevated driveway our house looks very crowded In. Moving the retaining wall even closer would accentuate that effect even more. ** Rain run off and the mud,sand and salt that comes with it would go on our property as it has during the construction. ** Snow removal would be difficult to do without pushing the snow off the retaining wall onto our property. ** Eventually the wall will need maintenance. This could necessitate bringing a fork lift or other equipment in on our lawn. ** If a vehicle or person falls off the wall into our property, would we be liable? *• Orono has not normally allowed “90 degree turn in" garage in our area. A "straight drive in" garage would be more consistent with the Orono and the neighborhood. A “straight drive in” garage would create less hardcover. ** We appreciate the Silas access problem; however, we feel that an experienced builder should have known the driveway was much too narrow before building it not after building it and then trying to place the burden on the neighbors. We commend you for volunteering your time for the benefit and betterment of Orono. Thank you for your attention in this manner and we look forward to meeting you at the planning commission meeting on Monday night. Sincerely, OF)NOfO\^B.6 1998 City of Orono Planning Commission October 21,1997 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your notification of tonight ’s consideration of the construction at the Silus residence at 3235 Casco Circle. Like many other residents around Casco Circle - some nearer the construction, some farther away from it, we feel that it presents some thorny problems. That the garage entry was designed with its opening the wrong way for the width of the lot, and that the deliberately raised elevation of the land has an impact on both the water run-off and local esthetics are both known facts. This is why the construction is on your agenda this evening. As a lifelong resident of Casco Point, I know that neighbors here treat neighbors with respect and affection. It makes Casco Point unique, and a delightful place to live and raise families. We therefore give the Silus’ the benefit of the doubt, and choose to blame the Bruce Bren Construction Company for having: a.) created these problems through poor design, OR b.) hidden from the neighbors intentions to raise the level of the lot above the level of the pre-existing home, OR c.) constructed the structure on a foundation which was not excavated and poured as per the plans, (OR a combination of these possibilities.) There is also a question of culpability in the office of the Orono Building Inspector, as construction has neither halted nor slowed as these problems appeared and took permanent shape. The question now is what can be done to correct the problems and to protect the long-time next door residents in the impacted property at #3233, Dave and Pat Spilseth. As an enthusiastic sidewalk superintendent I can draw several solutions -- fewer, no doubt, than could be created by a professional on the Bren design staff or the Orono Building Inspection Office, They require a spirit of consideration, a willingness to correct mistakes, teamwork, and, unfortunately, probably more than a little cash. What is clear, however, is that the Spilseths and other nearby residents should not be made to pay for the mistakes of their neighbors. Neither in damage to their lawns, gardens, driveway usability, views, nor expenses. We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you, Susan Smith Swanson TO: FROM; DATE; Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant January 6,1998 SUBJECT; #2316 Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Class III Preliminary Subdivision-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area:347,173.2 square feet (7.97 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the subdivision of the existing parcel into three lots. The existing building site would consist of 3.97 acres, while the two new lots would be two acres each. The applicants previously presented this as a sketch plan at the October Planning Commission meeting.________________________________________________________ Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): RR-IB Lot Requirements • Section 11.03, Subd. 2, Definition 66(c): Class III Subdivision • Section 11.31, Subd. 2: Lot Dimensions .Uike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Class III Preliminary Subdivision January 20, 1998 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Conflgurations: RR-IB Lot Requirements: Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200'50'30’50' Proposed Lot Configurations: Lot Number Lot Area !.ot Width Front Yard Side . ard Rear Yard 1 2 acres 252,03 ’n/a n/a n/a 2 2 acres 222 03’n/a n/a n/a 3 3,97 acres 247,5 ’179 ’65’80’ The proposed lots meet all requirements of the RR-IB zoning district. Lot 3, the existing building site would continue to meet all building setback requirements. Lots 1 and 2 will not require variances to build residences. The side lot line dividing Lots 2 and 3 has been modified to meet the required 20 ’ septic site setback for the alternate septic site location on Lot 3, Access: Access to Lots 1 and 2 will be provided by Golden View Drive, Access to Lot 3 will continue to be provided from Golden View Drive, Septic: The septic inspector has reviewed septic tests for each of the three proposed lots and does not see any problems. His findings are included as Attachment F. Each primary and alternate site meets the required setbacks from lot lines. Sftke Hiibelink having nn interest in 120 Golden Fieiv Drive Class Hi Prelimtnaiy Subdivision January 20. 1998 Page! Drainage: Tlie topography of the subject property is fairly level with a gentle slope away from the approximate center of Lots 1 and 2. There are no wetlands or apparent ponding areas located on or immediately adjacent to the property. Park Dedication: The city assessor is currently determining the value of the proposed subdivision. The Park Commission will require the 8% dedication fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Attachments: A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Preliminary Plat Septic Inspector's Report Minutes from Sketch Plan Review Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Class III Preliminary Subdivision January 20, 1998 Page 3 •i- ‘4'i -•J i'J I #S3 ’Application ff I^ate Received J | Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ ^ Site address 1XQ l/|\^y<Aj OR^Of^O Property Identification Number (PID) 33 U? V3 OOOS~~ Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. 0loc-k Ju l—OT 2, APPLICANT Name f-|ALLS(AA. gsym-cs Address City__ \ Phone (home) 7 ORjfvr-/-)m-0 Zip.<?T3gU >Phone(work) OWNER (if .different than applicant) Name joH-iO 4 1 «M0A (A a Address V V7l^^ City CA^rc^p __________Zip UuS(/^______________ ____Phone (home) 4^75~- 7 Phone (work) S' S~2.oS~ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / 7.97 Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units__/ Other (specify)_________ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Number of Building Sites Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites j___Existing Units 2___New Units Total Units3 Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) _ Units per Acres ^ (VC Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential ________Other (specify)_________ ^ ffju ^QJlcc/vo ■m ’ 4iK (17) y44fJif > ^'*43DeT54 Y'\ 2‘*.r our 1ST W <J1 w 1 , 1 JJ .. ■ rr^ =! ... > ' 154 2 p? / C3) rJ f. rs«AS? «3l. 59 .2^ r 1 6 T S(.’»• ^ i\ rA 1 \ 4s; 3D ■•••«•••««•««• • ■ • « V?'V.*.*.V.' .'.'.•.*4 k«ml¥s;;igri^;: » • « a • 4 • M9 • lljSSSJ^Skk:: < ELM * \ ■*/ (40) X «u <» J 3WW « c « ■ c ipiipii 4 X4 « /S' ■fm r:.% I I' i av-. c. . . - 3> , ^ ;i7) I » I (36) *5:^ 3M. >? § -----r- t d (»l ‘s ® i 2ir i •;‘o: 8 2iT “g (M) 8 IIT liT ^'5g " k ■ ••’> (N. « :!? ^ ft.g ^. iJ (13; ^ 8 !•» 3 (•4; * tt? 5^^ 9 . (15) '•» (3) > 9 2 (4) IX / ’ ' ___:2o^ 4 5^(6)fJ go S ^ (7)^ »Trt « mPLt u.u JiOi J ^(00 •v^ m.«i ATCnTC^M yg :?e5,f,3. ¥0 *•"rs 4 5 3 J5 .................3✓(22)3 9 (14) •« ^ 1 • ^«USj ‘ IM r , (261 ’ »«o 9 —1'~4s • 1 Ml (26) i UD *mi2 !!• 1 00 SM‘C«^27r in t S 4 X 1 3 1 ’ (17). («✓» (>3) ;4 C4} /(»: oq-in • (H) «: ,, StTi (16; ____jsLtusr IC4.3 IM*Si‘Wc ^ - -4 \Z0 0)n-ve. 62 SEE MAP 48 MEDINA oiia mu ■• CMMMIM m I ««u » a i / mx Ilf >m ■ ^ Htii l-=r^r •.r~n •m Alt ■ •<ur auir i ;8® •j'.: TSIlf -----' Ml rr--- \ ! ii» . •« •» < O * * ***** •'• • • *"^J 1 "h r* "ilk I S 2 WfAJI CM i oD -1 LtiA^ V'**'«i» LyJiarJ Lake 1300 >TfMAm lYtauii i «AfMT«tra M OfVMI U MMaSIT 10H6VIIW CM 8 \\»V*t^**' '•••••••••2tkf ..••**'**■ j .............■ Coif \y Cout>e • « 600 / ........... Oj,;*.? .. i Jr-*rinxrT=ai-n Cf t Wayaia'>«//*.*:. , CdnniryQub |i| <^»**7T*»’* *•■“ I AlMUei WAT VUITI sOFiOi'JO LA Nocrcnbcrg (S) 3=* J- 1^imi1 mi30 3 Browns Bay SEE MAP 76 , ilLi Lcolatti] PiMHt I ||<««|S tmM* imM* -Ih AYZATiV Wayiata Bay I Breny Point 'eJ4r Point DLAND t ^ r- TO: FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager January 5,1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2316, Hallson Estates - Subdivision The proposed three lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Site evaluation/design has been completed for primary and alternate drainfield sites for five bedroom residences on each lot. All proposed septic systems meet both City and State standards. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the application. The city requires the drainfield sites to be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#15 - #2308 Paul Larson - Continued) There were no public comments. Smith informed Larson that with new construction, the 25% hardcover allowance should be met. She noted that the applicant was aware of the lot size prior to purchase. Larson suggested eliminating the turnaround and removing T off the deck. Bressler said it was not advised to reduce the turnaround size. Larson said l.e was concerned with theft of items left out on the property. Larson reported the proposed house is less than 1100 s.f and the lot is of record. He says he needs space for storage. Smith said the Commission recognizes the difficulties with the small lot by allowing lot width and lot area variances. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2309 for lot area and lot width variances. The proposal is to meet the 25% hardcover allowance without elimination of the turnaround. Van Zomeren suggested Gappa review the turnaround. Gaffron suggested the house be pulled back on the lot to reduce the amount of driveway and meet the hardcover requirement. Larson was concerned with the neighboring house being located in front of the residence and having to look out and see the side of the neighboring house. Berg noted the lot was substandard and concessions will be required. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#16) #2299 MIKE HILBELINK, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE - SKETCH REVIEW FOR TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION Bressler reported that the applicant is proposing a 3-lot subdivision of a 7.97 acre parcel. Two lots will be about 2 acres and the other will be 3.97 acres. Septic testing is being conducted but Bressler does not anticipate a problem. Drainage is satisfactory. The topography of the lots was reviewed. No information is available on Park Dedication. Access will be provided on Golden View Drive. Pluming Commissioners voiced support of the plan as proposed. L. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant January 6, 1998 SUBJECT: #2315 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement-Public Hearing Zr 4 District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) L . Area: Address Current Proposed 1040 Loma Linda Avenue 31,733 square feet (.73 acre)29,736 square feet (.68 acre) 1056 Loma Linda Avenue 10,207 square feet (.23 acre)12,204 square feet (.28 acre) Application: The applicants own both properties and propose the rearrangement of the side lot line dividing the properties at 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue. The northerly property at ini(- ' irrently does not meet the lot size requirement, but does meet the lot width requirement. The at 1056 currently does not meet the lot area or width requirements. The southerly 1056 property also exceeds hardcover and structural coverage requirements. While the rearrangement will result in 1040 becoming less conforming and 1056 becoming more conforming, peculiarities in the current lot line configuration will be eliminated. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements • Section 11.03 Definition 66(A): Class I Subdivision Definition §2} 15 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement January 20, 1998 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Conflgurations: LR-IB Lot Requirements: Lot Area Lot Width Lakeshore Yard Side Yard Street Yard 1 acre 140’75'10' 35' (adjacent to street) 30' Current Lot Configurations : Lot Number Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard 1040 .73 acre 141'at OHWL 143' at 75’ setback 131’12.3'n/a 1056 .23 acre 54’ at OHWL and 75' setback 78’9 ‘27' Proposed Lot Configurations : Lot Number Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard 1040 .68 acre 111’at OHWL 124’at 75’ setback 131'12.3'n/a 1056 .28 acre 94 ’ at OHWL 74’ at 75’ setback 78’17’17 C Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement January 20, 1998 Page! I I Neither property meets the lot area requirement of 1 acre. The lot at 1040 currently meets the 140' lot width requirement, but the lot at 1056 does not. Under this proposal, neither lot would meet this requirement, although the lot at 1056 would come closer to compliance. All setbacks are met as existing and proposed for the lot at 1040, while the lot at 1056 currently does not meet the side or rear setback requirements. With the lot line rearrangement, the side setback would be met. Variances are not required for this application. Hardcover 1040 Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback (existing) Total Area in Setback (proposed) Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0’-75'11,670 s.f 9,375 s.f 341 s.f (2.92%) none 341 s.f (3.64%) 75'-250 ’19,050.5 s.f 18,752.5 s.f 3,739.35 s.f (19.63%) (25%)3,939.35 s.f (21%) 250’-500’1,012.5 s.f 1,012.5 s.f none (30%)none U23I5 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement January 20, 1998 Page 3 Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback (existing) Total Area in Setback (proposed) Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0'-75'4,000 s.f 6,295 s.f 562.75 s.f (14.07%) none 562.75 s.f (8.94%) 75'-250 ’6,207 s.f 5,909 s.f 3,539.3 s.f (60.24%) (25%)3,739.3 s.f (59.9%) 1 Both lots have hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. While the amount would stay the same, with the rearrangement the percentage would increase slightly on the lot at 1040, while decreasing markedly at 1056. The lot at 1040 meets all other hardcover requirements as existing and proposed. The lot at 1056 does not meet the 25% hardcover requirement in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback as existing or proposed. This situation will improve slightly with the lot line rearrangement. These hardcover calculations have been estimated by staff as hardcover calculation submittals were not required for this type of application. Variances are not required for this application. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size 1040=31,733 s.f. (existing) 29,736 s.f. (proposed) 1056=10,207 s.f (existing) 12,204 s.f (proposed) Total Structural Coverage 2,779.51 s.f 1,959.55 s.f Percentage 8.76% (existing) 9.35% (proposed) 19.2% (existing) 16.06% (proposed) The lot at 1040 meets the structural coverage requirement as existing and proposed. The lot at 1056 exceeds the 15% maximum allowable structural coverage as existing and proposed. The percentage as proposed more closely meets the requirement. Description of Application: The applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement between the properties at 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue. The current arrangement results in part of the lots being used by the other property. The most notable peculiarity is the driveway for 1040 crossing a portion of 1056. The rearrangement would only make the lot area slightly less conforming and width non-conforming, while the southerly lot would meet the side setback requirement and come closer to conformance for lot area, lot width, hardcover in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks and structural coverage. The applicant's proposal statement (Attachment H) and survey depicting the property lines as existing and proposed (Attachment G) are included. Residences currently exist on the properties, both owned by the applicants. It is their intent to maintain both these residences and possibly move to 1056 at a later date and sell their current place of residence at 1040. f^2JI5 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Lma Linda Avenue Subdivision c f a Lot Line Rearrangement January 20, 1998 Page 4 i Issues: The api licants have purchased an additional property in order to correct an odd lot line rearrangement that impacts their residence. The southerly propertyhas experienced years of neglect and may be considered blight. Staff notes that both lots combined would be less than the minimum lot area requirement. Because this is lakeshore property, it is unlikely that one residence would be removed to provide more yard area. STAFF RECOMMENDAnON Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Attachments: A 3 C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Adjacent Property Owner’s List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Applicant's Proposal Statement Tax Information for the Subject Properties U2315 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement January 20, 1998 Pages ''ey S jc ^ Vi* rT ^^ :*? 4M.j-; ''.£■• •::5 7 ? ^•4 •I ** *. ^ # •*\^d" a Application^ r^3^S' ,. / Date Received MtlV ~7 ^ |^qn •^• v../'Amount Paid ^^57). CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S PROPERTY LOCATION Site address \c;i4o «*• loSfe Uoma U»n >1)a AVB Property Identification Number (PIPyioMo> Uog in i.aT3 Qga-<s C ooog Please check one - Property lo£^abstract or t<40^«^ torrens? s Attach legal description to application.cn APPLICANT Name C ^oujsuas •* ma A>wV»j -T. H oucoivn 6& Phone (home) i47x-ijoio City O^Mo Mrvi Zip Phone (work) > OWNER (if different than applicant) Name S'Aav S Address Phone (home) Citv Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) ‘ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Piuposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ___^____Existing Units _________New Units A Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units oer Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________ *7 h >s IS . * r RUN DATE 11/05/97 BATCH 501 38 07-117-23 14 0001 PROP AODR 04015 DAHL RD ONNER NAME R A B HAAPALA TAXPAYER ROBERT J A BONITA L HAAPALA NANE/ADDR i 4015 DAHL RD HOUND HN 55364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 38 07-117-23 14 0006 01029 LOMA LINDA AVE R A R KNOX RALPH B KNOX 1029 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI43540I PAGE 1 38 07-117-23 14 0055 01034 LOMA LINDA AVE RAJ HE6G ROGER A HEGG 1034 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAm/ADDR PROP ADDR (MCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 08-117-23 23 0001 03980 DAHL RD THOMAS P MCGLYNN THOMAS P MCGLYNN 7350 COMMERCE LA N E MPLS MN 55432 38 08-117-23 23 0007 01066 LOMA LINDA AVE CAROL M RADUNZ CAROL M RADUNZ 5505 RIVER BLUFF CIR BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 38 08-117-23 23 0010 01090 LOMA LINDA AVE N H BOCKHANN 4 N L BOCKMANN NILLIAH H BOCKMANN 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0019 01135 LOMA LINDA AVE M C THURLO ADS THURLO MARK THURLO 4 DEBRA THURLO 1135 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0022 01045 LOMA LINDA AVE T 6 OSTERBERG/K J OSTERBERG TIMOTHY G/KRISTI J OSTERBERG 1045 LOMA UNDA AVE HOLND MN 55364 30 08-117-23 23 0005 01056 LOMA LINDA AVE DONALD D EKEBERG 4 WIFE DONALD D EKEBERG 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 36 08-117-23 23 0008 01074 LOMA LINDA AVE MARGARET € MATTSON MARGARET E MATTSON 1074 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 38 08-1.17-23 23 0011 01098 LOMA LINDA AVE ROBERT J GOUNTANIS ROBERT J GOUNTANIS 1098 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND HN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0020 01127 LOMA LINDA AVE DALE F ROTH DALE F ROTH 1127 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0023 01035 LOMA LImDA AVE R C BROWN 4 M A BROWN ROSS C 4 MELINDA A ?kOWN 1035 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0006 01058 LOMA LINDA AVE R F OORLOG 4 K J OORLOG • RICHARD F 4 KAREN J OORLOG 1058 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND HN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0009 01082 LOMA LINDA AVE K H 4 F DAIVARI KHOSROH 4 FATEMEH DAIVARI 2354 CHERRYNOOD RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 08-117-23 23 0012 01130 LOMA LINDA AVE N H 30CKMANN ET AL N/L EST WILLIAM A BOCKMANN 1130 LOMA LINDA AV MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0021 01119 LOMA LINDA AVE W J 4 C J POLLARD WILLIAM J 4 CAROL J POLLARD 1119 LOrU LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 D8-117-23 23 0024 01038 LOMA LINDA AVE ROBERT B ANDERSON ROBERT B ANDERSON 1038 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 cw 'O ? \ (i Dl (A ■£ L.. Permit No 3PlC, 3qy ■^97 7-9<oV lo^n ni4 St Jq PERMIT RECORD Date //. - //- ^ (a fr- 1> ' //- /o - V- 7.a /-SI‘/-S'6 7 'op ^ ~ ^ S V //- ^ CTYK^0^ F Type of Permit /?es>/o/e.ncj i _____Cy _____Tx>fc/ //j yy) h, n c, / yjOxjCct/^ QJ-e// PP-^c^ ^AJh C^Ljt^jhl PERMIT RECORD /“S^ /—Cryytci. X/V? dCL. fZ Permit No Date ^C)9r^/o-/4?~7^- 7^ Type of Permit —iloicL----- ^AZ><^Z/eyi<7 p /1^/Cr>n ^3^jL04Lt^ Jnc^A ^'a^ 6 Sc«lt - #-i'.viv-; ^ ' •• •* k ^ d sj i te .) ^.v’-Vs • •> . ? Ji2*• . ..*• • ;t- A ^ i ^ Re; Lot line rearrangement between 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Ave. Both properties are now owned by C. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcombe. We presently reside at 1040 Loma Linda Ave. We have purchased 1056 Loma Linda Ave. which needs renovation. We plan to Improve it to beautify the whole neighborhood. We may move to 1056 when the work is done, but we have not made a final decision. Our Proposal: We would like to rearrange the lot lines between 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue to make both properties more attractive and more usable. Present'y there are some peculiar easements that have little value and only cause confusion. We would like to eliminate those that occur near the entrances to the houses. Secondly the lawn area closest to the road has almost no value to the 1056 property as It sits up and away from any view from the house. However this same piece of property is In constant view of 1040 as It Is directly In front of the main dining area of the house. Some nice trees and lawn would make this much more appealing and appears to belong to 1040 because of the peculiarity of the easement. We propose to angle the property line toward the lake in a northeasterly direction to add 40 feet of shoreline that would enhance the best side of the 1056 lot. 1040 is set back to give 1056 a substantial amount of privacy on that side of its lot. In the renovation of 1056 that extra shoreline would guaranty an excellent view without the 1040 owner being able to disturb it. 1040 will still have 130 feet of excellent shoreline and it will not suffer in value by this change. However 1056 will now have 90 feet of shoreline Instead of Its previous 50 which will enhance its value. There will now be a greater separation between the lot lines and the structures and both lots will still maintain approximately the same square footage in a much more logical and attractive way. The rearranged lot line will minimally add or subtract land that is not within the required setback from the lake. I •A*'• ••• • taxable harket GROSS TAX CAPACITY net tax capacity RENTAL TAX ■IJIF PROJ ANT <>uOU 5,‘*22 4,580 •QUALIFYING AMT FD SHARED TC FO AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. 5,Lib.40 00000000 OlVISIOtJ NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S fc/.J'vLIJ.jt UELQ Y,. TAX tlVy/OeSCAIPTXON HARKET VALUE TAX STATE PAID AID HACA . SOLID HASTE FEE RATE .07677 SO.0020 TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID A»*'-H ATT 20A.66 1,ST6.09CR 925.27CR 50.40 5,266.80 .00 ANT UNPAID 6,286.60 ONNER TAXPAYER NAME/AODRESS METES AND BOUNDS MORT CODE/LOAN ESCROH NAME/ADORESS addition name ACREAGE SCH MTR SEH OST SHD DST LOT BLK PROPERTY ADDRESS PLAT PARCEL PROPERTY I.D. SN THP RG QQ SUFX C 0 HOLCOMBE A M J HOLCOMBE C DOUGLAS HOLCOMBE 1040 LOMA LINDA AVE mound MN 55364 THAT PART OF LOT 36 LYING E AND S OF OF LOT 36 DIS 200 FT E FROM SH COR DEFLECTING RIGHT 58 DEG DIS 51 9A10 157 FT TH DEFLECTING LEFT 70 DEG TO TERMINATING 245 0013926233 "LOMA LINDA" 000.00 277 3 STATUS: CURRENT 1040 036 42460 8060 08-117-23 23 0025 LOMA LINDA AVE CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1956 FOL OESC LINE COM AT A PT IN S LINE THEREOF TH N AT RT ANGLES 106 FT TH FT TH DEFLECTING RIGHT 32 DEG DIS SHORE OF LAKE MTKA AND THERE TAXABLE HARKET GROSS TAX CAPACITY NET TAX CAPACITY RENTAL TAX IF PROJ AMT 254,000 5,202 4,360 QUALIFYING AMT FO SHARED TC FO AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. 4,986.19 00000000 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S TAX LEVY/OESCRIPTION GROSS TAX HARKET VALUE TAX STATE PAID AID HACA SOLID HASTE FEE HMSTDPRTYP RATE H RL 109.8900 .07677 30.0020 TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID AMOUNT 7,219.54 194.99 1,308.08CR 925.27CR 48.31 5,034.50 .00 LAND 132,000 BLDG 122,000 MACH OHNX BASEl BASE2 NHBASE NON-HMST 1 00 720 860 2,780 AMT UNPAID 5,034.50 ONNER TAXPAYER NAME/AODRESS • METES AND BOUNDS MORT CODE/LOAN ESCROH NAME/ADORESS ADDITION NAME LOT BLK ACREAGE SCH HTR SEH PROPERTY ADDRESS DST SHD DST PLAT PARCEL PROPERTY 1.0. SN THP RG qq SUFX ROGER L HILLIAMS ROGER L HILLIAMS 615 SH 16TH ST HILLHAR MN 56201 LOTS 17 AND 18 TAXABLE MARKET —GROSS TAX CAPACITY NET TAX CAPACITY RENTAL TAX IF PROJ AMT "LOMA LINDA" 000.00 277 3 STATUS: CURhFNT 1122 42460 3410 08-117-23 23 0026 LOMA LINDA AVE CONSTRUCTION YEAR 16,800 366 386 QUALIFYING AMT FO SHARED TC FD AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. .00 00000000 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S 1—1 ^ • j • iJ I MJtW l^ww. M A t E C MITCHELL hark A/ELIZABETH C MITCHELL X190 LOMA LINDA AVE hound MN S5564 N 50 FT OF S 100 FT OF THAT PART 398 3541376 UNPLATTED 08 117 23 000.19 277 3 STATUS: CURRENT 1190 41308 6100 08-117-23 23 0003 LOMA LINDA AVE CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1972 OF LOT 4 LYING IN THE NH 164 taxable MARKET GROSS TAX CAPACITY net tax capacity rental tax if PROJ AMT 181>000 3>742 2 >900 QUALIFYING AHT FD SHARED TC FO AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. 3>325.76 oooooooo DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S TAX LEVY/OESCRIPTION GROSS TAX MARKET VALUE TAX STATE PAID AID HACA SOLID HASTE FEE HMSTDPRTYP RATE H RL 109.8900 .07677 30.0020 TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID AMOUNT 5>121.08 138.95 870.05CR 92S.27CR 34.42 3>360.18 .00 LAND 99>500 BLDG 81>500 MACH OHNZ BASEl BASE2 NHBASE 1 00 720 860 NON-HMST 1>320 ANT UNPAID 3>360.18 OMNER TAXPAYER NAME/ADORESS metes and BOUNDS MORT CODE/LOAN t ESCROH NAHE/AODRESS ADDITION NAME ACREAGE SCH HTR SEN OST SHO DST LOT BLK PROPERTY ADDRESS PLAT PARCEL PROPERTY l.D. SN TWP RG QQ SUFX DONALD D EKEBERG A NIFE DONALD D EKEBERG 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE hound MN 55364 TAXABLE MARKET GROSS TAX CAPACITY NET TAX CAPACITY RENTAL TAX IF PROJ AMT 096 000000011073379 "LOtlA LINDA” 000.00 277 3 STATUS: CURRENT 1056 004 42460 0800 08-117-23 23 0005 LOMA LINDA AVE CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1975 225>000 4>622 3>780 QUALIFYING AMT FO SHARED TC FO AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. 4>326.57 OOOOOOOO DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S TAX LEVY/DESCRIPnON HMSTDPRTYP RATE GROSS TAX H RL 109.8900 MARKET VALUE TAX STATE PAID AID 30.0020 HACA “^LIO HASTE FEE 13882 1996 DELINQUENT UTIL TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID AMOUNT 6>385.91 172.73 1>134.07CR 925.27CR 42.79 371.38 4>740.74 .00 LAND 99>500 BLDG 125>500 MACH OHNZ BASEl BASE2 NHBASE 1 00 720 860 HON-HMSi 2>200 AHT UNPAID 4>740.74 'OHNER TAXPAVW MAHgXApPRgS&7>- MORT COOE/LOAN t ESCROH NAMKXAOORBSS_ _ _ _ __*** ifiT BLK. PLAT PARCEL PROPERTY X*D* ADDITION NAME sn thp rq qq sufx Ar-DBACf? SCH MTR SEN PROPERTY ADDRESS A R F 00RL06 A K J OORLOG RICHARD F A KAREN J OORLOG 1058 LOMA LINDA AVE mound MN 55364 TAXABLE MARKET 200>000 GROSS TAX CAPACITY 4>122 NET TAX CAPACITY 3>280 RENTAL TAX IF PROJ AMT 264 0000479197 "LOMA LINDA” 000.00 277 3 STATUS: CURRENT 1058 005 42460 1000 08-117-23 23 0006 LOMA LINDA AVE CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1971 QUALIFYING AMT FO SHARED TC FD AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. 3>757.92 OOOOOOOO DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S T»y I FVY/OESCRIPTION HMSTDPRTYP RATE AMOUNT LAND AO TOO BLDG inn,*;oo MACH OHNZ BASEl BASE2 N»©ASE 1 00 720 860 NON-HMST 1»700 .•Si # ■•■1 ' •v> 6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Dressier, Plarming Assistant January 1998 #2330 Robert Beutler 1331 North Arm Drive Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:49,200 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre-Sewered) square feet (1.13 acres) ___________ Application: The applicant is proposing construction of a new residence on a lot of record not meeting die lot width requirement. A variance for lot width is required. The applicant vvfkuld also like to retain the existing principal structure. The City Council had previously approved allowing the current principal structure remain as an accessory structure with the stipulation that all plumbing and heating facilities be removed upon completion of the new residence. The owners plan to live in the current residence until the new residence is completed. This is a renewal of an elapsed variance, #2192, which was granted in November, 1996. No other variances are necessary. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.03, Subd. 9(C-2): Maximum Allowable Accessory Structure Footprint Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G-1): Guest Houses Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.25, Subd. 5(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements §2330 Robert Beutler 1331 North Arm Drive yarUmce 1/20/98 Pagel ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Rear Yard LR-IB Requirements 1 acre 140’75’10’ (15’for Accessory Structure >750 s.f.) 30’ Subject Property 1.13 acres 74.89’ at OHWL 83 ’ at 75’ Setback 162’7’69’ A lot width variance is required as the subject property doe*' t njoet the 140' requirement at the OHWL or 75' setback. The proposed residence will meet all setback requirements. The existing shed is located T from the side lot line where 10’ is required. The existing garage is located 11.7' from the side lot line where 15’ is required for an accessory structure greater than 750 s.f. Side yard variances are not required for this application. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 49,200 s.f.3,322 s.f.6.8% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application None of the accessory structures exceed the 1,000 s.f. maximum allowed footprint on lots less than 2 acres. The combined foo^orint of all accessor)' structures will be 1,060 s.f. which is less than the maximum allowed on lots less than 2 a:res in size. Robert Beuler 1331 North Arm Drive Variance 1/20/98 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'5,775 s.f 267 s.f none 267 s.f (4.62%) none (4.62%) 75’-250’15,925 s.f.1.12 s.f 3,981.25 s.f. (25%) 1904 s.f (11.95%) none 250'-500'27,500 s.f 5,964 s.f 8250 s.f (30%) 5,964 s.f (21.69%) none The lot meets all hardcover requirements as existing and proposed. An existing wood stairway leading to the lakeshore and a boulder retaining wall are located ion the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. A hardcover variance is not required for this application. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Attachment K is the applicant's statement of hardship. He should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1 . The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property could continue to be put to a reasonable use in its current state. The construction of a new residence is not possible without a lot width variance, however. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The property is a lot of record that was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The existing residence will not be used as a guest apartment, additional living unit or commercial use because all heating and plumbing facilities will be removed upon completion of the new residence. *2330 Robert Beutler J33I North Arm Drive Variance 1/20/98 Page 3 I ^ 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. 7. The variance for lot width will not change the character of the area as many of the lots in the area are of a similar width. A restrictive covenant that will run with the land has been drafted by the City Attorney to assure the current residence does not become a guest apartment. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. A guest apartment is not allowed on a lot of less than 2 acres. The special condition? applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Most lots in the area were platted prior to cunent zoning requirements and do not meet the lot width requirement. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The lots in the area were platted at lot widths of 50' to 75* where 140' is currently required. Some of the residences in the area are located on lots that have been legally combined into one tax parcel. The subject lot represents 3.5 lots that were combined. Additional land is not available at this time to increase the lot width. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A new residence could not be constructed upon the property without the granting of a variance for lot area. M2330 Robert Beuller 1331 Sorth Arm Drive Varicmce 1/20/98 Page 4 8.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The City Council has previously found that an adequate hardship exists for the granting of a variance due to the hck of adjacent property to combine with the subject property to conform to zoning requirements and the ability of the property and proposed residence to meet all other zoning requirements. The City Council minutes of November 25,1996 and the approval resolution are included as Attachments M and N. Issues I. 2. 3. 4. The lot widths of 74.89' at the OHWL and 83' at the 75' setback do not meet the 140 ’ requirement. All other zoning requirements will be met. The shed and garage do not meet the required side setback on the north side lot line. The shed is 7' from the lot line where 10' is required and the garage is 11.7' from the lot line where 15' is required for structures exceeding 750' s.f. but less than 1000 s.f. The proposed residence will meet all zoning requirements. With the current principal structure remaining as an accessory structure, the total footprint of all accessory structures on the lot will be 1,960 s.f., which is less than the 2,000 s.f. maximum allowed. None of the accessory structures will have a footprint greater than the 1,000 s.f. maximum allowed. A restrictive covenant drafted by the City Attorney will prohibit the future use of the current residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a lot width variance of 65.11' to allow the construction of a new residence on a lot of record having widths of 74.89' at the OHWL and 83' at the 75" setback subject to the conditions noted below: Staff recommends that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new principal structure, all plumbing and heating facilities be removed from the current principal structure. Statf recommends the applicant sign a restrictive covenant drafted by the City Attorney that prohibits the future use of the existing principal structure. 1^2330 Robert Beuller ]33I North Arm Drtve Variance U20/98 Page 5 Attachments A B C D E F G J K L M N Application Plat Map Property Owner’s List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Hardcover Worksheet (O’ to 75’) Hardcover Worksheet (75’ to 250’) Elevation Drawings Applicant ’s Statement of Hardship Restrictive Covenant Minutes of November 25,1996 City Council Meeting Resolution #3806 Approved November 25,1996 U2550 Robert Beutler 1331 North Arm Drive Variance 1/20/98 Page 6 r Application H ^33>(D Date Received *7 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Ji.fe » Amount Paid /2.0 — j s s PROPERTY I^^FOR^LATION Site Address 133 1 ysi a ta: r%\ xz\ v/g> >> nj CL & oj — - ’ ^1 1 ^ ^ I r % y t yr _________________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) o~) 4-t oog!>\_____ Attach legal desciiption to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired .CYurife ? (d*^) fio not)^lso own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:____L, g. — liK ______ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name ~?-->gO-r Phone (home ) 4-~l 2.— ~14>i ^ ___________ Phone (work ) ciT.'Z- Address:. T>ct. City: Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ I~1 Q | Ooo (attach additional sheets li* necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area j< Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear y Other (specify) ckfe ots/^i5rrTit(^ X> ___Average Lakeshore... STT2 •>> C~y~T O t>(* HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusuai property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:^____________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) # • A % •«^ # —»*- tf # V. / (215) / % . . c #•C^ 1 «« % $ V 4 (21^ A- A ^ 23a. 5 ______^ ~l .1.(63. §3, \ ?3 <.4<: 65) ^ i «i z 3 S.-Al” t »1 ^ T?5Pj 'V • ./s :af. 5 1 £5 I ( \X\ Ci* 2CC -*i S 1 ^(14) a? (15) a <fs422 "CDs!T»J 10 ( I0)q 147. •; ^ Is 6C742S5 I.*<. N j R \ /v •K.': 197(7) ;'• ----------------- --- ri>i f / ___■■ «ZJ\'^'' ! '2'-5 7fePv* .f4?-\w 7 VoO) z' rf \ W ^ / .K 'n/ V o %^\ (SW 'v U> ^ ^ 2 I I ?^ s s ^ ^\ (79) A K > An'^v-1 \ ,5<-i ‘ .' ' \ « \ ‘^ 'n y% >§;:':-^'^-:W 4 \ *v4 ■'^ \y 4\ ^ 'J y \ ftN? rs7 r (83) /■■)# ? 2 _/ “ r.- (32) -^./\ ■^'>X - 5.J,(54); .(19)W^wX iyxyc ,3) IX / */ Cf'~ 'V:£.i7orv vV '3 / / / / / /'^ ®~r TO) yy % ‘i"/ Xl>'""W- / /'‘yi/ /#1 ' '■*" / 80 7t‘ «C RUN DATE 10/24/96 BATCH 510 PROP ADOR (M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 36 07-117-23 41 0021 01310 ELMHOOD AVE GORDON N NELSON ETAL GORDON N NELSON 1310 ELM4000 HOUND HN 55364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOWiATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWERS LIST 38 07-117-23 41 0029 01301 NORTH ARM DR P R 6 E A ROBERTS PAUL R 6 ELIZABETH A ROBERTS 1301 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 27 30 07-117-23 41 0030 01305 ELHHOOD AVE CHARLES E CARLSON CHARLES E CARLSON 2346 CV>RESS LA MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 41 0031 01305 NORTH ARM DR H P SIMNIONIN A C H P SIMNIONIN A C 1305 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 L KENNEDY L KENNEDY 38 07-117-23 41 0032 01317 NORTH ARM OR ANN L CARSON ANN L DERBY 1317 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0081 01331 NORTH ARM DR R E BEUTLER A M BEUTLER ROBERT E A HENDY K BEUTLER 1331 NORTH ARM OR MOUrW m 55364 PROP ADDR 0M4ER NAME TAXPAYER N/UIE/ADOR PROP ADOR Ot«4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 41 0082 01359 PARK DR PETER H LANPHER ET AL PETER A DIANE LANPHER 1359 PARK DR HOUND MN 55364 36 07-117-23 41 0006 01345 NORTH ARM DR H SHEKELS A L SHEKELS TRSTES H 0 SHEKELS 0619 NORTH CARDINAL OR PHOENIX AZ 85028 38 07-117-23 41 0083 01300 LOMA LINDA AVE HAN KULENKAMP MARK A A NANCY L KULENKAMP 1300 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 36 07-117-23 41 0088 01304 ELMHOOD AVE RICHARD J JOHNSON ET AL RICHARD J JOHNSON 1304 ELMVIOOD MOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0084 01350 NORTH ARM DR A P MEISEL A P A MEISEL RICHARD D A CAROL A TODD 1350 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BAKH 510 00011 • u 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 KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE s*’> .'pAt o /33/ h)cri>fj\ PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date ■ 9 7</ ^OAV </oa.c>/n - </ ‘7- A-7 y ^ya.'9 -sy-A} 5'5V5'<=? -/^ f Type of Permit Mu ^7 Z^Ocl/T o r u V 0 c^\d =1t /■ [i * :^'- Certificate of Survey for RKO CONSTRUCTION House Address: ±%^l ^umi naw p^ivg House Model: __________________ 0 i%ic^ ^ o .4^ -**fc** ^—‘3 4f 5=^, « IflW 4*5. BLOCK _Z. SAQA HILL 1*^ i it %• «i MM I «wk • » a ra l4snoo 1 r^t^9 • CTN * • 1 i {^S.'SrtNj^ vA/ii v2_o <^-^->v‘ fs:**'*— . I n -^•.-'-TT.r.gMrtr.'.r.n r' m. |oV2 oJ d>n. AI7C5V2.P HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET r SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' C^5-2SoO 250-500'?5c..',000‘ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE {qo4 + B I S oa ILAI A.House X =S.F. Length Width X —S.F. X s=S.F. ^ X =S.F.f - i ... B.Garage X i ^ .. . S.F."'-' C.Driveway X ss S-Ff 1 X = D.Sidewalk * X S.F. , X s=S.R~;r-.J E.Paiio/Deck • X t S.F. X ==sk" F.Landscape Underlain X s.Ki> X = By Plastic Other X * G.X S.F.^ ' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F. B A -r B X 100 =% PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House X SS S.F. LengA M 1 Width X -S \n c-S.F. V - X 1 H =S.F. ^ (0 X 1 O =S.F. ' B.Garage Driveway X S.F. C.X S3 S.F. X =S.F. mmm D.Sidewalk X 1 So S.F. X SS S.F. E.Patio/Deck ZS X er 3*1 ^S.F. X ss S.F. F.Landscape Underlain X =S.F. X S.F. By Plastic Other X ss S.F. G.X ss S.F. IS ^ « X 100 ) u S.F. S.F. % A B •4 =tt Q O • V COMM^IlER^hrMfb^ ■ r i J #23 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Pailcway Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bacy, MN 55323 Building and Zoning Department. We are requesting an extension to our variance to build a new home on our property at 1331 North Arm Drive. We are requesting a variance as we do not have the requir^ lake frontage. We meet all the other requirements (i.e.: hard cover, set back). We are also requesting that if the variance is extended at the Jan 20"’ planning meeting that this request be allowed to be heard at the next city council meeting. Thank you for your considerations. Robert and Wendy Beutler V 1 T- RESTRICTIVF. rOVENANT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that (collectively, "Owners”), do hereby expressly covenant and agree to not use the _______________________________on the real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, as an alternative living space, including but not limited to, a guest house, secondary residential unit, mother-in-law apartment, rental of structure, or the like. This Restrictive Covenant shall run with the land, shall be binding upon Owners, their respective heirs, successors and assigns, and may be terminated only upon written agreement of the City of Orono. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owners have hereunto set their hands this ______, 199_. day of STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF_________ ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ____day of ,199 Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY AND PLEASE RETURN TO: POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Miimeapolis, MN 55402 (612)333-4800 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 25,1996 (#5) #2192 ROBERT AND WENDY BEUTLER, 1331 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3806 The applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the property is located on North Arm Drive. The applicant seeks approval of a lot width variance as it does not meet the 140’ width at the shoreline or at the 75' setback. All other setback requirements are met by the new residence. An issue for discussion is the applicant’s desire to maintain the current principal structure and to maintain heating and plumbing facilities. Mabusth informed the Council that the Planning Commission approved the application 3:1 with the condition that the plumbing in the kitchen be removed and only the sink and stool remain in the bathroom. The minority vote's opinion noted the difficulty in reaching a decision when there are no clear standards for such a use. Mabusth cited a previous application with expanded living area within an upper level of a newly constructed detached garage and restricting use as an independent dwelling unit with the use of a restricted covenant. The property in that application did not meet the area requirement for a guest house. This property is 1.13 acres in size and does not meet area standard for a guest house. A variance application on last month's agenda was approved for maintaining the principal structure as an accessory structure with additional living space via a restrictive covenant. The variance for that application was for the accessory structure being in front of the principal structure. Mabusth said the Planning Commission struggled with the issue of ease to convert aii accessory structure into a guest house or apartment with heating and plumbing. They felt it would be difficult to police even with the restrictive covenant. The minority vote asked the City to develop standards as similar cases have come before the Commission on a more frequent basis. Mabusth noted the application was only being reviewed due to the lot width variance required. She asked the Council if the application should be reviewed as a separate item or if the code should be revisited. C.^Uahan noted the applicant's plan to use the structure as a workshop and office wkh bathroom facilities. Hurr added that it could be slept in. Goetten said her concern was with the lack of any designation for such use. She questioned what might happen in the future with other applications. Jabbour noted it was not only a problem for the zoning district but also a problem for other applicants. He said he is sympathetic to the need to provide for relatives and w'ould like to revisit the housing code. He saw this application as set aside from other scenarios questioning why others would apply for a guest house Clip if this could be done. Jabbour cited an example where SAC charges were applied for a guest house use. M 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 25,1996 (#5 - #2192 Robert and Wendy Beutler - Continued) Mr. Beutler said it was not theu" intent to use the structure as living space for others but only for additional space for workshop. He noted the building is in excellent shape and there is no problem with hardcover on the property. Beutler said he and his neighbors feel it would be a shame to remove such a building. Beutler said the 120' separation from house and accessory structure was a reason to request the bathroom facility remain. He indicated the sewer line could be hooked up to for the new house as well as old. He volunteered to place limitations on the property on the abstract itself noting the restrictive covenant would nin with the property on the chain of title. Goetten was informed the proposed size of the new residence is 1200 s.f. Jabbour explained to the applicant how Orono is seen as a bedroom community and only allows guest houses if there is adequate room for future subdivision and an additional sewer access charge is paid. It is Ws opinion that this application is in direct conflict with the objectives of the City. He noted concern with what could happen in the future and sees a solution with the removal of plumbing and heating. Jabbour indicated that approval of the accessory structure usage with plumbing and heating would have a domino effect on a policy beyond this proposal. Hurr was informed the current garage would be utilized by the new residence also. There were no public comments. Hurr noted that the cost of enforcement would be bom by the applicant. Mabusth indicated the current resolution does not stipulate that but could be amended. Callahan informed that this would not protect the City. Kelley moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution #3806 for the lot width variance only. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hurr asked for an explanation on previous applications. She inquired if a CUP for a guest house could be obtained. Mabusth noted the lack of appropriate acreage as found in the other applications. She said she would like to see standards developed. Hiot said she would be in support of the proposal if the plumbing was removed. Mabusth did note the applicants intend to live in the structure while the new residence is being built. Kelley indicated if the lot was vacant and a new structure was built and the applicant desired an accessory structure, he could do so. He informed the applicant if the heating and plumbing were removed, the structure could remain without requiring the Cit/s approval. Jabbour asked the applicant to work with Staff on what makes a structure an accessory structure. .111 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 25,1996 (#5 - #2192 Robert and Wendy Beutler - Continued) Goetten suggested the Council review the code reg^i.ding such situations. The Council members agreed. (City Attorney Radio arrived at this time.) (*#6) #2194 DAVID ALAN SUTHERLAND, 1365 ARBOR STREET - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3807 Jabbour moved, Hurr seconded, to approve Resolution #3807. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCEL REPORT Mayor Callahan asked Moorse to extend his appreciation to the Office Staff, Dorothy Hallin, Lin Vee, Carole Haseman, and Jamie Gemar. Jabbour reported that an applicant at a recent LMCD meeting requested the ordinance be changed to allow vending on Lake Minnetonka, specifically Big Island, as he would like to sell items from a pontoon. The LMCD members said they would consider it. The Water Patrol is against the idea. Jabbour informed them that the only areas of commercial activity in Orono are in Navarre and the Hwy 12 area, and commercial ^ activity is not allowed to occur on docks. Jabbour said he was asked what his opinion was about cruise boats. Jabbour informed them they were regulated. Jabbour asked Gaffiron to review the matter of the City’s authority to regulate activity occurring on the lake near the lakeshore. Callahan suggested a resolution be drafted in opposition to the proposed commercial activity. Jabbour said he informed the LMCD they should speak with the other 14 cities. Jabbour would like to inform those cities of Orono's position. Both Callahan and Kelley agreed that such activity should not be encouraged. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, that Staff be directed to draft a resolution in opposition to the concept of allowing products be sold from boat crafts on Lake Minnetonka in the area of Orono and to direct Staff to convey the CouncU’s opposition to the concept to the LMCD. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Goetten reported that the Land Use Planning Committee of the Met Council discussed the opportunity for the cities to amend their comprehensive plans, and discussed changes being made by the Met Council. The Met Council will be visiting a number of cities to e.\plain their position. ClTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 0 6 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 2192 WHEREAS, Robert E. Beutler and Wendy K. Beutler (hereinafter "the applicants”) are the owners of the property lor.ated at 1331 North Arm Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property that does not meet the required lot width of 140' measured at the shoreline at 74.89' and 83' at the 75' setback. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2192. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 18, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings or hardships: A. The lot contains 49,200 s.f. or 1.13 acres where one acre is required by the zoning district. B. The property is served with sewer. Page 1 of 5 N/ 4 Ifd CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF NO. __ CITY COUNCILTHE CITYas 0 6 There is no additional land available to expand the lot width of the property. No other variances are required as a result of this improvement. E.The City has received no negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified of the variance application. 4.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit construction of a new residence on a property that does not meet the required lot width and grants a variance of 65.1' or 46.5% to Robert E. and Wendy K. Beutler of 1331 North Arm Drive, subject to the followng conditions: 1.Prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the new principal structure, applicants' contractor sha!! be responsible for removing all heating and plumbing facilities within former residence structure to be converted to an accessory structure. Page 2 of 5 I [Wm \L\UiX^ GlTYof ORONO CSHO THECITY 3806 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ 2.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 25, 1997). 3.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. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of November, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. C^l^an, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 5 _____■ Tit iiwmfla GITYof ORONO CSHO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 0 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of February, 1996 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HEI4NEPIN ) On this day of 199_before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they; executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. notary public Page 4 of 5 rnieam 1 : .-fc CITYof ORONO hSiltX CSBO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ft 0 R ______ EXHIBIT A Lot 4, and that part of Lot 5 lying northeasterly of a straight line running from the midpoint of the northwesterly line of said Lot 5 to the midpoint of the southeasterly line of said Lot 5, Block 6; vacated Oak Place; also Lots 5 and 6, Block 7 all in Saga ICll revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Page 5 of 5 m K-W * lUESOLunoN ^ 8 S 0 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF ORONO ) ) I Dorothy M. HaUin. City Clerk of the City of OtoQO. Hennepin C^^ procccdings^^of ^said City co ^ ^ OTpy of M^d resolution duly adopted oy saw City Council at said meeting. day of In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this---27^ November ___19^” _« CoWiy M. Hafi^ CiCity Clerk (SEAL) • I\ M i TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:January 7,1998 SUBJECT: #2328 Freshwater Foundation 2500 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Permit Amendment-Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: B4, Office and Professional District Lot Size:221,214 sq. ft. (5.078 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting approval to allow a corporation to locate pilot programs and laboratory space in the existing building. The proposed corporate tenant is considering leasing the lower level on a long-term basis. The subject property has a conditional use permit. This application is to update or amend the current conditional use permit. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.09, Conditional Uses Section 10.43, B-4, Office & Professional Business District Findings: 1.That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; The proposed corporate tenant would use the existing space in the building to conduct research. Research centers are a conditional use in the B-4 District. The Comprehensive Plan land use plan designates this area as "institutional". A research center is an appropriate §2323 Freshwater Foundation 2500 Shadywood Road CUP Amendment 1/20/98 pagt-l page—I use in this land use classification. 2.That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The research center would conduct biological research. The type of research would be compatible with other uses in the building and the surrounding area. The building was designed to be used for research so that health and safety issues were addressed through design. Production would not occur in the facility. Adequate parking is place to serve the building, see the site plan. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The proposed tenant will comply with the zoning controls regulating research centers. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit as amended. Attachments A B C D E F G H Plat Map Site Plan Application Applicant's letter Floor Plan Permit Record Minutes from PC on May 15,1995 Resolution #3561 i^2328 Freshwater Foundation 2500 Shadywood Road CUP Amendment 1/20/98 page-2 page-2 I •ff-tr /wO »'\ zo-in-23-ZH <A,p- o\\\f 4->' ^ ■ ^ X? A / 108 V / (55)/ : r t;n - -^i3. ee^ RUN DATE 12/10/97 BATCH 501 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 36 20-117-23 24 0041 02732 CAROLINE AVE CHARLES A SUSAN PERCIVAL CHARLES A SUSAN PERCIVAL 2732 CAROLINE AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0005 03709 CASCO AVE R PRESLER/E J PRESLER TRS'iES ROBERT PRESLER 3709 CASCO AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 3B 20-117-23 31 0031 02914 CASCO POINT RO B Z OLASSHAN ANA CLASSMAN BARRY Z A NANCY A CLASSMAN 2914 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA HN ' 55391 36 20-117-23 31 0041 03630 CASCO AVE P CRAFFUNOER A K CRAFFUNOER PETER A KERRY CRAFFUNOER 3630 CASCO AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 36 20-117-23 31 0062 02740 CAROLINE AVE B L A J H ROSSTEDT SCOTT A JANET ROSSTEDT 2740 CAROLINE AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 36 20-117-23 31 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSZCNED ROY SCHRADER ET AL N/L EST ROY SCHRADER 3704 CASCO AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0021 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 20-117-23 31 0039 03704 CASCO AVE ROY SCHRADER ET AL H/L EST ROY SCHRADER 3704 CASCO AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0042 03600 CASCO AVE RICHARD J HAEFELE I HZFE RICHARD FAEFELE 3600 CASCO AVENUE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0073 02918 CASCO POINT RD JEFFREY L FAWBUSH ET AL JEFFREY L t RENAE T FANBUSH 2918 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PZ435401 PACE 1 38 20-117-23 31 0004 03703 CASCO AVE CARLOTTA F GABLES CARLOTTA F CABLES 3703 CASCO AVE .4AYZA1A MN 55391. 38 20-117-23 31 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENTJEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORCNO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 20-117-23 31 0040 03700 CASCO AVE J N DONCOSKE/P A DONGOSKE JAMES N I PATRICIA DONGOSKE 3700 CASCO AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0043 03650 CASCO AVE CHRISTOPHER J SMITH ET AL CHRISTOPHER J SMITH 3650 CASCO AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 i ♦J*• i TOTAL BATCH 501 00014 O SEE MAP 61 Jennin^y Harrison J.6UMAU «0 C^tks Bav MOUMO PtMlO IV li ^•*9 C- Permit No. Pi PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit 5-3Vb5 yOTl^ J4:72 _____5~ Ih-bO Jl/Yrt^cjin ^ 3050 4--I -71 J)/T^ U-O S>5^b h - S5-70 J/T)7 ^aiS.____S-HcWniP S^. // ______<^^VT7i //^ ) "b- as-6b ijbiB ______<? -^'Mn/rL^ Ihmo 7 •i1S'lh'51 -7 -7,5?-b5 1•1. _A-b~5>'D frnSt SfAr) 57 a3 ^-ar,-7S ~Rsu dAiyn^ ^•/i'h')jJUl(LL^r^J,d '/f f7 /'7'^Xk>r>tO rXiAu, .potlufjLjAJL^ jLLS.jp.yLPji.:> i^jLA iiM ^nt &z. \ 3-3^-9,3. V'aTZ 7 d-/f-eX i^Qi?lXit<^Pfiii7.\ ^ 60 V ■/'»26 y'^i^nceAtP l/po^l 6 'cX'9*L ' (oO'^^n 6'//, U/M ___0 j'j'iM>X£iuL, f ! PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date 2^a Type of Permit 5/7-97 ^dSo (o'S'91 yS^kjL^ojA^ nJ :'v i \ -■-. w*'"/ '■« _______... L j % •% •• • fi 4 . f *w • •* *«. ‘*ll vrij e^Jc gi « 5 jm IHilllM i!l!|l!il II lllll II MMliiM TTTtn III III Ml III \ I I 4 ii /D^ TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaflfron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 14,1998 SUBJECT: #2322 Steven N. Filips, 2570 Thoroughbred Lane - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. Application: Applicant requests after-the-fact approval to construct a 6' high privacy fence along the rear of this through lot. Pertinent Code Sections 1.10.03, Subd. 15 (C) - Fences which exceed V/i in height are considered an encroachment within a front yard area. 2.10.02, Defmitioii 42 - "Lot - through": A lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantial parallel streets and which is not a comer lot. On a through lot, both street lines shall be front lot lines for applying the zoning chapter. 3.10.02, Definition 77 - "Yard, front": A yard extending across the front of a lot between the side yard lines and lying between the street line of the lot and the required front yard setback line, which fiont yard shall be provided on both the street fioiitages of comer lots and double frontage lots. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey F - Site Plan/Fence Layout G - Staff Memo and Exhibits of 11/6/97 Background Please review the applicant's letter of request. Briefly, a new residence was constmcted on this through lot in 1995/96. In 1996 the owner apparently contacted the City and asked if he could construct a fence near his rear lot line. Apparently the fact that this was a through lot was not part Zoning File #2322 January 14,1998 Page 2 of that convolution, hence the answer provided was that a 6' fence is allowed. In fall 1997 staff was advised by a Councilmember that it appeared a privacy fence was going to be constructed along Watertown Road, and when this was investigated a 6' fence was in place. The property owner was notified of the 3 'A' limit and the potential issues regarding the Type 1 non-City protected wetland status of that part of his property. Applicant appeared before Council on November 10 requesting relief, and was advised to make a formal application for a variance, or perhaps a "temporary" variance. Applicant's intent is to maintain the 6' screening fence until a vegetative screen can be established that will provide a barrier to the headlights from traffic leaving Trufflila Trail, which exits directly north of the property onto Watertown Road. Hardship Statement Please review applicant's letter of request, which indicates concerns about the noise and headlight glare from Watertown Road and Truffula Trail. In staffs opinion traffic noise is a relatively minor issue, being no different for this property than dozens (if not hundreds) of other properties in Orono which abut a collector road. However, the headlight impact from Truffula Trail is somewhat unique to this property given the house location and elevation, as well as the location and elevation of Truffula Trail. In relation to the specific criteria for determining undue hardship: 1. 2. The property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property is being put to a reasonable use because it contains a single family residence. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The relationship between applicant's property and the orientation o/Truffula Trail is unique to applicant's property, because headlights from traffic exiting Truffula Trail aim directly at applicant's residence, and his rear yard is relatively open and not vegetated at this time. 3. The variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. The City has maintained a character of open spaces, not hemmed in by privacy fences, along collector roads. Very few similar fences can be found within the rural area. A 6'fence at the intended location alters the essential character of the locality, is not in keeping with the normal practice within Orono's rural area, and is not appropriate on a permanent basis in staffs opinion. Zoning File #2322 January 14,1998 Page 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adyoining property. The peculiarities of this property which contrast it with other properties, is that it lines up directly across from a road access where the elevations of the property and said road access result in headlights shining directly at the applicant's residence. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said lemd is located. Only a limited number of properties in the RR-IB Zoning District are similarly situated so as to be affected by headlights from traffic exiting a nearby road. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has indicated specific screening needs which would preserve the enjoyment of his property, and has suggested that such screening needs cannot be immediately met by a vegetative screen which will take some time to establish. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any respect be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. Granting the variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant, but applicant has defined the hardships and difficulties which suggest that until a vegetative barrier is established, headlights will continue to be a problem for him. Issues for Discussion 1.Are the hardships and difficulties expressed by the applicant sufficient to justify his request for a "temporary" variance? 2.If a temporary variance is granted, how long should the fence be allowed to remain in its current location? 1 i Zoning File #2322 January 14, 1998 Page 4 3.Has applicant provided sufficient information to allow Planning Commission to conclude that a vegetative barrier will in fact be established, or should some specific vegetation plan be submitted with plant species, locations, and a professional nurseryman ’s estimate of the estimated duration needed to establish a suitable barrier? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission determines that the hardships presented by applicant justify the granting of a variance on either a permanent or temporary basis, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Any recommendation for a temporary variance should include the following conditions of approval: 1. Applicant to provide a landscaping/screening plan defining the vegetation types, locations, and tjvJmated time frame for establishment of a vegetative screen that will replace the fence. 2. 3. The approval resolution should include language requiring the fence be brought into conformity by a date certain. Conformity may mean one of the following: A. Complete removal. B. Reducing its overall height to 3 Vi'. C. Relocating it to a location at least 50' from the northerly lot line. Advise applicant of his obligation to meet any standards established by other government agencies which have jurisdiction over the non-City protected wetland. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of a permanent variance, defining the hardships. 2. .Recommend approval for a temporary variance, defining the hardships and specifying conditions under which the fence can be temporarily approved. 3.Table for further information. 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 5.Other. AppUcation # Date Received /j> Jj22 /9 y Amount Paid -^2:2^ • lfo CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.0 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 9 S? . PROPERTY INF ORxMATION Site Address ^SlO Uv:^ . ______________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) U qt \ Attach icgal description to application if not included on required survey. » Date PropcrgAcquired ____________Aufecxsr 1^9 _________(month/year) I (do)^o n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. i.Present use of property: y, residential Zoning District:, other (specify). APPLICANT^ ^ Phone (home ) ’"IqZ. S________ Phone (work ) 41(^ ____ .-\.:dress: *70 City: _________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work) City:,Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ l^cribe request in detail: Tb^cif-sT foe, C>* (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover ,Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lak^hqie Other (specify) G, fgocg Li>r A'T t^u HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property con.'"ions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ArxrK<ilt^iiJT ______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) T ~ 4S2.9 (38) & (H) (I2)s/ JJLIL (10) 432.M »«e*3B*4r» »? 62 \ N/i, / \'t (4) 8 :;i. 16 3*6. Ig Wip* I0*t k d >i 8 •2’^ W •jr 1 i (n) 8 217 hJ &- 2 ®• S - -717 (13) 2T7i>'6 (14) 3 ri7 rs7.(?« > 4#^ " 217 3 % (5) , § no ^ §(6) ^ o ~g> ^___ 10 ^•0 ^ 4> (16) ^ ® 5 " - (17) 217 (18) S 217 s 13 § (19) yV2*7 3C4,« OUTIOT A (ZO) ULlf irr^snxs^k^I w : a*n:3)•• h». 4 w* J S ’3 1 U2) 1 "(20 "(2( 90 90 90 00. ^ (24) ^ wo iH IT? ran 4 a) ».22 « ***^ ^ (25) 180 • ^ 13 (32) ♦79.22 a ^^ (26) teo » 12 •" (31) 179.22 « 8 r (27) 180 --------- a •"^(29) ! (3( A : 8 • ds <^e) i« 1----7 § i 'o'-' '* 17427 6M.22 t a • a a «* a a a a a •■■■■■■■««■■ aaaa.^aaaaaaa •X ;-;v:'»:'X*; 253.V s immmm *>M*M*XvMvX<vM J V.*.‘. » « • « • » • • • •• • • • • » • • • • i • • • « 4 » • A « • •fla«aaaa«4 § • a fl V a a_< .V* 24C.34 r 3 ^ C**> g§ 36163 ^ 03 175 fi e ^ R 3 ^Of 03) ^ •>^ ‘A N .4199^ ) / I? r i 1 01/TlOT ^75.86 8 •&V----- J \ s 3 8 (20) 2 §______L ZTX 12 LA) 274.66 SI 4Q6.il wp*6f*e?t »4.3 S66*sr40*e 2M0 y>4.3 »4.3| _ Ml. 27 SW*Sr4yf no ABSei ^1146 (T) ^ 260 t >10 4^(6)(5) 4? «A Sv^ — 1 1 f 1‘f RUN DATE 12/22/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST BATCH 510 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 04-117-25 11 0015 02520 THOROUGHBRED U TONY EIDEN COMPANY TONY EIDEN COMPANY 4100 BERKSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH MN 55446 58 04-117-25 11 0020 02525 THOROUGHBRED LA LEGRAN HOMES INC LE6RAN HOMES INC 1521 94TH LA N E BLAINE MN 55449 58 04-117-25 11 0025 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TONY EIDEN COMPANY 4100 BERKSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH MN 55446 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 55-118-25 44 0042 02590 NATERTOHN RD ROBERT F JR A JANICE SUESS ROBERT F JR A JANICE SUESS 2590 HATERTONN RO LONG LAKE MN 55556 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 52 58 04-117-25 11 0016 02570 THOROUGHBRED LA S N A B J FILIPS STEVEN N A BETTY FILIPS 2570 THOROUGHBRED LA LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 04-117-25 11 0017 02600 THOROUGHBRED LA S C A A J HANKEY STEVEN C A AMY J HAreCEY 2600 THOROUGHBRED LA LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 04-117-25 11 0021 02575 THOROUGHBRED LA ANDREH 6 ESTOCLET ANOREN G ESTOCLET 2575 THOROUGHBRED LA LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 04-117-25 11 0022 02605 THOROUGHBRED U TONY EIDEN COTtf’ANY TONY EIDEN COMPANY 4100 BERKSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH MN 55446 58 55-118-25 45 0005 00120 GOLDEN VIEH DR JOHN HALLSON JOHN T HALLSON P 0 BOX 171 LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 55-118-25 44 0055 00040 TRUFFUU TR ROBERT F SUESS ET AL ROBERT F SUESS 2590 MATERTONN RD LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 35-118-25 44 0045 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROBERT F SUESS ET AL CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55525 TOTAL BATCH 510 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 KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF . i #2 O ei O ATTACHMENT "A" The primary need for the fence in question is to partially block the noise and headlight glare from Watertown Road and Truffula Tr. Of particular nuisance is the direct headlight glare from Trufhila Tr., which approaches my property at a 90 degree angle, shining in all of my rear windows. The fence was erected to give temporary relief until the vegetation along the property line matures to naturally block the nuisances. I am therefore requesting a temporary variance ( 2yrs- June 2000 ) at which time I will remove the fence. At the time of purchase of the property, August 1996,1 was assured by both the realtor and builder that it would be no problem building either a berm or fence across the rear of the property. In early summer of 1997,1 called the City of Orono, giving my name and address, and ask if there were any restrictions or permits required to put a privacy fence across the rear line of my property. I was told that there were no permits required and the only restriction was on the hei^t, six foot maximum in the rear and three feet in the front. I also called the builder, Tony Eiden and inquired as to any homeowners restrictions concerning the proposed fence, and was told there were none. In October 1997 1 had the fence installed at a cost of $3,500 only to be informed by the city a few days later that the fence was in violation of city code. In light of the circumstance that Truffula Tr. runs directly at my house and the fact that I used reasonable care in planning the installation of the fence in advance, I request your consideration of a temporary variance. Established In 1962 lot surveys COMPANj^NC LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MII^^A 7601 73rd Ave. No. INVOICE NO.. tTF. B. NO.-S2ES-^2ififi- SCALErSttfi------— o Otnofat Iron Monumont O Oenotet Wood Hub Sot For Excovotion Only Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428. ^urbeporK Certifitati / Proposed grades are subject to n *uU^J of soils tests. I Vs/atbr -towk R oac > X000.0 Donofoa Exittino Elovollon Donoi«it Propotod Elovolio - Donotot Surfoco Droindgo Propotod Top of Blocli }Q^n Proposed Goroge Floor Type of Building - f^u\\f?Pserwvfi-*pg4t.iMtt/0d</$ *• 0 »on.4 “-2.S8.OC>-- / >■ mm_______ , - - .■«UxtUTV ^ Of2AlNlA6iE- (EA^EME nIT a -5>l CITI OF OOOH A SITI; Pu\N grading PIAN ! WITH BtWSlONS C>! DATE - I 54!o"^ f=-" W.2TP I4to'..^12^ <7^ exile ---------------------------j \ ^ ^1 .A .# , • I yjfK Watertown Rd { o Trees i 7.75 3.33 N ATTACHMENT "B"MEASUREMENTS IN FEET -f \ ' V- I «VV, i’'.V ., fsiill •TAf'- l^G->4 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator November 6,1997 Fence at 2570 Thoroughbred Lane Attached is a letter from Steve Filips of 2570 Thoroughbred Lane regarding the fence which recently was constructed. Also attached are my letters of October 22 and 31. I met with Mr. Filips on October 27 and advised him that a variance is unlikely, given that the fence was brought to staffs attention by the Council. However, I also advised that he could discuss this with the Council under Public Comments at the November 10 meeting. His November 4th letter suggests a temporary variance, for which he could potentially apply for review by Planning Commission in January. I indicated the fence can remain as-is for the moment pending further Council direction on November 10. November 4,1997 Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323-0066 r ECEWEO 0 6 W* c\<-<oaOi'50 Re: Fence - 2570 Thoroughbred Ln. Dear Mr. Gaffron: I am writing in response to your request for a summar>’ of the reasons I would like to propose for consideration of a variance at the upcoming council meeting. The primary reason for the fence is to partially block the road noise and headlights from Watertown Road and Tniffiila Tr. Of particular nuisance is the direct headlight glare from Truffrila Tr., which approaches my property at a 90 degree angle, shining in all of my rear windows. The fence was erected to give temporary relief while the vegetation along my rear property line matures. At that future time 1 would prefer not having a fence. I am requesting this consideration because I called the City Offices several months before erecting the fence. 1 gave my name and address and told the lady answering I was considering putting up a privacy fence along the rear of my property. I ask if there were any restrictions or permits that I would need to comply with. I was told the only restrictions were that rear fences could be a maximum height of 6 feet and front fences could be 3 feet maximum, and there was no permit requirement. I then contacted Tony Eiden to check on any homeowners' restrictions and was told there were none. I feel that because I did use diligence in proceeding with the erection of the fence and considering the cost involved, I should be given consideration for a variance at least until the vegetation grows to obstruct the above nuisances. Sinewy,, / /'"^teven(F‘lips 2570 Thoroughbred Ln. GlTYofORONO Municipal Offlces Street Address; 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 October 31,1997 Steven N. Filips 2570 Thoroughbred Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 • Dear Mr. Filips: Thank you for meeting with me on October 27 to discuss your fence. This letter is to confirm that you may appear at the City Council meeting on Monday, November 10,1997 to review this matter briefly wiA the Council. The goal of such a discussion would be to gain some insight as to whether a request for a variance (or perhaps a temporary variance) would have any Council support. It would be helpful if you could provide a short letter to the Council describing the reasons the fence is ne<^deu at its current location and height. If we receive this by Thursday, November 6 it can be incluvi^5:i m their meeting information packet and give them some background prior to the meeting. h)i»^.any questions, please feel free to call me at 473-7357. Sincetr..-j, Michael P. Gaffrbn Senior Planning Coordinator Tdephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 47^4)510 L. GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 October 22,1997 Steven N. Filips 2570 Thoroughbred Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Illegal Fence Dear Mr. Filips: It has come to the attention of the City that you have constructed a fence approximately 6 feet in height along your north property boundary. This fence as constructed is in violation of Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 which limits the height of fences to 3-1/2 feet within both street yards of'through lots' (lots that abut streets at both the front and rear). Additionallv, it appears that this fence may be located within a wetland protected by the State of Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, and if so, is in violation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit whi-'h was issued for this subdivision, per the attached covenants. The fence must be brought into compliance within 30 days. Correction of all violations may require one or more of the following actions: 1. Remove it from the defined wetland area and reduce the height to 3-1/2 feet if it is to be located less than 50 feet from your north lot line. 2. Remove it from the defined wetland and place it at a location at least 50 feet from your north lot line if it is to remain at its current height of approximately 6 feet The pertinent sections of the zoning code are attached, along with a copy of the covenant restrictions. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator end. Tdephonc (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 . » STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF )ss. COVENANT OF DF.nirATiniv The undersigned, Orono Limited Pannership. a Minnesota Limited Pannership and Coffin Corners Partnershtp. a Minnesota Pannership now stipulates to the Swine realt> described in Exhibit A to this document (hereinafter referred to as Exhibit A) in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. ’ STIPULATIONS OF VACT UScT°?4r"^*^'"'°" ^ Act (33 Vendors-r O, 7 “'"«ncd Coffin Comers Partnership is the Contract for Deed Bav Rnad s -a d Add"' ^ “‘*i^°** ’ " '• '"clusive. Block 4, Old CrystalBa> Roao S; ond Addition, Hennepin County. MN and the undersigned Orono Limited Md lS r fi* "T'‘ ai°^i “ Lots 1 - 5 inclusive, Block I, Coumt Nf^' and is he c'^’ , J r n°'d S'”"" Alison Hennepinpun >. \ns and IS ihe Contract for Deed purchaser of Lots I - 6 inclusive. Block 3 L .MN ' '® Second Addition, Hennepin County. 3. That a portion of the real estate described above is a wetland under the regulators- junsdiction of the St. Paul District of the U. S. Army Corps of EneineOT pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. ^ ^ engineers Corps of E.ngineers have reached an agrleTJnrtSlhereby w!!l,Tfh' "'T' • “'"d" for the permittee to devef^i thewetlano. the “"dersigned will mitigate the adverse environmental effects resulting fiom the development by dedicating the easements as defined in the attached Exhibit A for perpetual Z “eXTSn“;e™r''““/"“'’ I Pauc I ot*-i 5 That the above mentioned dedication shall consist of the execution of this *“«nents as defined in c:u"tde?fo;^ •*-* of ‘O' .^u r Ihe wetland above described would not have been granted but for the dedication of the easements as contained on Exliibit A for use as date of executiJn ^f .hi, '=0"‘‘‘«0“ of <l'>s Covenant of Dedication shall, as of the J <<ocumen^ bind the undersigned to the extent or their legal and/or wTh f laS be ‘O'rpeny described in Exhibit A; and that this CovenanTshall run with the land and be binding on the undersigned and their heirs and assigns forever. exniicxiv’incilifllltl'!'* '0"d>‘'ons of this Covenant shall be both implicitly and e:^pi^.tl> included ,n any tr^sfer. conveyance, or encumbrance of the property described i E.xmo,t A or any pan thereof; and that any instrument of transfer; conv«»« o. the -em^anH ^ ‘‘'“ribed in Exhibit A shall Mt fonh ^ Vo™! ^ conditions of this document either by reference to this document or set forth in or in ruil text. DEED AND USE RESTRICTIONS pe."pc:uii> tor use as a conservancy area. acre- 'o^r«rrirf»‘? Partnership and CofRn Comers Partnership hereby agre. .0 resmci the use and title of the easement area as recited in Exhibit A as follows: I. .... , *’ U^IJ- agricultural or residential aevelopments, structures or buildings shall be allowed or permitted in the easement area of Exhibit .A 1 '1 V|| Pn<»o •• J 1 II 1^' j“ “Owns, drainage, burning, plowing or filling shall be a lowed or conducied on the easement area of Exhibit A. No domestic cattle, horses. sheep or other livestock shall be kept or grazed on the easement area of Exhibit A. ....‘’“fning. grading, excavation, direct introduction of untreated storm water, and mowing or other vegetation removal shall be allowed without written approval from the Corps of Engineers; 6. Covenant of Dedication may be ehanged, modified or revoked only Pam Dismct of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. To be effccUve such approval must be witnessed, aulheniicated and recorded pursuant to the law of the State of Minnesota. • /. Tins Covenant is made in perpetuity such that the present owner and its heirs ana assigns lorever shall be bound by the terms and conditions set forth herein. ORONO LIMHH) PiED PARTNERSHIP Presid int of James Development Corporation, Minnesota Corporation, a General Partner of Orono Limited Partnersliip STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COL*NTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknoWieiiged before me this * iTrnday of by JjiyiVl J\ lf'nil)0\\ CcXc'Oc.rf c 1994,President of a Minnesota Corporation, a General Partner of Xha?f onh^LMra'^aJtnW * of Minnesota. LARRY BERG NOTARY PUBUC • MINNESOTA ^MSEY COUNTY .. My eowmininn -J n___ ? . r iflv- t^f. *( t '>U 'h^i'••r. fr*. l^ COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP bv its /rfj'/>'//!/ad ha//h,’J^ ^ / ----------------------- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was^cknawledged before me this _atT;i__day of Cc^f^W .. 1994. by <Sg^( COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP, on behalf of the p lo^dg^ I^I^^ie thi: elialf of the Mwoersflito. General Parmer of This instrument was drafted by: SAHR. KUNERT it TAMBORNINO ISUU Soo Line Building Minneapolis. .MN 554U2 ~LARRY BERG i NOTARY PU8UC - MINNESOTA Z RAMSEY COUNTY ( My eemmlaalon «splm l*a>-M ( i ------ A‘T ?';0P. TAXES PAID TAX-* .»5'VIC=5 Tr:.n.:S=-ir? ii:r;TERED *0CT Ct «S4 •Hi;;:;enUNTY r<iN'N. ----- OcPJTY lAi • f dumping, burning, grading, excavation, direct introduction of !" 'll vegetation removal shall be allowed withoutwritten approval from the Corps of Engineers: 5. That any unauthorized prohibited activity in the conservation areas by the violmbl andlh’atle'’™'’'! 6. This Covenant of Dedication may be changed, modifled or revoked onlv “'■I*'® St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. To be effective such approval must be witnessed, a-.chenticated and recorded pursuant to the law of the State of Minnesota. . . V . Covenant is made in perpetuity such that the present owner and its heirs ana assigns torever shall be bound by the terms and conditions set forth herein. ORbNO LIMHm P. MiimPARTNERSHIP Presid mt of James Development Corporation, Minnesota Corporation, a General Partner of Orono Limited Partnership STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COL*NTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument wa's acknowledged before me this ' l7mday of by J/liyJ h ll'unJCh\ C<XdO(^r} c 1994, ALi\j.-----1—^, a Minnesota Corporation, a General Partner of President of Sdf onhethe laws of Minnesota, t*" PS'Sm LARRY 6ERQ * NOTARY PUBUC • MttWBOTA RAMSEY COUNn My oocnmWon txpirts 1«23-w 1 i r' 3. No lumbering, mowing, drainage, burning, plowing or filling shall be allowed or conducted on the easement area of Exhibit A. No domestic cattle, horses, sheep or other livestock shall be kept or grazed on the easement area of Exhibit A. 4. No filling, dumping, burning, grading, excavation, direct introduction of untreated storm water, and mowing or other vegetation removal shall be allowed without written approval from the Corps of Engineers; 5. That any unauthorized prohibited activity in the conservation areas by the permittee, subsequent property owners, or other parties shall be considered a permit violation, and that the property owner and responsible parties may be the subject of administrative, civil or criminal action. 6. This Covenant of Dedication may be changed, modified or revoked only upon written approval of the District Engineer of the St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. To be effective such approval must be witnessed, a’.thenticated and recorded pursuant to the law of the State of Minnesota. 7. This Covenant is made in perpetuity such that the present owner and its heirs and assigns forever shall be bound by the terms and conditions set forth herein. ORdNO L ED PARTNERSHIP Presid mt of James Development Corporation, Minnesota Corporation, a General Partner of Orono Limited Partnership ST.ATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COLTsTY OF HENNEPIN ) • \ * • *Tlie foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this iTrnday of ~ ‘ by JJwAh President of\ ..1994,_______________________ /tl!y;l; .//y/i-V. CwMyvUU a Minnesota Corporation, a General Panner of ORONO LIMITED pARtNERSHIP, a Limited Partnersjji^nder the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the Limited Pannership. notarypu ^ ^Iuwesota ARYP CRYSTAL rs ^ ri / > Li/ A fk / / V 256.00^ -V T A / t /-I •«b • • ______ ^ i*250.OO ^ ^^*^^OUTL -----------S8.96 ------------------------------ /?”/0 A/ / / / L^/ V =5 A* • Mi-lAihOW Wi'JOO PONT' RTOWt-4 O ^ r~.rv I 9 . / --------------------------- i I 1*^ 9>Z$0.OO ■% S86*/S'£ I f f M• / / o'/ V I I 1 I 1 S 10.02 dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner and filed in the office of the Building Inspector. 40. "Lot Line-Rear" - That boundary of a lot which is opposite the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear, the rear lot line shall be a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. 41. "Lot Line-Side" - Any boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. 42. "Lot-Through" - A lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. On a through lot, both street lines shall be front lot lines for applying the Zoning Chapter. 43. "Lot Width" - The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot line of a lot measured parallel to the front lot line and at the rear of the required front yard. 44. "Mobile Home" - Any type of structure or vehicle which can be readily adapted to or does provide facilities for a person or persons to eat or sleep which is mounted on wheels, has provisions for wheels, or may be loaded on an ordinary flatbed truck, such as a house trailer, converted bus or truck, tent or small building. 45. "Motor Court, Motor Hotel, or Motel" - A building or group of buildings other than a hotel used primarily as a temporary residence. 46. "Motor Freight Terminal" - A building or area in which freight brought by motor truck or railroad is transferred and/or stored for movement in intra-state shipment by motor truck. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 47. "Non-Conforming Structures" - Any structure which is legally existing upon January 1, 1975, which would not conform to the applicable regulations if the structure were to be erected under the provisions of this Zoning Chapter. 48. "Non-Conforming Use" - Use of land, buildings or structures legally existing on January 1, 1975, which does not comply with all the regulations of this Zoning Chapter or any amendments to it governing the zoning district in which such use is located. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 246 (4-1-84) S 10.03 EXCEPTION. Regardless of lot area# every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. D. Tennis courts, pools and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area, shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions; Front - 30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side - 30’ minimum and not within the required side yard area Rear -30* minimum and not within the required rear yard area Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 _ _ _ Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated. B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five feet of the front lot line. C. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not over 6 feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is required, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crown of the road, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line. D. In side or raar yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width cf 3 feet, fences and walls not to exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade and open off- street parking except for lakeshore lots, no fence or wall over 42 inches but not in excess of 72 inches in height above original grade may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the shoreline. Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 ORONO CC 256-1 (4-1-84) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. B m S 10.03 E. Rear yard only; balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shall be closer than 5 feet from a rear lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a rear yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. F. Siue yards only; no accessory structure shall be closer than 10 feet from any side lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a side yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 Subd. 16. Traffic Visibility. No fences, structures or planting more than three feet high in the ”R" District on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a triangular area defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence thirty feet along one curb line thence diagonally to a point thirty feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the polrt of beginning. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date; 9-14-67 Subd. 17. Essential Services. This Zoning Chapter shall require a permit for all structures including utility poles, and right-of-ways which are an integral part of a system for public transportation, as for transmitting power, water, heat, communica tions, gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public safety, health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. Subd. 18. Farming. All farms in existence on January 1, 1975 shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions: A. No new "stock farms" shall be created or existing stock farms enlarged more than twenty-five percent (25%) over the total number of animals that existed on the farm as of January 1, 1975 with animals over one year old except under the provisions of a conditional use permit. In considering any such permit, the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be determined by the Council. The site design and method of operation shall be reviewed and the Council shall find that the proposed or existing "stock farm" will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. ORONO CC 257 (4-1-84) FROM: DATE:January 15,1998 SUBJECT: Lot Area: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomercn, City Planner/Zoning Administrator #2325 Lake Country Builders on behalf of John and Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Zoning District: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) to be provided by the surveyor Application: The applicants are requesting approval to remove an existing deck on the lakeside of their existing residence and replacing it with a new deck and a stairway. They are also requesting approval of an 18 ’x 22 ’ screened porch addition to the north side of their residence. A variance for bluff setback is required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, 1 acre Section 10.66, Subd. 3, (2) Definition of a bluff Section 10.56, Subd. 16, C., 2 and 3 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area 1 acre Lot Width 140’ Street Yard 35 ’ Side Yard 10’ Lakeside Yard 75’minimum and average lakeshore Subject Prope.'.> Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside to be provided staff estimates .84 acres 215'49.8’38.7’ on SE 75’ proposed on north side 105’ The subject property meets the lot width and setback requirements tor street yard, side yard, and lakefront. It appears that the lot area is less than the minimum area requirement of 1 acre. Staff is working with the surveyor to confirm the lot size prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The existing residence is constructed in the area between , 75‘ lakeshore setback and the top of the bluff. a 2325 John and Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Bluff Variance 1/20/98 page —2 -J Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75'none none none none 75'-250’33,069 sq. ft.3,296 sq. ft. (9.97%) 8,267.25 sq.ft. (25%) 4,070 sq. ft. (12.3%) none There is not a hardcover issue with this application. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Please see the applicant's letter regarding their intentions and hardship. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1 . The property in question cannot Pc put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used as a residence. However, replacement of the deck is considered necessary by the applicant because of its current condition. Total replacement of the deck requires a bluff variance. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing residence is located almost entirely in the area between the required 30' bluff setback and the top of the bluff. It does not have a usable building pad considering the bluff setback requirements. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The purpose of the bluff setback is to protect the bluff and views from the lake. The proposed screen porch and deck would not require grading. There would be minimal impact on the slope. # 2325 John and Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Bluff Variance 1/20/98 page —3 4.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Residences are allowed in this zoning district. All new residences are to be located at least 30' from the top of the bluff. 5.The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. '\djacent properties are also located along the bluff line. From the topographical map it appears that this lot is most restricted by the bluff line and the location of the residence in relation to the roadway. 6.The greinting of the application is neces; ary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants have provided a letter indicating what their hardship is regarding their property. They will need to provide testimony regarding why the screen porch is needed to preserve and enjoy their interest in the property. A variance to allow the existing deck to be replaced meets this requirement as it is existing. 7.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. No replacement or additions can be constructed without a bluff variance. Issues 1. 2. This lot meets the setback requirements for street yard, side yard and lakeshore setback. The topographical map and survey indicate that the existing residence is located over the top of the bluff. 3. 4. The applicant is proposing replacement of an existing deck that is in poor condition. The proposed screen porch is 18' x 22' and would be constructed on pylons. Minimal # 2325 John and Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Bluff Variance 1/20/98 page—4 4 4i•1 disruption of the slope would be required to construct the addition. 5.The permit record indicates that the existing structure was built in 1973. The ordinances regarding bluff and shoreland management were adopted in February 1992. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The existing residence is located over the top of the bluff as defined by the 1992 shoreland management ordinance. Variances are required for any additions to the existing structure. Planning Commission should discuss whether residences on existing parcels that would not be built upon today should be intensified. The Planning Commission should consider separating the ctiscussL.1 of the deck replacement from the screen porch. Attachments # 232J John and Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Bluff VariarKe 1/20/98 page—5 r !• A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Applicant's letter Topographical map Survey Hardcover worksheets Permit record Elevations Ordinances regarding bluff it 2325 John and Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Bluff Variance 1/20/98 page—6 Application # Z3>7 C'" CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $22 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received JZ '2.2. -9 7 Amount Paid ^ 2.^0 2S PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress_ m•:u <o^^„^i„elud.d » „,ui«d su,v.y.Date ProEerQ:^Acquire d_ I (do) ^aP POt^ also own the adjacent parcels of land.^ ^ ___A_______ ^ ^ . .(month/year) Present use of prcmerty: >< residential ZoningPisCic-- fes.O^. c., - i Other (specify) APPLICANT Name Address: Phone (home ) I4n ^ "7 Phone (\wik)_J£2J£zlLLL Phone (home ) ^ |OWNER (if different than applicant) DESCR^ON OF MQUEST tstjmaled Construction Cost $ D^nte requ« m detail: ---------------------------tr /fe I./) ga.<-7*/a (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED -----Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Other (specify) Side Rear Ave^e Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue h^d^p or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zonmg Code requirements:_atf(via^ ^ J* / I A ^ ti e t A. ^—^r/<—y-s Sro2 t^.7% (attach additional sheets if necessary)_ vavuu.n aaaiuonai sneets it necessary) I k*e K /2<«A«r-<0 s* >'< V , (5) J 'x^\ V^ “ ^ \ \ \ .1^'- / \ \ m/w/m’' / ‘J' / 4^4/'lij» / (H) - J I-. •'\ X . .&;.// ^ \ n.34 /,J3. JiuK ..*v^ /X^,"“ ,!n\^ / ■ >! ®‘ti?v ^ ■ A,.-<? (A) *'5 ' V *7 f ^,V:-ky •/^ 69.98/‘Tf?t62 r ---------UO 3 •• / r e i s ^(27) fe (5)O (6) lao tASi /»7Ds^^^^ScTTrrmr t ' f a*? 1 1*0'') \^) ......V otT\ 'v s ■• \^\\\ THA ‘A \—^\>^-' ... u?n .... (tt.. ““>¥61 iSTe® 5W<o'4C^c |>^\ 5 ......... i, ' \ ______! \ M*.'! '‘^'N \ T. fS -4 S.^JMiS,S:’ai C—S2iS.*“ ' rTTT^’T'i 1,. i3X~1 llf= / .« js/g ® ^vAC7-ie-49 I jilc^A Anr.oi j l A» ZS?”" <'5) ! 11 r Vvs .a M •• II* (4% (»»); ? ■'t' ■ Parcel Information PamlD071172311001S HouMNun*«r0aS60 StTMt N«M NORTH ARM OR » I 5 .%------1- r . . .. m #/ ra \(i) VAC 4.».f5 05) t-roor STRIP RE5£r/g(r^v i6o:i I > _7e5w7 a ^ \ (23) 2 “J * 7TI. 7 * ^ \: 1 »■,'155 .-o'**'5 S T3^ «1 1® ^57!^ U ?4 a e 1.-. *>0 1?.\ *■ r December 19,1997 Planning Commissioners City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono, MN. 55356 Re: Variance Application Dear Planning Commissioners, From the L'formation we have presented you can see that oiu* desire is to add a screened porch and small 8*x8* deck onto our existing residence. Additionally, we want to replace our existing old rotted deck with a new one of approximately the same dimensions, although we have added a stairway on either end. This letter is to expand on our intent and address what we feel is our hardship. Our desire is create additional exterior space to enjoy our beautiful lot and view of Lal.o Minnetonka. We have minimized the size and scope of our project in order to respect our natural environment which we sincerely value. Additionally we understand that the existing realities of c ur home as it relates to the neighbors line of sigiit, city code setback and hardcover i;urface issues are not affected by our minimal scope of work. However we understand that there is a “ bluff “ area that exists that approximately 80% of our whole house lies within. Please understand that we certainly understand the cities desire to minimize lake shore construction as well as being responsible for the environment which we all share. However it seems like the “ bluff “ code, as it relates to our property, creates a severe hardship for us in that virtually no exterior construction or additions can be added unless they are created in the front of our home which fronts HWY 151. It is important to realize that the front of our home houses all the bedroom areas, and the living spaces are all on the lakeside , which i.s ceitainly consistant for lakeside homes. I hope you would agree that it would not make logical sense to construct a “ legal “ screened porch and deck on the front side of our home, only to have to walk through the bedrooms to enter it and then relax and enjoy the views and traffic of HWY 151. f. ^- * ^ *. r The particulars of the construction for the decks and porch are a post and beam construction which does not require extreme excavation of our eanh and also does not involve installing a concrete foundation. We will be only digging holes and installing concrete pier footings below ground. We also are maintaining the existing slope, terrain and natural environment surrounding our home, porch and deck. Water drainage will also not be affected. Additionally, it seems that the bluff regulations would not even allow us to replace our non-code compliant rotted deck with a safer more efficient version. This new deck construction ,also, would not alter existing bluff conditions, terrain or drainage. Being naturalists, we sincerely appreciate the Cities ongoing commitment to save our lakeshore , bluff areas and maintain our open spaces. However due to the existing layout of our home we sincerely believe the code creates a severe logistical hardship in our particular case and our proposal does not adversely affect the bluff environment which is also important to us. We sincerely appreciate your consideration and respectfully ask for your approval on our variance request. Most/sin ours. John & Cindy Olson 1r X.5 : fiB efif (3«f ^ ' 2 1=«*^. « I '1 i'C^^ca \ P^ >■ Cr» V ^ •■•'^ [?'> ri' •''•'..i^ ./ ^juiiLOnJfir VfO —226.W--- N 40"00'0Cf W COUNTY BOAT NO. J5I JOB hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* EXISTING HARDCOVER TN A. House mn_____ Length 250-300’500-1000' Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. SiSewaflc^ E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other A*!AX X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERl'Y AREA IN ZONE <\ V - B 3. 3 X 100 PROPOSED HARnrnVER TN ZONT A. House G Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Batts/Deck '^oAc.L F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other a- X, ^ AA.I -r ^ & X X X X X X X X X ^2^ — \x»V6 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -r B X 100 = (.3 8 L o _ 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. C 3 g S.F. 1 S.F. S.F. Xj S.F. S.F. CM (D 2.-? ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B ^SO CblAryi .. Permit No __36>~7J3 <r^9y 4'?7<3 U0 2 ^^SL°I PERMIT RECORD J)ate ■6-/9-7-? /9 - ■i s' /7 ',Ql • 7' 7^ ','- 7 - JO ' 3 /<JV3-9V /O -.31 "7-^7 Type of Permit JL^aju ,Sil A -gXaO-e^ I S 10.56 2. "Bluff" - A topographic feature such as a hill, cXiff/ or einoankinent having following characforistiics (an araa with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance of 50' or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): shoreland area;A. Part or all of the feature is located in a B. The slope rises at least 25* above the Ordinary High Water Level of the water body; C. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff fo ® point 25* or more above the Ordinary High Water Level averages 30% or greater; and body D.The slope must drain toward the water "Toe of the bluff" means the lower point of a 50* segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. "Top of the bluff" means the higher point of a 50' segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. 3. "Bluff Impact Zone" - A bluff and land located within 20' from the top of a bluff. 4. "Commercial Use" - The principal use cf the land and/or buildings for the sale, lease, rental or trade of products, goods, and services. 5. "Deck" - A horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site. 6. "Duplex, Triplex, Quad" - A dwelling structure on a single lot, having two, three, and four units, respectively, being attached by common walls and each unit equipped with separate sleeping, cooking, eating, living and sanitation facilities. 7. "Dwelling Site, Transient" - A designated location for temporary or transient residential use by one or more persons using temporary or movable shelter, including camping and recreational vehicle sites. 8. "Dwelling Site" - A designated location where a dwelling unit is Intended to be constructed. ORONO CC 376-2 (2-24-92) § 10.56 C. Placement of Structures on Lots. v;hen more than one setback applies to a site# structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows: 1. Structure and On-site Sewage System Setbacks (in feet) from Ordinary High Water Level: Setbacks Public Water structures Sewage Treatment Classification Unsewered Sewered System NE 150 150 150 RD 100 75 75 GD 75 75 75 Tributary 100 75 75 2.Additional structure setbacks.The following additional structure setbacks apply# regardless of classification of the water body: the Setback from: Top of bluff Unplatted cemetery Right-of-way line of federal# state or county highway and local public and private roads Setback (in feet) 30 50 30* * Except for detached garages on lakeshore lots as regulated in Section 10.03# Subd. 9 (D) and except for structures subject to less restrictive "side yard adjacent to street** setbacks as regulated in the various zoning districts. 3. Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities# except stairways# landings# and lock boxes# must not be placed within bluff impact zones. 4. Uses without water-oriented needs. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage# or# if located on lots or with public waters frontager must either be set back double the normal Ordinary High Water level setback or be substantial y screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography# assuming summer# leaf-on conditions. 5. Fences# docks# retaining walls. shall be placed within the shore setback zone. Portions located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as ^ subject to the regulations for landings per Subdivision 16 (F) o this section. Retaining walls shall not be placed within the shor setback zone. ORONO CC 376-11 (2-24-92) r \ > .4 m A scale r’ = 50’-0” SITE PLAN >• EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION •^7 V. bu‘« ( It - .-/J RftfPOwrM use ItiGAAlU nil 1>OMASMCMOI>SI9SO€0 na uv^nectt4»€ltwutfoa?«s MiAlUOCOSfl UMniASHAMNGMIU Tin M 1174 aniiOQiiATAIlMi tin MI41KOMOM iiao OA¥OKM.ooGcn ms iuzAMiwMttm TPHROGOCS n (SOMGf 4 4 T)€MU A ROOM l«>ua 14 lYM GCaOCA SUZMMf MATM H a A 102000 12I0C0 414912 H A A 40000 stooo 127144 H a A 119SO0 IfSOO 4417 iS n A A 40000 4<^111141 H a A I1A900 9SS0Q C4912 N a A 97400 111100 199171 H a A 14COOO 119COQ S09fS2 f s 1000 201292 IMS . 10000 XW 99000 IS4^ 0111 SQ€ IIAO V»A VWIOJUA WA Nmxil«U2»40 I >/^nsi9suioems 2r7 SUIO ASST PCf(T PIM UX in SUiO A(ST POMT PM UUC inAllTAONT 1120 kMa 1900 121000 1920 1920 222S00 TFramr 12A2 S9S OVU K2 ira iiM JTiMAWliUlWWrms fttieiromDCsoN tJM 12M 1400 f 4MWAUN KJMMN4CIJQMQN OAlAOAWUUyUTM. --------KOTTroST IJM lAH0AN4y)CAii ini AOMAraiAOCSON PATAOlJWaSN IVUXJKMON n H H Ak A tA 0 a A a A a A illil“TTSl" 4«C0 IfSCO "TTinr 41471 2SS7I9 1102.11 2191 S7 H ■A l a ■uw “T555T"fxc'jr USTEAAAIimfHOAN H a A s s 70000 140000 I7C00 lAlOOO 212491 7111 M iU0 "T;OT 1911 IM 19H 79S00 is^nsT 07/71 090 C I NlSO»IS1412$)QOO WA meULAA WA NW100X1 UXI00X14S A f lOOXIlDlTOlQU) ■7T MU\4^uiyr A f7sas».soxm A Ns^mxiismxiu A WW70X112C0X12I A 1SX12I 271 SU5 AASr FQtf<T PJiM lik in Af ST PONT in suoo Af tr Aota PM ux 277 SUIO AC ST AOWT PM UX in moo Ain PowT PM ux 0711721120029 07 117 2112 0014 Q7ll7nS20000 or 117 21 1200 m 0711721110012 07117 21 n 0017 07117 21110007 0711721110011Trrmnrsssi TTOT TTO—5OT 1971 111000 1912 Tc?mr 0111 710 TTSERSOTZST WA ISXlll A 71111X410U6Q 2n SUO AISIPOPA PM UU( 277 MO AiSr POMT PM UX in SUM) Af ST POMT PM LAX ITTMOAISTPONTPMtAXryiUflWTWwriwciit 0711721110009 07I17 2111000S 0711721110004 07 11721110001imnrwnT in luio AItT powr PM LAX 277 SUK) AIST POMT PM LAX orinniiooos 07117 21110001 V4 t^ T o !«■/ O f 3 9*5* 7^0>»^'» O ^ »/i»>/|g Bgfe»<' A R\^iQlsr»*'l P/^ Or;owio >5IW>C6 Q-r" Tiftr______ • Propeut / 4'T |4 8.jB 7^0»»»'r7?o»4g ^or A/o. /_ i t I i /yjv i^rt^nicn, L^r / <t» t ^ A-3 i-t»\jiwc. t*i yvitwo__TitUlZ. f i /? r ipuroais: T>»v»g- /V/y_e.M^/t^prg»>/ w«l </co_ c_ijce-_TP_-<S-VL».vo ou L^t- Air- >5otne f= uru«g- t-inue ’i___________________________________ /^5 /t- ^r. Afy Fnss<£V AH/^y /»T-fe-y?_yaci_»^flr- 4^1/a .XT M/»f.^ iQacg TO oc>&c/r< -rV/fr- PRoP&^f‘'i w«r»f-<t/o 'tutjgj jrp. # fButi^a ou Cot- J>-V. /p A/i s T*o</y f? (rPCW'>5 /r^-^ «rcp f*o>- •r-oo p p'u-ruue______ I ■ "^sA/iuu Ajor ritT /ina L»i^q /i>vx>_!!j^y_jc^_u.jaai=3u_J*«vwt_o_«.5y.—WjT.l jtTv T*!ff_rvffcmv *rttwg JT ^ ^/ZAry_^_CJ4±U.QJL'’Cb*^ _i«±b>_ .'d«'JLt.u«--------- Ujw/vr <Q ^<JSC f^'T' iSftS' As i^HtTWy V^<VV_ e.f,o^<? -rx> •r-i-4->%_c _e_ _ ftig_i^^i6tiL-j^.£i^J>u.ky» — *7T/g- «-payp- Rfc-A.yo»/ w»vy yjg ----- Pgrt /y gJiypt ' I3 uicotA^c >rty4c tUitifC 1 AiPf»i»y«:._‘r<i» P ) oie- r»^ff- «acffp rt/b /mortovur -rKtr vAbvr o_<»r:»f«nv_jj^yw6T» ._ — i i 1 ! 1 ... ._. .. ; »' ' ■ '■■ - ■"— ......................... ""*"“——■ i. i 1 f 1 .I . . 4* • ‘ VI '~ri4<? ^WOPOStfo HauSit A Kna ^/ft/C<»gg OlS'^/tiAJ f^UKPO^ li ; Vv\v>og T^ «r’4C~ hi><x**wt>wt Ol5rwtvcg T*//1~ /? o^o/l^>l^u4 I ‘ t •Hovlfcr /iu *ri4e,r AKC L(s.&0 Iml/va____________ !i /^/<e COW/o/r/QW/ Co/V Og>/^g'/?J VA»<rK/<v ^g-w/«r/4>;c J p(£cr op T"Hg WA/(T. •. li OrJ H»6P a JTTV/h %9 'S'tTH^P i4^ f^t<0P09Ci' / *Vo T~/f* c /V ju3g /9h'i5~w jgg «?g:/?L;c6~p A>o ly/»v<* r-r,<r <u<.<)ujer r * ^ IS'ae.r*s^gr I • *><»• T(/RNIIMC »Vous C a pPfU>~^ . ‘i'o. li Rrbg:si6 <u<7 (aAr.c»i^i . Put9 c * »vc. T-^/r t-tayfc J3Ac .il T~<^ i S /^tau. wout^ig CoM/fow.*^ ( ! 7*0 T~»*6 ^SVT o>» iQL.t_ t^4i^ /^QitiaS 0 r V«Vc 17 X l4t>RC ft-iv» I;t !i WtaL/L^ oa STHyc/r TViy Nilt^Wc/ 3fc»^u^g d r=- <3g*/A/0 P/Ja . !■ t !'SerhhiKfn Tif^ oiKQiuc. )>tfu3-r^ i) 4 li • f il i • ♦ i { il 11 I I ■ j !i I I! I ' M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: lA- Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant January 14,1998 #2296 Robert Bredeson 1395 Rest Point Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B Lot Area:7,670 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (. 17 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 1,166 s.f. residence with an attached 520 s.f. garage on a lot of record not meeting current zoning district requirements. The applicant currently owns nearby property on the point, 1410 Rest Point Road. A fence encroaching into the 75' lakeshore setback is also being proposed. Variances are required for lot area, lot width, lakeshore setback, rear setback, structural coverage and hardcover in the 0’ to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore ___________setbacks.______________________________________________________ Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage • Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Ilequirements • Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements • Section 10.25, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements »2296 Robert Bredeson i395 Rest Point Road I driances 1/20^98 Pag: 1 Ktl&asi ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeshore Yard Side Yard Rear Yard LR-IB requirements 1 acre 140’75’10’30’ subject property . 17 acre 59' at 929.4’ OHWL 60’ at 75’ setback 41’ proposed 13' proposed 12' proposed The zoning lot does not meet the lot area or width requirements. As proposed, the rear yard and lakeside setbacks would also not be met. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 7,670 s.f 1,803 s.f 23.5% The proposed residence requires a variance from the structural coverage requirement. The proposed residence is 1,803 s.f., 302 s.f. more than the 1,500 s.f. lot coverage amount allowed for lots les.'i than 2 acres. On the subject lot, a 1,500 s.f footprint is 19.55%. 15% of the lot coverage would provide a 1,150 s.f footprint. U2296 Robert Brede son 1395 Rest Point Road Variances inms Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'4,450 s.f.none none 1,250 s.f. (28.09%) 1,250 s.f (28.09%) 75 ’-250'3,220 s.f.none 805 s.f. (25%) 1,140 s.f. (35.4%) 33.5 s.f (10.4%) The proposed residence requires hardcover variances in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setback. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's statement of hardship is included as Attachment I. The applicant should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. rriteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used imder conditions allowed by the official controls. The lot would be unbuildable without the granting of variances as there is a minimal allowable building pad. The letter (Attachment N) from the City Attorney states that a reasonable use can be made without the constructing of a residence, however. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. A lift station that was improperly constructed on the northeast portion of the lot in 1971 slightly limits foil use of the lot. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, The variances for lot area, lot width, lakeshore setback, rear setback and hardcover in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks will change a vacant lot to a residential lot. ^2296 Robert Brcdcson !395 Rest Point Road Variances 1/20/98 Pagey isauami 4. 5. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A single family residence is permitted in the LR-IB zoning district. The special conditions applying to the stnicture of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Most lots and residences in the area do not conform to current zoning district requirements. The following table shows the approximate lot sizes for several of the neighboring lots on Rest F oint Road, all of which have residences on them. Address 1385 1390 1398 1386 1396 1395 1405 1400 1406 Size (Acres) .34 .22 .21 .21 .2 .17 .12 .1 .1 As this table demonstrates, the subject property is comparable in size to the neighboring lots tha* currently and historically have had residences on them. The lift station on the northeast portion of the lot is unique to this property on Rest Point Road. 6.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 7. Most lots of similar size in tlie area already have residences on them. The subject property has historically been ''acant. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Sewer was made available to the property prior to current zoning district requirements. While a sewer unit was not assessed, there is a service "y" at the sewer main in the street as shown on Attachment J. This suggests there was the possible intent that a sewer stub would be added in the future when a residence i.T constructed on the lot. The property was not assessed for a sewer unit, however and did not meet requirements set fortli by the 1967 Zoning Code at the time the sewer project took place. ii2296 Robert B rede son 1395 Rest Point Road Idr lances 1/20/9S Page 4 8.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessar}' to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Without the granting of variances, the allowable building pad is triangular in shape and consists of approximately 500 s.f The building pad dimensions and size make constructing a residence conforming to zoning requirements impossible. The survey (Attachment FI) shows the allowable building pad according to required setbacks. Issues 1. 2. 3. The zoning lot is .17 acre where I acre is required. The lot width is 59' at the 929.4' OHWL and 60' at the 75' setback where 140' is required. There is no adjacent land that could be purchased and combined with the lot by the applicant to better conform to zoning requirements. Although the lot was not assessed for a sewer unit in 1971, the presence of a "Y" for a future sewer stub may indicate that it was the applicant's intent to build upon the lot sometime in the future. While the property was assessed for footage, it was not assessed for a sewer unit. 4. 5. 6. A shed existed on this property as of 1958. It is unclear what happened to the structure, which is no longer present. It does not appear that a residence ever existed on the property. The proposed residence would be constructed at the low'est allowable elevation, 932.5'. No basement would be constructed. All habitable and storage areas would be above ground. The lift station on the northeast portion of the lot was installed incorrectly in 1971. The lift station was proposed to be located in the far northeast comer of the lot, it was mistakenly located 30' west into the lot. The lift station was also not to protrude above ground level, but it is 28" above ground level. The applicant was to be compensated for the errors and a utility easement. The conditions to be met are attached in a letter from the applicant's attorney dated June 9, 1972 (Attachment L2). Attachment LI is a memorandum from Orono's city attorney to the Mayor and City Council recommending the settlement proposed by the applicant. The minutes from the City Council meeting of June 12. 1972, when the City Council voted unanimously to accept the settlement is also included as Attachment M. it22 96 Robert Bredeson 1395 Rest Point Road Variances 1/20/9S Page 5 7. 8. 9. The 1972 memorandum from Orono's City Attorney to the City Council indicates that there is no need to reduce the assessed value of the lot as the buildability of the lot was not diminished with the placement of the lift station. This language is not clear as to whether the lot was considered buildable, or merely stating the fact the buildability had not been decreased any further. The 1971 Zoning Code in effect when the area had sewer installed are the same as the current zoning requirement (1967 Code Section 34.242) with the exception of hardcover and the 75' lakeshore setback. This indicates that while the lot was non-conforming at the time, further restrictions currently apply regarding shoreland protection. There is a discrepancy between the historical land value of the subject property and the two neighboring properties on Rest Point Road. While the property at 1385 is approximately twice as large, accounting for part of the value discrepancy, the property at 1405 is approximately 2/3 the size of the subject property, yet valued higher. The following table is the assessed value for each of these properties for various years from 1977, the first year land and property values were accounted for separately to 1997. Address 1997 1990 1985 1980 1977 1385 $90,000 $68,800 $62,000 $17,200 $9,438 1405 $68,500 $47,400 $43,00^$12,200 $7,623 1395 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $8,600 $5,600 As this table demonstrates, the lower land value of the subject property in comparison to the adjacent properties questions whether the property has been taxed as a buildable lot. 10. The City Attorney has indicated that denial of all variances to deem the lot buildable would not constitute a taking as the applicant would not be deprived of all use and enjoyment of the property. His findings are included as Attachment N. 11. An inventory of lot area ''ariances that took place in the 1980's revealed that in the LR-IB zoning district the smallest lot area variance approved for any lot was .39 acre. In the LR-IC zoning district, the smallest lot area variance approved for a vacant lot was .35 acre, twice the size of the subject property under consideration. Attachments 01 and 02 show these findings. ^2296 Robert Bredeson 13 9S Rest Point Road lariances I/20/9S Page 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider issues involved with denial of variances for lot area, lot width, lakeshore setback, rear setback, structural coverage and hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback to deem the lot buildable, as well as issues involved in granting the necessary vari. nces to construct a residence. If the Planning Commission wishes to deny the variances, the following reasons should be considered: The lot has historically been vacant and has not conformed to zoning requirements since the adoption of the 1967 zoning code, prior to the sewer project. The construction of the proposed residence would result in a non-conforming structure where none had previously existed. While a sewer "Y" is in place for the addition of a sewer stub for the subject property, the fact the property was never assessed for a sewer unit creates doubt as to whether the lot was considered buildable at the time the sewer project took place. The assessed land value of the subject property has historically been less than adjacent properties with residences, indicating the possibility it has not been ta.\ed as a buildable lot. According to the study conducted in the 1980's, .39 acre is the smallest lot area variance granted in the LR-IB Zoning District. In the LR-IC zoning district, the smallest lot area variance granted on a vacant lot was .35 acre. Approving the lot area variance would set a new lower lot area precedent. Denial of all necessary variances to build would not result in a taking according to the City Attorney. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the necessary variances, staff recommends the following approvals and amendments to the proposal: Staff recommends approval of a lot area variance of .83 acre to allow the lot to remain at ,17 acre where 1 acre is required. Staff recommends approval of a lot width variance of 81 ’ to allow the lot to remain at the existing 59' at the OHWL and existing 60' at the 75' setback where 140' is required. U2296 Robert Bredeson 1395 Rest Point Road Variances 1/20/98 Page! uV»» nth m 4W IHMCUM * ).• OR !•'* ■MU ^s^Tpfi SURVEY FOR; FRESHWATER BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE Hona• DOiOTTs pnopmr cowtn. 5.0T. .CKK PPOPOtTY, iP PITE10fl#D#T OM COHSTWUCTtOH IS PLASNtP, nSr^£o^ ^^*fla^nT^AMEA ssown ts not an oppicial dnk NtSIGNATTD WETIASD DCUNEAnON^ BUT AN APPBOXINATK WCAJtON ONLY, ifScT iaatf Surre/ No. 1630. We§ of the Peiistror of TtUeg, Im mmi for Noooopim Couotj, MinooooU: . Subject Co oaMOitotii aad rosLricliOAJ of rocorOt U an/. I bar«»/ *«rt4// UmI UI« •■rr*/. mt rw^ft m»d0 Of m0 me UM^mr aof 4lr«cl mrnfmr^mmm mmO Ikml I mm • 4ulf rr/l«Ur»4 Un4 Surem/me me. umlT^'T'H ^ O oftr -*'H r * i/*'•* *vL Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application tt Date Received • ^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2500 Shadywood Road, Navarre, MN 55331 Type of Application to be Filed C.U.P Amendment Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 20-117-23 11 0034 APPLICANT Name Freshwater Foundation Phone (home)_ _________Phone (work) (612)471-977 3 Address 2500 Shadywood Road_________(Jlly%X£££f____________Zip35331 OW'IER (if different than applicant) hi am Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired September 1995 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$225.00 Guest Housc/Gucst Apartments ______$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Aftcr-thc-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (i- consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation ____$200.00 nn-temenl Vncnlion _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals X Other - sec Fee Schedule - c.u.P Amendment PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Py=f________ Present Use of Property______Residential Otlier (specify). ....... December 22, 1997 ADDENDUM To: From: Subject: City of Orono Freshwater Foundation APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 3561 .Brief History of the Freshwater Foundation and the Gray Freshwater Center Ownership of the Gray Freshwater Center (GFC), previously named the Gray Freshwater Biological Institute, was returned to the Freshwater Foundation by the University of Minnesota on September 15, 1995. In April of that year in anticipation of the event, the Freshwater Foundation filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit with the City of Orono. At its May 22 meeting, the Orono City Council approved the application and Permit No. 3561 was issued. While the return of the GFC offers significant long-term benefits to the Foundation, the cost of operation coupled with the operational demands required by the facility distracts the Foundation from serving its fresh water mission as efficiently and effectively as intended. To offset these distractions, the Foundation is seeking long-term tenants to fund the operation of the facility. Present Status Since the return of GFC, the Freshwater Foundation has been exploring a variety of direct uses of the facility in support of various fresh water program activities. At the same time, we have been searching for potential rental candidates whose activities fit within the scope of the Foundation's Conditional Use Permit. Within the last two years, the Foundation has added two new newsletters - *ANS Digest" in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the national Task Force on Aquatic Nuisance Species and "National Water Quality News" in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey. These newsletters are distributed around the country and have been very well received by both professionals and lay subscribers. A Teacher Resource Center has been established within GFC to provide instruction, reference materials, equipment and laboratory facilities to assist K-12 teachers in water-related 1 IS - .•TT programs. The Foimdation continues to receive and respond to about 150 inquiries from around the world on water-related matters each month. With its excellent conference facilities, GFC continues to be the ideal facility for the seminars and symposia for which the Foundation has been widely noted, GFC serves as the warehouse and distribution center for Foundation publications including the very popular "Minnesota Weatherguide Environment Calendars". Of the rentable space in GFC, about 35% of it is now occupied by tenants. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ?re headquartered in the facility. Baywind Christian Church conduct their Sunday and Wednesday evening services here. American Coating Technology (a company specializing in biodegradable paper coatings) and Gradient Technology (a start-up company developing new chemical engineering technology) are also headquartered in GFC. And, of course, the Foundation is a tenant. In addition, ^e continuing search for tenants continues with negotiations underway with a major Minnesota company needing research facilities. If these negotiations are successful, GFC will be fully occupied. (f'J . .• • i fi f:' \ ■ i /•••s V * .r- • \ ■; ;: . •• •VV' ,, '! LOWER LEVEL f r UPPER LEVEI 3 ^j FRESHWATER BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE MAIM ENTRANCE Wmm Wi MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#6 - #2007 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) Nolan moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2007 for the installation of an L- shaped berm on lots 1 and 2, block 2 subject to the berm maintaining a 20' setback separation from the drainfields. The Applicant must provide site drainage plans satisfactory to the City Engineer along with an integrated drainage plan along the shared property lines and between the residence and drainfield for lot 1 with an easement accompanying agreed swale. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2013 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION, 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTBVUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:54-8:12 P.M. Boyd Burton, Vice Chair of the Freshwater Foundation, and Board of Director members, Robert Searles and JoEllen Hurr, were present. Mr. Burton relayed the groundwork on the history of the institute, which was formed by Dick Gray in 1968 to do research on preservation of fresh water, and who then built the institute. An agreement wa?- made wth the University of Minnesota in 1974 and was given over to the university in 1976 as a research institute and named the Gray Freshwater Biological Institute. Burton said the university has concluded, that due to budget restraints, they are unable to continue to afford operating the foundation. Two options were available; one, to put the foundation on stand-by, or two, give the foundation back. The intent is to not change the purpose but to be more of an educational organization informing the public on fresh water issues. The original construction cost paid by private contributions was 4 million dollars. Since then, another 3-1/2 million has been spent on research. The building sits on five acres, with an additional 2-1/2 acres south of the building, as well as two outlots. It was found that no conditional use permit was ever issued to either the foundation or the university. The foundation's application is to correct that mistake at this time. Peterson reported his pleasure in seeing the institute back in the community and would like to see school tours of the institute. Peterson is in favor of the CUP and asked Burton if he was aware of Staffs recommendation for the CUP. Peterson is concerned that no CUP be issued without written documentation that the university has removed all hazardous wastes, and that any hazardous waste be taken care of and disposed of in a proper manner. The Applicant said the formal decommissioning will take place by the end of July. Smith asked who the regulatory agencies involved were and if they concur with these decisions. The PC A is the agency involved. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#7 - #2013 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) There were no public comments. Lindquist inquired of the ADA requirements for the building. Burton said an inspection has occurred. Only small differences were found and few modifications needed. The plan is to comply but no time schedule has been decided. There are two levels to the building. The elevator is not ADA approved at this time but would only be necessary if the public were to be e.xposed to the lower floor in the fiiture. Smith asked that a time frame be part of the recommendation. Mabusth said the institute acts as a polling place and could work out the details with the City on compliance. Appropriate Braille signage on bathroom doors were needed as soon as possible. Hurr asked when next election use would occur. Mabusth advised in fall of 1996. Berg asked about parking and any plans for paving or expansion of the parking lot. The Applicant says there are no plans to expand, and the occasional wet conditions of the lot are the only complaints received. Hurr replied that any additional parking would require a CUP. Nolan asked if any conferences were held that would incur problems with parking. It was found that there were no guidelines in place for this situation, and Mabusth said no problems have been reported. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2013 for a CUP for continued use as a research facility as the Freshwater Institute. The Applicant will bring the building up to ADA codes within a year of their receiving the property, July, 1996. Proper certification will be needed fi-om the MPCA. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) #2015 MARK HARRINGTON, 4080 BAYSIDE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMTTA^ARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:43-9:54 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. John Amot represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the application is for a 35'x44', 3-story addition, which will double the size of the existing structure. A variance setback was granted for a detached garage in 1984. The detached garage will be removed when the attached garage, which is part of the application, is built. . y IKR ffiiwmtj 1TK iltit rc»:1flt rtTfiuJ rKYiTiTiat^W rti«»]MiMtJ rtiii4i^«iBf«v^tiiIi^ r«Ti«t rinrt w II «SHO CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 5 fi 1 ^ A RESOLUTION GRANTLNG A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.43, SUBDIVISION 4(C) FILE #2013 WHEREAS, M. Boyd Burton, Vice-Chairman and CEO of the Freshwater Foundation (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 2500 Shadywood Road located within the City of Oroiio (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1630, Files of the Registrar of Titles, in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to tlie City of Orono for a conditional use pennit to permit the continued use of the facility as a research and educational center per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.43, Subdivision 4(C). Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, B C IT RESOL\TED by the City Council of Orono, 3. FINDINGS The application was reviewed as Zoning File #2013. The property is located in the B-4, Office and Professional Business Zoning District requiring a minimum of 20,000 s.f. in area. The property consists of 5.078 acres. On May 15. 1995 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as amended and recommended unanimous approval based on the following findings: A) The Gray Freshwater Biological Institute was founded by the applicant in 1974. Page 1 of 5 r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Pj > ._______ 4. In December of 1976 the Institute was gifted to the University and has continued under its ownership and management through to the present time. The City has no record of issuing a conditional use permit to either the Freshwater Foundation or the University of Minnesota for the research center. D) In July of 1995, the Freshwater Foundation will once again own and manage the Institute and has agreed to file the required conditional use permit. (E) The Foundation proposes no changes in use but will continue to provide conferencing facilities, laboratories and office space. (F) The Institute will continue to provide a polling place for Navanc residents. (G) There is no intensification in use proposed. The Instimte will operate at the approximate use level as was provided under the management of the University of Minnesota. (H) The Institute owns an adjacent parcel to the immediate west, Lx)t 8, the Marsh of Lafayette. The additional area may be used to serve future parking needs if necessary. The applicant has agreed to install certain required improvements under the Americans with Disability Act prior to the 1996 general election. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the continued use of the facility as a teseatch center will not \x detrimental to *e health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air not pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, not will ns use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level ofuM of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Paae 2 of 5 r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MO S56l 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use 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 a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.43, Subdivision 4(C) to permit the continued use of the facility located at 2500 Shadywood Road as a research and educational center and to continue to be known as the Gray Freshwater Biological Institute, subject to the following conditions: 1.Upon occupancy applicant shall be responsible for installing fully compliant raised and Braille signage on all doors of toilet rooms in close proximity to the polling areas. 2.Applicant has agreed to make the following improvements within the Institute by July of 1996: A.Provide a van accessible parking stall within the parking and pedestrian crossing and to crosshatch the pedestrian crossing to warn motorists. B. Ensure that a curb cut/ramp be provided leading to the sidewalk. C. Reduce the tension of the main entrance and vestibule doors. D. E. Bevel the abrupt rise at the main entrance doors. Toilet rooms in close proximity to the polling areas to be upgraded. Lower coat hooks provided in close proximity to polling area. F. Assessable drinking fountain be provided in close proximity to the polling . area. 3.Upon occupancy of applicant but no later than July 31. 1995. applicant shall provide copies to City of MPCA report certifying removal of hazardous wastes from facility. Page 3 of 5 i; 1* o CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 581 - 4. 5. 6. Applicant is advised that the City will reserve its right to recall or reconsider this conditional use permit as it relates to additional parking needs or paving improvements. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constimte a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. M. Boyd Burton, Vice Chairman & CEO of the Freshwater Foundation has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Freshwater Foundation, its successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of May, 1995. M. Burton, Vice Chairman & CEO of the Freshwater Foundation STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of May, 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the ^ / S. VEE K ^ • C/Mi--'------ S Pwllwy NOTAflypuBLic-MiNNESOTA ffi Notar\' Public LINDA S. VEE NOTAfly public -minnesota HENNEPIN COUNTY My Com.'nissio.i Expires Jaa 31.2000 Page 4 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 6 1_____ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) day of A<, 199^’ before me a Notar>' •• Pi^blic within and for said county, personally appeared PhunJU-^-x known to me to be the person(s) described m and who executed th^forenoton totrument, aSdIcknowledeed that he (they) executed the same as his (their) freethe foregom*, act and deed. LINDA S. VEE NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ day of , 199 before me a Notar>' Publicwithinandforsaidcounty,p«.o,»UyapP^^^^^ the foregoing instrument, a^dTcknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. notary PUBUC Page 5 of 5 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE:January 15, 1998 SUBJECT:#2318 C.N. Ostrom on behalf of Jeanne Mithun 755 Ferndale Road Conditional Use Permit—Public Hearing 7. Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB 96,525 One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) square feet (2.26 acres) Application: Tlie applicant is in the process of converting the basement of their client's home into a guest apartment for a relative. An exterior door has been added to provide egress. The basement previously had no windows or exits, other than the staircase to the garage. Historically, a second kitchen in a residence has alerted staff to a possible second unit inside a dwelling. A second kitchen with a bath and sleeping romm constitutes a second unit. A conditional use permit is required for non-rental guest apartments. Pertinent Ordinances: Se.-tion 10.02, Definition 27(a): Guest Apartment Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G2): Non-Rental Guest Apartments C.S. Os from on behalf ofJeannne Mithun 755 Ferndale A\^nue Sorth Conditional Use Permit 1/15/98 Page I i Findings: 1.That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Non-rental guest apartments are allowed by conditional use permit in residential zoning districts provided they meet the necessary criteria of having the primary means of access to the apartment directly through the residence. 2.That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed guest apartment would not negatively affect the health safety or welfare of the vicinity. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The living quarters under construction do not have the primary entrance directly through the principal living area. The primary entrance is through the garage, with a secondary point of ingress and egress provided directly to the outside. While a driveway currently leads to this door, it is in place for the duration of construction only. When the guest apartment is completed, both occupants will share the existing driveway leading to the garage. The entrance to the guest apartment is at the south end of the garage. The entrance to the principal living space is at the north ead. This arrangement is conducive to creating a completely separate apartment in the future if a wall is constructed separating the south garage stall from the rest of the garage. Attachment H shows the general layout of the garage. If this ever occurs for the purposes of renting the guest apartment, it is grounds for revoking the conditional use permit Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss issues involved in approval of denial of the conditional use permit. C.iV OStrom on behalf ofJeannne SUihun “^55 Ferndale Avenue Sorth Conditional Use Permit 1/15/98 Page! i Staff recommends Planning Commission consider the following if they wish to approve the application; There is an entrance to the guest apartment through the garage which would be shared by both occupants. This access is not through the living quarters of the main unit. The exit from the second unit is needed for emergency egress. Currently there is a construction driveway to the second unit that the appplciant intends to remove. Construction has already begun on the basement remodeling. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following if they wish to deny the application; Since there is no direct access to the guest apartment through the principal living quarters, as the full intent of the zoning code has not been met. The location of the staircose entrance to the guest apartment lends itself to the possibility of a barrier being constructed to separate this part of the garage from the rest of the residence and being used as an entirely separat:: dwelling unit. However, the main unit would most likely continue need storage space in the existing basement. If the conditional use permit is denied, state law allows the granting of a variance to allow the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. This provision under state stautes has not been used in Orono to the best of Staffs knowledge. The state law does not include criteria for unit design and does not define "temporary". Attachments; A B C D E F G H I J K Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Property Owners List Survey Staff Sketch of Garage Layout Guest Apartment Floor Plan Elevation Drawing-North Side of Residence Applicant's Conditional Use Permit Request CiV Ostrom on behalf ofJeannne Mithun 755 F^ntdale Avenue Sorth Conditional Use Permit 1/15/98 Page 5 ,1 w •jirtfsi ^wsurti 3ie.s i?;=vr •4 it nv*' us. I ( 7 1 . W 7 I'TT * < r) <.■»> t«) K.ai j ri ngs'’, • a»»-^~------r. >» jBvie) F?* ' ^p» Liir*\* -^'^•■if'iTrtSrit—-RCT" f l&l ' U' /I&1 5e&*’C-ic^« -//g-2;3'll (13) r.'-,*:-S>.-::*: |««««a«««« !**•*•*•*•* ???. SC iM L>‘ ( I5T.<? I 5:7.di 5v :i^s »«•••« ••• ••*••««« « a*#*^*#* *** * * *• «*<*•!#*•*•*• V* T 1>TH A^E ■>n.C* Jfo. SW 3 :-:vX>:-:-:-l •::*:-:::x-:‘ •iW (7) gi - ca.45 — tfT.fi . i a J rirj' & / • 5.. .Nitgit. ■ //'/-• :&» fcsr »ai.5i I at-ii I> (?) / ft§ 2 >/J J?* 35 N’ ‘"i V' i ' O’II "V^ ^“¥n- L ' *-• •OTM I i?2 i-’ KT 4: Tt-TTf . \(i, ?0i?S7S„.,_^5i^^^ mj-r ■ ' ••■X .'.'^LX -? —^'••.s;^/. sa'''4* / , A.K^yy' / / tJC.M /y ■p:rfv ili) \.' :^' 127J >1 . \ <«•',(3fl /u^) Zf^kA / • ■yl '~YSS /JcrOfA PERMIT RECORD inOn Permit No.Date STfl 9- f-1?& f^OO>in~if5-?.'s n 5?5 ■■^5crf ! 1 -?^5- fiS ^'d04 <! Type of Permit 0-\i\A\ac^ TS^^pj-vo 'nv». u OaA^ Nj^ell rAarKgUfCdyC /V 0c;^ RUN DATE 11/21/97 BATCH 501 HEmEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435901 PAGE 1 PROP ADDR OWNER t;AME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 25-118-23 ^ 0002 00865 FERNOALE RD N ST EDWARDS EPISCL CH ST EDWARDS EPISCOPAL CHUR P 0 BOX 71 HAYZATA m 55391 38 25-118-23 6^ 0012 00099 SIXTH AVE N D L BRISCOE A P L BRISCOE D L BRISCOE S P L BRISCOE 99 6TH AVE N WAYZATA MN 55391 38 r6-118-23 11 0002 00038 ADDRESS UtMSSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 36-118-23 11 0003 00665 FERNOALE RD N F G BASTIAENS/L M BASTIAENS FRANCISCOS 6 BASTIAENS 625 FERNOALE RD N WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0014 00765 FERNOALE RD N S V & R SHANEDLING STANLEY V SHANEDLING 765 NO FERNOALE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0016 00775 FERNOALE RD N B A A K J ERICKSON BRADLEY A 1 KAREN J ERICKSON 775 FERNOALE RD N WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 36-118-23 11 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO B A A K J ERICKSON BRADLEY A A KAREN J ERICKSON 775 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATA MN. 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO KAREN BELDEN FREY WILLIAM R COBB 793 FERNDALE DR N WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0021 00625 FERNDALE RD N FRANCISCUS G BASTIAENS FRANCISCUS G BASTIAENS 625 NORTH FERNDALE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 V PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 36-118-23 11 0026 00763 FERNOALE RD N E F JR A J C KAMM ERVIN F JR A JENNY C KAMM 763 NORTH FERNDALE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0027 00801 FERNDALE RD N G A A D L NELSON GRES A A DIANE L NELSON 2355 YUMA LA N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 36-118-23 11 0028 00755 FERNOALE RD N L M A J M MITHUN LEWIS M A JENNE MITHUN 900 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 40 30-118-22 33 0008 00040 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED L R ELWELL ETAL L R ELWELL JR 6125 HWY 101 NO HAMEL MN 55340 40 31-118-22 22 0001 01220 FERNDALE RD H J A G M LAZNIARZ HENRY J A GINA M LAZNIARZ 8820 CO RD NO 6 PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 31-118-22 22 0003 01120 FERNDALE RD S SKROWACZEWSKI ET AL KRYSTYNA SKROWACZEWSKI PO BOX 700 WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 40 31-118-22 22 0005 01200 FERNDALE RD G R LINDBERG A G Z LINDGERG GARY R LINDBERG 1200 FERNDALE RD PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 31-118-22 22 0006 19005 12TH AVE N JAMES S FISH ET AL TRUSTEES JAMES S FISH 19005 12TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 31-118-22 22 0020 OHIO FERNOALE RD W J A S S MORKRID WILLIAM J MORKRID 1110 FERNDALE RD PLYMOUTH MN 55447 n t«I»l W*crlf«lMi o. I, tr«i*f4 Mill*, MuM^u c«Mtr* viiiMMi*. KM A.IICAUC voMtre SUKVCYSl «it47}.l0lSfAX INC. —% 1 gi—\\\1^1 Kwoua«awMioi*lM«» CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY /GRADING PLAN 2V ..U vc$ip •»«1 1 ■*» •• I. ». , rr-vir mm ! *f»?trf T»*T ?■!« tirtrf, :i\. 0* »tp<«t ii&i n '«t• vw rwn^i wjt '•* W099 •n oi>rcT t<‘ri*\inox ^\^ •’«%r : A w.» pr3:t:t*ra i*\M» Ti»r i-AK^ Of nif I » tZ'Z'^1 %o. (T^ #23 ii i; :if L±. ■ •W #> i 9 jlpj CiROT Rpon 3 1- .IL:^' S'! w. S' REV\5lOMS> « ft. O^M«C •••*! «A^t IM» > %4t- liU • »»»•»< ► « ^ CfivAT f»ft«fiAft.C ••.!«.» nM ft* c»«*r «f f o«ft«.T i»n liarvwc rc»«% l•*««C >*R. AOO CM«> «^«. SNMft- wM«tc«. ^vrttR fti »Arft >*o U»*»M r*&ou«. 4#«S(. p»f , ^ I ; r''1 V ^ ' {^ V- • ’y tv ft ft ft ,_____ n>fttr«. %* rr- c.*^<v ft* r*-vw 0>*^ ff.*** MM !•••(» *••4 »«•■•» t I**t9 II. 7 ft-ia sra-wsa ir3v5^ ■mMT VV»"Vi* 2^ ••««•• .itaM ^vioIT lr-\ ^ j) J I'^ A- 'Ooi~*7 T—t r*t im •■««<• •••«« I vAviaia rv^f*-••••«•« •i.'J w&MT «i»v •wtvAi»«a My ?o 7» %#c«kVM«. 99SV**^fVn-o T K* ••MM •• ••M«3•MMM •Mm ^tin j I.adMya 6 %■W''cn-t-trt, rl >. ^ M _j inM »«M«« •*■■•■ rar?.^y’ssr-•••••* • •K>-31 \^o lK‘Ci*«T ««DV vvtVA'Iiaa CM ovr«*n >«oM. iwc r«« ?o ^ 75a V^«b5*MLII-0 X-t^ 1 • t •M*m ■ ••Maw ■‘.V- - f :•"’•■’-"-■ ■ ■r^'i-''''^^’inr- ft TKGM^.Rc-sidcntial ^“______r_.-‘ •fe--' 'ns triict iont....PL.,t->rv*. .rn-^'p*r% *<-"-• J-V ' :470:[693' • * • 'tte«-- g®-»-' * ►.(!,‘wS.'A L. . 7 '■ . '>• “S -'T •• 7'; ^ A*J .«ox 758 5^^'- ■: :■ ■•■*Its i;-rjccclsior gv - i’ • '■ .'license # Sv-- . . . ■ h<^; ’. . •* • ?Xv - • *• 'V ' ^000[907 A' ' * r A: ’ Lw-f / »r .*'rv ;. * OstromDecember 4, 1997City of Orono Planning Commission City CouncilDear Members,C.N. Ostrom & Son, Inc. is appl the Building Inspection Departn Mithuns’ home located at 755 Fi quarters. Currently the home ha situation when her five children them up in a hotel. Mrs. Mithun would prefer havin Instead of adding an addition to quarters would solve this concer The home has a pool, so a lower the pool towels. A kitchenette i; imposing on the homes main kit Building Department and the res Her brother is now' visiting to he compromised in the two-bedroo solve this concern. The project includes making the entry, like many homes in the O light. We do not see the reason request. The space is not to be used as re Sincerely, Kathe Ostrom C.N. Ostrom & Son, Inc. Ostrom & Son 1IL 0 December 4,1997 City ofOrono Planning Commission City Council Dear Members, C.N. Ostrom & Son, Inc. is applying for a conditional use permit, as required by the Building Inspection Department, for finishing the lower level of Mrs. Jeanne Mithuns' home located at 755 Femdale Rd. N. The space is to be used as guest quarters. Currently the home has only two bedrooms. This is an inadequate situation when her five children and ten grandchildren come to visit, she has to put them up in a hotel Mrs. Mithun would prefer having them stay in her home yet maintain her privacy. Instead of adding an addition to the home, finishing the lower level as guest quarters would solve this concern. The home has a pool, so a lower level laundry is planned for washing and drying the pool towels. A kitchenette is planned so children can have snacks without imposing on the homes main kitchen. I believe these are the concerns of the Building Department and the reason they are asking for a conditional use permit. Her brother is now' visiting to help care for their elderly parents. Privacy has been compromised in the two-bedroom home. Finishing the lower level would also solve this concern. The project includes making the new space a walkout lower level with an exterior entry, like many homes in the Orono area, for safety reasons, privacy and natural light.* We do not see the reason for a conditional use pemit but respect your request. The space is not to be used as rental property. Sincerely, Kathe Ostrom C.N. Ostrom & Son, Inc. TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE:January 15,1998 SUBJECT:#2312 Claus Weiler/Renee Meerkins 1135 North Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One r amily Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:46,755 (total) 36,455 (contiguous) 10,300 (non-contiguous) square feet (1.07 acres) square feet (.84 acre) square feet (.24 acre) Application: The applicants are proposing the construction of an additional garage, as well as first and second level decks on the rear of the residence. The garage requires variances for the construction of an oversize accessory structure, located in front of the principal stnicUire and side yard setback. A conditional use permit is eilso required for locating an accessory structure on a through lot. The proposed decks require street and bluff setback vjiriances. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd, 9(C): Oversize Accessory Structures Section 10.03, Subd. 9(D): Location of Accessory Structures Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C2): Lot Coverage Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements Section 10.56, Subd. 3, Definition 2: Bluffs Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C 2 and 3): Bluff Setback, Impact Zone U2S12 Claus WeilerfRenee Meerktns 1135 Sorth Arm Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit 1/20/98 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Bluff Setback LR-IB require ments 1 acre 140’35’10' (30’for oversize accessory structures) 35 ’ (abutting street) 35 ’ subject property ’ 07 acres (total) .84 acre (contiguous) .24 acre (non contiguous) 115’ at street 53 ’at OHWL and 75 ’ setback 183’ existing 170 ’ proposed -2.1’ 15.96’ proposed for OAS 41.22’ existing 28’ proposed 28’ existing 19’ proposed The lots combined currently meet all zoning requirements with the exception of the side yard and bluff setbacks. The side yard non-conformance is due to a shed located partially on the property to the north. As proposed, the side setback for an oversize accessory structure, bluff and rear yard abutting a street would not be met. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 36,455 contiguous 10,300 non-contiguous 3,743.4 s.f.10.27% (based on contiguous area) Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. ^^2512 Claus H'eilcr/Rent e Meerktns ! 125 Sorth Arm Dnve Variances and Conditional Use Krmit r20/9S Page 2 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75'4,075 s.f.none none none none 75 ’-250 ’9,873 s.f none 2,468.3 s.f (25%) none none 250 ’-500 ’28,873 s.f 6,543 s.f (22.67%) 8,661.9 s.f (30%) 8,236.5 s.f (28.5%) none 500 ’-1000’3,934 s.f 387 s.f (9.84%) 1,376.9 s.f (35%) 387 s.f (9.84%) none Hardcover is not an issue with this application. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The owners’ statement of hardship is included on the application, Attachment A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the off .*al cv^ntrols. The property can continue to be used in its current state without the construction of an additional garage and decks. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The platted Elmwood Avenue separating Lot 6 from the building site reqires a conditional use permit because it is considered a through lot. This situation further requires variances for locating an accessory structure in front of the principal structure. The subject property is not considered a lakeshore lot, therefore a variance is needed for the rear yard to meet the 35* street setback. U23I2 Claus IVeiler/Renee Meerkins 1135 Sort! .»'"m Drive Variances and Conditional Use Permit 1/20/98 Page 3 3. The variances, if granted, may alter the essential character of the locality. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1 he variances for oversize accessory structure, side setback and bluff setback may alter the character of the neighborhood. Granting such variances could have a negative visual and environmental impact. The variances for locating an accessory structure in front of the principal structure, rear setback abutting a street and a conditional use permit for locating an accessory structure on a through lot will not change the character of the area. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Accessory structures are allowed in this zoning district provided they do not exceed 1,000 ‘ f Decks arc* permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Several residences in the area are located below the bluff on lots directly abutting the lake, not making them through lots. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The lot is unique because it functions as a lakeshore lot. However, due to the location of the platted Elmwood Avenue which separates the lakefront lot from the building site it is considered a through lot. Additional variances and a conditional use permit are necessary because of its through lot classification. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a subs’i utial property right of the applicant. The enjoyment of the property would not be diminished if the oversize accessory structure and decks are not constructed. H2512 Claus Weiler/Renee Meerkins 1135 North Arm Drive yariances and Conditional Use Permit 1/20/98 Page A i The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Construcdng an accessory structure that does not require variances and a conditional use permit is not possible due to the lot being considered a through lot and significant topography on the property. Issues 1 . Property consists of two portions: the building site fronting on North Arm Drive and Lot 6, the separate lakeshore lot. The platted, but unbuilt Elmwood Avenue separates the two lots. Lot 6 is a separate tax parcel. 2. The topography slopes away dramatically adjacent to the rear of the house. Staff has determined the top of the bluff to be the 978' elevation. Any additions to the rear of the house would be located within the required bluff setback. A portion of the area where the decks would be located would be visible from the lake. 3. A variance was granted to allow the combination of the lots for the building site and to subdivide the lot to the north in 1972 because the two resulting lots diu not meet lot area requirements. In 1 986, a lot line rearrangement between the two properties occurred. At that time the non-conforming shed was not shown on the survey. No permit was obtained for the construction of the shed according to city records. 4. A three car garage currently exists on the property. 5. The rear of the residence currently has sliding doors on the main and upper levels which would open to the proposed decks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of variances for the construction of an additional garage in front of the principal structure on a through lo subject to a condition. Staff recommends denial of variances to allow the construction of decks that would encroach on the required bluff setback. • Staff recommends approval of a variance allowing the an accessory structure to be located 170 ’ from the front lot line where the principal structure is located 216' from the front lot line. The existing accessory structure is located 183’ from the front lot line where no accessory structure is allowed to be located in front of the principal structure. U2312 Clam Weiler/Renee Meerklns 1135 Sorth Arm Drive Varianc:5 and Conditional Use Permit i/20/98 Page 5 Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory structure on a through lot. Staff recommends denial of a variance allowing an oversize accessory structure of 1,125 s.f. The combined footprints of the existing garage and a garage of 999 s.f., the maximum allowable, is 1,694.42 s.f., less than the 2,000 s.f. allowable maximum. Staff recommends denial of a side setback variance of 17.91' to allow the proposed garage to be located 12.09' from the south side lot line where 64' is existing and 30' is required for an oversize accessory structure. If the oversize accessory structure variance is denied, any proposed structure greater than 750 s.f. in size is renuired to be 15' from the side property line. Staff recommends denial of a bluff setback variance of 19' to allow the nearest portion of the proposed deck to be located 11' from the top of the bluff where 30' is required. While it is not possible to construct decks on the rear of the residence without the granting of variances, a similar deck could be constructed on the south side of the residence that would not require variances. Staff recommends approval of a rear yard adjacent to a '.reet setback variance of 7' to allow the nearest portion of the deck to the street to be located 28' to the edge of the street where 35' is required. The platted street does not exist and will not be constructed in the future. Staff recommends as a condition of the approval of the variances, the 8.8' by 10' shed encroaching x./iito the neighboring property to the north either be moved to a location on the property conforming to zoning requirements or removed from the property altogether. The applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with this condition if a garage is allowed to be constructed. ^2312 Claus Weiler/Renee Meerkins 1135 North Arm Drive Variarces and Conditior^al Use Permit 1/20/98 Page 6 BWMMhfiwgti [•l«P.TiTtl •jiJiWTil ^1WM* «• •JaTa'Ii.51JlF wmSi IBHgigRK m HISI fkXi utfmm //3S’^yOcrz4-y\ CbiArY\ /9c<. Permit No /ij/r ^099 3yg3 3^/s' (p PERMIT RECORD Date / //// /yr 7 2L lz£iZ^ Type of Permit <Vtg^ RUN DATE 10/24/97 BATCH 503 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMJ/ADDR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR »^JP AODR ^ i^ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NA»« TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 07-117-23 14 0008 01001 LOMA LINDA AVE GILMAN G SORENSON GILMAN G SORENSON 1001 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0027 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GARY E BEirO ETAL TODD VAN DEN EINDE 1169 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0033 01180 ELMI^D AVE JENNIFER ANNE WELSH JENNIFER ANNE WELCH 1180 ELMWOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 ^057 00038 ADDRESS U^IASSIGNED WILLIAM R HIBBS WILLIAM R HIBBS 1101 ELMWOOD AVE ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0062 01160 NORTH ARM DR K A A L M KELSEY KENNETH A A LOURITA M KELSEY 1160 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0065 01125 NORTH ARM DR VALERIE JULIANNA PETERSEN VALERIE JULIANNA PETERSEN 1125 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0023 01101 ELMWOOO AVE WILLIAM R HIBBS WILLIAM R HIBBS 1101 ELMWOOD AVE ORONO MN 55364- 38 07-117-23 14 0029 01161 ELMWOOD AVE B E A R K GARLOCK BRUCE E GARLOCK 1179 ELMWOOD AV MOUt^O MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0034 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55359 38 07-117-3 14 0060 01169 NORTH ARM DR TODD M VAN DEN EINDE ET AL TODD M VAN DEN EINDE 1169 N ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0063 01121 ELMWOOD AVE JAMES DESPLINTER JAMES OESPLINTER 1121 ELMWOOD AVL MOUND MN SSlbH 38 07-117-23 14 0067 01180 NORTH ARM DR M W ERICKSON A N J ERICKSON MARK A NANCY ERICKSON 1180 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 15 38 07-117-23 14 0026 01137 ELMWOOD AVE C G WEILER A R.SMEERKIHS RENEE S MEERKINS 1135 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0030 01179 ELMWOOD AVE B E GARLOCK ARK GARLOCK BRUCE GARLOCK 1179 ELMWOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0052 01151 raRTH ARM DR RAY E KUr/ RAY E KUT2 14113 GLENRxDGE RD IINNETONKA MN 55345 38 07-117-23 14 0061 01140 NORTH ARM DR TIMOTHY L BRO TIMOTHY L BRO 1140 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 IP 38 07-117-23 14 0064 01135 NORTH ARM DR C 6 WEILFR A R S MEERKINS RENEE S ME^^RKINS 1135 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 5536^4 38 07-117-23 14 0069 01153 ELMl^D AVE RICHARD JAMES HEIT RICHARD JAMES HEIT 1153 ELMklOOD AVE MOUND MN 55364 V 1-14-1998 3:24PM CITY OF ORONO SETBACK ZONE FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 884 5344 1510 01/08/98 7M50’ 250.S00* ^12- A. K oum L«ii|lh wwdi X X X B. Gxrige C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Laadieape Uoderlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE j A o * B 4^75 X 100 • A. Houae (fjOfO€ ) Uaith Wi4* X X X B. Oante C. Driveway X X D. Sidewelk X X E. Fatlo/Deck X X F. Laadfcapc Underlain By Plaatic Or Fabric X X X C< Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O + B .X IQO P. 2 16:05 b* :0A/0? NO:528 500-1000 S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. 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.P. % S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. 5.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. % A B A B ^ An AfZSAS eKlsT('<'A 1-14-1998 3:25PM CITY OF ORONO SETBACK ZONE! (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 884 5344 ® 6124730510 VA W A#i A P.3 01/08/98 16:05 S :05/07 NO:528 r f s^a«-aa.^ajul^a^ a 75-2J0*":^. 250-S0O* 500-I00a* Ltnfth WUA B. Oaraie C. Drive'*^ D. 5id«w«)k E. Buio/Deek P. L«idie«pe Uodcrlilo By nutlc Or Pibric X X X X X X X X X X X X O. Oiber TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O + B 987S>xlOO - PROPOSEP HAUDCOVER IN ZONE rJONjC A. Houie _____________ * «« LiOfA WidA B. Gir«|e C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patle/Deck F. Laodicape tiodcrlain By Plastic Ot Fabric X X X X X X X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPEBTY AREA IN ZONE A <a_ _ _ _ + B .XlOO - 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.P. a I'r _ _ _ _S.F. S.F. O % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. >.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B L 1-V4-1998 3:25PM FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 884 5344 p. 4 CITY OF ORONO ® 612A730510 01/08/98 16:05 0 :06/07 NO:528 setback 20NE: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75*75-250^ __250\J0O’.-^ 500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________IZZI S.F. Ijtngit W14th B. GtfSge X X X a2- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. C. Drivewiy X X S.F. S.F. D. SiOewtIk •f . X X IQ>92 S.F. S.F. £. Pulo/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. UoSseipe UodtrUln By PIb Uc Or Fabric S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A C>s4^ + B 2 a B73 X100 6543 S.F. 28.S7 5 S.F. 'ZZ.<^ % A. House S.F. LceiA WkMi X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. C«ri|c '2S 45'1/ZS S.F. C. Drivewiy X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewdk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patle/Deck X X 5(6g. S' S.F. S.P. F. Ltadicape DaderUla ByPlutle Or Fabric S.F. S.F. S.F. A B / O. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ + B X100 - S.F. A . ___________S.F. B 'cy.% S'. 87 14 ^ cAccolAt^O Aa/P p>AA^T£-0 //v Aora<^A^ 1-14-1998 3:26PM CITY OF ORONO SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 884 5344 p. 5 ©6124730510 01/08/98 16:05 |3 : 07/07 NO:528 Cj 75.250 ’ 250-500 ’ ’^00-1000 ’ . ^ f,y CTiNO HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Homo UflfOi WU6 X X X B. Ovoge C. Eiivowxy ofO\\Jei~ X X 3b:7 D. Sidewalk X X E. Fario/Dock X X F. Landaeopo UoderUin ^ Pluae Or Fabric X X X O. Other TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • . A 3g7 4. B 3*7S4 3B7ms X ICO ^.84 PttOPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Heme __________ fvoNe UoftH WMth X % A B. Girtge C. Driveway % X D. Sldttwdk X X E. Padc/Deck X X F. Lindaeape Uodeilaie By PiMtic Or Fabric X X X O. Odter TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPraiY AREA IN ZONE A H X 100 •• S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.P. 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. SJ*. S.F. A E A E /i-Ll- C^CCOL./iTeO Os-zajC:, &u(Zoe y€ o /fAj(7 s>i^pn‘€'p> //N/ Autcx C^o /-^ 1 I ■ V5' 4^'x:,S '• > •'5 (^XC \ -A i. S-* ,1' • I"? V* ' , •Jo* ('•«“..tiist.' ks) Si to.. la.s^^ • iui -nt —• -1« •‘ilL - MN - ^7t •iJff ! £l<v.- ^«|W » » i-i -9^ t - 9VI i •HU) - ‘J'ii 1Wl -•HW *>«w -931 -f3t -f m -9n ^ ., ^ j.—j—.|.. ..^ ...j...^—^ I I *■ r • I------f* I *|-'i 11"* I 'uo z*K/ tk) ev® ico ^0 z**? 1 —I - I- I • I • *f I NO iro rfc fio 9i7 u? (*.2C' I 7f ' TI • ^■••-| —-I"• I■• I -— ft) so w » » •» TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Member: Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE;1/12/1998 SUBJECT: #2320 Mitchell and Asta Gersovitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Avenue Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C Lot Area:38,060 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) square feet (.87 acres)________________________ Application: The applicants are proposing the construction of a bay window over a portion of an existing deck. An average lakeshore setback variance is required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback U2320 Mitchell and Asta Gersovitz having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle Variance mom Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC subject property Lot Area .5 acre .87 acre Lot Width 100’ 131* at OHWL 158’ at 75’ setback Lakeside Yard 75’ 119’ Side Yard 10' ir Rear Yard 30' The subject property meets all zoning requirements. Structural Coverage Structui !;’ coverage is not an issue with this application. Staff estimates the amount of structural coverage Ou i'le property as approximately 10%. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application. Since the bay window will be constructed over an existing deck, the amount of hardcover will not increase. The only hardcover in the 0’ to 75’ lakeshore setback are steps leading to the lakeshore, a retaining wall and 45 s.f. deck and shed. There is a disproportionate amount of hardcover in the 250’ to 500’ lakeshore setback as this is the "panhandle" portion of the yard that contains the driveway. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants’ should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be put to a reasonable use in its current state. The location of the adjacent residence on what is technically a lakeshore lot makes any construction on the lot subject to an average lakeshore setback variance. ^2320 Mitchell and Asta Cersovit: having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle Variance 1/20/98 Page! 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The neighboring lot to the south has a 20’ wide strip extending to the lake, making it a lakeshore lot. Du? to this unusual configuration and the placement of the neighboring residence farther back from the lakeshore on this property, the subject property is essentially unbuildable without the granting of a variance. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for average lakeshore setback will not change the character of the area. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located. Bay windows are permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The presence of. long, 20’ wide strip of land abutting the lake on the neighboring property to the south makes that property a lakeshore lot, despite the residence being located farther back from the lake than the neighboring residences. Due to the that property being a lakeshore lot, this lesidence is used for determining average lakeshore setback. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. This property, as well as the property south of the southerly adjacent property are the only two properties in the immediate area subject to such a peculiar average lakeshore setback standard. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. All structures on the lot are ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Any additions require an average lakeshore setback variance. U2520 Miichell and Asia Gersovic having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle Variance 1/20/98 Page 3 L 8.The graining of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Due to the peculiarity of the configuration of the adjacent property to the south, the subject property is subject to an interpretation of the average lakeshore setback requirement that makes the lot unbuildable without the granting of variances. Issues 1. The property meets all zoning requirements except average lakeshore setback. The location of the residence immediately to the south results in the subject property being essentially unbuildable without a lot area variance. 3. The bay window will not further encroach upon the average lakeshore setback or diminish existing views. 4.An average lakeshore setback variance was granted in 1992 to allow the construction of the new residence. At the time, hardcover was proposed at less than 25% in the 75' to 250 ’ lakeshore setback. 5.A small amount of hardcover exists in the O' to 75 ’ lakeshore setback, mostly due to the retaining wall and steps leading to the lakeshore. A disproportionate amount of hardcover exists in the 250' to 500' lakeshore setback due to this being the "panhandle" portion of the lot containing the driveway. 6.The 27 s.f. .shed and deck located near the lakeshore appears to have ben built without a permit or variances since the residence was constructed in 1992. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a bay window 61.6' ahead of the average lakeshore setback line where the existing residence encroaches 83' in ifont of the average lakeshore setback line and where no encroachment is allowed. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, the applicant remove the non- conforming 27 s.f. shed with a deck near the lakeshore prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the condition. Attachments U2320 Mitchell and Asia Gersovitc having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle Variance 1/20/98 Page 4 ■i- i ^ s: ^ m. A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Elevation Drawings 1f2320 Mitchell and Asia Cersovit: having an interest in 3650 Casco Circle Variance 1/20/98 Pages r PfL Application # ,^3 3-6 Date Received /;»-/ ^- 9^7 Amount Paid ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures $220. After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORi\LATION . SiteAddress 3<^50 C a SCO _______ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) .^1 5T3 “?/ Attach legal description to application if not included on requfred survey.n reqiured Date Property Acquired /o n r I (do) (<^fi^) also own the adjacent par(^ls of land. Present use of property: y residential ___pother (specify)___ Zoning District: n/Lovin Ip_______________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name jV\ /-sin Cxers^.-tr Phone (home ) ^~?£4SJLl^ _________________ Phone (work ) /fVn o-7/A^ Address:—City: ^ f^j Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name T f 6(y\Ah Address: 34*5^6' Cqscq Av^fiu^ . Ot'o/if) Phone (home ) I OS'SS _____ Phone (work)_____________ City: Orodo ________Zip:______ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: -/-o rOi n Estimated Construction Cost $ •^Jlo .ooO it tX> A-l^L JtjlAi r. g ^pp^ />!. A- C(Mf/C4jj/ffry^M . -JL^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 04- f*<. u,- r\ i/v\ClfL^y LU/P jOai oyuJMl^cUC VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ i ___Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover ____Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS .Describe imdue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_____________________ ______________ • ^ ivyViKH. re,^ii!i^cg. /or44-^Z? /^iLocrJ) /9-f ^^prJ7)YP f<> 5/pp.njtL?f> (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 i Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 25' to allovv the residence to be located 54.5' fr^m the OWHL where 75' is required and 35' is proposed. The 50' is the DNR required lakb^ore setback. The 54'5 setback results from staffs proposed footprint for the residen^^using ma.ximum structural coverage and being places as far away from the lakeshore as possible. Staff recommends approval of a rear setback variance of 18' to allow the residence to be located 12' from the street where 30' is required. The distance from the nearest portion of the garage to the street right of way following the driveway is 18'. The distance would allow for a vehicle to piu’k in the driveway. (vM Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback of 17% where none is allowed and 28.09% is proposed. This could be accomplished by eliminating all decks and reducing the size of the residence in this setback to 756 s.f. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback of 13.39% to allow 38.39% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 35.4% is proposed. The driveway as proposed does not appear feasible as adequate space for vehicles backing out of the second garage stall is not allowed. This need justifies the additional hardcover. Having more of the residence in this setback also raises the hardcover amount. The deletion of a portion of the driveway would offset a polion of these increases. Attachment F2 depicts these modifications as proposed by staff. Staff recommends denial of a structura' coverage variance of 303 s.f. to allow 1,803 s.f. of structure w here 1,500 s.f. is allowed. The 1,500 s.f. requirement can be met by eliminating the 117 s.f. second story deck, as well as reducing the size of the house by 186 s.f. Staff recommends denial of the lakeshore setback variance of 37' to allow the fence to be located 38' from the OHWL where fences are not allowed ahead of the 75' setback. The applicant's concern of screening providing from neighboring residences could be addressed through the planting of shrubbery*. Staff recommends the applicant be directed to reduce the overhangs to not encroach more than 1.5' from the structure as any overhangs e.xceeding 1.5' add to the amount of structural coverage. While the elevation drawings reflect these overhangs, the survey and hardcover worksheets do not. U2296 Robert Bredeson i39S Rest Point Road Vanances 1/20/98 Page% Whether or not the Planning Commission feels the lot should be deemed buildable or not, the following issues should be discussed: • Staff recommends the city be granted a legally described utility easement over the northeast comer of the lot to provide permanent access to the lift station. The survey (Attachment F2) reflects the approximate area of the proposed easement. The portion of the fence abutting the street should be removed to ensure access to the lift station. • • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the past problems of locating the lift station and make a recommendation to the City Council as to how to address this matter. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Location Map D Topographic Map E Permit Record F Survey-Applicant and Staff Proposals G Hardcover Worksheets H Elevation Drawings I Statement of Hardship J "As Built" Map K Sewer Assessments in 1971 L Memorandum From Orono City Attorney Regarding Settlement/Settlement Letter M City Council Minutes From June 12,1972 Regarding Condemnation of Easement N Letter From City Attorney Regarding Property Takings Issue O Lot Area Variance Study P Property Owners List ^^2296 Robert Bredeson 1395 Rest Point Road la-iances 1/20/98 Page 9 Application M Date Received V Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ’Po/tyr q 9>< ‘A u< jrj 8 Rctuo s. & s S Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) ci-1 '1 acoQ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquire d (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ___presidential ___mother (specify) V a I Zoning District:______________________________________________ APPLICANT Name Ro o C^. 0/g£Qg5ON. Address: is E. Sr, Vo An OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) ^8~^i7A _____ Phone (woric) ______ City: . A1>j Zip: __C'/UT7t_ //«/l7 Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $ Describe request in detail: CoA/o?rp<^cr- Uoci<^ perm Pc^ai9 (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width 1/ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:___________________________________ S^r 0AC.lt. /=•/**«» TO OO \A/cZ-^ J^/^nn O'Dtfglt.. ___________________Oa<i^^g-»w -ru 0-«-’ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 13^3 QotX p 1» M msisi&aksii PERMIT RECORD /9 95" /le^r ^Ct '/nr 7^ t Permit No. 3 go* Date "?- /5- Sr $7' 7> -7f 3-7/ Type of Permit A^PI'T r6AJ UJJLLL ? • •’ • • • • • ( • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 24, Subdivision of Lot 14, Rost Point Park • This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property. It does not purport to show any other improvements or ^pciDMchments. eAtsr/^p. (931.2): Spot elevation • : Iron marker found 0 : Iron marker set Bearings shown are based upon on assumed datum. Coffin' & Gronberg, Inc. I IjiiiJ Sih' I'Linuiis ^>2 LmuifiUk Au’iuk* * l.tni); Like, M\ . (ii:-47.V4:4l ■V’J»WL. I hereby certify lhal this siirvev was prepared by me or under my direct super vision. and that I am a diilv ny.islered Civil I-n};ineerand Land Surveyor under the laws ol llie Male ol Mmiiesnla. Mark S. Cronl'eiy; Mimu’Mtia License Number 12733 WAii; Jim NO. 970<^7 •sJ LEGAL DESORPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 24. Subdivision of Let 14, Rest Point Pork This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property. It does not purport to show any other improvements or f (931 2): Spot elevation • : Iron marker found o : Iron marker set Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. Fco^of^ cl r* \ft Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. t i'//'.'i//;»iy; / I^nij i>iU' Jtimu t-i ^^2 l.im.UtUk Awiuu- • Like. M\ I hereby certify that Ihi.s .survey was prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and that I am a dulv iryjslered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws ol the Male ol \linni*Mila Mark S 1.. jnlu’i).; Miimrsula I ueiise Number \27bb iMJ^kLutaasKsaa DATE j?-t^4-97 s( Au. IVMINO ^70^7 970^r7 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ^2-77 ---1 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) Cg-??!) 75-250’ 250-500’500-I000’ EXISTING 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 -r B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 52./S Length X X X Width i8 A^C. B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk s X X E, Paiio/Deck X lOO = X/cTf lA* STo».<t t€tk Ta.Fr. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other 4f TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /2^SO ^ B 6l /Z JL VVSO X 100 Coffin & Gronborg, inc. 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Lake. MN 55356 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. y*/ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /2S O _ S.F. S.F. z a. 09 % A B A B. f/<T tif (J OAy HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET • •• mg /%V ■n SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 75-250'250-500’500-1000' PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Z /6. S Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway 2 o 2^ X X D. Sidewalk 26 X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Piratic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE //¥o + B 322 0 X 100 Coffin & CronberQ, Inc. 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Uke. MN 55356 62 /^Z S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S2 0 S.F. S.F. /d^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /lya S.F. S.F. ?S. HfO' % 3ZZO A.House X S.F.• Length Width X S.F. X S.F. X S.F.• B.Garage X S.F. C.Driveway X S.F.* i X .s S.F. D.Sidewalk X —S.F. 1 ;• X S.F.•1 E.Paiio/Deck X =x S.F.•■ I X S.F. F.Landscape X s=S.F.- Underlain X =S.F.1 By Plastic X =S.F.• , G.Other X _S.F. •TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F.A r TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -S.F.B A -r B X 100 =%1 —— - . ► V-*Vjt^ •"* • ’«• ’ 2r.'£Q^.V;. -^.? •: ;^9r- V ' 'T^Al •. /•■» *• (r . ^ ««.>(. v> to •'■ V r •• • • • * •• • • /•'^ >.--) ■ 1;/5?? >' N 1 DATE:December 30, 1997 r TO; FROM: SUBJECT: Orono Planning Administration Robert G. Bredeson Request for Variance for House and Garage at 1395 Rest Point Road, Orono, MN Variance No. 2296 Lot 24 In addition to previous information presented, enclosed is a copy of Survey No. 97047 dated 12/24/97, prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, and hard cover calculations dated 12/26/97, prepared by Coffin & Gronberg. My request for variance for set back and hard cover was for comparable to the other houses along the West Shore, namely Lots 20, 21, 23, and 25 as shown on the survey. The survey also shows fence on the north and south edge of Lot 24. I would like to extend the fences to a point to cover the air conditioning condensers on Lot 25 and Lot 23. Both houses are within a few feet of Lot 24 and with the addition of the condensers are within a foot of the lot line in both cases. If you need further information, please call me at 938-0920. Thank you for your help and consideration in preparing this variance. Sincerely, R. G. Bredeson ^33^0 43500 \ \ Parcel 8510 8520-" 9010-' 9500^ 97«^0 9900 •'250 ^450 700" 800" 900" 1000" 1100" 1200^ 1300" 1400" I50O" '•2500 '2600 27OO" '2800 2900 “' 0350 3700^ 0800 3900" '4000 ‘ 4100 '4200 4300 • 4400 ‘ 4500 •4600 '4700 >•4800 4900" 5010"' 5020" NOo of Units Assessable No., of Footage Conn Assessment Assessment for Units for Footage 4 Jm 1 1 1 00,25 78.75 139.25 69.75 1 1 1 1 61.76 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1/2 1/2 1 1 4/11 4/11 1 4/11 4/11 4/11 4/11 4/11 4/11 4/11 4/11 4/11 1 1 65788 100.0 100.0 64.6 23.8 23.8 67.564.5 52.2 52.5 52.6 •lOcO 52.8 52.0 52.8 52.8 68.4 139.5 71.5 77o5 98.5 70.565c 0 63.0 56.9 59.1 60.6 60.9 89.7 106,5 75.0 85.0 211.12 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1270000 1270c00 1270.00 1270.00 625.95 614.25 1086.15 i44.05 81, 13 00 00 00 1270000 1270.00 0 0 1270.00 0 1270 1270 1270 1270.00 1270.00 1270000 1270000 0 635.00 635.00 1270.00 1270.00 461.82 461.82 1270.00 461.82 461.82 461,02 461.82 461.82 461.82 461.82 461,82 461,82 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 513 780.00 780.00 503.88 185.64 105. 526.50 503.10 407.16 409.50 410,28 390.00 411,84 411,84 411.84 411.84 533.521088.10 557.70 604.50 768.30 549.90 507.00 491.40 443,82 460.98 472,68 475.02 699.66 830.70 585.00 663,00 1646.74 Assessment for Conn, [Ehj \ 225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 0 225.00 225.00 0 0 .Td. ':'. “"’A-'. 225*00 0 yusr.L'/ /->d/ 225,00 /. o •? C./ / ‘f o ^ 225,00 225,00 225,00 225.00 225c00 225.00 /, 0 '///• ^ 0 0 225c00 225.00 0 •i 0 225.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225.00 225,00^/^r..» 0 4 V L\ MEMORANDUM TO; Orono Mayor and Village Council FROM; Rolfe A. Worden DATE; June 12, 1972 RE; BYedeson Condemnation The Commissioners' hearing on this matter will be held June 15, 1972. Attached for your reference is some of the previous correspondence on the matter. As you can see, Mr. Bredeson's settlement demand has gone down from $4,000.00 in November, 1971, to $925.00 now. If we are able to settle the condemnation matter and cancel the June 15th hearing, it will save the Village $150.00 in Commissioners' fees, restrttin'jr in a n6t ouL-*u£"poHfrt- mmense itp,J*«-vn 1 agepOf—As I understand from the Village Ingineer, the^lot h^ not been rendered unsuit^le for building; rfeHuction in assessed value is~~h5'Crebbdiy. T reconSfl^d that the Village accept the current settlement offer. •Tl FREDRIKSDN. BYRDN. CQLBORN, BISBEE, HANSEN A RnOFCSSlONAI. association & PERLMAN NAKOLO H, rMCORtKSON JOHN P. BYnOH carl r. COLBORH* JR. OERTIN A. 8ISBCC, JR. OARV 8. CRAWrORO JOHN M, palmer • mCMARO R. HANSCN JCROMC 8. PEOCRSON iawrcncc PCRLMAN ROBERT O.WCBCR ROBERT P, SANOS KEITH A. LI8BCY MBO NORTHWESTCP n BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SSADS TCLCPMD n C (612)3 3 9.0 331 LZ JEROME 8. RICE TERENCE M. PRUTH Thomas c .hunt JOHN H. STOUT JAMES L. BAl LLI C OARRELL 8. JOHNSON R. BERTRAM GREENER S. CHARLES SQRENSQN.jr . warren e. hack •/OHN L. POWERS Paul j. lokken RICHARD P. KELLER June 9, 1972 Mr. Rolfe A. Worden Popham, Haik, Schodbrich, Kaufman & Doty, Ltd. 900 Farmers & Mechanics Bank Bldg. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 ^ of Robert Rredeson Dear Rolfe; AS to Put^L°writiig^the^termI^which°^^'d^^® purpose of this letter A aa P ^ a $800 for the property takeJ plSs^l25 Village that it pay fees incurred to datL in additfnn^^^ Mr. Bredeson's appraisal would recommend that the Vinfio ' indicated that you property pursuant to Itt previous its other work on the other items previously ag^^^rSpon^Irf^r^nowsf * 1. 2. 3. 4. GSvel\h^® corner lot stakes.Gravel the parking area. ReSLl”th^'’trLf station,replace the trees on the north lot line. atement from the Village that by the pump station and a for a residence.^ lot is still deemed suitable ^esidence^_jlj:.,^'g^^^on is LguLtina «usuit^ri>le_£Qr-a--- ^^-*>^i?iosesbe reduced to $2,000.^ assess 1^ FREDRIKSON, BYRDN, COLBORN, BISBEE, HANSEN & PERLMANMr. Rolfe A.WordenPage 2June 9/ 1972If you have any questions/ please call me. I would appreciate it if you would let me know as soon as possible what action the Village tcikes at its June 12th meeting/ so that we may be prepared for the June 15th hearing if your recommendations are not approved. Sincerely, IaJoim M Warren E. Mack WEMtkh cc: Mr. Robert Bredeson FREDRIK5DN,HAROLD M. FRtORIKSOH JOHN P. OYRON CARL r. COLBORN, JR.■ CRTIN A.BIS9CC,JR. GARY B. CRAWrORO JOHN M. PALHCR * RICHARD R. WANSCN JCROMC B. PCOCRSON lawrcncc pcrlman ROBERT O.WCBCR ROBERT P. BANOS KEITH A.LIBBEY JEROME 5. RICE BYRON. COLBORN, BISBEE. HAN5EN &A PPOrCSSIONAL ASSOCIATION 1460 NORTHWESTERN BANK BUILOIN6 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S5-40E 'TEtePH0Net6l2)339*B33l PERLMAN Noveniber 16^ 1971 /v/1 TERCNCC M. rWuTM THOMAS C. HUNT JOHN H. STOUT STANLEY W. BAKKE JAMES L. BAILLIE DARRELL B. JOHNSON R.BERTRAM GREENER 5.CHARLES SORENSON.JR.warren e.mackJOHN L. POWERS PAUL J. LOKKEN Rolfe A. Worden, Esq. Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty, Ltd. 900 Farmers & Mechanics Bank Bldg. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Re: Condemnation of Robert Bredeson Easement Dear Rolfe: Pursuant to your request, I have talked with Robert to determine upon what basis he would be willing to settle his clairwith the Village of Orono, assuming that the pumping sta tion cannot be relocated. Mr. Bredeson would require the following: 1. The power pole must be moved to the corner of the lot, as previously agreed. 2. The parking area should be resurfac-;d with gravel. 3. The iron corner stakes should be replaced in their proper locations. 4. He should be compensated $4,000.00 for the loss of value of the property. s The assessed value of the lot would be reduced to $2,000.00 ?o reflect thl reduo^ion in the market value caused by the improper installation of the pumping station. Tf it is not possible to settle on the above basis, you will proceed with the condemnation within the next few y Sincerely, Warren E. Mack m WEM: dmw cc: Mr. Robert Bredeson lIWUTES OF A REGULAR rWETING HELD JUNE 12, 1972 *'-l ^ McCarthy seconded that ^ R^Id 5est®%?5 FerAdale •i 3 • i • ‘ ri t ',n t f*,# ^ McCarthy seconded, t.iat i ::i ■•i r rf' 7 7 Bay RoadI fox slTelV ?ir ^ r 26 acre« ?«t.« * ^ division of 20 arJes sublee? six acres and combinedN4?h^lheaSiace„?\*rop"L''1r-opproved. .lotion. Ayes (5)^- Says’^fo^ Butlar seconded that Illc ASd'^eiB^son^cnSoll Mhyir 0?e?hasJe^abs1ained.*’"” 1 4 t ♦i Butler moved, McCarthy seconded that uao, ted. motion, Ayes (5) - .Jays (0). * ^ J McCarthy moved, hutler seconded that t appoiiitment of George 'astnv r.c u**^^ '^‘*® sMa ?- Kajr-COK Ayei (S) - , ‘I • be L«ntc5 S1H,762^J ' y- be accentmi . t- a>^ownt of $18,762. i\./^ accepted. .lotion, A/os (5) - ,<r.ys (0) V .. . Butler moved, .lasscuRalc seconded that « payment of $925 to Robert Urode^rtn I iremc ft 7 «IS StlOWH :\S of Joao a! irftMn;LJ“‘’"’ *“**'• approveu. lotion, Ay« (S) - flayrcSJ?'’ 4 # 4 •I .! e Butler moved, Jorn seconded, to n-v $0 «;n M'”--' «««”»»» on-"’ Butler moved. .'icCarthy seconded, taut tl.« :r "15 J”^?o t!l,nTos'U) ^^'’.iiSPs'ro^! Pago 2 /VI DIVISION 106S Forndalo Road l/est DIVISIOW • CO-MB INAT i ON Old Crystal Bay Koad 5 fOX Street RESOLUTlOi'I 1448 Bergcrson-Caswell, Inc. RESOLUTION #449 Peer F. Liquor Licenses APPOI.NT.MIiNT Pari; Commission dID At/A.in Alama Ul.-icUto-* CO.\:iE.I./ATION Robert iircdeson SLOPE EASEMENTS Willow Drive CONTRACTOR’S ESTI lATE IS Lamppn Construction 1 ^ ;• MEMORANDUM si TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Brad Brassier, Planning Assistant. City of Orono Thomas BanfftAV January 16, 1998 Bredeson Variances Brad. I have reviewed the material you provided me with respect to this property. The questions you put are these: do the sewer payment made for the property, and the apparent terms of the agreement in 1972 compel the City to provide, as a matter of law, variances to the Zoning code sufficient to allow construction of a residence on the property. I conclude that the City is not required as a matter of law to provide such variances. property has not paid for sewer stub, which has ordinarily been strongly conclusive evidence that the property is intended to support a residence. The lineal footage payments which were made for the property do not have the same strong claims which payment for a sewer stub would have. Secondly, the terms settling the condemnation arising out of the lift station do not represent an agreement by the City that the lot was buildablc. All that the City agreed to was this: the existence of the lift station on the property did not affect the question whether or ndt the lot was buildablc. Please let me know whether you have any funber questions, 082/27152273 ]l\6nk A A ^ s:T. Cho j*R~lB LOT AREA VARIANCRg 1982 A. Granted: - 1987 t/ 10-87 9-87 9-86/11-87 6-86 4-86/9-84 8- 84 4-84 4-84 4-84/10-81 9- 83 8-83 3-83 6-82/3-87 Kaplan Kost Lange Maxfield Glesne Clifford Howells Smiley Brockopp Haapala Caples Bloms Hommeyer Langhans B. Denied; 4-85 2-84 2695 Kelly Ave. 4760 Tonkaview 4160 Forest Lake Dr 4175 North Shore Dr 1475 Cherry Place 4760 North Shore Dr 1448 Park Dr. 2720 Pheasant Rd. 993 Wildhurst 4015 Dahl Rd. 4798 North Shore Dr. 4195 Forest Lake Dr. 477 Park Lane 1374 Rest Point Rd. Hedlund Fisk 3990 North Shore Dr. 493 Park Lane C. Granted, but never used (Explrf>r^^. 11-83 ''CC(hac. Munsell V 4100 North Shore Dr. 0.39 0.58 0.45 0.46 0.64 0.39 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.39 0.42 0.39 0.52 0.63 acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre acre 0.22 acre 0.25 acre ; res 6/j;' /oo HiV.' AJO .SVX ajo A/0 ai^ NO yes Yes AJo AJO 5^/; A/O 4r/, yes VBV. AJO i7% AJO ■► A A’o 7r% 0.23 acre 7*?^^ Ac yei S»'/c |2r“ 9>7 /1.-—i 5 ry '-f -'Hz'z- 1/-7 r ; a uj: C U I,.: L // . S IIa, . Cv.^u'H'^s jj.2^ Oai^ Sr 01 rJO On~?A<.. /JO 22% 0.5'i> Ac VcS Zoning Files #1155 & 1156 June 8, 1987 Page 2 of 3 C at /980*S7 In the overall LR-IC zone# with 631 existing residences as of 1983# 31% of the developed lots are smaller than 0.30 acre and 55% are smaller than 0.40 acre. In general terms# both lots proposed to be built upon are fairly typical of developed lots .i the LR-IC district but are relatively small compared to the Fagerness Point neighborhood. LR-IC Lot Area Variance Actions 1980-87 Name Address 3237 Casco Cr 3598 No Shore Dr f Mertes Belden/ Meline Pemberton 3580 No Shore Dr 1*2- Hedlund 3990 No Shore Dr Barth/ 1800 Shadywood Rd Johnstone Ulku 1416 Baldur Pk Rd Williams 1932 Fagerness Pt 3844 Cherry Ave 3640 Northern Ave 3036 Casco Pt Rd 2697 Casco Pt Rd Nunnally Burnevik Glover Lorge Existing House on Property No Yes Yes No No Yes R Yes Yes Yes No No Approved Denied X Date 27^7 6/23/86 X X X X X X y 1/13/86 1/14/85 2/13/84 8/13/84 2/21/84 12/19/83 Home Bids 3545 Ivy PI of Wayzata Posnick 1396 Baldur Pk Rd X 1983 (by Court Settlement) X y/ 1/10/83 Area 16#748 5#300 11#130 9#532 15#100 10#100 6#327 11#296 7#500 7#868 19#500 10#000 « » ^ % >: Yes 8/15/83 12#870 (No others back to January 1# 1980 in LR-IC) Summary - Denied Approved 5#300; HS 9#532#- Vac 7#868; Vac 10,000 Vac 16,748; Vac 11,296; HS 11,130; HS 7,500; HS 15,100; Vac 19,500; Vac 10,100; HS 12,870 HS 6,327; HS PATTERN: Vacant lots 10,000 s.f.’ or less have generally been denied; vacant lots 15,000 s.f. or greater have generally been approved Substandard lots with existing houses have generally been approved, except in the one case of an unusually small lot on which the existinc building was deemed hazardous and the access was directly to a heavil; traveled County road (3598 North Shore Drive). r RIW DATE 00/20/97 bATCH 512 PROP AOOR OM«R NAHE TAXPAYER ■ NAME/ADOR PROP ACIDR OHNER rMHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ACUR OI#iER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR I HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INPORHATIOU SYSTEM PROPERTY 0I2IERT. LIST 38 07-117-23 32 00’.' 01375 REST POINT M B A L K 6ERLICHER MICHAEL B A LYlBIt 'Jl. ILICHER 1375 REST POINT RD HOUND 5526'V 38 07-117-23 33 00(> OWOO REST POINT K ) DAVID A KILLIANS EU . DAVID A WILLIAMS lAOO REST POINT RD mound HN 5S36<V 38 07-117-23 33 00C5 01396 REST POINT lO PAN MALSH PATRICK J WALSH 1390 REST POINT RO ^»UN0 MN 55366 38 07-117-23 33 OOC» 01395 REST POINT SI ROBERT 6 nREDESO!^ ROBERT 6 BREOESON 15 E ST ALBANS RD HOPKINS 55305 TOTAL BATCH • 12 .00012 38 07-117-23 32 0039 01350 REST POINT RO LAS 6RA0ILL LARRY A SHARON GRABILL 1350 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55366 38 07-117-23 33 0003 01606 REST POINT RD L R HORN A M HORN LESTER R A MYRTLE HORN 1606 REST POINT RD M0U4D HN 55366 38 07-117-23 33 0006 01386 REST POINT RO J T NYGARO A K H NYGARO J T NYGARO A K H NYGARO 1306 REST POINT RD MOUID HN 55366 38 07-117-23 33 0010 01605 REST POINT R1 HENDY H OLSON HENOY M OLSON 1605 REST POINT RO hound MN 55366 REPORT t«. P1635601 PAGE 22 3B 07-117-23 S3 0001 01610 REST POINT RO ROBERT C BREDESai ROBERT 0 BREOESON 15 £ ST ALBANS RO HOPKINS »«< 55305 30 07-117-23 S3 0006 0139B REST POINT RO L K JOHNSW'I A C B JOHNSON LYLE K JOHNSON 2757 IRVING AVE SO MPLS MN 55608 i 30 07-117-25 33 0007 01360 REST POINT RD DAVID K DLOOCETT DAVID K BLODGETT 1380 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55366 3B 07-117-23 35 0011 01305 REST POINT RO 0 H A J L RAHN DAVID H A JODI L RAHN 1385 REST .POINT RO MOUND MN 55566. i . •• /3 To;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From:Michael P. GafTron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:Januar\' 14, 1998 Subject: #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre, Sewered Summary of Request: Applicant proposes to remove the existing house, swimming pool and garages, and construct a new home on this 1.85 acre lot. The only variance requested is for 75-250' hztfdcover, proposed at 34.53% where 25% is allowed, and 39.4% exists per a 1986 variance approval. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Site Plan Elevation Views Hardcover Calculations Survey and Resolution No. 1914 from 1986 Variance Application Area home layout (Compilation of surveys) Area topographic map Site Characteristics and Background 1.Lot area is 1.85 acres, meeting the 1 acre LR-IB requirement. Lot width is approximately 127' by definition (measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback). This width meets the "80%" minimum for construction on an existing lot of record. The functional width at the proposed building site is approximately 112'. The proposed new construction meets the minimum 10' side setback requirements. 2.This property contains an existing residence at the location of the proposed residence. The existing house was last remodeled and enlarged in 1985-86, when major additions and a pool were added per Resolution No. 1914. 3.The 1985-86 approvals resulted in the construction of a 1,700 s.f. attached garage and 800 s.f. attached pool building. All remaining plastic landscape underlayment was required to be removed at that time, and the resulting 75-250* hardcover w-as approved at 39.4%. 1 a #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkawa Road January 14, 1998 Page 2 4.A permit was recently issued for removal of the pool, and the applicant proposes removal of the remaining structure to replace it with a new residence. The new construction will be located 119' from the lake, slightly further from the lake than the existing residence, in order to conform to the average lakeshore setback. 5.The only hardcover in the 0-75' zone is a 74 s.f stairway to the lake, which is allowed by code. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is proposed to decrease from 39.4% to 34.5%. Approximately 4,815 s.f. or 20.8% is structural hardcover, the remaining 13.7% is sidewalks, patio and driveway area. Grading and Drainage Applicant has provided a grading and drainage plan for the property which proposes swales within the property boundaries on either side of the house to provide adequate site drainage and eliminate impact on neighboring properties. This plan potentially improves the impact of drainage to the two neighboring properties. Applicant's Hardship Statement "The lot is very long and narrow’. To build a house on it and keep the resale value in keeping with the other new houses in the neighborhood, it is very difficult to meet the 25% hardcover rule. There will be a reduction in existing hardcover." Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. A residence could be placed on this property without the need for hardcover variances. Applicant suggests that such a limitation would result in a residence not in keeping with the neighborhood and therefore would not be reasonable. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The circumstances leading to the hardcover variance are not unique to the property, since the same 'resr^; value' issues arise for most lots on our high- value lakeshore. N #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkawa Road January 14, 1998 Page 3 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. 5. 6. 7. C. The essential character of the neighborhood is single family residential. The proposed house, while being slightly larger than neighboring homes, will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic consideration is the primary factor noted by the applicant in the hardship statement. Other factors which may constitute hardship include the narrowness of the lot (although it is as wide or wider than many other neighboring lots) and steep topography to the rear. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 1 his is not known to be an issue with any impacted neighboring residence. The sp>ecial conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. There are no known special conditions that apply to this property that are peculiar to it, except perhaps the topography to the rear of the proposed house. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The conditions allowed by the official controls apply to all other land or structures in the LR-IB district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Since a residence meeting zoning codes could be constructed on this property, and since the existing house could remain as is, the variance is not nerfsnrr) t.-‘ preserve applicant's rights. #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkawa Road January 14,1998 Page 4 9. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. Hardcover variances are not normally granted for new construction where a substantial residence could be built without the need for a variance. Therefore granting the variance might be considered 25 contraiy' to the intent of the zoning code. 10. The granting of such variance will not merely sene as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Planning Commission must conclude whether there are adequate hardships demonstrated. Discussion Five of the si,\ properties to the immediate north of this proposal have undergone demolition/reconstniction projects over the last decade, resulting in a significant change to the character of the neighborhood via a transition from modest lakeshore homes and cabins to substantial upper bracket homes. To the south, where lots have significantly lesser depth, most homes were constructed or reconstructed prior to the early 1980's, of a size and magnitude which generally didn't put them in hardcover jeopardy. None of the five new homes to the north required a hardcover variance. Those property owners took advantage of various means and site factors to eliminate the need for variance, including limiting the footprint of the house and decks/patios, minimizing the area of driveway, locating the house and driveway partially in the 250-500’ zone, and in the case of the most northerly property, enjoying a large 75-250' area due to the shape of the lakeshore. In most cases, the new house was set back further from the lake than the pre-existing house or cabin, to avoid an average setback variance or minimize hardcover. Those new houses range from as near as 80' to the shoreline, to as far as 210' to the shoreline. Applicant proposes a structure that meets the average lakeshore setback defined by the homes to either side, but note that the residence to the south is only 65' from the lake. Issues for Discussion 1.Docs sufficient hardship exist for the granting of a hardcover variance, or is the proposal simply of a greater magnitude than is appropriate for this site? 4 'i #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkavva Road January 14,1998 Page 5 2.Can the proposed residence be reduced, reconfigured, or relocated such tliat a hardcover variance would not be required, similar to other properties in the neighborhood which have been recently reconstructed? Staff Recommendation In staffs opinion, there is rarely sufficient justification to grant a hardcover variance, especially when, as in this case, a substantial residence could be constructed on the site without the need for variances. There is little that is unique about this lot as compared to all those to the north which were able to reconstruct without a hardcover variance. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval, clearly define the hardships that support approval. 2. Recommend denial, clearly stating reasons why the hardship is inadequate. 3. Table, perhaps to allow applicant to redesign or to provide additional information (specify). 4.Other. X \APPS\WPVTNWWPDOCS tIV,MTKEw\fEM023 19 1 - CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received y Amount Paid .<>. ^ ........................... -/J Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv’ev Date Property Acquired 8/15/97 ^' I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District: .(month/year) Phone (home) 476-5262APPLICANT -Honald Uu.er (Lauer Homes, Inc.)_ _ _ _ phone (work) Address:_5Q^ Ferndale Rri. N._ _ _ _ _ _ City: Wayzata_ _ _ _ _ Zip: 55391 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:Citv:0 Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Zip; DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST mv •• • -Estimated Construction Cost $, Describe request in detail: Jtemove existing house, swlnunlng pool, and garages Construct a new home. ' ------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:From 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: th> inr t- v,rv .na hpuse on it and keep the re-^ile value in keeping with the other new houses in the neighborhood. It is ve ' difficult to meet the 25% Hardcover Rule. There will be a reduction In existing hardcover. (attach additional sheets if necessary) L'. 4 J 4 I RUN DATE 12/0A/97 BATCH 502 PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HErWEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 13 0001 01065 TONKAWA RD J R A C K GABRIELSON JOHN R GABRIELSON 1065 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0014 01020 TONKAHA RD DOUGLAS J HILLIAMS DOUGLAS J HILLIAMS 1020 TONKAWA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0020 01?70 TONKAWA RD J D WATSON A J F WATSON JOHN D A JANET F HATSON 1070 TONKAWA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 24 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGHEO DANIEL A RUTH PARTEN DANIEL A RUTH PARTEN 1015 TONKAWA RD ORONO MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0002 01075 TONKAWA RD M L A M T GUILLAUME MARNIX A MARY GUILLAUME 1075 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0015 01030 TONKAWA RD R S EDMUNDS A D K EDMUNDS ROBERT S A DEBRA K EDMUNDS 1030 TONKAWA RD ORONO MN 55356 38 08-117-23 24 '"H02 01015 TONKAWA Rl DANIEL C A RUTH M PARTEN DANIEL C A RUTH M PARTEN 1015 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 502 00010 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 4 38 08-117-23 13 0013 01040 TONKAWA RD R D LAUER A D K LAUER R D LAUER A D K LAUER 1040 TONKAWA RD ORONO MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0019 01060 TONKAWA RO ALLAN K PRAY ALLAN K PRAY 1060 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 24 0004 01035 TONKAWA RO BARBARA A WIGLEY BARBARA A WIGLEY 1035 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HfcNNE?: * COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ANb BELIEF. DATE /2A/^, V . I 9 0> 3oX cr 0» X UJ Ci rH COc 1x4 I :zr Q I 00 &4 a < t- o52J «o ■l3 Of E-i * >< o o a CQ O a *o t- < uo«o u sua j- t- u%c u=> Ofo ! gi S»£ -II i3 zz: 0 1 tti JL tr !V zc 3 O a 'i i I ul V VO uACx U-\ y O X \a r* 0- f cT t I < ZZ IuJzzzz VJzz. XU. xZi ^ 5 -< \ I ' -t-"<Lu I I V) iU- X $ 1 , ^ t O \ >4 U 5 I XU ■§xul oIX \ c Vis: X i\ Cl (7 <-r X:jinwl JL. < VI \ii "S* !£. 0 I •. vOu > o-r XU 3<c_u 4 V*<C 'C § \l\ \— 1o .VX > ■<5 Sii V3 U3 ;l 4, 1 f . jt,: u t*' zro § si vt\ lU l» A J y I'i Vi\ io iz: % uA I •v xiA v3 “7 O \ X A A <r rl «5\ I < y «i- 3i. zl 5L \j > I ^ UA < \ H. \<C. *C ■zt: •UA _A V rt VA ', i '>1 r- p *i- *■■ 5 I IVL XF •3 k-» 5 \b •) rzo \rrm • % VLA VO :7 VXAa c\0 .0 % X £ g. i: 5 ?> Q’ o V')zz > Ci r/ $ VIA \ :5 < !fV- I :s .vT^ V w • ^ ■I i i ', SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLF ONE) liAKJJLOVLK CAJLL-LC.A 1 iU.** »«v^iciv^slLL,!:.! 500-ld00* /2/2/^775-250’750-500’ EXISTING HARDCQVTR IN ZONE A. House Lcneih Width X X X B. Garaec C. Drivcwav X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X :s F. Landscape ■ Underlain By Plasiic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •• B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X B. Garaee C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk ' ,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 ^ . - ~74- -i- B X 100A V4- S.F. S.F. • •• -• *c S.F. S.F. S.F. iO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. . ■ S.F. " A B 1 ‘i t ■r.n.t" ' V* t-r f SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* I XIRTIN^ HAPDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X HAF :OVER CALCULATION WORKJ (^-250;j ^ET 250-500*500-1000* Length Width X X X D. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____ X Length Width X X X B. Garage*31 33 9ZS C. Driveway X X 33/0 D. Sidewalk X X ^3 E. Patio/Deefe-.*X X S3 SS //3-0 4-1 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic _ G. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE SCfl. - B 80 /1L X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B A B I • i j C> UA / La-' c/•; HAF :OVER CALCULATION WORK.' EEl 'Z/z/97 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*75-250'250-50^500-1000' FXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ 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 _X 100 PROPOSKn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___ X Length Width X X X B. Garage* C. Driveway X X // au. ZSO D. Sidewalk X X E. Pat'. 5«» ••X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _B-X 100 n S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. * /7 % A B A B 4 • i ^ A:u HAl rOVER CALCULATION WORK EEl SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*75-250’ 250-500’ C"S00-100(^ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Lcngih Widlh X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Widlh X X X B. Garage ’ C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B 760 7ffo S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 = _S.F. _S.F. r- 74 % A B A B A ‘ or said neaaured >East along »s to an ^th, whence East V* of said Lont Qf^tc O'lC 75 2X2O0t hardcover O/'sa H <91 sot 4400t % hardcover- 39.4 9.0 i, yV.T «••■■ 4 eJuooe iohardaa^^T 0* 309^.H <*In ihe 15-250 foa^ zone, ihe. pnfiazc^ f<^d//Mtts 1175 rhh^lllte ^mpeitaohd by Hie ^port of Hi* 0»W Zr/co"of^o'^^^ W i ziMp toe^c uik/trlay *tHI be removed. lesota accbrd- A>t 10 is 17306, purport *• »v »*XU: Hl’iWw‘‘‘/ArbROiNO H- • ** r ^ ’Mim RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1914_________ f- ’. ■ > A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 & 2 PILE #987 WHEREAS, Robert J. Bauman (hereinafter "the applicant”) is the owner of the property located at 1040 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1C and that part of Lot 9 lying Northerly of the following described line and its Easterly and Westerly extensions: Beginning at the point of intersection of the Westerly line of said Lot 9 with a line drawn parallel with and 140 feet South, measured at right angles, from the North line of said Lot 10; thence East along said parallel line 35 feec; thence deflecting left 4 degrees to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 111 feet South, measured at right angles, from said North line of Lot 10; thence East along said last-described parallel line to the Easterly line of said Lot 9, and there ending, all in Auditor's Subdivision Number 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof: the Northerly line of said Lot 10 is marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17306, (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit the construction of an attached enclosed p^ol which will en croach 15' into the average lakeshore setback, and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow 39.4% hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshore setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #987. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 18 and December 16, 1985, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) Applicant has a hardship in that there is no other feasible locatior for the pool addition. Page 1 of 4 T ^ i ira HJSJKII |«|rfS88f ilMES City of OR.OJNO... RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _1914 B) The addition as designed will not substantially encroach on the lake views of neighboring property owners. C) The applicant has shown that he can remove existing hardcover so that there is no net resulting increase in hardcover, maintaining the pre-existing hardcover of 9,150 s.f. or 39.4% in the 75-250* setback zone. D) The proposed pool structure meets all other side and lakeshore setbacks of the LR-IB zoning district. 4. In approving this variance. Council finds that in this unique case the higher elevation of the adjacent house to the north and the relationship of the front lines and view lines of the adjacent houses is such that the encroachment on lake views is minimal or non-existent. 5. The proposed pool structure is located substantially back from the 75* setback line, with the most lakeward projection at 96* from the shoreline. 6. The average setback line to which variances are granted in this resolution refers to a straight line connecting the points closest to the lakeshore of each of the adjacent residence structures. 7. 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. 8. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the 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 applciant, 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based on the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit the construction of an attached enclosed pool which will encroach 15* into the average lakeshore setback, and a to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow 39.4% hardcover in the 75-250* setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 4 IS ITEI^ HAIBEEN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1914_________ '■_r.l_^J:A^lleant shall remove 205 square feet of plastic sheeting from underneath the rock on the north side of the house in addition to the 623 square feet of blacktop already removed in order to compensate for the 828 square feet of additional hard cover created by the pool structure. Such plastic sheeting removal shall occur prior to final inspection of the pool structure. 2. Applicant shall submit revised pool structure plans coin ciding with the survey showing an 18'x46' addition, prior, to issuance of a building permit. 3. This approval is specifically for a one story structure extending from the basement level of the house, and any future addition of a story above the pool level will require a new variance application. This condition does not prohibit applicant from using the roof of the pool structure as a deck with standard 36” railing, but does prohibit enclosing of such deck. 4. Excavated material from the pool addition shall not be spread in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, and grading around the pool addition shall be limited to that necessary for the construction. 5. 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 expire on that date (January 27, 1987). 6. 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. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of January, 1986. ATTEST: Mhry C. ButNLeo ayor Property Page 3 of(/4 asmA mm A filS IIEK of ORONO liCmiBRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1914 _______ THIS ITEM BEEN STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) I Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said'City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on_ _ _ _ _ _January 27 ^ 1986 ^ that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. T Sire" TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:January 14, 1998 SUBJECT: #2323 Tim Nelson, on behalf of David Pomije 3120 North Shore Drive Variance(s)--Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakcshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:83,029 sq. ft. (1 .906 acres) Application:The application that was filed by the applicant is for a hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback to increase an existing residence to construct an addition. The addition, as proposed, includes a guest apartment on the second floor. The guest apartment requires a conditional use permit. The fees paid and notices sent referred to a hardcover variance only. A conditional use permit application and notice would need to prepared and sent if the applicant prevails in obtaining a hardcover variance. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.02,27. (a) Definition of Guest Apartment Section 10.20, Subd. 3, G., 2, Conditional Use Permit for Non-rental Guest Apartment Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.22, Subd. 2., Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations ^2323 Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomije 3120 North shore Drive Variance 1/20/98 page-1 ANALYSIS T.ot Area and Yards LR 1 -B District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard 1 acre 140’75' minimum and average lakeshore setback 10’35’ Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 83,029 sq. ft. (1.906 acres) 151 ’315’ existing and proposed, approximately 17.8’ on the west side (existing and proposed) 43' on east side existing 10' proposed on east side 155.8 ’ existing no encroachment into existing lakeshore setback proposed The subject property meets all setback requirements for the zoning district. The side yard on the east side currently exists at 43 ’. The proposed addition would build upon the existing side yard and reduce the east side setback to 10'. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 83,029 sq. ft.12,454.35 sq. ft. allowed 6,472 sq. ft. proposed 15% maximum 7.79% proposed Structural coverage measured as total lot area divided by total building area does not exceed the 15% maximum. U2323 Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomije 3120 North shore Drive Variance 1/20/98 page-2 Hardcover Distance from Skoreline 0'-75* 75'-250' 250’-500’ 500’-l,000’ Total Area in Setback 11,660 sq. ft. 27,132 sq. ft. 38,701 sq, ft. 5,788 sq. ft. Existing Hardcover none 6,950 sq. ft. (25.6%) 3,811 sq. ft, (9.8%) 400 sq. ft. (6.9%) Allowed Hardcover none 6,783 sq. ft. (25%) 11,610.3 sq. ft. (30%) 2,025.8 sq. ft. (35%) Proposed Hardcover none 9,552 sq. ft. (35.2%) 4,811 sq. ft. (12.43%) 600 sq. ft. (10.36%) Variance Requested none 2,769 sq. ft. (7.2%) none none The applicant is requesting to increase hardcover in the 75'-250’ setback to allow the residence to have an addition to the east, rather than to build an extension to the south. An addition to the south would require changes in the existing hardcover arrangement in the 75’-250' setback because the amount of hardcover in the 75'-250' setback exceeds the 25% ma.\imum by 167 sq. ft. No further additions can be constructed without removing or changing existing hardcover. To extend to the south into the 250-500' setback 167 sq. ft. in addition to the amount of building footprint to extend into that setback would have to be removed so that hardcover in the 75'-250' setback would be less than 25%. The proposed design would create a "U" shape house, with the bottom of the "U" on the lakefront and the top or open end facing the street. The proposed design includes 2,769 sq. ft. more than what is allowed in the 75'-250' setback. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's hardship statement is on the front of the application form. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. i*2323 Tim Nelson on behalf oj David Pomije 3120 North shore Drive Variance 1/20/9S page-'S I The current property can continue to be used as a residence without any further variances. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is created by a design. No further additions can occur to this residence without changes to existing hardcover amounts. Any future additions would need to rearrange existing hardcover to "bridge" the gap between the southern end of the residence an the 250'-500' setback area. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance would reduce an existing 43’ side yard to 10'. The lakeshore view of the proposed structure would be approximately 123' of 3 levels of structure, 44’ from lakeside grade to the peak of the roof 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. 5. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Residences are allowed uses in the LR-IB district. Guest apartments are conditional uses. A guest house would not be allowed because the property does not have the required lot area. 6. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. There are no special conditions that apply to this property. It currently meets all zoning requirements except that it exceeds hardcover in the 75 *250' setback. 8. The granting of the applicati^'n is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property .iglit of the applicant. No more additions can be added to this property without either receiving a hardcover U2323 Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomije 3120 North shore Drive Variance 1/20/98 page-0 FniTtBiHil fwiKinirgRgoutttfj Rl^SKTiTtKStinill mm ititmw ^riiiiw mm •IMtItJ [iTllt mm ^TiiTiUmm sintti KUiWtJ ^jTifsiirti reTiTtniTOiT:! nnwiDimuMs} wm Application # ^ Date Received ? Amount Paid ^Jl2o ^ A"’ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3\'^0 • Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required Date Property Acquired , 1 *1 I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: .^residential other (soecifv'l Zoning District: .(month/year) APPLICANT Name "Tim Address: 73‘2- c^^^Le\riooo pfi)\/c city: Phone (home ) Phone (work) 4 $'2- - Zip: / 2- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name C2 a\/m? AddressT^I^ Phone (home) 411^0101 _____ Phone (work) 7^0-' City:_^gg>/v/o_________Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^ Describe request in detail; 1£, MHrf£> z>50' wifH ±se>* - ^oo* Pi4g -Tc (attach additional sheets if necessary) co\\p\X\ot^ ^ ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width /Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliant v(dth Zoning Code requirements: OMg To pcoH APP)Ttc>J(THA.r \r\t <Hgu tvitg g><g^A^i>e KA>jtp^.<vge. A»^AS A^Mlv/g -THg 'CNVe^tr THg ^p.Pus)i4krk^ _ (att ach additional sheets if necessary) fii,-r^ert> g.y Pi2.7c?r»^ th^ .j 1 HAfip ^'/e.R l^E^i CiCfJ 3)2.0 NJot<-'»^ cO Q/O OO /■ W ©, JV-'.^ 0 iP- 75 zs%7fLzr<^’ i ■bo%250’- 5<»' 5"flD' - /0%J> f"iH^ ^0 $fcP 0 % . •' ^ - 75- r 2f %Z5-a' - 30 7„2.?*o' ^ 5" 00 : ^ %/OoT6 ]ooy^ j»o Ct>*m^LiAfJC(. C^^SO 27, \>2..25-6 %, 6 % ^>e>)\ 36^70)7.8 ”2 "2,0 2 'o — s; 70^>,0(i>^Z P^^^J '’^ 2,761 (p @ — P«ST»i/l^. 48'/&y- C3 uNc?rfz_&r /^4z.ri5^* C3 14, *^63 HA<i-P d£>%/6fl- O ^ GC>o 2S'%>' 2'),‘3t- io 'A » 5?, 7oi ?r'/C " 5788 .* • O (^,1B> II, t^lo 2'/ ) Zo, 4'/£J 20^ 4/0 - 14'76^ HA./U? co^fv^ • V V ,'t^wiw»»«-r iii| II I«li |i rii I II r Vi ' 1 ‘•c-. ."• v<"'l ' PA c^^ 4|: 1^,64 S"Sy p> p-jvtr U'JsA r" '*^ ^ ^ ff I ^ <$,^/i<^^ '. \ • -- 5o ' <=>((^ o o 1-r'' .* • ••:* •'■ .•« * * •Certificate of Survey David Pomije - -V •f-.ir.'y;, • • • 4 ■ Vi SC'S / '/;4/ U- \ / '• V--0 V' ticM onctvnoM \ __ » »t* >:i • io< J 1,13 •«* 1 »nt«t t*t M • ‘: *'• *.«%« Mrf l*tik uc««»*if »• *M 1**^ •» **»■»—< m ^ m4 •• »••»« • •• • • • .; 0*r-<a •* i*« •« •« «M to MM ^ C(wMiy. I /st«r / 1 IMI HIM I ftw« I IM <. tMc* « «N« M <to« *•« (»«UI ^Mto) M •* airSlH t*« »*to. M k0m*. •>••1 araiwir tor^ M m« IM J » 2. I^a^a 3 ••<»•»♦» »*4 IM 2 <• *»*• VateM^aMa-'r •» •*••• a«^^a»*» «••• H a»< la* /. ito a*i«4M toa a«*M« aaM *«ap^a omMM. »• «to laarMwaai^f ^*?*5 t •» f ' V * ( !• '•♦' t.«a * ai* • ntm ^TTaT 2 4 IM 1. 2 • -M ^ *ia»»«aa*artf «m a law M> la«i iMIMwttoif *aw». Hs.-sr,*s:rj; :rrJ:>n'r.siir^x*£J: r:ex'»r=.* :<2^- tofttaratartf »a al a»itf la« ^ -----------------------, - Mwakaaaiwtf Ma M aaM ia« 2 la *aw M**! a« to«»''W.* •««•«* U IM pM ml faca.a a« Ma 0»«ta ml law «a#Ma> M Oaa«a w wM to aaM caaMlp Mawwpw f»w»it. awwaala aw A •> a M I • AM • #« X ttoiMl la fMawawia ml *a*a»4. H a«f .*• r'V-s \ R Vi. - . r./ \ \ Ml at >V '> <'' '• ; u m If: “ (J> -akwAw • }*M ta f* »«a • a.*** ta '• 4«>4»»/aWM;^<«a • »M u ^ Paaaa^wwwa aM«/Maaa • IIM %a H tai 1^ • iiaat ta '• itwawa • n«|f1afiwwtw w««w^ ••«•%« <•*« »•• • aiart to '• •<•• • < :>A k K MuauuM »a«al«toai n • Maaato*« at • Ito • ia*»2 to •» rto • vw • M to to *• MT • w^it w« • t to to •• 'Syjm/y-' A / >A / 0 /9. ^o ■nM c»M.#M# li imi tm iwwiPitat - at • a to •• at • m • trw to !• M • tear . laii to •• m • »wwa% aw . «w to •• / \ • r.m:Np_ ^ (fV (? v^’’ V'' // ^ // j*.* jf' V*/ rat c \t>0*/CMO •i/to/ti taiaa Ii4 I* fw«w a» aww |iaa ia«aaa> a* mhj p<aw^MaiwwM«avaia w a*' MM* ■« as • w • aa <•w» ^ a* a a. to a a-MW •/^yp-/' i. *fl* w* •to •4 «M«|S-_ 0««w Pomm 3Y20 Nofth SHOT* Orlv« Orono, MlniHitola POM1JC RCSnCHCE CfNTrtCATE tuRvey E) (vH 111.4 1 LAKE MINNETONKA <u. —1—1 • f -iC 9 c? 1 3t£« -<•> ••v • • - - « %•*« o cji o o •J v’ I-V' ^ •••AUijCE MimE/d^KA^'<^ ^'- ..'f ^|uOi4# ) X :• « r» * -O / r~ I Qtt- % niowJrf--■<• • I- :'■•■*1ir.>'-/;i..*r73TI ' '0 • ./ • ^ \ ■;y'''^'l. J / 9t\\ ^.r V. 'hit t^r* ---------------- / 1 ,y »! #« 111 W r a i! i" m* - id fcl:^ 1 V.i V.r .. I. 5'.tj»{r f.j T • r- - i —f^TT:\% ' 1 : 1 • i____1 \ ]: .1::?F*i \ rt! V"'. • I... • f <r%,yi\ it-*• J «# .♦.V ]x^. J| P- 4^Irirt: I** I J-I > f i 1 «>CbITOi^.'-ff^41 K uHj:;:wiavv fj i ^ 1 ----------,i wr. ■fliiini :'<MIIp: imm!, MiAiBBrf I itm: i:; Bifti t::> ■■7r.;'iiiiiiiildaHiallf^ il I ■•)'*l»M*|i !|||■isf jigulai(rB B^e||ij k»« Va f-; ■'vn\..p , y ••V V * N:. V ;: J'(r^ • "v- p2|giv^ ^t^|c^fsl^ I m III illil muHii lili i gfsT isueJrnioK)/^ ;<. 6^,it ^ tTi^T^rJ •4.^. .' • . V^ '**A f _* -t--* ..;/-V / r* )•) u.«*i1 h ^ ,Q J) ^j- |£a%y^ I 1©^ v> -17 I I'I ':* >-'-v 'a ;.u.t.i •. rtJ. -.1•*|St -. •; i\iy .•.V.UI mI.1 W.« « • .;• ...,.• • • •*. . T*V • •■' j y ZZZZZZZZ « - . '}■.;■"■.• At..-•,■•<. t I (we) jj- /) -r, ____Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form ___________of 5/^ A//<g/y hi^B M>i [print name(s)] [print address] ' ^2!/!improvement or proposed use of the property located ^ht iMii/t also referred to as Land Use AnnliVattnn m,.Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. /2J^,97 Date Property Owner Date I (we) ‘'^/^Gl YM iSJ [print name(s)] ^90 .U. [)e. [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located ->2' /0.e also referred to as Land Use Application No.______ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. n 4 Permit No. ^ 1/ If (i'll tlO'B c5^r^ lAs.1 \i 9-1 nn^ >3l <^o nnh7L ini6 ^61 UL Q 7US 3 is>0 AJ- QaXX^>~ PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit /^^:X7^7^ li sSc^AJe,/" /h^ClvQy%^lA^ -;g/ Aoyn\/r-^ yAoid ! \Pu)mc/A^I PiHJ'hd/T) I rp 0 5-f- ??A ^0- IQ '^-S) • ^[m ll-io-A /Oio^ ^'9-y 3 -/g -9^fcj I ~y^uLtL.J^ 3/1 G ^^J.C-/VUCru^ flj(l}\L6-A*J^ ^ 3- /4 ^ Cc -------------------—QyX-M>C^ 1-/S-97 5? // -^7 /3-6- ^7 'TouaA Pj4n<^ /°?- a-■9 7 Pu^ilmL p TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:January 2,1998 SUBJECT: #2331 Mark Giliet, having an interest in 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Request for Finding of Substantially Similar Use Zoning District: B-1 Retail Sales Business District Application:The applicant is proposing to lease approximately 1,200-1,500 square feet of commercial space at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, commonly known as the Orono mall. The applicant is proposing to use the space to operate a retail business to sell go carts, parts and accessories. The Zoning Code does not list the sell of go carts as either a permitted or conditional use in any commercial section of the ordinance. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to consider it similar to a hobby shop and bicycle shop. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.40. B-1, Retail Sales Business District., Subd. 3. The purpose of the B-l district is to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The Zoning Code is very specific about the permitted retail and service businesses to be allowed. This list is very narrow and is not up-to-date for services offered today. For example, video stores, tanning salons, nail salons, quick print shops, and coffee shops are not listed but would be expected to be found in this zoning district. The uses in the district are as follows: *■'1 M • U2231 StarkGiUet 2160 Wayzataoutevard Request for Finding of Substaniialfy Similiar Use 1/20/98 page~l rtitivdiitjtj It!^ MiCt ftWi hMtiiTnrfpnm} RTlT^T•fW RiniTiJSiit] •Htniw RTiTiliW ‘X.. > vtnrwnKrunnmm 4.n Wiiulllt] MiTcfswara titioiitniia P.rd Cl] • Wtumij f:)d(i^lililtlil!d:ilII]!Mi]P.riTilC^i niiYi rtMWi [IllUil n^.iici ^TiViW [lieu •lUMU ^ViMi(i]iliRfrU ^nneiecu WiWtfslflU rifriT«j Menu »fU nvsiivwoi ciriiu ^iixiimu ridc^i srau rnTr^9mwauT*aA5’^*} ^ . V ^1- Application it 3^33 J Date Received______ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION , . / Site Address 116,0 U/. \A/^^2aI^ Type of Application to be Filed____ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name Address r) c U Phone (home ) ___________ Phone (work ) 9-3 6 - A 9 r :^rr L <c.Cirv^ Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name \/J I / /1A »>t W. |A/gyi-\r Address Phone (home ) 4n3~40?>O Phone (work ) AH ?> - 7 q City Loy><^La»iC^ Zip 3u/Ld^ \9^f>Date Property Acquired_________________________________ I (do) (d»ugt^ also own the adjacent parcels of land, on StXaTT FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) 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 RB(51A©7 ^9- F"/N)DIN^ ^UCST/N^lAsCLS-/ SHlUNL US^ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District 1_________ Present Use of Property______Residential Other (specify) §M / V! •• ■a .11»^3---------— %a[,•[i'i -r' \l Tt :1 EXISTING t BUn.DING !l • •4 ; : t . .• ^ zx>d From Marc Gillet To: LizV Dale 12/22/97 Time: 8 15 24 Af;l To; Zonini>'PKinnin>, attn; Elizabeth V. From: Marc A J. Gillet Re: Commercial property located at 2160 Wayzata Blvd. 1 have discussed with the property owner. Bill Ware, my desire to lease apprcvumately 12i>‘«-1500 .square feet of commercial space in the property located at 2160 Wayzata Blvd The business tluU 1 would like to put in the space would be selling Go Karts, and parts and accessories tor them In our meeting on Tuesday, December 16‘^* 1997 we looked at some ol the Karting magazines I brought in to try to give you a better feel of the Karting industry and the busines.s that I would like to bring to ‘‘»rono. In comparing what we saw in the trade magazines and our discussions, to the town codes, we both lelt that isnT a direct listing for Karts, but that it would be very similar to two other approved uses of Bicycle .shop and Hobby shop The Flart.s come two frames to a box There is some assembly required, including sCvit. tires and engine, and gauges The Karts are designed for sanctioned tracks that are open to ages 6 to 65 years old There is a locaF lest course at the Dakota County Technical t/ollege There will be no Karls driven m the parking lot Other tracks are located in Hutchinson, Brainerd. and Eau Claire, along with Other events throughout the metro area, such as Cantebury dow ns The sanctioning body has strict safety requirements and licensing that must be adhered to. in order to operate on the course After attending a couple of ditferent types ot races this year as spectators with my two sons, I found that the sporting events are ver>- faiiiily oriented. .As a E>en Leader for Cub Scouts, and the father of two sons. 1 am alw^i,.; ! ‘ mg for constructive ways L»r us to spend time together, even as we get older. I thini: that a Karting biLsiness would be an asset to the community ot i.>rono Thank vou. Marc Oillct P.S I dropped off the application with Bill \\’are over the weekend, we discus.sed what needs to be done on Friday the 19^*' I will try to make sure that you gel everything you requested today If vou have any questions, concerns, or comments you can reach me at Home 479-672S. or work at 936-2169, or fa:< 936-2145. P^0« 1 of L 4 r- -POWERED BY KARl- 2160 wayzata Boulevard, Long Lake, mn 55359 call 612'/! 79-6728 or Fax 612-KAR-TSCO or KARTSCO.com M,T,W 10-6, TH,F 9-9, Weekends at the tracks TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator Januar>' 13,1998 RE:#2332, Zoning Code Amendment Re: Used Car Sales in the B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District Background At the October 20,1997, Planning Commission Mr. Dick Bury of Classic Car Sales, Inc. requested that the Planning Commission recommend finding that the sale of classic cars would be similar to a museum or an antique store in the B-5 district. The request was made because Mr. Bury had an interest in purchasing the property located at 3850 Shoreline Drive (Bay Furniture). On a vote of 6-0. the Planning Commission recommended denial due to concern about outdoor display. At the November 10, 1997, City Council meeting, the Council voted to direct staff to draft a Zoning Code text amendment to consider car sales as a conditional use permit in the B-5 district. The application #2310 to find that the proposed use was tabled until January 26, 1998 on a vote of 5-0. Proposed Amendment The proposed zoning code amendment revises the B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District, by adding used car sales as a conditional use, subject to specific standards. The standards include restricting car sales to classic and collectible car sales as the principal use. Sales of trade-in vehicles are recognized as a secondary use. A typical used car sales lot would not be allowed because it deals specifically in only used car sales and not classic or collectible vehicles. The amendment also limits the maximum lot size recognizing that the B-5 District is a neighborhood business district and the size and scale of the operation should be limited to maintain the neighborhood scale. The minimum building size is also restricted to 6,000 sq. ft. so that a used car lot cannot operate without having a showroom rather than just a small office on a lot. The amendment also includes a ratio between the lot size and building size so that an appropriate neighborhood scale is maintained. The building cannot consume the entire lot (warehouse-type operation) nor can the lot be entirely for parking of vehicles if a ratio of at least 15% is maintained. Further, the entire lot cannot be impeiA’ious surfaces. The proposed amendment does not specifically list the number of vehicles that may be displayed outside at one time. This was the most contentious issue when the Plannin.c* Commission and City ^B-5 Zoning Amendment RE Car Sales PC: 1/20.9S page-1 Council reviewed Classic Car Sales application in October and November. The Planning Commission needs to discuss the number of vehicles to allow outside, if any. The location of vehicles displayed outside should also be required to maintain the required front yard setback from the propert>' line of 20 feet. The Planning Commission needs to discuss how many vehicles, if any should be displayed between the building and the required front yard setback. Lighting for parking areas should be hooded and directed downward. Parking areas should also be screened from residential districts by either fencing or landscaping. The parking area should provide at least 4 parking spaces for employees and 5 for customers. The amendment prohibits repair, painting or servicing of motor vehicles. This provision will prohibit a car dealership from intensifying their operation by including service. This requirement will also serve to further restrict the use to the sale of classic or collectible vehicles. Vehicles sold on trade would not be able to be serviced by the dealership. Inoperable vehicles also would not be allowed to be stored or sold. This standard will prohibit junk vehicles from being sold at used car dealerships. In all other respects the used car dealership would have to comply with state statutes. ANALYSIS The B-5 district is a Limited Neighborhood Business District. The purpose and intent of the district is to designate an area where goods and services can be provided to a neighborhood. Businesses in this area are to be low traffic generators and minimize hardcover. The district is also required to have access to public services. Staff notes that although the designation is for neighborhood use, no standards are provided in the B-5 district to regulate scale to maintain a neighborhood scale. Under the existing zoning provisions, an "office supply store" such as Office Depot or Office Max could locate in the B-5 district as long as the parking setback requirements are met. A book and magazine store such as Borders or Barnes & Noble could also locate in the district. Any office or clinic less than 2 1/2 stories could also locate in the B-5 District. If the B-5 district is truly intended to be a neighborhood district, the standards should reflect regulations that maintain the appropriate scale. The B-5 permitted use lists 23 specific uses that are service and retail oriented. The conditional use permit list includes 8 uses that are service-oriented. Zoning Amendment RE: Car Sales PC: 1/20/98 page~2 The existing B-5 district in the City of Orono is located in Navarre. One parcel near Culver's restaurant was rezoned to B-5 in 1995 (Grace Church site). The other two areas are located on Shoreline Drive. Approximately 6,000 cars traveled daily on Shoreline Drive. This is more traffic than a typical neighborhood business district experiences. The current uses in the B-5 district are as follows: Street Address Business Name Type of Business 2380 Shadywood Grace Church vacant church, office and retail development proposed 3495 Shoreline Dr.Applied Communications data communication hardware distributor 3502 Shoreline Dr.The Sign Age Sign Shop ? Shoreline Dr.Com-Tek elec. mfg. representatives (office) 3542 Shoreline Dr.Pronto Auto Parts Auto Parts 3572 Shoreline Dr.Lake Minnetonka Animal Hospital Animal Hospital 3574 Shoreline Dr.Dairy Queen Restaurant with drive-thru 3800 Shoreline Dr.—single family residence 3850 Shoreline Dr.Bay Furniture furniture sales 3860 Shoreline Dr.Shoreline Service Center Auto/Boat Service Many of the above uses are neither permitted or conditional uses in the B-5 district. They are considered non-conforming uses. The Planning Commission should consider the following questions based on the proposed use in the B-5 district; 1.Is the proposed use, used car sales, compatible with the intent and purpose of the B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District? Review Section 10.44. Zoning Amtnditent RE: Car Sales PC: 1/20/93 page-5 f M ’ I 2.Would the proposed use be appropriate in every area of the City of Orono that is zoned B-5? Review zoning map. 3.If the use is appropriate for the B-5 District, should it be a permitted or a conditional use? It is proposed as a conditional use. 4.What conditions, if any, should be placed on the proposed use to maintain the intent and purpose of the district and be compatible with other uses allowed in the district? 5.V 'hat conditions, if any, should be placed on the proposed use considering that the B-5 district is adjacent to residential districts? STAFF RECOMMENDATION To consider the above-noted issues and discuss the proposed amendment. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K L Zoning District map B-5 District standards Mr. Bury’s letter Mr. Katainan's letter Building Elevation Site Plan PC minutes from 10-20-97 PC minutes from 11-10-97 Press article from 11-15-97 state requirements for dealers State statutes B5 property owners notified of hearing ■P h f.. ■ Zoning Amendment RE: Car Sales PC: !/2a 93 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 10, ZONING CODE, SECTION 10.44, B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ADD CAR SALES AS A CONDITIONAL USE THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 10.44, Subd. 4, Conditional Uses, of the Orono City Code is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 4.Conditional Uses. A.Within any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District, no structure or land shall be used foi one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store, Drycleaning store. Tailor shop. Pressing and shoe shine shop. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. Home and garden equipment rental. Veterinary clinic. Kennels. USED CAR SALES, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (a) THE SALE OF CLASSIC AND COLLECTIBLE CARS SHALL BE THE PRINCIPAL USE. (h) THE SALE OF USED VEHICLES TAKEN AS TRADE-INS SHALL BE THF SECONDARY USE. THE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE SII/.LL BE 50,000 SQ. FT. THE MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE SHALL BE 6,000 SQ. FT. THE RATIO OF BUILDING SIZE TO LOT SIZE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 15%. m HARDCOVER SHALL NOT EXCEED THIRTY-FIVE (35%). OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF VEHICLES SHALL BE 4 (h) (i) a) Ck) LIMITED TO VEHICLES AT ONE TIME. THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT MAY BE DISPLAYED IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE LIMITED TO . NO DISPLAY SHALL BE ALLOWD IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. LIGHTING OF PARKING AREAS SHALL BE HOODED AND DIRECTED DOWNWARD. PARKING AREAS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS SHALL BE SCREENED BY EITHER A FENCE OR PLANT MATERIALS THAT REACH A HEIGHT NOT LESS THAN 6 (SIX) FEET WITHIN 2 (TWO) YEARS OF PLANTING. THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR EMPLOYEES SHALL BE 4 (FOUR). THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF CUSTOMER PARKING SPACES SHALL BE FIVE (5). (!) MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR, PAINTING, OR SERVICING IS PROHIBITED. (m) iHE SALE OR STOPJVGE OF INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLES SHALL BE PROHIBIT ED. (n) THE DEALERSHIP SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER STATE STATUTES. •If!'* * r ry • ■lilt Busies.II l^lil iSilv 'vn m ij § 10.43 it ice Alio mited Neighborhooc G!ine<l Uroon D*ivelo idustrial District Adopted by Or uffective As amended by Ordinance 185 Ordluanut 189 Ordinance 101 Ordinance 106 Ordinance 213 Ordinance 21^ Ordinance 22t Ordinonce 236HC B-S ORj^ B-l| B-3 LR-1B E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 3^ feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to any rear lot line, 15 feet to any side lot line, 35 feet to any side lot line adjacent to street; except when abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-4" Offiice and Professional Business District abuts an "R" District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in heirht (no^less than three feet nor higher than four feet adjacent to st^^) shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the r^^ired front yard. G. Building Design and .Obstruction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagraph G.^ H. Drainage. No ibd shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing rloods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as 1.equired by the Council,/eind those plans shh^l be reviewed by ;he City Engineer befor^submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval". Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a neural water course, ponding ar^, storm drain or other public f^ilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwrs^ must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan^^and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or \City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencr<^s having jurisdiction over the area affected by th’’ drainage. I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided^ in Section 10.75. SEC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGBDBORHCXDD BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ''B-5” Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district iray adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access, to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the "B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ■ ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) m S 10.4 Subd. 2. Application. All applications £or a buildina permit in any Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B~5" Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: U56. ■ U-ST =*7 A. B. C. D. E. F. Municipal buildings. Offices. Clinics. Art and school supply store. Book and magazine store. Office supply store. estate office. G. Banks, loan company, insurance company, real H. I. J. K. L. BarberShip, beauty shop. Camera and photograph supply store. Locksmith. Hobby shop. Gift store.m M. N. O. P. Q. R. Glassware and pottery. Antique store. Jewelry store. Watch repair. Library. Museum.m s. T. U. V. W. Record shop. Music store. Tobacco shop. Galleries. Pet shop. ■ H Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A. Within any "B-5 ” Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: PI usr-^) 1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. Drycleaning store. Tailor shop. Pressing and shoe shine shop. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. Home and garden equipment rental. Veterinary clinic. Kennels. 3 4 5 6 7 8 m m ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) ■m m ? 10.44 , . • B. Off-Street Periling. Off-street'parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B” or "I” District and is in the same ownership as the land in the *'3" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period of not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setb^-ck Requirements and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. A.Area. The feet. B.Lot Width. feet. C.Front Yards. D.Rear Yards. feet; side yard adjacent to ”R" District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than j5 feet from such lot line. ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) Mayor Gabriel Jabhour Subject: Date: and Council Members: J. Diann Gothen Charles Kelly Barbara Peterson Richard Flint Dale Lindquist, Chairman Planrung Committee Richard B. Bury, Owner Classic Sales, Inc. Request for license transfer and approval of use of building at 3850 Shoreline Drive for display and sale of classic and collector automobiles. See copy of attached letter to City Planner dated September 26,1997. November 3,1997 m Backeround: Classic Sales was founded by the present owner, Richard B. Bury in 1987 and was originally located in Eden Prairie. The City gave a conditional use permit and Classic Sales operated for sbc years without any problems or complaints whatsoever! In 1993, Mr. Bury moved Classic Sales to its current St. Louis Park location for more showroom area. His request for a license transfer was readily handled by dty staff, and he has operated at this location for 4 years, again without any complaints or problems. Classics' business has now grown, and it needs a larger indoor display area and more drive-by exposure, thus this request. The business presently operates from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday. In Orono, Classic would add limited Saturday hours, otherwise the hours would rtay the same. Weather permitting, we would anticipate display of no more than 6 automobUes outside. "Display" should not be construed as "storage", as we don't plan on any storage at this site. The building provides enough room to allow the movement of cars to the inside during inclement weather and overnight. The site will be completely pollution, noise and odor free, as Classic subcontracts all service and repair work out to others. The building, landscaping and parking lot would be kept clean, and aestheticaUy pleasant to the eye. There will be absolutely NO storage of cars or parts on this site. Classic's customers typically stop by one at a time for short periods, so we are not a big traffic generator. There have never been any kind of congestion or parking problems at any of our locations. There is quite a Icirge grassy area in the front of this building that could possibly be used for display of special cars on nice days (see Picture A). Although the size of this area has room for approximately 10 Ceus, no more than three cars would ever be placed there, and they would then only be there for short periods. Due to its size and location, this building has very limited uses. We feel our proposed use is one that would work very well and is within your discretion to allow under a conditional use permit. The appreciation of collector cars is very unique to all of us, as everyone reminisces in the past. We also know many collector car hobbyists live in the western suburban area. To date, I haven't found one person that finds our business offensive. We see absolutely NO difference in the display of 4 - 6 cars at this site (see Picture B) than you see with 4-6 cars belonging to employees or customers parked at a lot nearby as shown in Picture C. We see little difference between a gallery selling old pictures and furniture or one selling old cars, except in the size of the antiques. Although someday we may become a museum, the only difference is that a museum charges admission. This request, I realize, requires some imagination on the Coundl's p-Jt. If all proposals were cut and dried, and read to the letter of any ordinance, there would be no need for commissions or councils, as everything could be handled by competent staff. Please see our request as an excellent opportunity to add an attractive business to your Navarre '-ommercial area. We would be a great asset to your community. Sinc^rfely, RicheU'd B. Bury t. ..•s 11-03-1997 11:52 hM FPOM FLlRt I. r B I^BAY 612 471 8914 4730310 P.Ol BAY FURNITURE 3850 So. Shoreline Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Iff 6'^. iP.yy October 30.1997 I I am bringing to you a buyer for my Bay Furniture building who is a perfect Of the business strip known as Navarre In City. He is Mr. Richard Bury and Ijiis Classic Car Company. His product is clean, attractive and carries a large enough sales ticket to ’ I generate the income required to maintain the property in the same responsible f as.h|on as I have done for the past decade. There have been a few prospective bui'4>'$ who would automatically qualify under the permitted uses listed in II* * Idtlaihment ^A". None of them would have been able or (in my opinion) willing to ijeep the property jwell groomed and paid for promptly. ! I There are twenty three permitted uses on attachment ’A' from "A“ to ’W. I j ! i On}y ONE item ("B" offices) is currently in operation on the strip. There are then eigli conditional uses listed on the attachment. All conditional uses, except for the| ^hoe shine parlor, are doing business here now. I I I In addition, ithere are other uses which are not on either list. Namely, Ryder truck rental; auto repair, sand and gravel storage and a vast array of • 'I * ' perjsbnal watercraft. All of these either display or store on their business praises, t T0T«_ P.Ol il-03-19S7 11:53 hM FROM FURII.MtkEAY 612 471 8014 ! I• I : i 4730310 P.Ol . I I • I have enclosed photographs of the Bay Furniture property and those of• •. i • I ! my Immediate neighbors. I hope they in no way denigrate these successful j enterprises. Th4y are Included In the hope that you will see that the Bay property j Is already in excfess of current standards. It Is wished that the council would not ’ ^ I I j I trppose an pven pigher standard. This would be unfair given the fine custodianship bc|th Mr. Bury and I bring to the area. . I Thara arajmany reasons Classic Car Company Is a perfect fit here in j Navarre. Itjfits better than most of the other enterprises because it incorporates sp much ofiboth the !r»tter and tho spirit of the use doctrines set forth In altachmentrA’. ! i' • ' i 1 . Not a high traffic generator. ; 2 Not open evenings (Closes at 4:30) : 3. Onty selling occurs In the building. ■ 4. Service and repairs are done off premises. 5. Building is adequate without expansion. I • I 6. Demographics are perfect for the neighborhood. I(uli(: ; 7. No polwlion I j '8. N|o IHte| by patrons. 9. Attraclijve product. I ! 10. Incorporates many aspects of the permitted uses. e.g. offices, gifts, hobby, as well as antiques and collectibles.• • : f I i In cohclusipn, it is fair to say that most things must be considered on an i • ' * 1individual basis. My furniture store was not a permitted use. I found more * I • tesistance than Mr. Bury does now. He will be a good custodian and bring anj : • I j element of class Ip the area. Stephen Kataineri I I ! ' ! ! i I 1 ! ! ! I !• : \ TOTAL P.Ol I- s.-Njn / WP |»i* v«pp #<o*^ >1 rua?p>r TX tr v^LS t %% * Wi.ci^ t>.y »»w TT.’M #j |y;#;rM !SAfs ** * fA<r *•* *‘&i?UT^i glE-VAl I^M /»■. ■ g' "»«f!SS F^C?P06eD fz>l2 '1 CA*2. J5N-^ Shcreii^-c- “Dnvc-36St> MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 DRAFT 13) the developer would be required to plan boulevard trees; and 14) sewer and drainage calculations would be submitted by November 3. Schroeder said it would be incumbent upon Saga Hill Society to be proactive regarding any irregularities by having an expert view the site. The City suggested Saga Hill Society make the initial contact but were not requiring it. Lindquist reiterated that the responsibility lies with the Saga Hill Society, not the City or developer. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short recess occurred.) (#5) #2310 DICK BURY, CLASS CAR SALES, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION/FINDING OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR USE 9:13-9:31 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant was asking for clarification of use in the B-5 Zoning District. The applicant is proposing a showroom and office for classic cars at the noted locrtion which meets the lot area and v,-idth requirements. Dressier performed an analysis of the B-5 Zoning District. Staff recommended a discussion be held for clarification. If such use is found similar to that of an antique jre. Staff would support the application with conditions that prevent the future use of the property for a used car lot. 1 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 Richard Bury reported he has conducted similar operations in two other locations with no problems. He presented photographs of cars typical of what would be sold. He indicated some newer models would also be for sale. The vast majority of the cars would be located inside. Bury has another facility for storage of cars in order to rotate stock. Bury said he is interested in purchasing the Bay Furniture building for such use and feels the area residents would be interested in this type of vehicles. He anticipated open hours to be from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and possibly some Saturday hours. (Smith arrived at this time.) Bury said he would display some cars outside during good weather conditions. No repairs or restorations would occur at this location except for a possible changing of a battery or the like. There would be a museum area and sales area. Bury did not feel there would be any parking problems since customers appear randomly. The building would have to be modified with doors to accommodate the cars and change the loading dock to a ramp. Lindquist asked if the property would be used as a used car lot. Bury said he employees two people and most of the business would be by mail or phone. He indicated he needed the outside exposure to promote the business. Lindquist asked if it would present a problem if Bury could not run the property like a used car lot. Bury said he, would need tc h-:v: J '6 cars outside, but it would not be a typical used car lot with the majority of business conducted inside. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 Hawn noted the parking lot accommodates nine cars. Bury said he would not overload the parking area. There were no public comments. McMillan said she would be in favor of the ordinance being more flexible to allow such use. She questioned if the building was tom down if it would set a precedence. Bury said the building was only ten years old. Van Zomeren said the City Attorney would need to further review the zoning in order to draft a resolution to allow classic car sales, which would be a conditional use with findings determined by the City Attorney. Schroeder indicated he felt the use of providing an area for open viewing of the cars would in effect be an open car lot. Schroeder asked Van Zomeren if this was inconsistent with zoning. Van Zomeren said it was with outdoor storage and sales bemg problematic. She noted there was another business with outside placement of merchandise that is not in compliance with code. Lindquist said he would support the showroom and classic car sales but saw the need for placing cars outside being a problem. Lindquist and Schroeder both agreed the use does not fit in with the zoning. McMillan suggested the display of cars be outside during business hours and moved back in afterwards. Bury said he could not be limited in that manner. Berg said the use was not consistent with the characteristics of Orono, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 Van Zomeren referenced Bressler's report reviewing the purpose of the zoning, the permitted uses, and conditional uses. The types of permitted uses would not utilize a building such as the Bay Furniture Building. Van Zomeren said it would be difficult to find an appropriate use for the building. Van Zomeren said a conditional use would operate similar to that of retail while the permitted use are generally service type operations. Berg noted there was limited parking as well. Berg felt this and the building size was a problem. Bury said the State required approval of the City for licensing in this location. He informed Schroeder he could not operate without open lot sales. Schroeder informed Bury that the problem was that no zoning existed for such use. If Bury did not require cars be located outside, there would not be a problem. The location of cars outside deems the use as a used car lot. Bury informed McMillan that he would require 10 cars located outside with the other two spaces for parking of customers. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2310 based on non-conformance with code due to outside sales. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Schroeder informed Bury that the application could be taken to the Council for their review. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#4 - #2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued) Bimbaum reiterated that conditions have not changed since 1987 and findings are appropriate. Jabbour said he would support the application as the applicant had been informed the lot was buildable and sewer was assessed. He agreed that the property should have been viewed differently when sewer was installed. Jabbour moved, Kelle; seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3997-A. Kelley asked for discussion regarding the fence. Jabbour asked the applicant if he would eliminate the fence. Bimbaum said the fence is on City property and wa!s there when he purchased his property. He noted the fence runs along the access road to the beach and would be a safety concern with snowmobilers if the fence was eliminated. Jabbour said he would support the fence as it is located on City property. He informed Bimbaum that t)^ically no fencing is allowed in the 0-75' lakeshore setback. Vote: A>es 3, Nays 2, Goetten, Flint. (#5) #2310 DICK BURY, CLASSIC CAR SALES, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION/FINDINGS OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR USE The applicant was present. Kelley asked for definition of a classic car. Mr. Bury said the list is distinct and does not change and includes cars built between 1925 and 1948. Van Zomeren distributed photographs. She reported that the applicant is requesting clarification of the intent and purpose of the B5 zoning district to find classic car sales as a substantially similar use to others in the zoning district, specifically, an antique store or a museum. TTie B-5 Zoning District is a limited neighborhood business district. Van Zomeren said in reviewing the list of permitted and conditional uses, Staff felt the use would be similar to that of an antique store. The Planning Commission, however, voted 6-0 in denial of the application as they did not find it consistent and were concerned with outside display and storage. Van Zomeren asked Council to direct Staff to draft a resolution to approve or deny the request. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2319 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) Richard Bury gave a background history of his business. It was established in 1987 in Eden Prairie and moved in 1992 to St. Louis Park. Due to the growth of his business and limited spacing at his current location, Bury initiated a purchase agreement contingent on his license being transferred to the location noted according to State criteria. Bury indicated that his business requires a building similar to that size and configuration of a furniture store or grocery store. His current business hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. He anticipates requiring limited Saturday hours as well. He sends out cars for any repair work. He noted the business is also not a traffic generator as the majority of business is performed over the phone or by mail. The business traffic at this location would be of a local t>'pe. Bury said he does not see a difference in having 4-6 cars parked outside for display purposes versus other buildings where employees and customers park their cars. Bury said he would be a good member of the community and plans on re-staining the outside of the building, improving the landscape and parking lot. Bury said he is proud of his business, his reputation, and the cars he sells. Ja' hour questioned if there were other areas in the B-5 Zoning District that w'ould be opened up for used car sales if this was approved. It was noted that the use can be controlled through the resolution by limiting the findings as being shown to be similar to an antique dealer or museum through the description of a classic car. Barrett was asked for his opinion. Barrett said the City would have to show why this use is different. Jabbour responded that a car is a car. Goetten noted the wide range in antiques and felt the same applies with cars. She felt the use would fit in with antiques and museums if the Council can legitimately describe the use. Barrett said this would require amending the ordinance to create the category. Jabbour said whatever is done should be interpreted through the B-5 Zoning District. Jabbour said he supported the application. He noted the number of cars displayed outside could be limited. Barrett said the list of what is a classic car could be included. Jabbour confirmed with Barrett that this would be through an ordinance amendment as an additional use. Moorse said this would require review by the Planning Commission. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) Bury asked to respond. He said he cannot be limited to certain models and certain age cars that can be sold. Buty said he needs to be able to sell newer cars as well in order to pay for the business. Van Zomeren noted that whenever a car dealer gets a new license or changes locations, the dealer is required to send a letter to the City for signature. She has received such a letter for a business of wholesaling cars elsewhere in the Navarre area, requiring no cars being on display, and has found this to be consistent with office use. Van Zomeren said the point she wanted to make is that the State requires the City to sign off for licensing; if changes are made in the future, another dealer could not automatically move into the location. Flint said he supported this particular application but was concerned with ramifications from its approval elsewhere in the community. He felt the only way the approval could be successful is by amending the ordinance, narrowing the definition, and limiting the number of cars being displayed. Flint said he is concerned with a used car lot being located elsewhere in the City. Bury responded that he does not operate the same as used car lots. He noted that cars are not left outside; they are brought in overnight. Kelley asked how many of his current stock of cars are classic cars. Bury said he currently has two classic cars; the remaining 13 cars are in storage. He noted the change in numbers is reflected by the winter months. His sales to local clientele are small and the majority take place over the phone. Kelley asked how many cars would he be able to handle inside and outside at the location if he had 4 cars outside. Bury said he could have up to 25 cars inside. Kelley asked how many of those 25 cars would be classic cars during the summer months. Bury said at least 50%. Jabbour verified with Buiy that trade-ins would be allowed and the trade-ins would be of a variety of models. Goetten noted that the only B-5 Zoning is in Navarre. Gaffron displayed the map showing locations of the B-5 Zoning. Jabbour said the use was reasonable but voiced concern with bright lights. Also as far as the issue of parking is concerned, the amount allowed should not to tied to the display cars. Steve Katainen, owner of Bay Furniture Store, said the mandated parking for the property was not totally used. He indicated more land is available for parking but designed for his business. He said he has had up to 17 cars in the lot. Katainen said an MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) area that he had intended for shed storage could be used for cars. Katainen feels the business would fit the category of permitted uses. He noted persons interested in the other allowed uses could not afford the building. He feels the business would be a class> operation and generate little traffic. Jabbour responded that he felt the Planning Commission did not understand the parking situation for the property. Goetten asked what the parking requirements are for the property. Van Zomeren reported there are 9 striped spaces across the lot. The typical parking space is 9’xl8' and more would be available. Bury thought there was space for 15 parking stalls to the side. There is room for 10 in front but he does not plan on any in that location. He would keep 2 or 3 cars in front during the day for display purposes and would want to maintain the grassed areas. In the winter time, all of the cars would be stored inside. Jabbour said he stands corrected on parking. He noted the applicant would be required to maintain the required amount of parking spaces. Peterson agreed but when looking ai the property, she noted that it was set up to be conducive to cars being parked to the side. Jabbour said it would still have to be considered a used car lot. Goetten suggested a percentage of classic cars be specified. She felt the business would be a good opportunity for the community. Bury suggested he be limited to no more than two times the amount of cars inside than outside. Jabbour suggested a total of 4 cars outside. Kelley saw the question needing answering is whether Orono wants a used car lot in the City. If so, where is the best place. He feels this would be the best location. He acknowledged Bury's good intentions but is concerned if the business is sold in the future. Goetten suggested the possibility of placing conditions on the application that differentiate this business from other used car lots. Jabbour asked Barrett if the City could mandate the business be a certain percentage of classic cars. Barrett said a description could be included and made a requirement. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bur>\ Classic Car Sales - Continued) Van Zomeren said the furniture store had originally requested the same findings be found regarding its use. She questioned if it had been sold as a used furniture store, if that would have been considered a different use. She questioned whether there would be a parallel that could be drawn. Barrett said he did not know but regarding this case, the applicant would not be selling 100% classic cars but 30-50% of classic cars and the remainder non-classic. Flint said he was considering tabling the application to allow time for an adequate definition or the ordinance be amended precluding used car lots. He asked if the Council needs to amend the ordinance in order to achieve what is desired. Barrett said it is difficult to change the language. He recognized the time it takes to change an ordinance. Jabbour asked the Council to consider the question presented by Kelley regarding whether the City wants to have a used car lot. Flint said he does not agree with Kelly as he feels the classic car sales use is different from that of a used car lot. Flint said the way the question was phrased, he would not support it; but Flint said classic cars are a different aura, and if it can be defined as to what this type of classic dealer is and define outside use, he would support it. Jabbour questioned whether the B-5 could be amended to include classic cars with requiring a certain percentage of classic cars and limiting the cars displayed outside. This would, however, place the current application on hold. Goetten felt this was reasonable for findings of a similar use if the applicant could agree with limitations noted. She felt the applicant should have some indication of support if this process was to be undertaken. Kelley said he would support classic car sales but asked if the City would be auditing the applicant for complying to the percentage requirements. He said if the Council wanted to assist the applicant, a formula would have to be determined and checked annually for compliance. If found not in compliance, a variance would be required. Bury understood this but said he did not wish to be held to that criteria. He noted the problem ethanol gas brought forward. He noted the company's name refers to classic car sales but does not want to limit it to that use. He said he would be in favor of requiring 30% of the cars be located in the building. He would like to have a 6 car limit outside noting these cars would be brought back inside during the night time hours. Bury said he would only have security lights outside and maintain front lights inside the building for viewing. Bury said he did not want the application to become too complicated. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) Goetten noted that the only time the City is aware of problems arising is from driving by and finding a violation. Planning Commissioner McMillan said the Planning Commission's concern was with outside parking and the appearance of a lot of cars being parked outside. She noted there is limited parking outside and there would be no increase in hardcover for additional parking space. Jabbour noted there were similar uses in the City of Wayz-?»a. He asked Council if the activity was indoors and the outside display was limited to 4-5 cars, whether they would support it. Katainen noted that the applicant also has antique gas pumps, a library of automobile books, which differentiate it from a used car lot and being similar to a museum. Jabbour indicated that all applications are different. He said the Council must review what the worst scenario might be and set parameters for a property owner. Jabbour said he supported the use through an amendment with no more than 4-5 cars displayed outside. He does not feel this use fits in with the current list of permitted and conditional uses and requires an ordinance amendment. Kelley noted there was no definition on what type of cars but used car sales should be in the B-5 zoning or asked if the Council wanted to classify it. Jabbour said he would prefer not to get involved with percentages but allowing the used and classic car sales but limiting the amount of outside cars in all B-5 Zoning. It is not his intention to allow 100% used but a portion of the display towards classic, vintage, and collector cars. A percentage could be designated. Bury noted that a typical used car lot has a small building with cars all sitting outside. He said he has a different use with a large amount of money put into the building and presenting a gallery/museum type of operation. Bury said the cost of this dictates the need to sell regular cars as well as classic. He suggested the percentage be tied into the outside display cars to cars inside. Jabbour said he would not be willing to do that. Bury said the size of the property will dictate the amount allowed. Van Zoraeren said the use can be directed in the text of the amendment. She said the minimum and ma.\imum lot sizes, the building size, parking area, landscaping requirements, and lighting are all reviewed for performance standards and can be narrowed down. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) Barrett said he would be satisfied with that for a new use. Jabbour asked Bury if 35-40% of cars inside would be classic. Bury said yes. Kelley said he would rather zone it used cars. Goetten said the use would designate it and prefers the specificity. Flint said he saw the business as a classic and collectors car dealership. Peterson asked where used car lots are allowed in Orono noting it would be along Highway 12 in the industrial area. Barrett said open sales lots are a conditional use. McMillan asked that sales be specified and not repair. Kelley said it would be the burden of the City to audit the use and is not in favor of specifying classic cars but is in support of used cars. Kelley noted that marinas are licensed and audited. Peterson questioned how many come in for licensing. Jabbour says it gives the City leverage if complaints are received. Kelley said he would support 4-5 cars outside noting any cars sitting overnight would be newer cars. Classic cars would only be outside when the applicant is onsite. He believes the Council shouid not get so narrow in its description. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to direct Staff to amend the B-5 Zoning District to allow the conditional use provision to permit classic, vintage, and collector car sales to be conducted 100% inside with a max mum of 5 display cars outside during the day time hours only and 35% of space to be deiigriated and occupied with vintage, collectible cars. Kelley asked that promotions on the premises be addressed. Bury said he does allow car clubs to have an occasional meeting on the premises. McMillan indicated that the Council can control where the display is outside. Jabbour noted this will occur in the conditional use process. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Kelley. The amendment to the ordinance will be reviewed by Planning Commission at the January 20,1998 meeting. I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) Bury indicated that his purchase agreement expired November 1 but was extended to November 10. He said he would have to ask Mr. Katainen for a further extension noting it would place a burden on him. Jabbour indicated that was a private matter that the City is unable to get involved in. Jabbour asked the applicant if he would like to table the request or have the application denied as presented. Gaffron indicated that the commercial site plan review can be conducted at the same time as the amendment. Bury requested the application be tabled. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to table Application #2310 to the January 26,1998 Council Meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2309 PAUL LARSON, 3865 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3998 The applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting lot area and lot width variances for an existing lot-of-record for new construction. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to the applicant's revision of the plan to meet the hardcover requirement. The applicant made those revisions. Mr. Larson had no additional comments. Flint asked about the neighboring substandard lot. He was informed that Larson does own the lot next door, which is his homestead. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3998. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. A short recess was held. (Mayor/Cuuncil Report follows #12.) CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT tdBBBaBsaaEi. rono City Council considers classic car showroom in Navarre By Laura Ehramjian “A car is a car is a car,” Mayor Gabriel Jabbour stated during the discussion of a proposed Classic Car Sales business. And councilmember Diann Goetten offered, “There’s not much of a difference between used cars, from a junker all the way up to a Mercedes.” Or is there? “Will the business resemble to\. t losely a used car lot, and do we w ’.'t it in Navarre?” These were questions that the Orono City Council tried, unsuccess fully, to answer at the council’s Nov. 10 meeting. Dick Bury, President of Classic Sales Inc., is hoping to purchase the Bay Furniture building at 3850 Shoreline Drive for a showroom and office for classic/collectible cars. It was unclear whether the district’s B-5 zoning would allow this type of business, or whether an amendment would be necessa.'y. And the exact nature of the business, now and in the future, was the most troubling issue for the council. Bury told them he has conducted similar operations in two other locations with no problems and feels that the area residents would be interested in this type of vehicle. Though most of the business would be by mail and phone or take place inside the building. Bury says it is necessary to have some cars sitting outside for people to see. “The cars parked outside of the building was the planning commission’s only concern,” commissioner Lili McMillan told the council. And it was the “cars parked outside” that put the used-car-lot scare into the mayor and some of the councilmembers. “To me, selling classic cars is a whole different thing,” said Councilmember Richard Flint. “I think it’s a reasonable use and you made a good point about ell the neighboring businesses having cars in front of their buildings,” Jabbour told Bury. “At the same time, the nightmare of use cars...” Goetten felt it could be an opportunity to welcome a new and good business neighbor. Councilmember Charles Kelly summed it up with, “We know his (Bury’s) intent, but we don’t know his intent a few years from now. And if he sells the business, we don’t know the intent of the next owner.” After the discussion, the council decided to table this item. They directed the staff to draw up a conditional use permit (CUP) for the sale, at the Navarre location, of only classic collectible cars. The permit will allow a maximum of five cars allowed outside at a time, in a specified location and all business conducted inside the building. Tempers on both sides showed early warning signs during a discussion of the park dedication fee required from Marc and Tracy 'tVhitehead. Though Tracy Whitehead was present at the meeting, her attorney, John Winston, spoke for her. He appealed the amount of $13,374, which was established by the city assessor, based on eight percent of the fair market value for the Whitehead subdivision. Orono has <*" ordinance requiring this fee, in lieu of a properly donation, which helps to pay for the local parks, trails and open spaces. V.’ir.stcr. proposed that the Whiteheads should only pay 25 percent of the amount, or $3,344. He called the required fee “a prohibitive amount ” and accused the council of changing the fee after a particular meeting, or as he put it. “after the fact.” Senior planning coordinator Mike Gaffron refuted this, saying, “The Park Dedication Fee has not changed since that meeting.” Councilmember Richard Flint said, in his opinion, the council had already made substantial compromises regarding this i* subdivision agreement, arid ' added, “I would strongly oppose lowering the fee.” ' Jabbour was equally adamant "Now is the time to figure out if our law is bad or good. I feel very frusuated and don’t want to allow most of our park dedication fees to be spent on legal fees.” As Whitehead and her attorney were leaving the council chambers, Winston told the council, “We just thought you might want to make some changes and avoid a lawsuit ” “We did make some changes,” said Jabbour. “There is now a cap to our ordinance.” Winston threw out a last remark, “You can ’t undo what ’s been done, but what ’s been done is not right.” The council approved the language changes in the preliminary plat approval resolution. The council also approved the agreement with Long Lake for 1998-2000 Orono Police Services. Councilmembers also approved an agreement, covering the same period of time, with Long Lake for lake Lake ’s Fire Department Service, though with slightly less enthusiasm. Kelly didn’t like how they were being charged for fire service and questioned if they were receiving . Uie proper reports. Orono’s share of the fire department budget was increased ' from 68.8 percent to 69.9 percent due to “significant increases in market value and fire rescue calls." ’Tm questioning the wisdom of charging market value,” said Kelly. City Administrator Ron Moorse pointed out that there has to be some measure of the amount of property. Jabbour said that this contact was similar to the police contract and added ; that for both police and fire protection, “Commercial prop erty is more at risk.” j "PioMeec. lOEAUER UCEN9E8 »b—te wqiilrwntif •It. 8-1-97 k (PWMandPtmilla ' ' MS 168.27 subd 10 Dealer rules 7400.4100 MS168.2> subd 24 MS65B MiiM.5?"” iMsiee.oii subd 16 subd 17 IMS168.092 1 LICENSE 1 Ab6t LocATiotf Hotiiko H6URS OUTSIDE 1 APPROVAL IREOUIREMENTSI POSTED I POSTED DISPUY AREA FOR A MINIMUM suRdfV BOND uabiutV INSURANCE PLATES J TEMb DEMO INTRANSm PERMITS COUNTY i OF 5 VEHICLES NEW USED need separate Hoense need separate noense Yes Yes convnerdal bMg commercial b«0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VmOLESALE nst Yes offlco No No No Yes Yes No Yes No location space LESSOR *ll8t Yes office No Yes No Yes Yes ••No Yes No location space if lease Is less * If SELLING In a city under 100,000 poputaVon outside the 7-oounty metro area a separate license Is needed than 180 days BROKEN •list Yes office Yes Yes No Yes No No No No locatk>n space • if bfoKiiffng In a dty under 100.000 populatkxi outside the 7-csounty metro area a separate noense Is needed AUCTION list Yes commercial No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes location bldg ■ SALVAGE POOL need separate Yes commercial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Noense bldg USED PARTS list No address No No No No No No No No location SCRAP UETAL list No address No No No No No No No No location CommercU Building* Is deltned as a permarwit. enclosed bunding that Is on a permanent foundation and connected to local sewer and water (acWtles or otherwise complying with local sanitary codes. Is adapted to commercial use and txKiforms to local governmental zoning requirements. This may kvcluda strip offlco malls or garages If a separate entrance and a separate address are maintained and the dealership is dearly Identllled as a separate business. Commercial Office Space* Is defined as office space occupying all or part of a commercial building. LIABILITY INSURANCE •• All motor vehicle dealers must have Sabnily Insurance on aR vehicles being held for resale, Insuring against loss resulting from llaWllly Irttposed by law for Injury and property damage suslalnod by arry person arising out of the owrwrship, malntananoe, operation, or use of the vehicle. Mlrtimum Nabilily Omits are $30,000 pw person / $60,000 per accident / $10,000 property ifamage. In rKfdllion. urrder artd uninsured motorists liabOity protection of $25,000 per person / $50,000 per accident and personal Injury protection ol $20,000 medical aiKf $20,000 non-medical are required. $50,000 MOTOR VEHICLE SURETY BOND ($5,000 lor boaL snowmobile. smaO horse trailer dealers and mopeds) - Conditioned on the laldiful performance by die licensee of the oWIgations Imposed by law Including the conduct required by a Hcerttee by section 168.27 and otfier sections governing the sale or transfer of motor vehides aitd the payment of aH taxy. Icertse fees, end petwifes The bond shall be lor the benefit of the Slate of Mnnesota. any transferor or purchaser or seller of a motor vehicle for any monetary loss caused by (allure of Vie loansee to meet his obOgaVons. COST OF THE LICENSE-$153.50. If applying after June 30lh-$103.50. Annual Renewal Foe - $103.50. Boat/Snowmob«eTraBer OeUer-$13.50. Al lioansas expire Oeoember 31st and must be renewed annually. PS2403-04 4 (dealer licenses - acWvHy ccmpariton leff.0-1-97 h ¥ m» n (s99 below) USED buy, sell, lease, brokei wholesale or auction any make of used vehlefe // WHOLESALE sH! vehicles to dealerso/dy BROKEH arrange the sate or lease of new or used motor vehicles LESSOR lease or rent by the hour, day or longer hr AUCTION sells used motor vehicles belonging toothers SALVAGE POOL stores/dbplays damaged veNdes lor sale USED PARTS sells Used Vehicle P only SCRAP METAL aequirea vehicles, other thanhuta, hr processing/settng the metal hr remelting f MS168.27 6uk)d2-7a and ^§2976.035 subd 2 IMS168.2>su(}d^a 1111^168.27 tobd 2 • 7BuV Sell BndWfT b UV SELL BHBTtEiq' LEASE"'" flfiflkErt fioMSISM SALES BE fiAUeffeW............ NEW_ NEW NEW 1 USED USED USED 1 NEW USED LEASE 1 NEW USED 1 NEW USED Yes - Yes Yes - II w/ franchise franchised Yes Yes Yes Yes -- * Yes Yes any make * vshicist net covtrid by ftmcfilM must b« tot wd tor 120 days Yes •• Yes M/franchise Yes - Yes w/franchise No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yos Yes - used only No Yes No Yes d Yes - • Yes - * Yes - • * mutt ba told to a franchlaad daalar Yes Yes Yes No No No - need brokertc. Yes - * Yes * mutt ba told to a franchitaddaaltr Yes - * Yes * mutt ba told to a franchltad daalar No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes - • No- # Yos - * mutt ba purchatad (or leases only laating purpotat g a must ba on actfvi laata for at faatt 120 days prior to talat Yes - * Yes - ## Yes - * mutt ba purchatad for leases only laating purpotat if If pravloutly loatad Yes •• * Yes Yes -- any make /eases ority * mutt ba laatad for 120 days No No No Yos No No No •• need broker tc. No Yes - Yes only as an auctioneer No No No - need broker to. No Yes- only as an aucdonaer No Yos No Yes-* No No Yes-* No * only at agant (or Insuranca company No No No No No No No Yes-* No No Yes-* No No * for Oia purpose of salino toa parts only No No No No No No No Yes-* No No Yes-* No No * vahiclat that are not huRit mutt ba cruWiad and (ha ramainino matal told No No No No No No No ttf may mI van oonvarsion fypa vahtdat (not motochomat) with franchlaa from lha manufacturar; may at^l molorhomaa at a Snd-ataoa manufacturar w/out franchlaa from lha 1 at -ataot manufacturar; may a<41 vans ramodatad or convartad by lha daalar for madical purpoaaa w/out franchlaa from fta 1tt*ttaga mamifacturar // may also aoR uaad motor vahlda fiarta otk I conduct Sahraga Pool oparaRont. L3WS r«: t»lWcior “ts:ss:‘s:sSss«s-'Ih, every owner of any motor ^ ^0,0, vehide is acquired and annually 168 26. shall as soon “/‘8‘Stcred own«s^ commissioner of public thereafter dunng the penod provided in sectto . application for the safety on a blank provided by the date of birth, and the registration of such vehtde. stating the first, mid thereof who is a natural person or address of the primary residence of each “r^hiTeen clLifted as private data mailing address if the address of the pnmaty re i fegistered owner, the name and under This chapter, the full name and o^mStor vSl^ yeaf and number of the address of the person from whom purchased. body, the weight of ..;odel. manufacturer's identiftcatioo " only, its ihc vehicle in pounds, for trailers only, its rated lo ^ may require. Any false seating capacity, and such other information as ^ ^ deemed perjury and pun- statement willfully and knowingly made in regar . . ot manufacnitets' ished accordingly. The listing and application for t p ^ within the stale shall be ^ agents within the state, of motor vehicles received for s^e or manufactur- - accepted as compliance with the requirements of this chapter, imposed upon Registration shall be refused a motor °commission- ber has bTen destroyed, removed, altered, coveted, or defaced. However. er is satisfied on the sworn statements of tte rt ’^“^^"he ^JpuSlsie legal owner, a ' other persons as the by commissioner shall be assigned special identification number tn the form " ,hai the num’>er had been affixed to such Ke motor vehicle. When it h^ been ‘hereafter be registered vehicle in a manner presenbed 'Je comtmssio . ^ „,o,or vehicle in the same manner as other(jca,ioo or serial number, the commissionerr;s. to 1936 and owned and operated solely os a couecio registration as follows: A. amdavM owner, the name and address of ^ P® manufacturer's identiftcaaionnumberand that theveWcle..yearand.;omberoWem^^^^^^ vehicle is owned and operated solely as ^ correct and the owner pays a SSlSf egi?*S?S vehicle for taxation and regislraUon and shall issue nam- ^'^!?ir„un.herpiates so issued sha,.^ registration number or othci^ombtn jj^ without renewal as long as the ve- tween and including the years 1925 and 1W8^^ standards, and superior hides as a classic at h«aua of workmanship, and owned “"■> name and address of the and registration as from whom purchased, the make of the motor owner, the name and address of P* manufacturer’s identification number and that the vehicle.,earandnum^of*em^ vehicle is owned and operated solely as a coii purposes. If the registrar ts sjusfied that clr aJid tie owner pays a S25 tax. the registrar ?ehSc qualifies to ^ " 5 ‘^'Cfuo^^d issue number plates, shall list such vehicle for taxation ^d g . • “Classic Car." “Minnesota.” and The number pl^s so authorized under section 168.12. the registration number plates are valid without renewal as long as the vc- ^c“e uTn e"xl«eS “^^^ “ with this subdivision. • t i The following cars built between and including 1925 and 1948 are classic: AC. Adler Alfa Romeo Alvis Amilcar Aston Martin Auburn Audi Austro-Daimlcr AvionsVoisin 12 Bentley Blackhawk B.M.W. Brewster (Heart-front Ford) Bugatti Buick Cadillac Chrysler Cord Cunningham Dagmar Daimler Delage Delahaye Doble Dorris Duesenberg du Pont Franklin Frazer Nash Graham Graham-Paige Hispano Suiza Horch Hotchkiss Invicta Isotta Fraschini Jaguar Jordan Kissel Lagonda Lancia LaSalle Lincoln Speed 20,25, and 4.3 litre. All 8-cylinder and 12-cylinder models. Models 327,328, and 335 only. 1931 through 1942: series 90 only. All 1925 through 1935. All 12’s and 16’s. 1936-19i8: Series 63,65,67. 70.72.75.80.85 and 90 only. 1938-1947:60 special only. 1940-1947: All 62 Series. 1926 through 1930: Imperial 80. 1929: Imperial L. 1931 through 1937: Imperial Series CG. CH. CL. and CW. All Newports and Thunderbolts. 1934 CX. 1 1935 C-3. 1936 C-11. 1937 through 1948: Custom Imperial, Crown Imperial Series C-15, C-20, C-24, C-27, C-33, C-37, and C-40. Model 25-70 only. All models except 1933-34 Olympic Sixes. 1930-1931: Series 137. 1929-1930: Series 837. Speedway Series ’Z* only. 1925,1926 and 1927: Model 8-75. 1928: Model 8-90, and 8-90 White Eagle. 1929; Model 8-126, and 8-90 White Eagle. 1930: Model 8-126. 1931: Model 8-126. 1927 through 1933 only. All models K. L. KA. and KB. 1941: Model 168H. 1942: Model 268H.Z f Lincoln Continental Locomobile Mannon Maybach McFarlan Mercedes Benz Mercer M.G. Minerva Nash Packard Peerless Pierce Arrow Railton Renault Reo Revere Roamer Rohr Rolls Royce Ruxton Salmson Squire Steams Knight Stevens Duryea Steyr Stiidebaker Srjitz Sunbeam Talbot Triumph Vauxhall Voisin Wills Saint Claire 1939 through 1948. All models 48 and 90. 1927; Model 8-80. 1928: Model 8-80. 1929; Models 8-80 and 8-88. All 16-cylinder models. 1925: Model 74. 1926: Model 74. 1927; Model 75. 1928: Model E75. 1930: Big 8 model. 1931: Model 88, and Big 8. All models 2.2 litres and up. 6-cylinder models only. 1931; Series 8-90. 1932: Series 9-90, Advanced 8. and Ambassador 8. 1932: Series 9-90, Advanced 8, and Ambassador 8. 1933-1934: Ambassador 8. 1925 through 1934: All models. 1935 through 1942: Models 1200. 1201,1202, 1203,1204,1205.1207, 1208,1400,1401,1402, 1403. 1404 1405. 1407,1408,1500,1501.1502,’ 1506,1507,1508,1603,1604,1605, 1607. 1608.1705.1707.1708.1806. 1807. 1808. 1906.1907,1908,2006, 2007 and 2008 only. 1946 and 1947: Models 2106 and 2126 only. 1926 through 1928; Series 69. 1930-1931: Custom 8. 1932: Deluxe Custom 8. Grand Sport model only. 1930-1931: Royale Custom 8, and Series 8-35 and 8-52 Elite 8. 1933: Royale Custom 8. 1925: Series 8-88,6-54e, and 4-75 1926: Series 4-75e, and 8-88. 1927-1928: Series 8-88. 1929: Series 8-88, and 8-125. 1930: Series 8-125. 1929-1933: President, except model 82. Dolomite 8 and Gloria 6. Series 25-70 and 30-98 only.3 No commercial vehicles such as hearses, ambulances, or trucks are considered to be classic cars. Subd. Ic. Collector ’s vehicle, collector license. Any motor vehicle, including any truck, that is at least 20 model years old and manufactured after 1935, or any motor vehicle of a defunct make defined as any car or truck originally licensed as a separate identifiable make as designated by the division of motor vehicles, and owned and operated solely as a £o1Ik- tor ’s vehicle, shall be listed for taxation and registration as follows: An affidavit shall be executed stating the name and address of the person from whom purchased and of the new owner, the make of the motor vehicle, year and number of the model, the manufacturer s identification number and that the vehicle is owned and operated solely as a collector s item and not for general transportation purposes. The owner must also prove that the owner also has one or more vehicles with regular license plates. If the registrar is satisfied that the affida- vitUttue andcorrccl and *eownerpaysaS25.ax,Uie registrar shalllisuhtvehiclefortaxa. rion and rcgistiation and shall issue number plates. The number plates issued shall bear the inscription “Collector.” “Minnesou ^d die reeistration number or other combination of characters authonzed under sccuon subdivision 2a, but no date. The number plates are valid without renewal w long as the vc- Wdte is in existence. The registrar has the power to revoke the plates for failure to comply with this subdivision. ^ . a . c.sKH \A rollector ’s vehicle, street rod license. Any modernized motor vehic e manuftetured prior to the year 1949 or designed and manufactured to resemble such vehicle shall be listed for taxation and registration as follows: An affidavit shall be executed stating the name and address of the owned and operated solely as a street rod and not for general u^sporuuon purposes. The reeisw shall list such vehicle for taxation and registration and shall issue number pla cs. “ The number plates issued shall bear the inscription “Street Rod”, “Mmn^ and die reaistratior. number or other combination of characters au Jonzed under sf^tion 168.12. subdivision 2a. but no date. The number plates are hide is in existence. The registrar has the power to revoke such plates for failure to comp y with this subdivision. Subd le. Outdoor storage. Pioneer, classic, collector vehicles, collector military ve- hides or street tods, licensed or unlicensed, operable or inoperable, rosy be stored in com- door storage area if the owner fails to comply with these requirements within -0 days after Subd.^lf. Equipment Any pioneer, classic, collector vehicle. hide, or street rod shjJl have all equipment, in operating condition, which was specifically required by law as a condition for its first sale after oianufacmte. No law requiring any particular equipment or specifying any standards to be roct by mo- tor vehicles shaU apply to pioneer, classic, collector vehicles, collector military vehicles, or street rods unless it specifically so states. Subd. Ig. Original plates. A vehicle registered pursuant to suMivision **• “ may in lieu of being issued number plates by the registrar display ongiMl Minnesou nui^r dales issued in the same year as the model year of the cw on i^ich they are displayed. The number of the original plates must be provided to the ^ y, or any other plate in a numbering system used by the registrar. Any person currently wing plates issued pursuant to subdivision la, lb. Ic or Id shall return those ‘J* before substituting original plates. The registrar may charge a fee for registering the number on original plates. ------ [For text of subds le :o Ig, see M.S. 1994] Subd. Ih. Collector military vehicles, (a) A motor vehicle, including a truck, shall be listed and registered under this section if it meets the following conditions: (1) it is at least 20 years old; (2) its first owner following its manufacture was a branch of the armed forces of the United States and it presently conforms to the vehicle specifications required during the time of military ownership, or it has been restored and presently conforms to the specifications required by a branch of the armed forces for the model year that the restored vehicle could have been owned by that branch of the armed forces; and (3) it is owned by a nonprofit organization and operated solely as a collector's vehicle. For purposes of this subdivision, “nonprofit organization" means a corporation, society, association, foundation, or institution organized and operated exclusively for historical or educational purposes, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of a private individual. (b) The owner of the vehicle shall execute an affidavit stating the name and address of the person from whom purchased and of the new owner; the make, year, and model number of the motor vehicle; the manufacturer's identification number; and the collector military ve hicle identification number, if any, located on the exterior of the vehicle. The affidavit must affirrn that the vehicle is owned by a nonprofit organization and is operated solely as a collec tor’s item and not for general transportation purposes. If the registrar is satisfied that the affi davit is true and correct and the owner pays a $25 tax, the registrar shall list the vehicle for taxation and registration and shall issue number plates. The number plates shall bear the in scriptions “Collector” and “Minnesota" and the registration number, but no date. The num ber plates are valid without renewal as long as the vehicle is in existence. The registrar may revoke the plates for failure to comply with this subdivision. (c) Notwithstanding section 168.09,168.12, or other law to the contrary, the owner of a registered collector military vehicle is not required to display registration plates on the exte rior of the vehicle if the vehicle has an exterior number identification that conforms to the identifying system for military vehicles in effect when the vehicle was last owned by the branch of the armed forces of the United States or in effect in the year to which the collector military vehicle has been restored. However, the state registration plates must be carried in or on the collector military vehicle at all times. (d) The owner of a registered collector military vehicle that is not required to display registrauon plates under paragraph (c) may tow a registered trailer behind it The trailer is not requu-ed to display registration plates if the trailer: (1) does not exceed a gross weight of 15,000 pounds; (2) otherwise conforms to registration, licensing, and safety laws and specifications; (3) conforms to military specifications for appearance and identification; (4) is intended to represent and docs represent a military trailer, and ^ (5) carries registration plates on or in the trailer or the collector military vehicle towing Subd. li.CoIIectorpIate transfers. Notwithstanding section 168.12, subdivision l,on payment of a transfer fee of S5, plates issued under this scc.ion may be transferred to anodier vehicle owned or jointly owned by the person to whom the special plates were issued or the plate may be assigned to another owner. In addition to the transfer fee a new owner must pay the $25 plate fee or any fee required by section 168.12, subdivision 2a. The $5 fee must be paid into the state treasury and credited to the highway user tax distribution fund. License plates issued under this section may not be transferred to a vehicle not eligible for the collec tor’s vehicle license plates. Subd. 2. New body; application. Upon (he installation of a new body or the addition to or change of type of any body in or upon any registered motor vehicle, the owner shall file with the registrar a new application setting forth such change, together with the payment of any additional tax to which the motor vehicle by such change has become subject, and shall apply for a revision of the registratioo made. s Subd. 3. Offenses. It shall be unlawful for any person: (1) to display or cause to be displayed or to possess any canceled, revoked, suspended or fraudulently obtained or stolen registration plates; (2) to lend the person’s registration plates to another or knowingly to permit the use thereof by another, (3) to display or represent as the person’s own any registration plates not issued to that person; provided, however, this shall not apply to any legal change of ownership of the motor vehicle to which the plates are attached, nor shall this apply to any transfer of collector plates under subdivision li; (4) to fail or refuse to surrender to the department upon its lawful demand any registra tion plates which have been revoked, canceled, or suspended by proper authority; (5) to use a false or fictitious name or address or description of the motor vehicle, identi fication number, or serial number in any application for registration of a motor vehicle or to knowingly make a false statement or to knowingly conceal a material fact or otherwise com mit a fraud in any such application; '6) to destroy, alter, remove, cover or deface the identification or serial number of any •*’. jtor vehicle or to knowingly operate any motor vehicle the identification or serial number of which has been destroyed, altered, removed, covered or defaced without first making ap plication for assignment of a special identification number as provided by law. Subd. 3. OfTenses. It shall be unlawful for any person: (1) to display or cause to be displayed or to possess any canceled, revoked, suspended or fraudulently obtained or stolen regislraiioo plates; (2) to lend the person's registration plates to another or knowing’v to permit the use thereof by another, (3) to display or represent as the person’s own any registration plates not issued to that perwn; provided, however, this shall not apply to any legal change of ownership of the motor vehicle to which the plates are attached, nor shall this apply to any transfer of collector plates under subdivision li; (4) to fail or rehise to surrender to the department upon its lawful demand any registra tion plates which have been revoked, canceled, or suspended by proper authority; (5) to use a false or fictitious name or address or description of the motor vehicle, identi fication number, or serial number in any application for registration of a motor vehicle or to knowingly make a false statement or to knowingly conceal a material fact or otherwise com mit a fraud in any such application; (6) to destroy, alter, remove, cover or deface the identification or serial number of any motor vehicle or to knowingly operate any motor vehicle the identification or serial number of which has been destroyed, altered, removed, covered or defaced without first making ap plication for assignment of a special identification number as provided by law. DAVID CHARLES BIE THOMAS H. FRAHM 2520 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 LOWELL R. ZITZLOFF 319 BARRY AVE S, #300 WAYZATA MN 55391 DAVID S. PETERSON C/0 LNR PROPERTIES 319 BARRY AVE S, #301 WAYZATA M:I 55391 LAKE MTKA ANIMAL HOSPITAL RICHARD & GLORIA PLAISTED 3572 SHORELINE DR 3574 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 DAVID UMBEHOCKER 3860 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 PATRICIA DONGOSKE 3596 SHORELINE DR P.O. BOX 58 WAYZATA MN 55391 JANET OLSON 3800 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 .5 J TO: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commissioners FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:January 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Home Occupation Zoning Code Amendment Application: Background: #2333 Zoning Code amendment re: Home Occupations Amending Section 5.40, Licensing and Section 10.02 Definitions; and Section 10.20, Subd.4, Accessory Uses, C. During 1997 the Planning Commission held several work sessions to discuss revising the definition of home occupations and the regulations for home occupations. Licensing In Section 5.40 of the Municipal Code of Ordinances, the current regulations require home occupations to be licensed each year on September 30th. A initial fee of $50 has been charged for a site visit. A fee of $30 has been charged in the past for the Building Official or Inspector to conduct an annual review. There are fewer than 20 home occupations licensed by the City of Orono. City staft believes that there are more home occupations in the community tlian what an licensed. The Zoning Administrator believes that Licensing extends a privilege beyond property rights and thinks that the licensing process has little value. Staff preference is to eliminate licensing, strengthen the zoning regulations, and handle violations on a complaint basis. The proposed amendment, therefore, eliminates the licensing provision for home occupations. Definition The current definition limits the home occupation to residents only and includes regulations that should be located elsewhere in the body of the ordinance. The proposed definition describes who is considered a nonresident employee and exempts home day care in accordance with state laws. Accessory Use The proposed regulation locates the home occupation standards in the accessory use section for residential districts. It provides a clear purpose statement to guide future planning commissions and city councils as to the intent of the regulations. The primaiy concern is to allow people to work in their homes provided that they do not create a nuisance situation for their neighbors. The home occupation should overtake the dwelling unit but in all cases should function as a subordinate, accessory use. Employees The current regulations do not allow employees who do not live in the dwelling to work in the dwelling. The proposed ordinance allows one nonresident employee to work in the residence. No distinction iZ made a? to what this person does in the dwelling or how long they may work. City staff does not have the interest or capability of tiacUng how much time an employee spends at the dwelling. If two or more residents have occupations in the dwelling, the number of nonresident employees remains at one for the property, not one per occupation. This restriction is to limit intensity and impact. Exterior Alterations The proposed ordinance does not allow the exterior to be changed to diminish the residential character of the dwelling unit. The current ordinances does not specifically address this issue. Interior Alterations The proposed ordinance prohibits the residence from eliminating rooms that make a building a residence such as a kitchen, living room, bathrooms and bedrooms. This restriction will ensure that a residence is so significantly modified that it would be impractical for future sale or reuse as a home. This will prevent commercial spaces being created in private residences. Enclosed Areas and Accessory' Structures The proposed ordinance distinguishes between urban and rural residential zoning districts for the purposes of limiting the use of accessory structures. Urban residential districts are prohibited from using accessory structures for home occupations. Rural residential districts under the proposed ordinance would allow the use of accessory structures if two criteria are met. The home occupation caimot create a negative impact on the neighborhood and the accessory structures shall conform to other zoning regulations. Outdoor Storage The proposed ordinance prohibits and outdoor storage or display associated with the home occupation. Parking The proposed ordinance requires that the parking for the principal residence be preserved and not diminished by the home occupation. Further, the amendment requires that parking areas for the home occupation to be screened from adjacent residential lots. Signage Signage for home occupations under the proposed amendment would be limited to 1 sq. ft. and would be required to be located near the entrance of the dwelling. Fquipment and Machinery No unusual equipment or machines that are not compatible with the dwelling are allowed. This is intently left vague because it is difficult to predict what type of equipment businesses may use in the future. However, equipment that can be moved into a residence that doesn't threaten health and safety of occupants would generally be considered compatible. feetail Sales The proposed ordinance restricts home occupations from becoming retail stores with customer traffic. Only sales that are subordinate some other service will be allowed in the residence. Visibility No home occupation shall be conducted in such a manner that it is obvious from a public street or right-of-way under the proposed ordinance. Hoi*^ of Operation The proposed ordinance limits the hours that a home occupation can be open to the public to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. No distinction is made for days of the week. Customer Traffic The proposed ordinance limits customer traffic to 5 or fewer customers or clients per day. Criteria for determining when the customer traffic is excessive is provided. Deliveries The proposed ordinance limits the hours that deliveries can occur and the type of truck used for delivery. These hours are more restrictive than the hours open to the public. Noise The proposed ordinance prohibits the home occupation from engaging in any activity that produces noise that is audible at the boundaries of the zoning lot. The existing noise ordinance would also restrict any activity that generates noise. Hazardous Materials No hazardous material will be allowed in conjunction with a home occupation other than what any household purchases for private consumption. A resident could buy chemicals for lawn maintenance or for pest control, but a home occupation could not have large quantities of these materials in drums in a residence. This will reduce the risk for potential fires and storage of large amounts of hazardous materials in private residences. Home Parties The proposed ordinance limits the number of home parties or demonstrations that can occur in a dwelling unit. This will prevent distributors from having ongoing sales and parties in their home which could have a ne£''tive impact on the residential character of their neighborhood. Prohibited Occupations The proposed ordinance provides a use of occupations that due to their nature, size, or impact, are prohibited. Staff has asked the City Attorney to review whether limiting firearms is allowed. There are four firearms dealers in Orono. Disability Provision The proposed ordinance allows a disabled person who may want to engage in a home o-cupation but is unable to comply with all the requirements to request special consideration to waive one or more of the restrictions. Enforcement The proposed ordinance establishes a process for addressing violations within a set period of time. Staff has asked the City Attorney to review this section to determine if the proposed amendment is consisted with data privacy requirements regarding reporting violations. i ' ■ ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE BY DELETING THE HOME OCCUPATION LICENSING REQUIREMENTS The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. That Section 5.40, "Home Occupations" be deleted to read as follows: sec. 5.4 0. HOME OCCUPATIONS: Subd. 1. License Required. It is unlawful forimy peraon-to engage in,-ef carry-on. a home oeeupatioi», -a3 that term is defined in-the Zomng Chapter of the City Code, without first having-obtained a license therefor from-thc-City: Subd. 2. Regulation:--Licenses will only be isaued-if-thc specific uae-4 9 permitted or otherwise allowed by the Zoning Chapter, and if all conditions set forth in soid Chapter arc fully complied with: Subd. 3. License Period. All liccnsca for home occupations oholl ex pirc-on September 30 of each year. Application for renewal of on existing home occupation license shall be mode to the Cit>' Clerk at least sixty (60) daya prior to the ex piration date? Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this _____, 199 by a vote of___ayes and_____nays. day of ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION AND REGULATIONS RE: HOME OCCUPATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 10.02, Definitions, 30. "Home Occupations" be amended to read as follows: 30. "Home Occupation"- Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only by-persons residing in their dwelling, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, when evidence of the occupation is not visible from-thc-strcct. No signs other than those permittcd"in--R" Diatrieta arc present, no excessive stock in trade is stored on the prcmiaca, over the counter retail sales arc not involved, and cntrancc-t<»-thc home occupation is gained from within the structure. A proleaaional peraon may use his residence-for consultation, emergenc y treatment or performance-of religious rites but not for the gene ral practice of his profession when auch ge neral practice will involve the need for more than three ofl-strcct parking spaces- for the occupant and visitors. AN OCCUPATION WHICH IS CUSTOMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF A DWELLING AS REGULATED IN SECTION 10.20, SUBD. 4, ACCESSORY USES. FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULATING HOME OCCUPATIONS, A NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE SHALL INCLUDE AN EMPLOYEE, BUSINESS PARTNER, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, OR OTHER PERSON AFFILIATED WITH THE HOME OCCUPATION WHO IS NOT A RESIDENT OF THE DWELLING UNIT, BUT WHO VISITS THE SITE AS PART OF THE HOME OCCUPATION. HOME DAY CARE LICENSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMANS SERVICES (DHS) IS EXEMPT FROM THESE REGULATIONS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN STATUTES, 462.357, SUBD. 7.AND 8. Section 2. That Section 10.20, Subd. 4, Accessory Uses., C. be amended to read as follows: C. Home Occupations. Any gainful occupation meeting all of the-following requirements when engaged in only by persons rcsiding -tn thcirdwclling, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, when evidence of the occupation is-not-visihie-from the street. No sig ns other than those permitted in "R" Districts arc present, no cxceasive-stocfe-in trade is stored on the premises, over the counter retail sales arc not involvcd;-and entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure. A professional person may use his-residcnce for consultation, emergency treatment or-performance of relig ious-rites-but not-for the-gene ral-practice of his profession when such-ge neral practice-will involve the-need for more than three off-street parking spaces for the occupant and visitors: Home Occupation Draft PC Work Session December 15. 1997 page-1 HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL BE ALLOWED ACCESSORY TO A DWELLING, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) PURPOSE. HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS ARE ESTABLISHED TO ENSURE THAT HOME OCCUPATIONS MLL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE CHARACTER AND LIVABILITY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT A HOME OCCUPATION REMAINS ACCESSORY AND SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE DWELLING. (2) HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS. THE REGULATIONS RECOGNIZE THAT MANY TYPES OF HOME OCCUPATIONS CAN BE CONDUCTED WITH LITTLE OR NO EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. A. THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL BE AN ACTIVITY WHICH IS CUSTOMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF A DWELLING. B. ONLY THE RESIDENTS OF THE DWELLING UNIT AND NOT MORE THAN ONE (1) NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE SHALL BE EMPLOYED BY OR ENGAGED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE HOME OCCUPATION ON THE PREMISES. NOT MORE THAN ONE (1) NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE SHALL BE PERMITTED PER DWELLING UNIT OR TV/O-FAMILY DWELLING, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF HOME OCCUPATIONS. DOMESTIC EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES OF THE HOME OCCUPATION(S). C. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS THAT CHANGE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF THE DWELLING, ANY ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ON THE ZONING LOT SHALL BE PROHIBITED. D. INTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS THAT ELIMINATE THE KITCHEN, LIVING ROOM, ALL OF THE BATHROOMS OR ALL THE BEDROOMS OF THE DWELLING SHALL BE PROHIBITED. E. THE HOME OCCUPATION SV 'LL BE CONDUCTED ONLY WITHIN THE ENCLOSED AREA OF THE D n VELLING FOR ALL ZONING LOTS IN THE Rl-A, Rl-B, RR-lB-1, LR-IA, LR-IB, LR-IC, LR-IC-I ZONING DISTRICTS. IN THE RR-IA AND RR-IB ZONING DISTRICTS. HOME OCCUPATIONS MAY USE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: Home Occupation Draft PC Work Session December 15, 1997 page-2 1.THE NATURE OF THE HOME OCCUPATION AND ITS IMPACT ON NOISE, LIGHT, ODOR, VIBRATION, AND TRAFFIC SFIALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 2.THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL CONFORM WITH APPLICABLE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, YARDS, SIZE AND LOCATION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. F.OUTDOOR STORAGE OR DISPLAY OF MATERIALS, GOODS, SUPPLIES, OR EQUIPMENT RELATED TO THE CONDUCT OF THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL BE PROHIBITED. G. THE REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AREA PROVIDED FOR THE PRINCIPAL USE SHALL NOT BE REDUCED OR MADE UNUSABLE BY THE HOME OCCUPATION. PARKING AREAS FOR THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEWS OF ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LOTS. H. SIGNAGE SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO ONE NON-ILLUMINATED,, IDENTIFICATION SIGN NOT TO EXCEED ONE (1) SQUARE. FOOT IN AREA. THE SIGN SHALL BE PLACED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE DWELLING. I.NO EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, OR MATERIALS OTHER THAN OF A TYPE NORMALLY FOUND IN OR COMPATIBLE WITH A DWELLING SHALL BE ALLOWED. J.NO RETAIL SALES AND DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS OR MERCHANDISE TO THE CUSTOMER OR CLIENT SHALL OCCUR ON THE PREMISES EXCEPT WHERE ACCESSORY TO THE SERVICES PROVIDED, SUCH AS HAIR CARE PRODUCTS SOLD ACCESSORY TO HAIR CUTTING, OR SOFTWARE ACCESSORY TO COMPUTER SERVICES. K. NO HOME OCCUP.ATION SHALL BE VISIBLE FROM ANY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, EXCEPT FOR ALLOWED SIGNAGE. L.THE HOURS OF OPERATION OPEN TO THE PUBLIC SHALL BE LIMITED TO BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 8:00 T.M. Home Occupation Draft PC Work Session December 15, 1997 page-3 M. N. O. P. Q- THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT GENERATE EXCESSIVE CUSTOMER OR CLIENT TRAFFIC THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROVISION, MORE THAN FIVE (5) CUSTOMERS OR CLIENTS PER DAY MAY BE DETERMINED TO BE AN EXCESSIVE AND DETRIMENTAL LEVEL OF TRAFFIC. THIS NUMBER SHALL APPLY PER DWELLING UNIT, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF HOME OCCUPATIONS. THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA SHALL BE USED TO DETERMINE IMPACT: 1. 3. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING LAND USES, LOT SIZES, AND LOT WIDTHS. STREET TYPE, WIDTH AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES. THE AVAILABILITY AND LOCATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE HOME OCCUPATION CONTRIBUTES TO ON-STREET PARKING CONGESTION. SHIPMENT AND DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS, MERCHANDISE OR SUPPLIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO BETWEEN 9:00 A.M. AND 6:00 P.M. AND SHALL REGULARLY OCCUR ONLY IN SINGLE REAR AXLE STRAIGHT TRUCKS OR SMALLER VEHICl ES NORMALLY USED TO SERVE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. NO SOUND OR NOISE CREATED BY THE OPERATION OF THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL BE AUDIBLE BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONING LOT. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN EXCESS OF CONSUMER COMMODITIES WHICH ARE PACKAGED FOR CONSUMPTION BY INDIVIDUALS FOR PERSONAL CARE OR HOUSEHOLD USE SHALL BE PROHIBITED. PARTIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SELLING MERCHANDISE OR TAKING ORDERS SHALL NOT BE HELD MORE T! IAN FOUR (4) TIMES PER MONTH. PROHIBITED HOME OCCUPATIONS. THE FOLLOWING USES, BY THE NATURE OF OPERATION, HAVE A PRONOUNCED TENDENCY TO INCREASE BEYOND THE LIMITS PERMITTED FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS. RECOGNIZING THAT THESE USES HAVE SERIOUS OBJECTIONABLE OPERATIONAL Home Occupation Draft PC Work Session December 15, 1997 page-4 CHARACTERISTICS, AND THEREBY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE PROHIBITED AS HOME OCCUPATIONS: A. SERVICE, REPAIR OR PAINTING OF MOTOR VEHICLES, TRAILERS, BOATS, PERSONAL WATERCRAFT, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, AND SNOWMOBILES. B. C. BARBER SHOP AND BEAUTY SALON WHICH IS DESIGNED TO SERVE MORE THAN ONE (1) CLIENT AT TIME. THE SALE, LEASE, TRADE OR OTHER TRANSFER OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION BY A FIREARMS DEALER. D. ADULT-ORIENTED USES. E. HEADQUARTERS OR DISPATCH CENTERS WHERE PERSONS COME TO THE SITE AND ARE DISPATCHED TO OTHER LOCATIONS. F.MEDICAL OR DENTAL CLINIC. G.RENTAL BUSINESSES. H. CONTRACTING, EXCAVATING, WELDING OR MACHINE SHOPS. I.KENNELS AND VETERINARY CLINICS. J.TOW TRUCK SERVICES. K. CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. L. CERAMICS (KILNS 6 FT. OR GREATER). (4). SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR DISABLED PERSONS. PERSONS WITH DEMONSTRATED PHYSICAL DISABILITIES MAY REQUEST SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A WAIVER OF A PORTION OF ALL OR ONE OR MORE OF THE REQUIREMENTS. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY GRANT AN ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER ONLY ON THE BASIS OF APPLICANT'S PHYSICAL INABILITY TO FUNCTION WITHIN SAID REQUIREMENTS. Home Occupation Draft PC Work Session December 15, 1997 page-5 (5).ENFORCEMENT. ANY AGGRIEVED PERSON MAY NOTIFY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IN WRITING OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS. WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER RECEIPT .OF SUCH WRITTEN ALLEGATION(S), THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SHALL COMPLETE AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE MERITS OF THE ALLEGATION. WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE INVESTIGATION, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SHALL NOTIFY IN WRITING THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: A.IF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINES THAT NO VIOLATION AS ALLEGED OR OTHERWISE IS OCCURRING, THEN NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE COMPLAINANT BY MAIL. B.IF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINES THAT A VIOLATION IS OCCURRING OR HAS OCCURRED, THEN NOTIFICATION OF THAT DECISION AND A TIME FOR COMPLIANCE SHALL BE SENT BY MAIL TO THE VIOLATOR AND THE COMPLAINANT. THE NOTIFICATION SHALL ALSO STATE WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, WILL BE TAKEN IF COMPLIANCE IS NOT TIMELY EFFECTED. Home Occupation Ordinance Draft PC Work Session December 15. 1997 page-6 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION TOPIC: HOME OCCUPATIONS HELD JUNE 4,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: William Stoddard, Sandra Smith, Charles Schroeder, Elizabeth Hawn and Lili McMillan. Planning Commission members Dale Lindquist and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented City staff: City Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Director of Public Services Greg Gappa and Recorder Carole Haseman. The meeting was called to order by Van Zomeren at 7:55 a.m. Members of the public were asked to introduce themselves. Donna Suske; Irene Silber represented her husband who has a home occupation license for Heliotrope Garden Design; Walter Holzer; Ben Meinhart owner of All Star Electric. Van Zomeren stated that she has been involved with home occupation licensing for several years as a planner with the City of Minneapolis. The City of Orono is unique with small lots in the Navarre area, large rural lots that are in the MUSA line and other residential areas with 1 or 2 acre ’.ots. Three different zoning terms need to be addressed and we must be cognizant of development pressures arising within the Orono area. Changes may be occurring with home occupations that may have been typical when Orono was considered more rural. The focus today should be on identifying the goals of Orono regarding home occupation and commumty standards. Should home occupation licenses be encouraged in some or all zoning districts? It is important to have a good definition of home occupation. Right now the definition is problematic in that it does include regulatory fragments such as parking requirements. Should a list of permitted uses be established? Performance standards need to be reviewed in connection with regulating hours of operation, parking or storage. Smith noted that this is the first work session of the Planning Commission to look at this issue and would like input from everyone to give them an opportunity to gather information. Van Zomeren told some humorous stories relating to home occupations which had been shared at planning conferences such as the person who released his homing pigeons only when the neighbor was having a party; another did not provide air conditioning for exotic birds on a small lot; another was an artist who vented the heat from his kiln out onto the side yard and also had 13 employees. Regulation varies from each municipality. Van Zomeren asked that everyone go through the work sheet. Smith requested that discussion be given as to purpose before starting the work sheet. Obviously, the character of the neighborhood should be maintained so as to not appear commercial. r MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION TOPIC: HOME OCCUPATIONS HELD JUNE 4,1997 Gaffron pointed out problems associated with large lot zoning and people who base their business out of their home. Complaints have been received regarding lawn service businesses in connection with noise of equipment and irregular hours of activities on the premises. Parking is also a complaint. Neighbors put up witii problems and do not always complain particularly if they are in good stead with one another. Issues need to be dealt with regardless of complaints. The noise ordinance is difficult to enforce because noise needs to be monitored on-site. Smith felt the focus should be on the outside rather than inside regarding the percentage of square footage to be dedicated to a business. She would object to the City measuring square footage. Van Zomeren moved to the work sheet. Hawn said discussion should be defined to people who live in the house rather than status of people who don't live in the house. Smith suggested looking at the travel perspective of partners and full time vs. part time employees. Van Zomeren noted structural alterations made to the interior for business purposes could cause problems in reselling the property to future families. Smith was concerned more with structural changes to the outside and additional entrances. McMillan felt that minor licensing requirements be removed. A writer should not have to be licensed. Hawn said the person applying for a license should be a resident of the house with only 1 outside employee or partner involved in the business. Schroeder did not agree because of the diversity of the area. Small lots will have a greater impact. Smith questioned whether 2 part time employees would be considered the same as 1 full time employee. McMillan felt if there would be more than 1 employee a conditional use permit would be needed. Van Zomeren said use variances in the State of Miruiesota are illegal so home occupation licenses will not be brought in as variances. A variance is applied for when alteration to the topography of the site is needed not for use purposes. An exemption from regulations is a home day care business. A home operator can legally care for 10 children and wid’ a helper provide care for 14 children. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION TOPIC: HOME OCCUPATIONS HELD JUNE 4,1997 Smith thought the definition of resident could mean full time occupant. Van Zomeren explained the reason size is regulated is basically to limit the number of customers, employees, and stock. Space limitations are difficult to regulate and can give a false sense of security. Should equipment be allowed in the home such as computers or storage of tractors for a lawn service? Smith felt little storage sheds on property are an appearance issue and controls need to be in place as to what can be left outside. Walt Holzer said Orono does not have enough commercial property. Where do people go when they are denied an accessory structure for storage? Small businesses can't afford commercial property. Van Zomeren noted that development is encroaching the suburbs. Problems exist for service workers as they can't afford to be in business within the local areas and need to locate further away to more affordable areas. Gaffron said Orono ’s 2 acre and 5 acre zones comprise about 80% of the City's land acreage. The 5 acre zone is about 85-90% built up to its zoned density. Within the 2 acre zoning there is the possibility of another 500-600 homes yet to be built. The projection within twenty years under the current zoning, is for the City to be totally built with approximately 60% of City divided into 2 acre lots. Under the Comp. Plan was it the intent that 2 acre lots be big enough to deal with home occupations that need storage or was it to be expected only in the 5 acre or larger zones? Stoddard felt if a lot is large enough to have an accessory structure, it could be used for storage purposes. He did not feel outside storage of machinery was appropriate. Gaflfron explained most lots can have a 1,000 s.f. garage. A 1/2 acre lot or smaller can have a 1,000 s.f. accessory building that meets all the zoning requirements. Do we want to allow activities in an area that could fit into a garage or are there certain ''^Mvities that should not happen in a 1/2 acre zone? Is it affordable to purchase Orono property to ;.i*cate more commercial areas? McMillan felt the emphasis on the character of Orono shouid be peace and quiet. Stoddard indicated that the Mayor and City Attorney should be consulted with issues regarding Orono's Comprehensive Plan to gain more information before the next work session. Van Zomeren asked members how they felt about retail sales. % MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION K3LD ON DECEMBER 15, 1997 Schroeder felt that was not possible as the Commission is not always aware of what will be controversial. Lindquist suggested continuing in the same manner as currently exists. Schroeder said with respect to hardships, he believes remuneration is important. He noted the difficulty for applicants to state tlie hardship. Gaffron agreed that the applicant does not always know what is the hardship. (#4) SIC INVENTORY Bressler said the business inventory was a study of the businesses in Orono based on standard business codes and are shown by zoning district. The information is based on 1996 information. Lindquist questioned whether the inventory includes all businesses. Van Zomeren said she did not know. Bressler said agricultural uses are not listed and some of the businesses have gone out of business. Smith noted the number of people working from home. Gaffron asked what source was used in gathering the mformation. Bressler said he used a state listing for businesses registered with the state found in the library. This did present a problem as the businesses are listed by zip codes and Orono does not have its own zip code. Van Zomeren said the list shows the creativity of the residents and the vast number of businesses in the City. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 15, 1997 Gaffron asked if there was a way by which to total the number of employees in the City for comparison with Met Council figures. Van Zomeren noted the difficulty in obtaining sound calculations but the information could be used for Comprehensive Plan update. (#5) HOME OCCUPATION Hawn asked if the ordinance as written would ban Bed & Breakfasts in Orono. Gaffron said the code would not allow it as it is not listed. It would require a code amendment to be included. Van Zomeren said the ordinance is written restrictively. She reviewed the definition as written of home occupation. The use is associated with the dwelling, which allows for discretion. The non-resident employee presents a correlation with coming to the site to work. The definition shows what impact is created by the home occupation and not by numbers. The ordinar;ce requires that the person conducting business at the home lives there. Smith said she favored the wording, "for gain". Van Zomeren said she found simplicity is the best form to use. Van Zomeren said 2A is purposely vague. 2B allows for personal services to be provided at the home. Smith asked if the ordinance allows for only one non-resident employee or only one employee on site at any one time. Van Zomeren said it refers to only one employee MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 15,1997 regardless of when there. Smith questioned if the concern is with impact and not with numbers, whether there could be one employee in the morning and another in the afternoon. Van Zomeren said there is no distinction. Gaffron noted that the ordinance is written to be very restrictive. Smith asked if the ordinance is geared to what activity is taking place inside the home or the impact on the neighborhood. She felt this could be problematic. Gaffron said impact should then be discussed. A typographical error was noted in 2C regarding the word "on” not "or . Smith asked the purpose of 2D. Hawn said it would eliminate the ability to turn the residence imo something other than a home, such as a warehouse. Smith questioned what difference it would make on impact if it looks like a house on the outside. Van Zomeren said i' v>OJJidi:hcn be perpetuating commercial use on residential property and made it difficult tc ;: t ert to residential. 2E allows for uses on the west side of Orono, namely agricultural based businesses for storage in accessory structures. It does not allow for outdoor storage. Van Zomeren informed McMillan that accessory structures must still conform to standards. Van Zomeren cited tlie Holzer application, where the plumber wanted to use his accessory structure to store his plumbing supplies. This could not occur under current code but would allow him to do so under this ordinance. McMillan asked if the accessor}' structure does not conform, whether a variance would be allowed. Schroeder felt it would be inconsistent to allow a variance for accessory MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 15,1997 structure and not for home occupation. Van Zomeren said the intent is regarding storage and not for office use. Gaffron said it is not clearly written to understand that. Schroeder said he liked the idea. Van Zomeren said this would allow riding lessons to be held in a bam. Gaffron asked about situations where activities held in accessory stmctures. Smith said that could not occur. Gaffron asked how to deal with uses currently being conducted. Schroeder noted there are also alot of businesses with more than one employee. McMillan noted many businesses are also not registered. Under 2F, the word "not ” was deleted. 2G references lots where homes are closer together. 2H, Van Zomeren questioned where the sign should be located. Stoddard suggested it be affixed to the business. He docs not want a sign by the road. Hawn asked about the customer that finds it difficult tD locate an address suggesting limiting the sign size. Lindquist did not want to see a road sign. No changes were made to 2H as written. McMillan felt 21 would present a problem for landscapers. Lindquist noted that the ordinance is there to use for enforcement when complaints are received. Van Zomeren said 2J was written to eliminate customers coming to the homes. 2K would eliminate the business use being seen from outside into the home, such as racks, inside signs in windows or in yards. 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 15,1997 Stoddard felt the hours of operation were late. Hawn noted the need for the hours for giving private lessons, such as piano. Gaffron indicated that the number is arbitrary under 2M. Commissioners felt no changes were necessary to 2M, N, or O. 2P referenced a call received on cleaning supplies. Smith questioned whether the supplies were hazardous. Van Zomeren said with chemicals, problems may occur. There was discussion regarding what is considered hazardous materials and quantities allowed. It was determined to be a question of re-bottling chemicals. They may need to be stored in approved containers. Commissioners felt re-bottling should not be allowed. 2Q was written to eliminate having boutiques held on a consistent schedule impacting the neighborhood. The list of prohibited businesses were reviewed. Gaffron questioned whether 2C would be restricted. There are firearm dealers currently licensed in the City. Gaffron will investigate this issue. E was eliminated. Conunissioners felt these businesses should be allowed. I, J, and K were also eliminated. Commissioners had different views regarding contracting, excavating, welding and machine shops (K). F.chroeder not.d that these businesses provide a service. Gaffron indicated there are some business owners who would otherwise find i* difficult to survive in these types of businesses if they have to rent facilities elsewhere. Stoddard asked if ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 15, 1997 this addresses the size of the warehouse. Van Zomeren said the code already covers that issue. This applies to all districts, which was discussed. Size of properties was also discussed. O limited the size of the kiln to keep it manageable. P was also eliminated as Hawn and Schroeder said they were not opposed to this business being conducted. Van Zomeren noted that this business could become noisy with the use of a staple gun. Schroeder said the noise would not be more than noise conducted by a contractor. Van Zomeren indicated that this would be on-going, however, and include storage of fabric as well. McMillan said referenced the noise ordinance that could be utilized. #4 shows a deference to demonstrated disability where this would be the only opportunity to conduct business. #5 allows for any complaints to be in writing. #5A was amended to include notification of the complaint to the alleged violator. Smith asked what occurs under 5B. She was informed that a notice of zoning violation is sent, the section of the code is cited, and process is followed for zoning violation. Schroeder asked how it would be enforced. Smith asked if complaints have always been mailed. This has not occurred but will in the future. She asked if a copy of the complaint will be sent to both the violator and complainant. Gafffon questioned whether the law preserves the anonymity of the complainer. If so, he feels this has to be respected that information received becomes public property. Van Zomeren said the intent was to MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 15, 1997 eliminate the need to follow up on all phone calls. Lindquist said he would not investigate an anonymous call. Van Zomeren and Gaffron said this occurs frequently. Gaffron informed Schroeder that they follow up on complaints. Calls are investigated to determine whether a problem exists. Schroeder said many people will not want to write a letter. Van Zomeren questioned how follow up can occur. McMillan suggested getting advice fi’om City Attorney Barrett. Van Zomeren said she would like to eliminate what is currently in the code. Lindquist, Schroeder, and Smith agreed. Hawn suggested the use of a fee. Smith a.sked what happens to businesses that are currently in effect that are not allowed under the ordinance. Gaffron said an amortization schedule could be used or be grandfathered in and acknowledged for the record. Schroeder referenced the use of marina licensing in order to correct deficiencies, which has not worked. Van Zomeren said licensing is extending a privilege but there is a right to conduct a business. Stoddard said he felt a fee creates an added burden. Van Zomeren said the $30 licensing fee is to cover the expense of investigating the business. Smith asked if a determination has been made regarding the use of plumbing in an accessory structure as a side line business. Gaffron said it has not. McMillan suggested reviewing the issue of grandfathering in a business. Lindquist noted that a person cannot be put out of business. McMillan asked about businesses that are non-conforming. Lindquist said they should be allowed to show conformity. Lindquist said new businesses that do not conform would not be allowed. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 15,1997 Hawn suggested making it clear that businesses must register. Uses that are grandfathered in will die with that business owner upon death or retirement. Lindquist agreed that it should not be allowed to be turned over to another person. Gafifron asked that if the home occupation is not on the list and is a non-conforming use, should it go with the property. He suggested this regulation be tightened. Smith questioned afffecting the livelihood or assets of a business. Schroeder said an argument could be made if the business was sold to another person. Van Zomeren cited an example of a home occupation license. It includes a compliance deadline, hours of operation, number of clients, and shipment and delivery. A use can be lawful non-conforming until such date and then become unlawful non-conforming. Schroeder noted the need to have "teeth” in the ordinance. Schroeder asked how many complaints are received on home occupations. Gaffron said he receives a few a year but gets many calls on starting businesses. Schroeder noted many businesses are started without licensing. Van Zomeren said many business owners do not know they must license their business. (#6) 1998 APPLICATION FORMS The tracking sheet is included in this information. Van Zomeren said information packets will be mailed on Wednesdays in the future. She indicated that the legal notice drives everything from a staff standpoint. 1 FROM (TUE) 1.20'93 14:21/ST. I4:20/N0. S700000911 ?• 2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM; DATE: Qiy of Orono; Liz Van Zomeren Thomas January 20, 1998 RE: Regulation, by zoning, of the location of businesses where firearms arc sold by a firearms dealer. The Minnesota Legislature, 1985 removed from municipalities the power to regulate firearms except for their discharge. Minn Siai. 471.633. (attached.) By Minn. Stat. 471.635, the Legislature in 1993 provided that cities may “regulate by reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonarbitrary zoning ordinances, the location of businesses where firearms arc sold by a firearms dealer. For the purposes of this section, a firearms dealer is a person who is federally licensed to sell firearms and a govcrmncnial subdivision is an entity described in sections 471.633 and 471.634. Accordingly, 1 conclude that the City of Orono may address by zoning ordinance the locaUon of businesses where firearms are sold by a firearms dealer. Such Zoning requirements would need to meet the statutory requirements, and would likely need to "grandfather" in existing -ders. eWen the longuegc of 471.633,1 do not beUeve that the City eould prohibit the sale mmunition per sc. but could zone the location of business where firearms dealers sell .imunition. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 12, 1998 #2327 Orono Development, L.L.C., 2380 Shadywood Road - Request for Amendment to B-5 District Allowed Uses - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-5 Application: Request for an amendment to the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to allow, as a conditional use, three specific additional uses including: 1.Coffee retail sales 2. Bagel retail sales 3.Pizza retail sales. Each of the proposed uses could be categorized as a restaurant. The B-5 District currently does not allow restaurants as such, but does include as a conditional use the following specific use: "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store." List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map of Applicant's Proposed Development C - Navarre Area Map Depicting All Properties Zoned B-5. D - Letter of Request E - Zoning Code Section 10.44: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District F - Comprehensive Plan Excerpts Regarding Commercial Areas B-5 District Purpose The B-5 District is intended to "provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the B-5 District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre". / Zoning File #2327 January 12, 1998 Page 2 The permitted uses in the B-5 District include both service and retail businesses, the majority of which are typically low traffic volume and typically not 24 hour uses. (See Exhibit E) The current list of conditional uses in B-5 was last amended in October 1996 w ith the deletion of "home and garden equipment rental", which was concurrently made a permitted use in the B-1 District. The B-5 conditional uses include some which may involve higher traffic volumes, or somewhat more intensive use than the permitted uses. For instance, a "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store" such as the Dairy Queen, has a more intense use of the parking lot and drive thru, and has perhaps more lighting than most of the other allow ed retail uses. B-5 also lists "kennels' as a conditional use, which has the potential for disrupting a neighborhood due to noise levels and possibly odors. The "home and garden equipment rental" use was moved out of the B-5 District on the basis that such use could be noisy or create noxious odors, involving the operation of engines, as well as tending toward fenced storage areas which could be visually disruptive. % The B-5 District was primarily created in 1975 to accommodate existing businesses adjacent to existing single family residential areas. The intent was to limit the intensity of uses in the B-5 District to those which would not only be good neighbors, but provide a valuable service to the surrounding neighborhood. Consequently, the number of properties zoned B-5 is extremely limited, comprising approximately 5.9 acres in total, all of which is in Navarre (see Exhibit C). Nature of Proposed Uses The proposed uses appear to be primarily restaurant type uses. The zoning code defines two types of restaurants: 1. "Restaurants (Class I)" - Food is served to the customer and consumed by him while seated at a counter or table and the restaurant does not serve intoxicating liquor or provide live entertainment. Food is selected by a customer while going through a serving line and taken to a table for consumption. 2. "Restaurants (Class II)" - Fast food convenience, drive-in and liquor service restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises, or to be taken to a table, counter, automooile or off the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in w here most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how' it is served; or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. It is unclear whether the uses proposed by applicant fall strictly into a Class I or Class II category. This is partly due to the nature of the definitions, and to some degree a function of the nature of restaurants in today's w orld. Staff envisions a bagel shop or coffee shop to be of a Class II nature. Zoning File #2327 January 12, 1998 Page 3 where the customer would order items at a counter which are provided to him either packaged to leave the premises, or on a tray to be taken to a table w ithin the store for eonsumption. A pizza retail operation could be very similar, or it could range from a sit-down restaurant where items are ordered via a waitress from a separated kitchen; or could be merely a takeout/delivery order base station w ith no food eaten on the premises. It is significant to note that the only other food serviec type operation in the B-5 Distriet is the Navarre Dairy Queen. It operates as a conditional use under the "eandy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, firozen desserts, soft drink store" category. Note that the Dairy Queen continues to closely conform to the letter of this unique use, in that while it does have a drive thru window, it does not have any indoor seating, is only open seasonally, and has not beeome a "brazier" store where foods are fried; hot dogs/brats and barbecue are all heated on the site but no grilling occurs. The nature of this use has not, therefore, expanded to the classieal restaurant type use, although it might fall under the definition of a Class II restaurant by virtue of the drive-up window . Are the Proposed Uses Appropriate in the B-5 District? Planning Commission should consider the following questions in determining whether certain limited restaurant uses might be approved within the B-5 District: 1.Are restaurants an appropriate use in the B-5 District given the intent of that district and its proximity to residential uses? 2.How will the proposed restaurant type uses impact the neighborhood? Traffic? Lighting? Odors or noises? Hours of operation? On-site parking? 3.Can the identified impacts be mitigated or avoided by limitations on the nature or type of restaurant uses allowed? 4.If the proposed uses are allow'ed, do sufficient controls exist to exclude other restaurant type uses which would be objectionable in the B-5 District? y- S' ^Analysis ^ The B-5 District was created in 1975 to provide limited business activity compatible with the adjacent and surrounding residential uses. The B-5 was also intended to provide for businesses that serve "residents in the surrounding neighborhood" as opposed to a place for City-wide or regional oriented uses. Those uses would be reserved for the B-1 or B-3 Districts. The nature of existing uses in the B-5 to a great extent matches the B-5 goals, i.e. a Dairy Queen, an auto parts store, an animal hospital, low key retail, professional office, furniture store, and (albeit non-conforming) auto repair operation, all tend to serve the surrounding neighborhood. Likewise, the nature of the I Zoning File #2327 January 12, 1998 Page 4 proposed limited restaurant type uses would serve the same general neighborhood area, without being a major destination bringing in significant traffic. In that respect, the proposed uses might seem to be in keeping with the intent of the B-5 District. However, certain restaurant type uses would create potential problems in the context of the B-5 District. These problems might include: Exhaust venting of smokc/odors from baking, frying, or grilling operation. The glare of lighting, traffic volumes, litter, and other nagative impacts often associated with individual free standing fast food operations. The impact nn parking need for su down restaurants such as the Culvers in the B-1 District adjaici*! to applicant's development site. Hours of operation potentially extending past normal business hours. If the proposed restaurant type uses are allowed in some limited fashion. Planning Commission should direct staff to develop conditional use standards that would limit those operations to a scope and level appropriate for the B-5 District. Such limitations might include, for example: That the restaurant use must be a non-prjm^' tenanUn a building used primarily for a permitted or conditional use that is not a restaurant (this could be a method to avoid freestanding fast food operations) Limitation on square footage, and/or percentage of total building, devoted to each individual restaurant use Limitations on the capacity of fans allowed for e,\haust venting (i.e. do not allow operations which require exhaust venting above a certain cubic feet per minute) Strict adherence to signage limitations Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should discuss whether an amendment to the B-5 district to allow limited restaurant type uses may be appropriate. If so, direct staff to draft standards for the level of use you feel may be appropriate, for review at your next meeting. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of tlie proposed amendment with no specific conditions 2. Table, direct staff to develop standards for some defined level of restaurant use, 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4.Other. J oo O/Vi/ I //0 Application H 2326 /25Z7 4 Date Received /2--22,~97 Amount Paid ss CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2380 Shadywood Road._,Nava.rxe-t_Mn---------—2: vD raa. cn applicant Nome Ocono Developinent_<_LLC lAftdr/JtS 5000 Glenwoo*^ —' Phone fhomel 377-7090 Phone fworlc^ 377-7090 8 225 City M i nneapn 1 i a.------- ^*P-5542 2- fO CO ONVNER (if different than applicant) Name See Attache_d---------- Phone (home) Phone (work). Address City Zip,. Date Property Acr]uirtr) Smith r-ompany 192ZDate rropeny _nsiHi» wm.... - lJ(aiO (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of Ian . (month/ycar) PFFS . CONDITIONAL USE PCRM1TS •fees CONU application ~~ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ~ $225.00 Guest Housc/Gucst Apartments mnn no HnnlM Cfcdit/BldR ^ ^ ^ J %\J ^ ^ ' $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ” $300.00 Commcrcial/Industrial Use ^ • Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ------- md filling • lOl cu. yd. or more Gr2d..:g. seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakcshore PRD/Pr.; • see Fee Schedule ....................... $150 00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Aflcr-lhe-Fact Fee • Double Current Application Fee a, sue Plan ReV.a. (t contaU.t Sz^Zl^ cinnnn Vacation$)00 00 Vacation rK S200 00 Easemcni Vacation ■■■ SI00 00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ^ ■ $15000 RezomngfrUD refer to fee schedule) $150 00 Comprchonitvc Plan Amcndmeni $100 00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT* USE OF PROPERF\ Prcacnl Zoning District B-5 . . - I'rescnl Uw of Prv>fKrl> Rcsidciilml X Oihei (<oe»ifv) vacant Cl'UfcIi /O 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS \ ____Completed Application Form. “ed VTp?.^”ot!.«s Usi of o^.,,=rs withm 350’, labels and plat ^p (you ^us" obiain to list, labels and map from Hennepm County Department of Pi nance A-603. Government Center, 348-3271). . . f St. or s;..ey (sigoed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey 'n°"HT.!ai dascrintion to application if nor included on required siuvcy To^cS S ptoposed contours) if land alterations mvoWe S’ti; trllSude n.arit.1 status) of all persons with an interest in ■ to oS TOs vtould include name(s) of appUeantCs) tf not current owner(s). Constriction plan, if applicable (sec staff for requirements). • AnrSfdeXt to this application, please attach a separate list of any other ' persons you wish notified of this application. TORS^M^rTEa (Starr will require to scale drawings of all dt tments, plans, etc. to submitted.) I^^totionTnfJrTpS Certification by Clerical Dcp.rtn.cnt that Und Use Applicarioo is complete. Initials of Clerical Slaff.^,---------■ ■■ —-------- ^ APPUCANT'S signature reouired or requested by the 7-orimg The applicant hereby agrees P™",j „o, covered by original fee payment) Administrator, agtocs to pay additional s«fr t andfor unusual bcL of histor knowledge.infonnation supplied ts IrutT^d coiTw . Date ll/liill___ Applicant's sigitaturc (f\AyCC'^ Tom Dillon, Orono Development, LLC OWNER'S SIGNATURE aDoUcaiion and furtltcr aulhcuidica The owner hereby by City's^ff consultant, agents, commissicn men-hers.rctr./rr;r^;i:i;nS42- - —- •' "• -r -'ll -■ ......... Date I “tr Aden. SatUh Company Med-S. Applicei met h.« .11 wba'itl.U ^ b« P"""'/; PUnnlnt Commission Commission .od Cooocil. If on oppbc.o. is all achodiilcd v^vicbY ^ .......... Buthofi/cd aRcnt otiend In your plncc and ......./s / 5 /„' \ (102) x*^ Wi?^i^<-- ,.-^r-'4F®®*'^.'^pf:/ "“'> )\\ /H ...^i.-uy.-- • \ / '^Tj. /''g<- - !;_______I^'•’ ' Y 0^*^? •/ ►\ — 1 ^ ■ ■■ ■ " - ' V* . \ ( ^,, . v\'' u 5 0 V; I O-.'T-.OT A 'tV'’^/) )* - (55) - b?4.. -\(rj)V \ A I • y •(47> .'79. 4:* I r9 42 Ko7*z^’~^yiI !z2) r d t • •. •s-' \ •. wir ,9vV 1^PgfSi M m J •X• -1 • -S'"V* ■ '•?/0£. Cf i*'* • iT 'S ■£5 \“‘X* ^ Vt' mVAVN Tir €*■3^ ^ • y w Mtr^ dn lr>*. %&• 0'S *.• * ‘ »v\ .1 ^:^--i' I£_•' I >a L%i » U« 1 *..•w P.. r incni j A{?t* *1 A__ •«. r\^ I MM nI3li'- r/ 1' » r 1 ~._j ----- If■ .•..^J/F':ir^'''s^\^ \1 »•«ifc.I •=. 1 • P'1 p mm li <Xs ..................: nr/------------ •I O - • ;T--VV -5/ a.i» cn -.\ • . • if?? * « • I ' «* City of Orono - General Land Use Application ^ 2380 Shadywood Road, Navarre, Minnesota Applicant: Orono Development, LLC Owner: Adam Smith Company and North Central Conservative Baptist Association Description of Variance Application: The enclosed comprises the application for a variance request for the proposed commercial development at 2380 Shadywood Road in Navarre, Minnesota. The proposed development site is zoned B-5 and the site currently contains the vacant baptist church located near the intersection on County Roads #19 and #15. The adjacent commercial property is occupied by a commercial use, O'Sullivan's convenience store and Culver's restaurant. The other nearby uses include a Super Valu grocery store, an Amoco service station and single family residential homes. The variances requested include the following: 1) Allowed uses in B-5 2) Hardcover ordinance 3) Front yard setback 1) The B-5 zoning district in the City of Orono has specific permitted uses. Although the proposed bank use is allowed in the B-S. there are several uses which are specifically not described in the ordinance which could be considered as tenants for this proposed development. These include coffee, bagel and pizza retail stores. The current zoning allows several similar retail uses under a conditional use in the B-5, such as, "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store,". This variance application requests the approval of these proposed uses under a conditional use permit. 2) The City of Orono has an ordinance which provides for allowed percentage of coverage of hardcover within a specified distance from lakeshore. The property at 2380 Shadywood Road falls within two separate shoreline districts, zone one to the northeast -'.nd zone two to the southwest. In both these areas the proposed development does not meet the specified maximum thirty five pt icent hardcover for properties within 500 to 1,000 feet of lakeshore. The inability to meet this ordinance is based on unique property characteristics. The proposed development site contains an existing storm water ponding area on the back of the site which was built to accommodate the O'Sullivan's/Culver's property, 'fhe existence of this ponding area severely restricts the design flexibility needed to meet the hardcover requirements. The advantage the ponding does provide, is that it allows the proposed development the ability to manage its storm water within the ponding area, protecting the wetland and area lakes from direct property run-off. The proposed developed site also contains severe site grades. These site grades will require that an area of the site be filled and a retaining wall built to provide a level building site. These grades and required retaining wall further limit the flexibility of design to meet hardcover requirements. The combination of these unique site conditions limit the flexibility needed to 'i'./ i; .)c-rr.i'— C- J ' s» • v\ . Je;’'r - •'i . ;? •* 1. ■ ..i* ••I.-''■ ...•> J;? '-r^^'^'' ■ •-•-' meet the hardcover requirements. The variance request appears to be consistent with existing conditions of the surrounding properties. 3) The City of Orono requires a twenty foot setback for parking areas in a front yard. The front yard of the proposed development is along Shadywood Road and is proposed to have a fiv< foot setback. The five foot setback would include a sidewalk for pedestrian traffic along Shadywood Road in front of the development. The front yard setback on this proposed development is physically limited because of the existing ponding area on the east side (rear) of the site. The location of this pond and the required depths of the proposed building, including drive and parking areas severely restrict the ability to provide a twenty foot setback as required by the City ordinance. Due to the location of the existing ponding area, a front yard setback of twenty feet would impact the ability of the proposed development to manage the storm water from this site in a potentially decreased ponding area. In summary, our review of the proposed variance requests should result in a very favorable development for the 2380 Shadywood Road location. The requests for allowed uses under conditional use permit, the hardcover requirement variance and front yard setback variance do not appear to be inconsistent with neighboring and existing properties within the B-5 districts. The proposed variances are an attempt to comply with the existing conditions, ordinances and meet the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plans are a reflection of the special site conditions which are an effort to strike a balance between proposed land use plans, the law and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. file:omodesc2 S 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No build^g shall be nearer th^ 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet ^ any rear lot line, 15 f^t to any side lot line, 35 feet to ao^ side lot line adjacent to Street; except when abutting or acr(^s the street from an "R" District no building shall be less thapr 35 feet from such lot line. F. \Pencing. Wherevei^a Office and Professional Business\District abuts an District along the side or rear lot line, a fehce or compact ev«green hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less thM six feet iir'Tieight (no less than three feet nor higher than fourXfeet adjac^t to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines e^^pt wi^n the required front yard. G. Building 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparag n and Construction. See Section >h G. H. Drainagey' No Iknd shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that r^^sults irKwater runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits adjacent pnsKJerties. Site and drainage plans shall be submi^ed by the applicant in such detail as required by the Coui^l and tho',e planK shall be reviewed by the City Engineer befoj?^ submission to theNPlanning Commission and Council for appros^. Such runoff may beVequired to be properly channeled into a/natural water course, pondihq area, storm drain or other public ^cilities. ;.ny change in g^de affecting water runoff wheth^ onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance/ij^th the Surface Water ManagementNPlan and shall be consistent^ with other applicable regulationsv or City Code provisio^ and subject to the approval of other ^encies having jurisd^j^ion over the area affected by the drainage. Height. No structure or building sms^l exceed 2-1//2 stories or thirty feet in height except as proy^ided in Section 10.75. SBC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the "B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) s 10.44 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-5" Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Municipal buildings. B. Offices. C. Clinics. D. Art and school supply score. E. Book and magazine store. F. Office supply store. estate office. G. Banks, loan company, insurance company, real H. Barbership, beauty shop. I. Camera and photograph supply store. J. Locksmith. K. Hobby shop. L. Gift store. M. Glassware and pottery. N. Antique store. O. Jewelry store. P. Watch repair. Q. Library. R. Museum. S. Record shop. T. Music store. U. Tobacco shop. V. Galleries. W. Pet shop. Subd. 4, Conditional Use. A. Within any "B-5" Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditions' use permit: 1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. Drycleaning store. 3. Tailor shop. 4. Pressing and shoe shine shop. 5. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. —g-,—Homo and g^ar^on ■ equipment- renfe-al-* r)et.gTgi^ 7. Veterinary clinic. zs. 8. Kennels. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) § 10.44 B. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "B” or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buii.dings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period of not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. square feet. feet. feet. A. Area. The minimum lot sise shall be 20,000 B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet; side yard adjacent to "R” District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) § 10.44 F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District abuts an "R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards; 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, (c) Specially designed precase concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or, (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, or glass. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shill be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 350 (4-1-84) § 10.44 I. 2-1/2 stories or Section 10.75. Height. No structure or building shall exceed thirty feet in height except as provided in Source: Ordinance No. 188 Effective Date: 11-22-76 (Sections 10.45 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) . I ORONO CC 351 (4-1-84) n i.AND USF JUNE, 19?0 ^^ClkrLU'-'( LAM- 'SE GOALS AND POLICIES Pf- ^-n ^ H-zL> 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. LAND 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 RESIDENTIAL, EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. 4. TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE L^.ND USES. 5. TO COORDINATE ORONO'S LAND USES WITH THAT OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. 6. TO COORDINATE LAND USES T^D DEVELOPED DENSITY WITH THE FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CITY AliD ITS CITIZENS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. GENERAL LAND USE POLICIES 1.THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) IS FIXED. Orono's 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 No. 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 I 1 i i 1 i 1 1 i 1 ] 1 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 LNCkOACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake ^iunetonka. 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. 1 CMP 4-13 I 1 LAND USE JUNE/ 1980 I 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. 1 I I 1 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 OP 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 OP LAND AND ^SOURCES 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\*?NERS MUST HAVE EQUAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIE . 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 % j j 1 li I i I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 LANDUS£JUNE, 1980 13. 14. 15. 16. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development 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 laridscape 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 lir.ited 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 I I AND USE JUNE, 1980 If the individual development’s density increase or impact is relatively small, or the layout is not conducive to public land dedication, then in lieu of lands the developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of such lands or the improvement of such facilities proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase from multiple small developments. 17 NO LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED UNLESS IT'S LOCATION AND PHYSICAL CHA^TERISTICS ARE SUITABLE 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, flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties. No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequate draincge, 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. I I I I I I URBAN LAND USE POLICIES. 1. THE MAJORITY OF ORONO’S URBAN AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's urban residential neighborhoods will provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types and price ranges. Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Low-density multi-family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. CMP 4-16 «_AND USE JUNE, 1980 % i I I I i 0J I i 1 I I * 2. LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, 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. 3. 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 which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono's Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality ov 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. 4. THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE UNIFICATION AND COORDINATION OP THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAS. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects . designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business a.eas will be encouraged. ^ 5. 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 n/ upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. ^ N 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 ava.^lable. 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 ali urban residents. CMP 4-18 I i LANDUSE JUNE, 1980 I J •1 a j I i I I 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of publxc waters available for private docking and boat storage. 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LAND USE POLICIES 1. ORONO’S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR PERMANENT LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's rolling rural area is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs marshland assimilative capacity preclude expansion of the urban service area without major environmental problems for Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the ideal land use for that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the planned low-density rural residential land use. Commercial and industrial uses will not be permitted in the rural area. f I CMP 4-19 LAND USE JUNE. 1980 URBAN COMMERCIAL LAND USE Urban commercial development is limited to two areas which are provided with all the necessary urban services and facilities. The major commercial center of Orono will continue to be the crossroads center of Navarre. This area will provide sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses« plus adequate professional offices, to serve the needs of most Orono residents. Accessory functions such as offices and owner- occupied living units or limited multi-family developments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. fn additional limited commercial area is designated on Highway 12 adjacent to similar land uses in the City of Long Lake. This area has utilities available from the City of Long Lake and will provide neighborhood services complimentary to those available in that City. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL LAND USE Lake access and lake user service businesses are appropriate for a lakeside community and require a lakeshore location. Special performance standards are necessary to assure protection of the lake environment and protection of neighboring properties. The primary purpose is to permit those functions that are directly necessary to support normal lake-use activities such as boat launching, boat service, boat repairs and fishing supplies. Lakeshore commercial areas are not intended for typical retail activities, including boat sales, which could be accomplished away from the lake. Accessory functions such as parking, winter storage and caretaker facilities will be appropriate in the lakeshore commercial areas. • One lakeshore commercial area is indicated on the Land Use Plan along Maxwell Bay where resorts and marinas have historically existed. Sanitary sewer is available for boat sanitation purposes. Expansion of the existing facilities is limited however by surrounding residential neighborhoods, lack of public transportation, and environmental constraints including a crowded bay. Therefore, only the one contiguous area is considered appropriate for dedication to this use. Additional lakeshore commercial facilities do exist along County Road 15 north of Tanager Lake Bridge. This area has fewer transportation and environmental problems than Maxwell Bay, but it is not designated in this Plan for commercial use because municipal sewer and other urban services are not available. This area would be considered for future lakeshore commercial designation should sanitary sewer become available as projected in the CSPP Facilities Plan. CMP 4-26 \mM \ ) ^ ‘•'t—.♦ 'I X □own ■c; i ■ I 1 E ■'/' ■ •" , ! /' ^, , "■ ■ 'l •! 'F\l__l£j! L'■'feWWTf'\ ri^} m I ■ I■ I "* V i Uc./ :;:M V ....--hl^^ |{ A''f*j ■ \ (*^ *’ ** t ferv f 'iMiM m I■ *• ^>..1 /• Wi Vf t “.i, jl 0;^ \\ .rs. ^iir’ \o ! I I • .O •Tf /.•'»•,'.fMm I « *••=• S '*' £ T-:.. ,r-^-pj\rm ■If* I«« « ■ m nrw fgln1* • v—*# ^T.' -'km.>1;?'K\|’ l!1 ^.i / ^ ■ ■ *|*.v~ * 'N /;V A ,.... 7^% • / ;fe CiSJ Cii s /S / b \ ■ 7 ^J^Bm V ,U:v ...:($S?tV?‘pP»*- II ‘I; » ■’n V'i;;(i A „ \^--‘:b'0 •> A / I 0 : • • 1< s • ‘(-\ { • j X* (D /*- _________ — *1 J 0 A \ \. COD^O U^UJC/) COUitec/) ^CE(J< CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 20,1998 at the Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, on the matter of application #2327, a request by Orono Development, LLC, owner of 2380 Shadywood Road, for an amendment of the allowed uses within the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to include restaurant-type uses such as coffee, bagel and pizza retail stores. The meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this meeting. Written comments are solicited. City of Orono By: Planning Commissionjcjy; riannmg ^ommissioiw Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator To be published the week of January 10,1997. TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinatm^^^^ January 13, 1998 SUBJECT: #2324 Gale Putnam/James Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - Sketch Plan for 3 Lot Subdivision Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre, sewered. Site Area: 2.03 acres. Site Width at Lakeshore: 310' ± Site Width at 75’ Setback: 306' ± Site Frontage along Tonkawa Road: 284* ± Proposed Subdivision: 3 single family lots each meeting 100' width at shoreline in 75' setback, and each being approximately 2/3 of an acre in area. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Map C - Proposal Option 'A' (Applicant's preferred layout with driveway outlot) D - Proposal Option 'B' (Modified version of A) E - Proposal Option 'C (With cul-de-sac) F - Hardcover 'Reality Check' for Options A and C G - Sewer As-Builts H - Back Lot Ordinance Site Characteristics This 2 acre tax parcel contains a single family residence. The property was originally platted by Livingston A. Lydiard in 1907, and the property is a combination of parts of Lots 13, 14 and 15, "Lydiard's Park". The existing house was built in approximately 1956, and the property has existed as a single tax parcel apparently since the house was constructed. The entire lot has generally been maintained as lawn area. The easterly 1/3 of the property is relatively low, and applicant's surveyor will have to confirm whether a portion of the property is Zoning File #2324 January 13,1998 Page 2 below the 931.5' floodplain elevation. There are no apparent wetlands on the property. The site is fairly open, with some wooded area along the west side near the house. The surrounding neighborhood contains single family residences on lets of similar area and width as those proposed. The creation of two additional single family building sites as proposed would be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and generally would - ppear to meet the LR-IC zoning district standards. Sewer. The property was provided with three sewer stubs and fully assessed for sewer in 1963. Subdivision to create two additional building sites will not require any further sewer connection assessments or charges, other than the standard permit fee and sewer availability (SAC) charge when each new home is constructed. This area of the City does not have City water available, hence private wells will be used. Access. The site gains acce.v. from Tonkawa Road, which is a County Road. Any upgrade of the driveway to serve two addiu jnal homes will require review by Hennepin County Department of Public Works. Tonkawa Road contains 66 ’ of right-of-way, which is the correct width for its "scenic parkway" collector status as indicated in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Tonkawa Road is not included in either the City of Orono or Hennepin County bike/hike trail plans, and there appears to be no indicated need for dedication of additional County Road right-of-way. Lot layout and access to the County Road are the two most significant issues for discussion. The applicant has provided three potential layouts which will be reviewed as to their merits, in order of applicant's highest preference to 'owest preference. Proposal A: Three Rectangular Lots with 30' Outlot Access Drive This proposal results in the most uniform lot layout, with three lots ranging from 0.59 to 0.73 acres. Each lot meets the 100' minimum width standard as well as the 0.5 acre LR-IC minimum lot size requirement. However, the w'esterly two lots would be considered as "back lots" when only accessed via a 30' corridor, and therefore would technically be required to meet 150% of the lot area and side/front setback standards, which would not be met by this proposal; i.e. back lot area variances would be needed for Lots 1 and 2, and side setbacks would be raised to 1 f', - nievvhat limiting the flexibility for house construction. Proposal B: Modified Plan With Lots 2 & 3 Abutting Tonkawa In order to address the problem of creating two back lots, applicant has devised a modified layout which has both Lots 2 and 3 abutting the County Road, with Lot 1 therefore becoming a back lot which meets the 0.75 acre standard. Lots 2 and 3, by virtue of being lakeshore lots, only have to meet tile 100' width standard at the lakeshore and at the 75' setback, but are not required to meet it Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 3 at the road. While this plan technically meets code standards, it creates the need for an additional driveway access serving Lot 3 directly onto the County Road. The subdivision code indicates that development of new single family residences on major roads should be served by interior road systems and direct driveway access to the majcr roads should be limited. Also, under this layout Lot 3 is just 0.50 acre and therefore maybe somewhat more limited in development flexibility than Proposals A or C. Proposal C: Cul-de-sac Serving All 3 Luts Proposal C results in 3 lots that meet all City requirements and which are served by a short cul-de- sac. While this plan would appear to be the most conforming of the three proposals, applicant notes that creation of a cul-de-sac adds a significant amount of hardcover as compared to Proposals A or B. In Plan C, Lot 2 is the most limited in acreage and hardcover potential, but still would be allowed as much as 3,570 s.f. of hardcover. See Exhibit F-2. For example, the existing house (excluding the detached garage) has a footprint of approximately 2,250 s.f. A similar house could be built on proposed Lot 2, and adding a 200 s.f. deck and 100 s.f. for sidewalks, could have approximately a 1,000 s.f. driveway. At a nominal 16’ width, the driveway could be approximately 62' in length. The result is that the house would have to be set back approximately 100-110' from the lake in order to minimize driveway length to meet the hardcover standards. Lot 3 at 0,60 acre is slightly less limiting; however. Lot 1, even with 0.68 acre, would probably use up the extra hardcover allowance in additional driveway length. Each of the three lot proposals results in lots that are somewhat limited by the 25% hardcover allowance for the 75-250 ’ zone. By contrast, a 2 lot subdivision with each lot being appro.vimately 1 acre, could result in much greater flexibility for new home construction with relatively greater ability to meet the hardcover standards. Cul-de-sac Pros and Cons Note that the cul-de-sac as shown in Concept Plan C would be only 150' in total length, being the •shfirtest cul-de-sac road developed to-date in the City. We have many other cul-de-sac roads serving ji^t three homes, but virtually all others are much greater in length. Because this is an urban density zone, the Comprehensive Plan suggests that tliis cul-de-sac road would be dedicated as public and maintained by the City. By code, the minimum paved width for the straight segment should be 24', with an 80' diameter cul-de-sac, resulting in total hard surface for the entire site, including road, of 21,000 s.f. (assuming all three lots are conforming to the 75- 250 ’ zone 25% limit). This translates to about 24% of the entire property ending up hardcover, or Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 4 about 32% of the 75-250' zone. The creation of a conforming cul-de-sac actually would result in more hardcover than the City's development standard for lakeshore lots. This impact could be reduced by making the cul-de-sac diameter smaller, or eliminating it all together. The question then is whether cul-de-sac is strictly necessaiy. The code would require such cul-de-sac for public safety purposes primarily, i.e. for emergency vehicle ingress and egress, for ease of access for residents, perhaps to provide additional neighborhood parking, and for ease of maintenance. However, without the cul-de-sac the most distant home (Lot 1) would have a driveway 250' in length, which is not extremely unusual in niral Orono, not as common in the urban area of the City. The cul-de-sac likely would be desirable from a fire fighting staging standpoint. The public cul-de- sac layout also eliminates the need for homeowners' association and concerns about road maintenance. On the down side, though, such a large cul-de-sac will unquestionably change the visual character of the immediate neighborhood, and if this is a public road, there may be concerns about its use as a turnaround by boat trailer traffic when the Maxwell Bay access across the road is lull. If this is a public road, the City should not restrict its use by the public. If it becomes a private road, the property owners would have greater control of its use in exchange for assuming maintenance responsibility. Staff Recommendation The intent of this sketch plan review is to provide the applicant with direction as to what type and magnitude of variances might be granted for development of this property, and to provide direction regarding how the road access should be developed. Staff recommends as follows: 1. 3. Option C most clearly meets the City's standards for providing access to urban density properties. Option C with a 24' private road with 80' diameter private cul-de-sac preserves the emergency access needs at the expense of eating up slightly more hardcover, and limiting the development capability of each lot due to hardcovei. Making the cul-de-sac a private road preserves the property owners' rights to control the use of that road, especially given the probable pressure on it by boating traffic. Option A is less attractive from the public safety standpoint, but provides each lot somewhat greater flexibility. Option A requires variances to the City's road standard (3 lots requires a developed road) and also requires back lot area variances for Lots 1 and 2. Also, Lots 1 and 2 would have somewhat less flexible building envelopes due to the 15' side setbacks required because they are both back lots. The angle of the shoreline suggests that the houses will also be angled as compared to the side lot lines. Option B is the least attractive to staff because it forces the creation of a separate access driveway onto the County Road for Lot 3. Lot 1 under Option B is still a backlot and subject to the 15' side setbacks which limit the shape of any house to be developed. Lots 1 and 2 z oning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 5 would presumably share a driveway access via the Outlot, which is permissible, but the real tradeoff is the addition of a new driveway onto Tonkawa Road which should be avoided. Note that the building envelope for Lot 3 would be quite restrictive since the lot line along Tonkawa Road becomes a front lot line requiring a 30' setback, and with a 10' west side setback, leaves only 66' in functional width. Of greater concern is that Lot 3 would have only 1,600 s.f. of available hardcover allowance, certainly not enough to develop a residence with amenities such as sidewalks, driveways and decks. 4. As part of the normal subdivision process, a grading/drainage/stormwater management plan will have to be developed; the standard easements granted; park dedication fees paid; and if a public/private road is constructed, a developers agreement and financial guarantee will be required. Action Requested Provide applicant with direction as t how this property should develop, addressing the following issues: 1. 2. 3. 4. Which layout is most appropriate? Of the layouts which require variances to certain City code standards, which, if any, could be granted variances? Are there hardships or unique site conditions that justify variances? If the road with cul-de-sac is the preferred layout, should that road be public or private? Should the cul-de-sac dimensional standards be relaxed to some extent to minimize the impact on the neighborhood while preserving the public safety interest (for instance if this is a private cul-de-sac, could it be developed with a small landscape area in the middle, to maintain the continuous loop for emergency vehicle access but minimize the expanse of asphalt)? This would be a bad idea from a Public Works maintenance perspective, is not as good from a public safety standpoint, but may be quite helpful from a neighborhood view standpoint. Would hardcover variances be allowed for any of the lots? Assuming the answer is no, under Planning Commission's preferred layout can all three lots be suitably developed within the hardcover standards? Or should this be a two-lot plat? Application it A- Date Received /Z - gg.- ^7 Amount Paid ,^2.stC> . Oi9 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATIO PROPERTY LOCATION __ ^ ' Siteaddress /3^S~ cf._______________ Property Identification Number (PID) Og i>"? 2.S V2. OOD^ Please check one - Property abstract or ____torrens? Attach legal description to application. 9 Q 9 </1 <oa- APPLICANT . Name rsovittu fO CVJ Address 933/ yui^ Ao S Phone (home) 9yvM#0^«t. City Zip gsvi/ Phone (work) OWNER (if different thar^app Name C^5~m.U. rtv icant) .+>1 Address City __ (p?* uift^ ^cL ’•4v» o____________________Zip Phone (home) */7/^ /b Phone (work) ji (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check)vX Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units___]_ Other (specify)_________ Present Zoning District /-/? t PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites I Existing Units 2. New Units 3 Total Units Proposed Gross Density . Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per 2-. Acres a /. 7Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land _Residential Other (specify)________ NnNIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PREl 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" iisted beiow, 2. Compieted appiication form. ' ” I 3. Preiiminarypiat information on Certificate of Survey. a g «r£Ssr 4. Certified ftoperty Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this iist from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-C Govt Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature_____________________________________ Date MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit Zoning Official's Signature________________________________ Date !• APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pC] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Appiication $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & ail non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class 111, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original c»'plication) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) IQM B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft; , lin. ft. X .50 = $_ lin. ft. X .50 = $ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 _____ _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 _____ _____ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x _____new lots _____ C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $ 100.00 _____ _____ PPD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dweliing Unit _____ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attome Plarming Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established I ordinance. Applicant's Signature________________ _________________________ Date_________________________ Owner's Signature ^\Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetini are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plarming Commissic and Council. If an applicant is imable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in yoi place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. maxwell a 10 8 1 l9 ? !17),(I4) (19)! 1 1 1 1 rrrcocr "go ■ PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR \ MR. GALE PUTNAM HAR90R____ • I ^ I M I I >1 O . OWNER = SURVEYOR = GALE L. PUTNAM 1365 TONKAWA ROAD LONG LAKE , MINN. GORDON R. COFFIN 3025 WATERTOWN ROAD LONG LAKE . MINN. / / \ O J .-r ; * bWNE GAL I36S LON DATE MR. GALt HAf^SOR____ iMM 11 V I ^ I I M '•/ . ?. ?>. t ■ >n OWNER = SURVEYOR = GALE L. PUTNAM 1365 TONKAWA ROAD LONG LAKE . MINN, \ ' \ 'Toviv-'^ \ GORDON R. COFFIN 3025 WATERTOWN ROAD LONG LAKE , MINN. c ' ‘‘‘ a: DATE = FEBRUARY 17, 1978 (■ J; V.. C.- V LEGAL DESCRIPTION r 'r / I ^ O \m t iT OWNER GALE 1365 1 LONG DATE MR. GALE PUTNAM OWNER l-IARSOR_____ IMM i , • I ^ INJ I I \l O • • A md /Sp ' A/J GALE L. PUTNAM 1365 TONKAWA ROAD LONG LAKE , MINN. .v;0 f..'' GORDON R. COFFIN 3025 WATERTOWN ROAD LONG LAKE . MINN. DATE - FEBRUARY 17, 1978 LEGAL DESCRIPTION oeitA g/ iMt F-l K I HUDU><^ VVC ‘■“TS I'J-'S Of H C C^'V<- - /S)(.0 0 ^ q.e>oo 7i"'irP A«-4^f.' p^icO Uo'.t sr z s:oc> /,POO t'jtvKS i2.r ir^isv* ='2-2.ro l/jCsvt'S'S - /^^O 3>f^u;ewfcy' ?!oo ?r'?n)'A.’^^ =23,*»o "JO IVou-K -Z5T>0 r *^2,r vJt'Mcs- 1-2,5^ r 2SOO 5t/St5i/BrO . Ve«>/i,f00=;(/.7yo 5^y=74»,700 =25.0 % L ■KB m d)fT70M ^ rnO flLlOu^ 1^ i^S l\fijet^ of he \^ /■-e £u>r I 7r'?rc>' -22/50 >tevAS^^ 2S^C> D€Cje- lK>0O i JAtkii ) 2T ^5^^ -iX. r»V o '/ 2-2-,»l>0 Ur 2 #£.rr 3 * 7S-VCC7'Ai.V A--/‘^i^oo -7l*2*-7 A*‘ 7 J-^T>^cv«'A 2 DtC**2.00 t)€c.u- i C-'^ 1 rso 2zr I ^ g <' 5" c> ^S2..- 24.8, y„ Vsoo •.;. . iS.O '/-/a,c^o V f-/ § ii.TJa 69. "Water System (Individual)** — A water system which may include supply, treatment and distribution which serves only one lot (e.g. private well). 70. "Water System (Private Community)" - A water system which may include supply, treatment and distribution facilities, established by a subdivider to serve two or more lots, which system is independent from the public water system. 71 "Water System (Public)" - A water system which may include supply, treatment and distribution facilities owned and maintained by the City. 72. "Zoning Administrator" ~ The officer as appointed by the City to administer and enforce this Chapter ard to assist administratively the Council and Planning Commission. Sc jrce: City Code Effective Date; 4-1-84 (Sections 11.04 through 11.09, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) "Lot-Back" - A lot typically separated from a public or private road by another lot and which gains access to tbe public or private road via a narrow corridor. Such a separated lot is considered to be a "back lot" when the corridor is platted as an outlet. A separated lot is considered to be a "flag lot" when the corridor is platted as part of the lot. When the corridoi is merely an easement over another lot, the separated lot is considered to be an "easement back lot". "Lot-Front" - A lot abutting a public or private road, across which an outlot has been planed for access to a back lot. 1 ORONO CC 426 . (4-1-84) \2Z., 2"- Subdivision 5. Double frontage Iocs, access to Iocs, and front/back lot divisions. A. Double frontage lots. Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided except where necessary to provide separation of residential development from traffic anenals or to overcome speciilc disadvantages of tocography and orientation. B. Access from any anerial roadway. Lots shall not, in general, derive access e.xclusively from an anerial roadway. Where driveway access from any anerial roadway may be necessary for several adjoining lots, ±e Council may require that such Iocs be served by a combined access drive in order to limit possible nafne hazard on such roadway. Where possible, driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiring vehicles to back into tramc on any anerial roadway. C. Front/back lot subdivisions. "Flag Iocs" and "easement back lots as denned in thi^ Chapter (see deiinition of "Lot-Back") shall not be created. Fronc/back lot divisions shall be allowed only in conjunction with the creation of an outlet to provide access from the back lot to the public or private road. Such outlet shall not be allowed as creditable lot area for either the back or front lots. Front/back lot subdivisions shall adhere to the following standards: 1. Applicability. a. b. • Front/back lot divisions may be used when existing property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. Fronc/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot splits", but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supponed by unique site factors. A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any e.xisting residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access oudot is located nearer its affected side lot line fhan a distance equivalent • to the rening district required front yard depth. Dimensional standards for back Iocs shall be as follows: a. Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. c. b.Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setbaclc line of a lakeshore back lot, or at A-21 c L C i; i; c c [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r r f • * r r t«J J J J ] ] J J ] 3 ] 3 L 3 3 3 r 3 J. 5. 6. the rear of the front yard setback line of a nonlaJceshore back lot, 5*nan meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard or front yard for any back lot will be a yard staning where the narrow access outlot corridor ends and the lot begins. La.V:eshore back lots shaH^ meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line and at the street yard setback line. c.The depth of the required street yard or front yard snail be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. d.The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning dirnict yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard reouirement for that zoning district. Access reouiremencs: a.Access outlets shall be 30' minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. b.In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that* both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. c.Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10' from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. d.No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access oudot. e.No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlets for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. Screening requirements and accessory struemre standards. Front/back lot subdivisions shall be designed in a manner such that the screening requirements and accessory structure standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. The requirements and standards of this secdon shall apply only to those front/back lot divisions which receive preliminary plat approval after January 1, 1994. r c Q TO: FROM; DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator A January 16,1998 SUBJECT; #2326 Orono Development L.L.C., 2380 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Requesting commercial site plan approval for a multi-tenant, one story 11,000 s.f. retail/ser\’ice center building. The variances identified include 500-1,000' zone hardcover, and parking setback from street. The site is 1.86 acres in area including the portions of Navarre Lane which the City has agreed to vacate concurrent with development of this site. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Applicant's Letters of Request E - Adjacent Property Owner Acknowledgment Forms F - Existing Conditions Survey G - Site Plan Survey H-Detailed Site Plan (Al) I - Proposed Front Elevation (A2) J - Landscape Plan (LI) K - Grading Plan (Cl) L - Utility Plan (C2) ’ ' - Site Plan Coordinated with Culver’s Site N - B-5 District Standards O - Street Vacation Documentation Site Plan Review 1. Conformity with purpose of B-5 District. The B-5 District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant proposes an 11,000 s.f retail/ser\ ice center building including a 3,150 s.f bank with drive Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 2 up window; a 5,280 s.f, one stor>' retail space; and a 2,816 s.f. commercial (office) space. The nature and the anticipated type uses appear to be generally in keeping with the neighborhood service orientation of the B-5 District, although the restaurant uses are not specifically an allowed use in B-5 and are the subject of application #2327, •A The building itself will cover appro.ximately 14% of the site. Although detailed hardcover calculations have not been provided, the northerly 1/3 and the southerly 1/6 of the site are shown by applicant to be in the 500-1,000' hardcover zone, and the proposed hardcover does not confrom to the 35% standard for that zone. The entire site appears to be appro.ximately 60r70% hard surface, encompassing less hardcover than many other existing businesses in the Navarre area, but clearly demonstrating a hardcover intensity that is a significant change for this site and this area of Navarre, and not necessarily in keeping with the City's vision for the B-5 zone. The building has • ''^ential spaces for as few as 4 to as many as 6 or 8 individual tenants depending upon pauiiioning. No floor plans have been provided, but the plan suggests the retail spacemay be somewhat flexible. From the standpoint of scale, the building itself is approximately 60' in depth and 200' in width, or slightly less than twice the size of the Culvers' restaurant building. 2. Conformity' with permitted/conditional uses in B-S District. The B-5 District allow s offices and banks as a permitted use. A number of retail commodity type uses are permitted within the B-5 District, with a limited number of specific service type uses. Other service type uses are permitted only by conditional use permit (please see the list of allowed uses in B-5). Applicant’s predecessors (John O'Sullivan, et al.) were successful in having this site rezoned to B-5 approximately one year ago, finding that the B-5 District provided the general use categories which they were proposing at that time. Note that the current applicant is proposing to amend the B-5 District classification to allow' restaurant uses, which our current B-5 District does not allow (see Application File #2327). 3. Conformity with performance standards of B-5 District. A.Lot area. The minimum lot size for the B-5 District is 20,000 s.f. Including the to- be-vacated portion of Navarre Lane, the property is approximately 81,000 s.f. in area, or 4 times the minimum required lot area. B.Lot width. The minimum lot width for the B-5 District is 100'. The site is approximately 320' in w'idth at the rear of tlie 20’ required front yard, and therefore meets the lot width standard. Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 3 C.Front yard. The minimum front yard requirement for the B-5 District is 20'. While the proposed building will be set back approximately 78' from the front lot line, the proposed front parking area is only 5' from the front lot line. Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B), which will be applied to this project, disallows parking spaces in a required yard or landscape area. Therefore, a variance for parking encroachment into the front yard is requested by the applicant. The applicant has discussed in his submittals the limitations and hardships which lead to the request for variance to allow parking to encroach 15' into the 20' front yard, and this will be further addressed later in this memo. D. Rear yard. The B-5 rear yard requirement is 30'. with a side yard adjacent to R District of 15'. No structures are proposed in any side or rear yard, except that a backup apron at the northerly end of the parking lot will be approximately 14' from the Olive Avenue right-of-way. Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B) allows parking in a rear yard to within 3' except when that rear or side line is in common with an R District (which in this case, it is). Because this is a 'through' lot, for zoning purposes it has two front yards, one abutting Shadywood Road and one abutting Olive Avenue. It w'ould appear to staff that a 20' yard should be maintained along Olive Avenue. The backup apron encroaches to within 14'. Therefore a 6* variance is required for that small portion of parking lot. Applicant proposes two entrance monuments and a pylon sign within the front yard along Shadywood Road, which will be discussed under the signage heading below. E. Setbacks. The B-5 District requires buildings be no nearer than 35' to the front lot line, 35' from the rear lot line, 15' from the side lot line and 35’ from any lot line abutting a residential district. The proposed building meets all setback requirements, as does the proposed trash enclosure location and the drive through canopy. F. Fencing. No fencing is proposed for the site. The B-5 District standards require that -^where the B-5 abuts an R District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact ^evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than 6' in height shall be erected .^long the abutting lines except within tlie required front yard. The proposed landscape plan indicates an arborvitae hedge along the north side lot line abutting the LR-IC residential district. The City's consultant landscape architect, Wally Case from DSU, Inc. has reviewed the landscape plan and while his written comments will not be available until after the Planning Commission meeting, he has expressed concern that the landscape plan is inadequate, and the City should consider a landscape plan that provides not only a buffer from the surrounding residential neighborhood, but enhances the neighborhood. Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 4 G. No screening is proposed along the Olive Avenue frontage for this site. Planning Commission should consider whether such screening may or may not be appropriate in the context of the neighborhood, the ponding area, views of the rear of the building, etc. Building design and construction. 1. Exterior finishes. The B-5 District standards require that exterior wall finishes on any building be either face brick, natural stone, or specially designed pre-cast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture or factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials are of any of those noted above or glass. The B-5 standards allow other materials as may be approved by Council. The proposed building has essentially a one story facade that has a brick veneer base with a natural color cedar shake siding above, on the front. The shakes are not listed as an allowed facing material and would require special approval. Applicant must provide elevation views of all sides of the building, since it is critical to confirm a consistent appearance, given a building that will be so visible from all directions. Architectural style. Applicant suggests the shake siding may help to provide a reasonable transition to the residential neighborhood, but in staffs opinion such a transition is more properly accomplished via site planning, landscaping, and architectural style. In staffs opinion the buifding lacks character, and the expanse of uninterrupted roof needs to be revisited, as well as the nature of the facade. This site is an important and extremely visible location at the "hub of Lake Minnetonka", and in conte.xt of future development and redevelopment of Navarre, should serve to set the tone. Staff would question whether the adjacent overdeveloped Culver's site has already established a tone, perhaps not as positive one as might have been hoped for. Planning Commission should make a recommendation as to whether the exterior wall finish materials are acceptable, but should also discuss the nature of this building and whether it fits the City's vision for this site. 2.Out buildings. The only outbuilding proposed is the trash enclosure, the proposed design of w hich is not extremely detailed. It appears to be three sided block enclosure screened with arborvitae, and doors opening to the northerly parking lot. The B-5 District requires that such a structure be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the building and designed in a manner conforming with original architectural design general L. Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 5 H. appearance of the building. Additional details should be provided before construction so that staff can confirm these requirements are met. Is there a reason why the trash enclosure is so far removed from the building? Can it be incorporated into the building so it doesnt stand out like a sore thumb facing the residential neighborhood? Drainag e. The B-5 Zoning District standards require that drainage plans be submitted for review by the City Engineer and that proper facilities for drainage be provided. Applicant has provided a grading plan which indicates an expansion of the retention pond existing on this site as a result of the Culvers development. Culvers has an easement over applicant's property for the existing pond. The City Engineer has reviewed the drainage plan and notes that the proposed storm sewer lines should be revised, that storm sewer and ponding calculations need to be provided for engineer review, that the storm water pond be provided a 10:1 bench at the normal water level to promote the establishment of aquatic vegetation, and that the drainage plans need to be submitted to the MCWD for review and approval. The entire site is proposed to drain to this storm pond via grading and a series of catch basins and storm sewer lines. I.Grading . The City Engineer has reviewed the grading of the site and has made a number of comments including: ^ Design grades at some locations in the site are fairly steep which could create problems. * ttce, - Access and parking lot grades should be revised to not exceed 4%. Slope along the north and west sides of die site appears to be as steep as 1.5:1 where maintenance of slopes steeper than 3:1 can be difficult. Erosion control materials will need to be used. The proposed retaining wall at the rear of the building and the storm water pond is over 10' in height in some locations and will require engineered retaining wall design and details for engineer's review. A fence will be required above that retaining wall for safety purposes. The topographic condition at this site suggests there will be significant regrading of the site in order to make it suitable for the proposed construction. Staff is concerned that the sloped parking areas and certain driving lanes could be problematic, especially under winter conditions. This should be given additional scrutiny by the applicant to determine whether grades can be modified to be more user friendly. The 1 O' high retaining wall at the rear of the building may be ver>’ stark as viewed from Olive Avenue. I see lots of these in Plymouth, and they are not visually Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 6 pleasant. Perhaps some screening is appropriate... Also, the stormwater pond as it sits is not e.xactly in a finished state and it needs a detailed landscape plan to make it aesthetically pleasing or at least not visually intrusive. Pedestrian Trail. The slope along the north side of the property will be drastically changed to accomodate parking adjacent to the neighboring residential property. Although this was proposed as the sidewalk connection location between Olive and Shadj'wood when O'Sullivan had a plan in front of us last year, the current developer has not adequately provided for such a connection. The route defined on his plan brings pedestrians through the parking lot, and this needs significant aditional thought. One of the tradeoffs for vacation of Navarre Lane was provision by the developer of a connecting sidewalk link to allow residents of the e.xtensive neighborhoods to the east to access Navarre easily. Site Grading Generally. Staff acknowledges that this is an extremely difficult site to develop given the topography, shape, and existing storm pond location. These factors suggest the site needs a plan that is extremely sensitive to those factors. J.Building heig ht. The proposed building is one story in nature and approximately 29' in height from upper grade level to the peak, meeting the 30' maximum height requirement. However, the height is visually accentuated by the broad expanse of roof, and this should be modified if possible to provide a more attractive appearance. 4. Conformity with general performance standards. A.Fxterior storag e. Section 10.60, Subd. 13 requires that all mobile materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties. No outside storage is proposed for this project other than the trash enclosure, which staff suggests might be relocated to be less visually obtrusive. B.Traffic control: site circulation. Zoning code Section 10.60, Subd. 16 requires that traffic generated by any use be channelized and controlled in a manner that will avoid congestion on public streets, safety hazards, or excessive traffic through residential streets. Section 6.04, Subd. 10 (A) requires that only one business driveway be allowed per development unless a greater number of driveways are approved by the City or approved as part of the site plan review. The business driveway approach shall not exceed the width of the access road or 32' at the property line. Applicant proposes two access points onto Shadywood Road each being 32' in width. Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 7 Section 6.05, Subd. 10 (D) disallows any portion of a driveway approach from being within 100’ of a comer within a business district. The southerly approach for this site is approximately 120' from the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19. However, the City Engineer has indicated in his comments that the south access is close to the 15/19 signalized intersection and that he would recommend that only one access at a location further north of the intersection be provided. Mr. Case concurs with this analysis. However, if the City wishes to approve the tvvo access concept for this site, then the engineer suggests that the south access be restricted to only right turn in/right turn out movements. C. Planning Commission may recall that the City conditionally approved an access at the proposed south access location to ser\'e the Culvers site, which access has been temporarily constmcted. Limiting the south access to right in/right out would result in the Culvers site being slightly less accessible from Shadywood Road south bound traffic, which would have to either use County Road 19 entrance or use a more northerly entrance on the bank/retail site. Applicant should provide a rationale for the need for two access locations for this development. The City has generally acknowledged that a connection between this site and the Culvers site is not inappropriate given the intensity of use of the Culvers site and the apparent difficulty encountered there by not having a Shadywood Road access. A risk, of course, is that by moving to one entrance between tlie two that are proposed, more traffic heading the Culvers site will have to travel more of the parking areas adjacent to the bank. The general circulation pattern for this site, absent the Culvers connection, is counterclockwise with an expectation that most traffic using the bank drive through will come in from the south entrance, go around the building and come out the north entrance. Consequently, most drive through bank traffic would avoid driving through the main parking areas in front of the building. Traffic using the northerly parking area will generally have only minimal conflict with drive through traffic. This is not a one-way circulation pattern, however, and it would seem there will be some conflict between traffic using the drive-thru and that exiting Culvers. Staff recommends that the site access situation be reviewed by Hennepin County to determine the impacts on County Road 19. County approval will be required for the proposed access locations. Staff further recommends that consideration be given to the site layout regarding circulation; perhaps applicant should consult a traffic engineer. in an amount equivalent to 1 s.f. per Zoning File #2326 Januar>' 16, 1998 Page 8 E. F. front foot of frontage. Since the site has approximately 380’ of frontage, 38 > s.f. of signage would be allowed. The proposed facade signage would appear to use up approximately half of this allowance. Does Planning Commission have any concerns about the visual appeal of the curv ed facade sigange? No detail has been provided for the two entrance monuments and the pylon sign. Detail must be provided in order that those signs can be approved. Staff questions whether the entrance signage is overkill, given »he ver>’ visible fande signage proposed. Section 10.61, Subd. 1 provides general standards for signage. Subd. 3 provides standards for signage in the B Districts, noting that no individual sign shall exceed 50 s.f. in area. All signs are to be located no closer than 10' from any property line. The two entrance monuments and the pylon sign are proposed within 2' of the front lot line, and the City Engineer notes that those locations as proposed may impact visibility for traffic exiting the site. Staff would recommend that the entrance monuments be relocated to meet the required 1 O' setback, and detail of those signs provided prior to their approval, if they are determined to be appropriate. Lighting. A minimal detail lighting plan for the site is shown on the site plan, sheet A-1. Section 10.60, Subd. 8 requires that lighting be shielded to prevent the sources of light from being detectable at tlie lot line. Also, lighting shall be directed away from residential districts and public streets. A more detailed lighting plan should be provided by applicant. Parking standards. Section 10.61, Subds. 4-10 establish parking regulations. Applicant's site plan indicate a requirement of 1 space for 200 s.f. of net floor area for the office and bank uses, and 1 space for eacn 150 s.f. of net floor area of retail area, which meets code standards. However, the code also requires one stall for each 80 s.f. of public space for restaurants, hence the use of the building will dicate parking needs to a great extent. The net floor area reported by applicant is approximately 9,700 s.f. which would be reasonable for an 11,000 s.f. building. This results in a net parking requirement of 56 spaces, and applicant is proposing to provide 62 spaces including 3 handicapped. Therefore, the proposed number of parking stalls appears to meet code requirements if restaurant uses are not accounted for. No joint parking is defined in this plan. However, staff is aware that the owners of the Culvers property had intended to use parking on this site for oveiflow. Applicant should provide the City with additional detail as to any arrangements made with Culvers regarding use of parking areas. Such joint parking is regulated in Section 10.61, Subd. 6, and if intended, applicant should show that the proposed joint parking Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 9 spaces are within 30' of the uses they will serve, that there is no substantial conflict on the principal operating hours of the two or more uses sharing the joint parking, and if such joint parking is ultimately allowed, that a property legal instrument defining the City approval and conditions for such joint parking is created. Parking stalls are showTi on the site plan at the City's standard 9'x20' standard, and a 25' driving lane is proposed between rows of parking spaces. Again, the issue of a variance for having parking encroach on the front yard area is primarily a function of the topography of the site and the proposed uses. In order to maintain two rows of conforming parking spaces and an adequate driving aisle, approximately a 65' width is required. In staffs opinion, maintaining the 20' parking setback to Shady wood is critical for a number of reasons, including: - providing at least a 10' green strip for tree and landscape planting providing for future expansion of Shadywood Road (not planned, but • who can predict what the future holds...) maintaining the natural character that Orono envisions in its comprehensive planning, especially in relation to the B-5 district Maintaining the 20' front yard as a green space could be accomplished in a number of wavs, all of which have a major impact on the site plan: 1.Eliminate the row of parking spaces with the front yard. The site would then be severely short for parking. 2. Reduce the depth of the bui’ding by approximately 15' or 25%. This could V have significant impacts on ihe design of the building, for instance making it more linear in nature, i.e. longer in order to provide the same amount of .,>^^‘ftloor area. 3.Revise storm water ponding area to allow the improvements to the site to encroach another 15’ to the east. 4. Reduce the width of the rear drive, if such width is not strictly necessary to accomodate more than one lane of vehicles. Applicant and Planning Commission should discuss the viability of any of these or other possible options to increase the parking setback from the front lot line, in order to maintain some landscaped green space within the front yard area. Zoning File #2326 January 16, 1998 Page 10 G. H. I. Loading berths. No loading berm on the site plan, and presumably are no intended. Staff would note that retail uses, especially restaurant type uses, may involve daily deliveries, and such uses that are franchises might involve fairly large delivery vehicles. Applicant should define how deliveries will occur to the site, and for instance, if they use the rear entrance, applicant should demonstrate that there is sutTicient width in that rear alley way to accommodate drive through traffic as well as deliver}' traffic. ”Drive-in standards". Zoning Code Section 10.61. Subd. 19 discusses standards for "drive-in establishments". It is unclear whether the intent of this section is to regulate drive-in restaurants, or general drive through service uses. The requirements include construction of a screening fence along "the lot line", presumably finding that a drive-in use is not something one wants to look at. In the context of the proposed bank drive through, staff would assume that the canopy and drive thro”gh facilities will be commensurate in character with the building, and will not require any unusual fencing or screening. Landscape plan. The City's landscape consultant, Wally Case of DSU, Inc., has been requested to review the general layout of this site, including landscape plan. His written comments will be available late in the w eek of January 20. It should be noted that the site contains approximately 10-15 mature hardwoods at the north end of the site, all of which will apparently be removed as part of this development. Applicant should define whether there are any mature trees on the site that will be preserved. It would appear that the scattered nature of those trees will make preserv'ation difficult. Planning Commission should review the landscape plan and ultimately the comments by Mr. Case, and conclude whether any revisions are appropriate. While the landscape plan is fairly detailed. Case has suggested that much more landscaping is needed to not only replace the trees being lost but to help in providing a transition to the residential surroundings. Hardwood boulevard trees are proposed approximately every 50'; more are likely needed, and unless significant changes are made to the boulevard, the trees will be growing up from a sidewalk. The existing sidewalk along Shad>'\vood Road extends from the inte.^ection of 15 and 19 northward to the north boundary of this property'. The total proposed depth from Shady wood Road curb to parking lot curb is only 12', and if half that is taken up by sidew'alk, applicant must detail how’ boulevard landscaping will be established in the remainder. Staff recommends that a much more thorough landscape plan be presented. Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 11 Review of Variance Requests 1.Hardcover The northerly 1/3 of southerly 1/6 of the site are located within the 500-1,000 hardcover zone which allows 35% hardcover. The central portion of the property is not in a defined hardcover zone. In the northerly 1/3. hardcover is proposed at approximately 48%. On the southerly 1/6, hardcover is proposed at approximately 77%. These two areas combined yield approximately 55% hardcover where only 35% is allowed. The central portion of the property not located in hardcover zone would appear to be in the 70% hardcover range. It is interesting to note that neither of the two hardcover zones identified discharge to the water body which defines them, i.e. the northerly zone is defined by Crystal Bay and the southerly zone by Carmens Bay, but both zones actually drain to Lafayette Bay. Additionally all that drainage will first discharge to a retention pond, then flow through two distinct wetland basins before it reaches Lafayette Bay. Hardcover Issues for Consideration a. b. Absent further detail or hardship statement, will Planning Commission consider granting the magnitude of hardcover variances requested? Is there any hardship that justifies the variance? Is this the intensity of use envisioned in the B-5 district? Does the fact that all storm water will be treated in the storm water nond and flow through tw o w'etlands prior to reaching the lake, suggest ih j’ :‘^e eveessive hardcover has a limited impact? 2. Front fstreeO parking setback: The B-5 District requires a 20' front yard. Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B) defines that for B Districts parking is not allowed in a required yard. Although that code section discusses the B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 Districts but not the B-5 District, staff would argue that this is an error and that this standard was also intended to apply to the B-5 District. Applicant proposes parking along the front line within the 5' of that lot line where a 20' setback would be required. Applicant's request for this variance is to provide for all of the uses proposed for the site, i.e. accommodating the proposed building size and shape w hile providing functional parking lot and providing space for the storm water pond which serves both this site and the Culvers site adjacent. Parking Location Variance Issues for Consideration: a. Will Planning Commission recommend approval for a 15' variance to allow parking Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 12 within 5' of the street lot line as proposed? Are the site limitations compelling, do they provide the necessary hardships to support a variance? Can the site be reasonably developed without this encroachment? b.How wll this encroachment into the front yard limit the establishment of green space or the proposed boulevard trees? c.Does the proposed setback variance still yield a green space along the street that is acceptable and consistent with the City's vision for the Navarre area? 3.Parking setback to Olive Avenue. A 6' encroachment is proposed. Is there any hardship shown to suggest this should not be revised to maintain the 20’ yard requirement? Staff Recommendation The site plan is somewhat complete and in most instances meets City code requirements. However, a significant number of concerns are raisd by staff as to the intensity of development of the site, the visual character of the building, and how it is relating to its residential surroundings. Additional detail is necessary on certain items. Staff recommends that Planning Commission address the following issues in reviewing this commercial site plan: 1 Granting of variances for parking encroaching the front and rear yard. 2. Granting of variances for hardcover. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Providing additional information required by City Engineer. Addressing issues defined by the City's landscape consultant. Location and nature of pedestrian connection between and Olive and Shadywood, Providing additional detail and relocation of entrance signage. Potential relocation of site entrances, or limitation to one entrance. 8. Determine whether identified impacts on adjacent residential neighborhood are suitably mitigated. 9.Other issues note in this memo. Zoning File #2326 January 16,1998 Page 13 Options for Action 1.Recommend approval with specific conditions and/or submittals to be completed by applicant before Council review. Make specific recommendations on the variance requests. 2.Table for additional information (specify), or direct applicant to bring back revisions/details requested. 3.Recommend denial. 4.Other. X.\APPS\\VPWIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE\MIKE\2326-2.MEM i7 y S!.V '>X*. « / i vc- -J * * v.> •. / •• » tml'' Application tf 232.4? Date Received /2. - zz,-*? *7 AiDOUDt P2id Cjf^iTH si'n PtAA3^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICAIPION Initial Application Fee $220.00 . ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address .^hAHym-icx^ Roat^. Navarre/ Mn. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)See Attached___________________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 1997 by current owner.- see attached (month/vear') I }(ctQ()((do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ___presidential X__^other (specify) Commercial Use_____ Zoning District: b-5_________________ S i m Ci. cn APPLICANT Name Orono Development/LLC Address5000 Glenwood Ave. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name See Attached Address: Phone (home) 377-7090 _____ Phone (work) 377-7090 City:Minneapolia/ Mn. zip: 55422 Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estiniated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: See Attached Zip:. (attach additioMl sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width ^ Setback: ^ Front Side X Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: See Attached_________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS O ^ tv fl U ’ , . * ' . ■. ' ■'. X r * • » # .*'••• .».* AH of the folloiving information must be submitted bv the ^application deadline date .lq order for vour applicitioa to t>e considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed AppUcation'^Form Certified Property 0'»4iers List of ov-ners within ISO’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade axe proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x U" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/j" 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 appUcant(s) if not current owncr(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this ^plication. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yoUC 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 inwyed in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied isbest of his/her knowledge. Date 12^1 l^h7 „ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and ftirthcr authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and CotuWn members for purpose^f invcstigati<^ and verification of this request. Applicant's Signature DaleOwner's Signature .... , , _____________ ^ ' fi-K. 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 roust be present at all scheduled review meetings of the PlaoninS Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, plc^c make aTangcmenis to have an authorized agent ar.end in your place and to ad\nsc the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 JX ?3^.>- .; ..J \ ft*;a; A.ppllcatlon if /^'> Date Received f2^-2p_~9'7 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2380 Shadvwood Road y_.ilavarxe^-Jiru------- S03 Jd—a. 5 applicant Name Ocono Peveloptnent / LLC AHdrftSS 5000 Glf>nWOO^ —' Phone (home) 377-7090 Phone CworicI 377-7090 8225 City I^i‘ nnPApnl is--------- ^tP-S5422- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name See Attached---------- Address____________________ Phone (home)_ __Phone (work)_ City __Zip _______ Date Property Acquired Smirh Company 199-3------- IJ(8iO (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of Ian . FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ■ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Gucst Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/lndustrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration -------- Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling • 101 cu. yd. or rnorc Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakcshorc TrD/PID • see Fee Schedule • x -------- $150 00 Renewal Fee (no change from onglnal application) Afler-lhc-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (monlh/yoar) "S2500o“=.clo. S„c Plan Review consuUan. $300 00 Vacation $200 00 Easement Vacation $100 00 Easement Vocation With Subdivision '~T $350 00 RcroninglPUD refer to fee schedule) • 7,5^/ $350 00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ■■ $100 00 Appeals Other • sec Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Preflcnt Zoning Distfiel D-5 . Present Ike of Pfofxriv Resident,«I .\Othre (speMfvl vacant Cluifcti 2. o o o f*‘ required submittals 1. Completed Application Form. Describe reoucst in detail. C«nifie<J Property Owners Usl of owners within 350’. labels and plat map (you ------ must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finanee A.603, Government Center, 34S-3271). ____CeTne;,. of Slavey (sign«i by a licensed siuveyor) - refer to handout for survey AmSi legal description to application if not included on required si^cy, -----: Tr^papWe suivey (existing «id proposed contours) if land alterations involve chunscs in delation (grades). Iw of the legsl names (include marital status) of tUl persons with an tnterest tn the oroperty This would include name(s) of applicantCs) if not current owner(s). ConstrucUon pt«i. if applicable (see suiff for requiremcnls). ------- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persona you wish notified of this application. KmT t S (S»I -II 'll" » '"•'"V •' ■“ “ submitted.) The Applicant and Propetty Owner must sign this npplica.ion. ap^plt«rion is not complete if the above infomiation has not been included. Certification by Clerical Depsrtmcnt that Land Use Application is complete. ______ Initials of Clerical Slaff.^^---- -----------—■—- ■ ^ " * information supplied is trurfakd conep.'Ul tbO.”' =f 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Applicant’s signature Date Tom Dillon. Orono Development. LLC *.-»->I-;*1. A.7and Council luembcrs^r parpo.sc'i.-ivcs ObVTier’s ^ignalure _4-^ Dote IT. 1 * * — aaaaw * f ^ Ted Christianson, Adam Smith Company Mectifs; Appluoat must have .11 submittaU into the ^7 e'T-lTLnlAppU^r be preserr. - Commission Mee.ioe. .m hei oa u ..naWe m •n""* ’ •II lehodilled review efeol elleml In yum pinee am! advise >• .......................7) j'W i*-V '^\\j 2380 SHADYWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS NAMES Adam Smith Company 700 Cedar Street, #121 Alexandria, Mn. 56308 Attn: Ted Christianson Phone # (320)763-3886 North Central Conservative Baptist Association Address Unknown jU- V .V i: 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD j y 1- •# LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID#: Lots 19,20,21, and 22, Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka; and that part of Lot 5, Block 3, Townsite of Langdon Park, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 5; thence Northwesterly along the Northerly line of said Lot 5 to the Northeasterly line of the public highway running across said Lot 5 and known as Minnetonka Lake Park and Maple Plain Road (now County Road No. 19); thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said road to the Easterly line of Lot 5; thence Northerly along the Easterly line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. Hennepin County Abstract and Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 7764609 PIDU:17-117-23-44-0077 17-117-23-44-0078 17-117-23-44-0007 17-117-23-44-0006 7;/ / \ ............1775.'\ /^' \ <J^\2Yiy^,rh T-*-^- ^ 41 /> . y 7,0/ /4B ,>'■ (7)(6.1 (S)*:-'^' »V- »t* r(i9)UC2 \'"\4B^ >,A.\ (?)H v^s * 5* 7*w*» (65) (6^: 51^ 5C I So.50^7 5^4 — (f'3)(62)/ ' 1' « --: 50 5C ?o SI 6 «? _>. /^A/ -yr'.O! ?/' I 76) (77) (78) 50 ' 1 ,v\'A ■-v^mmmm /W 51 ' I lOP) X#r -------------*_____________ \ / 1*5.07 V 7- ■< 15 •!> - *---------reo. fz\~ '~~~ ^c:c vc Mi47;a^ v» -dj. \ 'H.?i _s_r:o-»iE_ «j.07_ _ _ ^ 1^ _5^-0^^-Rre?r6' C 0/-'(.i.i.«./ 1 (2) 1/ (v-i I/"<>' V . :^'v\ \' O'Ji-.nT * )» ® (55) ya» ft nSc-L. mVA7^K'£’ \:7V «*: A , 773.4?f^r*25*»5*f 1 X rj *' 4>"^\i#*" xf-'' V\ ^^•'\ % 0--'(iDyi-'tv*' 'Ox \\ Vr/^ *> •fe.\X afTiS >1 \(32) 0 RUN DATE 12/03/97 BATCH 505 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OliNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^3540I PAGE 12 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 17-117-23 43 0002 02296 SHADYWOOO RD SCOTT W GARDNER SCOTT N GARDNER 2296 SHADYWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0023 03414 LIVINGSTON AVE ROSEMARY P BURMASTER ROSEMARY P BURMASTER 3414 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0062 03433 LIVINGSTON AVE JEFFREY A KLEMAN JEFFREY ALLEN KLEMAN 244 BROADWAY AVE N WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 17-117-23 43 0078 03422 LVfJlC AV2 DANIEL E SflANSON DANIEL E SWANSON 3422 LYRIC AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0081 03408 LYRIC AVE * HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 43 0099 03400 SHORELINE DR DALE S JOHNSON NAVARRE HARDWARE C/O DALE JOHNSON 3400 SHORELINE DR PO BOX 40 N/^VARRE MN 55392 38 17-117-23 44 0006 02380 SHADYWOOO RD GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE ADAM SMITH COMPANY 700 CEDAR ST 8121 PO BOX 965 ALEXANDRIA MN 56308 38 17-117-23 43 0079 03408 LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 43 0082 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO TOWN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 43 0154 03405 LIVINGSTON AVE SHERYL A PATTEN SHERYL A PATTEN 3405 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0007 02364 SHADYWOOO RD GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/TUVARRE ADAM SMITH COMPANY 700 CEDAR ST tl21 PO BOX 965 ALEXANDRIA MN 56308 38 17-117-23 43 0080 03408 LYRIC AVE HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY 55323 38 17-117-23 43 0083 00038 ADDRESS U4ASSIGNE0 HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 44 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TOWN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 44 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 44 0009 02377 SHADYWOOO RD MARCEL S DITTRICH MARCEL DITTRICH 2377 SHADYWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0015 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 44 0025 02205 BAYVIEW PL CLEMENT F BIRCH JR ET AL CLEMENT F BIRCH JR AND BARBARA J SIPPRELL-BIRCH 2205 BAYVIEW PL WAYZATA MN 55391 RUN OATF 12/03/97 BATCH 505 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAML/ADDR PROP AODP OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 36 17-117-25 0026 02215 BAYVIEH PL RAJ HAZARD ROBERT RAYMOND HAZARD 2215 BAYVIEH PL HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 A4 0029 02253 BAYVIEH PL 6 M LEHIN ACM OLSON-KOSKA GREG LEHIN/CAROL OLSON-KOSKA 2253 BAYVIEH PL HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 4A 0052 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEH PLACE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 AA 0060 0332A NAVARRE LA BRETT HALLONQUIST BRETT K HALLONQUIST 332A NAVARRE LA HAYATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 AA OOCT 02326 OLIVE AVE J T JACOBSON ALB J T JACOBSON A L D 2326 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 JACOBSON JACOBSON 38 17-117-23 AA 0068 02306 OLIVr AVE H S MATUSKA A K M MATUSKA H S MATUSKA A K M MATUSKA 2306 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 a A7-117-23 AA 0027 02225 BAYVIEH PL TERESA ANNE KOCH TERESA KOCH 2225 BAYVIEH PLACE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 AA 0030 02265 BAYVIEH PL DAVID H DEAN A DlANE M DEAN DAVID H A DIANE M DEAN 2265 BAYVIEH PLACE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 AA 0033 02305 BAYVIEH PL R M STELLING ETAL GENE H BLOCK 2305 BAYVIEH PLACE HAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 AA 0063 023AA OLIVE AVE JAMES S HEITZ JAMES S HEITZ 25AA OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 AA 0066 02318 OLIVE AVE PATRICK H SULLIVAN PATRICK H SULLIVAN 2318 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 AA 0069 02300 OLIVE AVE MARGARET A HOOD MARGARCT A HOOD 2300 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE 13 38 17-117-23 AA 0028 022A5 BAYVIEH PL GINA I SUMMERS GINA I SUMMERS 22A5 BAYVIEH PL HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 AA 0031 02275 BAYVIEH PL JAMES R ANDERSON JAMES R ANDERSON 2275 BAYVIEH PLACE HAYZATA MN 53391 to 38 17-117-23 AA 0059 03320 NAVARRE LA PAUL J PASCUZZI PAUL J PASCUZZI 3320 NAVARK LA HAYZATA MN 55391 li' '■ V;) XJ '-'J 38 17-117-23 AA 006A 02336 OLIVE AVE B A JAKUBIAK S L M JAKtAIAK BRIAN A JAKUBIAK 2338 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 AA 0067 0231A OLIVE AVE LOUISE B DAY LOUISE B DAY 231A OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 AA 0073 02314 SHAOYMOOO RD S R 1 K MORKRID STEVEN R A KAREN MORKRID 231A SHADYHOOO RD HAYZATA FW 55591 RUN DATE 12/03/97 BATCH 505 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 17-117-23 44 0074 02324 SHADYWOOD RO RICHARD JOSEPH HAEFNER RICHARD JOSEPH HAEFNER 2324 SHADYWOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0077 03326 NAVARRE LA GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE ADAM SMITH COMPANY 700 CEDAR ST 8121 PO BOX 965 ALEXANDRIA MN 56308 38 17-117-23 44 0080 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIC^EO TOWN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 44 0094 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LAFAYETTE RIDGE HOMEOWNERS LAFAYETTE RIDGE HOMEOWNERS P 0 BOX 41 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55361 38 17-117-23 44 0101 03360 SHORELINE DR L 8 C KOEHNEN LEROY KOEHNEN 3360 SHORELINE DR WAY2ATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0107 02304 SHADYWOOD RD CRAIG ALLEN BORCHARDT CRAIG ALLEN BORCHARDT 2304 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0075 02336 SHADYWOOD RD J ft B ERICSON JOHN C ft BARBARA E ERICSON 1620 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0078 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH/NAVARRE ADAM SMITH COMPANY 700 CEDAR ST 8121 PO BOX 965 ALEXANDRIA HI 56308 38 17-117-23 44 0084 02350 OLIVE AVE GARY L WILL GARY L WILL 2350 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 < f 0099 00038 ADDRESS U4ASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 17-117-23 44 0102 02385 SHADYWOOD RD S H SCHMIDT ft S J SCHMIDT STEPHEN H SCHMIDT 2385 SHADYWOOD RO BOX 15 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 11 0002 02^20 SHADYWOOD RD Va^AGEUR SERVICE CENTERS VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS CO RD 15 ft 19 NAVARRE MN 55392 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 14 38 17-117-23 44 0076 02336 SHADYWOOD RD JOHN C ft BARBARA E ERICSON JOHN ft BARBARA ERICSON 1620 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0079 02341 SHADYWOOD RD LOUISE A GANGELHOFF LOUISE A GANGELHOFF 2341 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 44 0085 03340 SHORELINE DR VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC P 0 BOX 65 NAVARRE MN 55392 38 17-117-23 44 0100 03382 SHORELINE DR GLASS II PARTNERS DONALD MCCARVILLE 3382 WARNER LA MOUND MN 55364 38 17-117-23 44 0106 02308 SHADYWOOD RO PHYLLIS HENDERSON PHYLLIS HENDERSON 2308 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 11 0024 03333 StlUilfLINE DR MGT COMPA44Y SUPER VALU STORES INC CORPOlUVTE TAX DEPT PO BOX 990 MPLS MN 55440 L HUN DATE ie/03/97 BATCH 505 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 15 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 505 00059 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 f - I'- '-i ?V, --"•v /r?-' I"Vi City of Orono - General Land Use Application ^ ^ " 2380 Shadywood Road, Navarre, Minnesota Applicant: Orono Development, LLC Owner: Adam Smith Company and North Central Conservative Baptist Association Description of Variance Application: The enclosed comprises the application for a variance request for the proposed commercial development at 2380 Shadywood Road in Navarre, Minnesota. The proposed development site is zoned B-5 and the site currently contains the vacant baptist church located near the intersection on County Roads #19 and #15. The adjacent commercial property is occupied by a commercial use, O'Sullivan's convenience store and Culver's restaurant. The other nearby uses include a Super Valu grocery' store, an Amoco ser\dce station and single family residential homes. P- The variances requested include the following: 1) Allov ed uses in B-5 2) Hardcover ordinance 3) Front yard setback 1) The B-5 zoning district in the City of Oiono has specific permitted uses. Although the proposed bank use is allowed in the B-5, there are several uses which are specifically not described in the ordinance which could be considered as tenants for this proposed development. These include coffee, bagel and pizza retail stores. The current zoning allows several similar retail uses under a conditional use in the B-5, such as, "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store,". This variance application requests the approval of these proposed uses under a conditional use permit. 2) The City of Orono has an ordinance which provides for allowed percentage of coverage of hardcover within a specified distance from lakeshore. The property at 2380 Shadywood Road falls within two separate shoreline districts, zone one to the northeast and zone two to the southwest. In both these areas the proposed development does not meet the specified maximum thirty five percent hardcover for properties within 500 to 1,000 feet of lakeshore. The inability to meet this ordinance is based on unique property characteristics. The proposed development site contains an existing storm water ponding area on the back of the site which was built to accommodate the O'Sullivan's/Culver's property. The existence of this ponding area severely restricts the design flexibility needed to meet the hardcover requirements. The advantage the ponding does provide, is that it allows the proposed development the ability to manage its storm water within the ponding area, protecting the wetland and area lakes from direct property run-off. The proposed developed site also contains severe site grades. These site grades will require that an area of the site be filled and a retaining wall built to provide a level building site. These grades and required retaining wall further limit the flexibility of design to meet hardcover requirements. The combination of these unique site conditions limit the flexibility needed to n C'% o Y .3 j meet he hardcover requirements. The variance request appears to be consistent with existing condi' ions of the surrounding properties. 3) The City of Orono requires a twenty foot setback for parking areas in a front yard. The front ; 'ard of the proposed development is along Shadywood Road and is proposed to have a five foot S’ itback. The five foot setback would include a sidewalk for pedestrian traffic along Shad} wood Road in front of the development. The front yard setback on this proposed devel; pment is physically limited because of the existing ponding area on the east side (rear) of the si: 5. The location of this pond and the required depths of the proposed building, including drive md parking areas severely restrict the ability to provide a twenty foot setback as required by the City ordinance. Due to the location of the existing ponding area, a front yard setback of twent ■ feet would impact the ability of the proposed development to manage the storm water from I tiis site in a potentially decreased ponding area. In summary, our review of the proposed variance requests should result in a very favoHi ble development for the 2380 Shadywood Road location. The requests for allowed uses under conditional use permit, the hardcover requirement variance and front yard, setback variance do i, ji appear to be inconsistent with neighboring and existing properties within the B-5 districts. The p oposed variances are an attempt to comply with the existing conditions, ordinances and meet ae intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plans are a reflection of the specii I site conditions which are an effort to strike a balance between proposed land use plans, the la V and the City's Comprehensive Plan. file:c nodesc2 City of Orono - General Land Use Application 2380 Shadvwood Road, Navarre, Minnesota Applicant: Owner: Orono Development, LLC Adam Smith Company and North Central Conservative Baptist Association ii Description of General Land Use Application: The enclosed comprises the application for a commercial site plan review for 2380 Shadywood Road. The proposed development site is zoned B-5. The site currently contains the vacant baptist church located near the intersection of County Roads #19 and #15. The adjacent commercial property is occupied by a commercial use, O'Sullivan's convenience store and Culver's restaurant. Some of the other nearby uses include a Super Valu grocery store, an Amoco service station and single family residential homes. The proposed improvements at 2380 Shadywood Road would remove the vacant church building and provide a site for a one story 11,000 square foot retail/service center building. The building would be constructed as slab on grade with a pitched roof and a combination brick and cedar sided e.xterior. The proposed e.xterior materials are anticipated to provide a reasonable transition between the neighboring single family and commercial uses. The development of the building would include surface on-site parking, site lighting and appropriate landscaping for a development in the City of Orono. The anticipated tenants for the development include a bank. The bank would require a drive up facility to provide for customer banking transactions which is an allowed use in B-5. The proposed design and location of the drive up facility is located away from the adjacent single family residential homes and would be operated on a compatible basis with the surrounding neighborhood. The neighboring Culver's restaurant, also located in a B-5 district, also has a drive up service window. The submitted plans de»ai! that the proposed development will be ponding any storm water in the on site pond area that was developed with the O'Sullivan's/Culver's development. In addition, the site plan provides for a paved trail/walkway across the property on the north east side of the proposed building. This paved trail/walkway is intended to provide pedestrian access from the Olive .Avenue neighborhood up to Shadywood Road. The fill! application to the City of Orono also includes an application for a variance under the B-5 zoning district. The variance request includes several items, including a variance for allowed usej' in the B-5 district, a variance for front yard setback and a variance for this property with regard lo the hardcover ordinance. A separate variance application is enclosed for these three requests. It is expected the demolition of the existing church would occur in March, construction and site work would begin in April and completion scheduled for September 1998. r # At:.; o .A-: T>n Based on the initial review of the plans with City staff and the submitted plans for the development, we believe the request tor approval of the commercial site plan review is reasonable and look forward to the upcoming public hearing with the Orono Planning Commission. file:omodesc 4 • i ORONO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. 5000 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 225 RECtiVcD Minneapolis, MN 55422-5146 . ,qqq 612-377-7090 ® - ■ ciTYoronorjo January 15, 1998 Mr. Mike Gafron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Mn. 55356 Re:2385 Shady woe Road Orono Development, LLC Dear Mike: Please be aware that we sent seven notices out to the surrounding property owners of 2380 Shadywood Road. The mailings included site and elevation plans as well as a general description of the proposed development. Two of the seven mailings were returned because the land owners were no longer at the addresses supplied by Hennepin County. We called each property owner and heard several comments. The comments included, Navarre needs a restaurant to have breakfast at, will the stormwater pond be improved upon along Olive Avenue and no questions regarding the plans for the proposed development. Of the five who received the mailing, only one has not returned our calls. Please contact me with any questions regarding the above. We look forward to the public hearing on January 20, 1998 with the Planning Commission. Thank you. r ORONO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C 5000 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 225 Minneapolis, MN 55422-5146 612-377-7090 December 31, 1997 SH Schmidt & SJ Schmidt Stephen H. Schmidt 2385 Shadywood Road Box #15 Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Re: 2380 Shadywood Road Navarre, Mn. Dear Stephen Schmidt: Orono Development, LLC, is a development company who has recently submitted a site and building plan to the City of Orono for a proposed building at the above captioned address in Navarre. The City of Orono requires that in connection with that site and building plan application, that we contact the surrounding property owners and make them aware of our plans for the site. Therefore, enclosed is a site plan and building elevation of the proposed building at the 2380 address. The City of Orono requests that you sign the enclosed Acknowledgment form and return a copy of the form to their offices in the enclosed envelope. We plan to contact you by telephone during the week of January 5, 1998 to answer any questions that you may have regarding the enclosed information. You may also contact me at 377-7090 with any inquiries. Thank you your assistance. * Thomas Dillon Projf'ct Manager Hnclosure 1 Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Fonn I (wc) d^SijuLu/AtJ of 33HO ShoReL.[,Je t>r5. [print namc(s)[print address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located 23 80 Shadywood Road alsp referred to as Land Use Application No ^2326 I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval Date Property Owner Date received JAM 0 9 1998 CITY Ut- OROiMO If you have nn> infonnaiion that ma> assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please sv.bnut your comnicnls lo the nuildiiig 7orang i.)niv:c at Ic.isl lO days prioi to the scheduled meeting date _____________________________________________ Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form (print namc(s)I ^aa^X(print address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 23 80 Shadywood Roat^isp referred to as '.and Use Application No #2326 I (we) understand that in executing this aclcnowlcdgcmcnt, I (we) am (axe) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) av ..c of the Lniprovemcnt plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Coi^il approval. Propc^ Property Owner Date J -^'9 2!^ Date oet*'"-' If you have any infonnation tliat may assist the City in the rc*i^w of this L«‘nd Use Application, please submit ycu comments to the Building &. r.omng OfTicc at least lO days prior to the scheduled meeting dale 1 r Adjaceot Property Owncrj' Acknowledgement Form I (wc) _____-J (P iftj 0 ^Sij i^L\ \/A tJ of _____33H0 [pruit namc(s)[prim address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improveraerU or proposed use of the property located 2380 Shadywood Roa c^jsQ referred to as Land Use Application No ^2326 I (wc) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Adjaceot Property Owncri’ Acknowledgement Form I (wc) [print namc(s))[prim address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 2380 Shadywood Road aisp referred to as Land Use Application No #2326 I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (wc) am (axe) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (wc) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval Date Property Owner Dale RECEiV:=D JAN 1 6 1998 CITY OF OaON'O If you have any infonnaiion that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building Jc F.omng Ofluc at le.ist 10 days prim to the scheduled meeting date a: s .0. (/) Zo o q:ou. O 5 ooo O O >-u >cr D CO Z O r LJ q: < > < z < < _j u.O o CO UJ 5•s I I UJ h“ Z oz I— U} X UJ u. ^ (O O H “ P(u >- q:uo og (N < O $y ou. Zo o :e < (Oz 2 5 •- o . o K) o •J<o Ul o ui o z !i jjii! ||vs\II inji III (O h”o CD Ul . X m 3i Si z -J oz < i’ . /% zo a: < Q. y Q ^ ci; O < I— ^£ o g Zo Q Oz < u_o o (/) UJ s *o I I IS *'i I * 11• O 111 Hill 5 Qi . 5: CO Ljz - o ^ (7) O (/) (/)>- o E I 3(J OUJ I! ii PitIS Sill*mu i i ii f llllllllI mim .a >s %UU-i CM Z CN 82 oo. Z Q. LiJ Z Z UJ 1 til w in 8a-s|«H |1 if I*Hi I i ‘d II iii * 11 111 1 illPllP It! II 11 3^ ui <|S 2 i iilii |ii 3 Ills illII! 9 »- -j o Qz m.4 • .V .. ir, 3|>A . ['i^ i 'S II oz i Jilj |i|! nhk bhb ihb ©0 0 1 h pji^l c » I li flfll ii 9 •I i SUISI8 I li I* 8 i U li I tCC 6CCCnsn »’'s’' !s I f! f!ihS Ibbs \mi i 8 Ml iIII! i ii |55 ?5gee O 5 Q hJ PQ O til Q. O-J UJ z ^9IP^ o Xo o 2^ 88 O ui 90 nO Oz Q <O X z Dou Q < O X Q O OIo < X U) z 3 CL UJt (0 © Ovn t- < z 2L O ■2 \ r>-! . ¥'• Zo i UJ I-Zoccu. O UJ (/) O 0. Occ 0. 0 O <4 4 ", ‘ r e t I 'V- <s.- !i s I |! Ill i ! ‘If ^J \! ! i I - ‘ , Ij i !1 ?.« :» *f J«h ; ;j : 5,’ ! !1 ! P lUa. r- •' »■’ I * . r-i. * ^ ■ •*•. y; '■»iy i 1 § 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to am^ rear lot line, 15 fee^to any side lot line, 35 feet to any sj4e lot line adjacent to street; except when abutting or across tl^ street from an ”R" District\ no building shall be less than 35yleet from such lot line. Fencing. Wherever a y"B-4" Office and Professional Busings District abuts an ”R" District along the side or rear lot line, aXfence or compact everg/sen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less\than six feet in he/ight (no less than three feet nor higher than four feet adjacent/co street) shall be erected along the abutting lin^ except withiir the required front yard. G. Buildfcg Desi 10.40, Subdivision 6, Sub^^agr and Construction. See Section G. H. Drainage. )^o land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that r>^u\ts in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on/adjaceiit properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Counpal and those'- plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer befoz^ submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a^atural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other publicyracilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliancewith the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consiste/(c with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in iction 10.75. SBC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the "B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) § 10.44 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commissic^ for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Municipal buildings. B. Offices. C. Clinics. D. Art and school supply store. E. Book and magazine store. F. Office supply store. H estate office. Dj G. Banks, loan company, insurance company, real H. Barbership, beauty shop. I. Camera and photograph supply store. J. Locksmith. K. Hobby shop. L. Gift store. M. Glassware and pottery. N. Antique store. O. Jewelry store. P. Watch repair. Q. Library. R. Museum. S. Record shop. T. Music store. U. Tobacco shop. V. Galleries. W. Pet shop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A. Within any "B-5” Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. Drycleaning store. 3. Tailor shop. 4. Pressing and shoe shine shop. 5. Laundry and cleaning pick*>up stations. -6^—Hume' and gauden equiproeryfe rental..- 7. Veterinary clinic. 8. Kennels. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84)m r 1 1 I I I I 1 I j I 1 j 1 § 10.44 B. Off-Street Parking, Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "I” District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "B” or "I” District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61^ Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period of not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. square feet. feet. feet. A.Area.The B.Lot Width. C.Front Yards. D.Rear Yards. yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E, Setback Requirements, No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R” District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) r S 10.44 _ . r.- ^ Fencing. Wherever a "B-5” Limited Neighborhood Business District abuts an "R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. ^ ^ Building Design and Construction. In addition of this Chapter^ the use^ construction. ji 1 building or structure within thedistrict shall meet the following standards: ^ ^ 1* All exterior wall finishes on any buildingshall be: (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or. Specially designed precase concrete units If the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or, _ , , (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, or glass. « . . . Other materials as may be approved bythe Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming the original architectural design and general appearance. 3* No building or structure of a temporary basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. L I Tf Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 350 (4-1-84) I. 2-1/2 stories or Section 10.75. S 10.44 Height. No structure or building shall exceed thirty feet in height except as provided in ir 1 I J 1 Source: Ordinance No. 188 Effective Date: 11-22-76 (Sections 10.45 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) i I I 1 3 \ 1 I I I ORONO CC 351 Ce city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 S 0 A RESOLUTION AGREEING TO THE FUTURE VACATION OF AN UNUSED PORTION OF NAVARRE LANE IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 117 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST IN THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 2197 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 1996, John O'Sullivan (hereinafter the "applicant") in conjunction with North Central Conser\'ative Baptist Association filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Beginning at the most easterly comer of Lot 21, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka"; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 21 extended to a point 33.0 feet northwesterly from the northwesterly line of Outlot C, "Lafayette Ridge", as measured perpendicularly from said northwesterly line; thence southwesterly parallel to the northwesterly line of said Outlot C to the most northerly comer of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1433; thence southwesterly to a point on the northwesterly line of said Tract A, 253.03 feet southwesterly of the most northerly comer of said Tract A; thence North 31 degrees 52 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 43.82 feet more or less to a point on the southeasterly line of Lot 5, Block 3, "Townsite of Langdon Park"; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 5, Block 3 to the most easterly comer of said Lot 5, Block 3; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line of Lot 22, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka" to the most southerly point of said Lot 22; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly lines of Lots 22 and 21, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka" to the point of beginning; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held before the Orono Planning Commission on November 18, 1996, regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and Page 1 of 3 GITYof ORONO 'm CSHO RESOLUTION OETHE_CITY COUNCIL NO. .O \j WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Conunission recommended conditional approval of the requested vacation; and the City Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation, as proposed and with suitable conditions, is in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings: 1. The vacation will not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. 2.The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right-of-way as a road except for utilities, drainage and access purposes hereinafter described. 3. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it currently exists serves no public purposes w'hich cannot be satisfied via the use of easements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of John O’Sullivan and North Central Conservative Baptist Association is conditionally approved and that the City hereby agrees to take formal action to vacate said portion of Navarre Lane subject to the following conditions: 1.The City will formally vacate Navarre Lane at the time development of the adjacent 2380 Shad)ovood Road site is commenced by the applicant. 2.This agreement to complete the vacation shall be more formalized in the form of a Developer ’s Agreement. 3.In conjunction with applicant's development of the property located at 2380 Shadywood Road, applicant agrees to construct a sidewalk/bike path near the northwest boundary of the property, linking Olive Avenue and Shadywood Road, the design of such sidewall^ike path subject to review by the City Engineer and approval by the City Council. 4.Applicant shall grant utilities, access and drainage easements over the portion of Navarre Lane to be vacated. Page 2 of 3 'i __J CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ----3 g g 0------ 5.Applicant shall grant to the City a 10' easement for future trail purposes along the northeasterly boundary of the 2380 Shady wood Road property adjacent to Olive Avenue. 6.Applicant shall grant to the City a 10' wide trail easement centered on the centerline of the sidewalk/bike path to be located near the northwesterly boundary of the 2380 Shadywood Road property. 7.Although the City is being granted trail easements over the pedestrian and bike pathway, that path within applicant's property boundaries shall be maintained by the property owner, not by the City. It is the City's intent that ail upkeep, maintenance and snow removal activity will be the responsibility of the property owner, not of the City. 8.Applicant shall legally combine the vacated portions of right-of-way with the adjacent 2380 Shadywood Road property. 9.Applicant shall be responsible for executing the appropriate drainage, utility, access and pedestrian/bike trail easements as noted above. Such easements shall be filed at Ae time the vacation resolution is filed by the City Attorney ’s Office. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held January 13, 1997. Gabriel"^bbour, Mayor\ Page 3 of 3 . t ^ ‘-J I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects January 12,1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Orono Development, L.L.C. File No. 139-2327 Bonestroo. Rosene. AnderUk ^nd Aisoci,^tes. !nc is Affirm.itive Action/Bqual Opportunity Emptoyer Principals Olio G. Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. P£ • Marvin L. Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE. • Robert G Schunichi. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W. Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberiin, C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Howard A San'ord. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE. • Richard W Poster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A I.A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE Michael T Rautnr.«nn. PE • Ted K Field. PE. • Kenneth P Anderson. PE. • Mark R. Rolfs. PE. • Sidney P. Williamson, PE. L.S. • Robert f Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. W'lfmar and St Cloud VN • Milwaukee. Wl Dear Mike, We have reviewed the site plan for the proposed commercial development located on the east side of Shadywood Road (CSAH 19), north of Navarre Lane and Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15) in Navarre. The development includes a full service bank with drive-up auto tellers and a single story retail office complex. There are several engineering issues that will need to be addressed as part of the plan review process. 1. Traffic: The site plan shows two accesses onto Shadywood Road. The south access is very close to the signalized intersection. This access will create problems with traffic on the county roads and we would recommend that the site be served with only one access at a location further north of the intersection. As a minimum we would suggest that the south access be restricted to only right-turn in/right-tum out movements. Left turn movements should only be made at the north access. Hennepin County traffic engineers should review the site plan to determine the traffic impacts on CSAH 19. Their review should include the proposed access locutions, work within the existing right-of-way, and whether or not additional right-of-way is needed in this vicinity. The proposed signing along CSAH 19 may create sight restrictions for traffic leaving the site. Details should be provided for pylon signs and entrance monuments. 2. Grading: It appears that the design grades at the northerly access and in several areas within the parking lot meet or exceed 5 percent which may create problems. We would recommend that access and parking lot ides not exceed 4 percent. Slopes along the north and west sides of the site are shown as steep as 1.5 .. Maintenance may be difficult if slopes are steeper than 3:1. Fiber blanket or comparable erosion control material should be used until vegetation is established. The proposed retaining wall is over 10 feet tall in some locations. Retaining wall design and details should be provided for review. Fencing will likely be required above the wall for safety purposes. 3. Drainage: The NURP pond expansion should provide a 10:1 bench at the NWL around the entire pond to promote the establishment of aquatic vegetation. The 12 inch storm sewer at 13.8 percent grade outletting to the pond create an erosion problem. We recommend less grade on the pipe so that velocities do not exceed 12 feet per second or the installation of a surge basin. Storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided for our review. The plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and approval. 4. Utilities: The existing sanitary sewer and water main to ser\e this property are located within the right- of-way for Navarre Lane. Plans and specifications should be prepared for the service line connections, with as-built plans provided to the City upon completion. 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636*4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 5. Easements: Utility easements will need to be provided for the existing sanitary sewer, gas main and any other existing utilities located in the abandoned portion of Navarre Lane. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along the perimeter lot lines and 10 feet wide along the County road right- of-way. Drainage easements should be provided across existing and expanded ponding areas. 7. Trail: The proposed sidewalk/bike trail is shown across the parking lot. This location may not be appropriate. We would recommend a trail alignment that follows the westerly and southerly perimeter of the site. 8. Financial Guarantee: We have estimated the total cost for site improvements at $169,100. The cost estimate is attached for your review. A financial guarantee for 150 percent of this amount or $253,650 should be provided to the City. Please contact me at 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 r CITY OF ORONO ORONO DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. COMMERCIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAT FILE NO. 2327 SITE IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE . f ITEM UNIT EST. QUANTITY UNIT PRICE Mobilization Site grading Pond excavation Stp'^ilization fabric Aggregate base, Cl. 5,100% crushed Type 31 bit. base course Type 41 bit. wear course B618 concrete curb and gutter 12" RCP storm sewer 15" RCP storm sewer 12" F.E.S. Std. storm sewer manhole Std. catch basin manhole Std. 2' X 3' catch basin Rip rap Silt fence Retaining wall Seeding with 4" topsoil Sod with 4" topsoil LS LS LS SY TN TN TN LF LF LF EA EA EA EA CY LF SF AC SY Estimated Construction Cost +50% Security Deposit Total Security Deposit Required 1 1 1 4050 3100 500 450 1850 240 180 1 2 1 2 6 500 1440 0.3 2000 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 10,000.00 1.00 10.00 32.00 35.00 6.00 25.00 30.00 500.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 50.00 3.00 15.00 3,000.00 3.00 EST. COST $10,000 $20,000 10,000 4,050 31,000 16,000 15,750 11,100 6,000 5,400 500 5.000 2.000 2,000 300 1,500 21,600 900 6,000 $169,100 84,550 $253,650 Orono Development. L.L.C. ^ * so To: From: Date: Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffiron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 14,1998 Subject: #2321 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Crystal Bay Rd. S. - Sketch Plan Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Site Area:17.5 Acres ± Proposal:8 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Map C - Survey/sketch plan D - Septic test hole locations E - Steve Weckman Septic Testing Review 1/9/98 F - Bluff Analysis Diagrams G - Airphoto H - Staff Sketch of Building Envelopes I - Wooded Areas Map (from topography map) J - City Engineer Conunents Overview This is a sketch plan for the 17.5 acre Carpenter property located just north of Norenberg Park on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. It appears that all e'listing buildings are intended for removal, and 8 new single family lots created, 4 of which woul d abut Maxwell Bay. This property is outside the MUSA and will be served by septic systems and wells. Applicant proposes to provide access via tw'o short cul-de-sacs and a private driveway. The property contains some woodland, and a bluff feature along most of the shoreline which will impact lake setbacks and tree preservation. Topics for Discussion: 1.Access: Applicant proposes 2 relatively short cul-de-sacs serving 7 lots; Lot 8 apparently is proposed to be served by a separate driveway directly to Old Crystal Bay Rd. An intent of the subdivision road standards (Section 11.32) and in the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan is to limit direct individual lot access to major City roads. Nearly all new development along Old Crystal Bay Road in the last 20 years has been required to #2321- Sketch Plan January 14,1998 Page 2 2. 3. provide private intereior road access for all new lots created. Shared driveways serving two lots have sometimes ben allowed. The currently proposed subdivision should ideally be served by one access point. There may be justification for allowing the two cul-de-sacs from a hardcover and functionality standpoint; a single access road may be difficult to develop due to the depth of the property and the intended creation of four relatively long and narrow lakeshore lots. Access will also need a Hennepin County Dept, of Public Works permit. Lot 8 should not be allowed a separate driveway access to Old Cr>stal Bay Road but should be ser\’ed by an interior road. Also see City Engineer’s comments. Exhibit J. Lot AreaAVidth Standards: All lots as proposed meet the 2.0 acre minimum lot area standard of the LR-1A District. All lots except Lot 3 meet the required 200' width, measured by definition in a straight line at the shoreline and at the 75' setback line. Lot 3 is only 168 ’ at the shoreline and just meets the 200' width at the 75' setback. Total shoreline width is 870', allowing just four lakeshore lots to be created from this site. While Lots 4 and 7 meet the 200' width at shoreline and at 75' setback. Lot 4 has a 'functional width' at the probable building site of only 150', and that of Lot 7 is only 145’. This may be limiting for house placement when the 30' side setbacks are accounted for. The angle of the existing property boundaries with the shoreline makes it difficult to lay out 4 lakeshore lots that have any flexibility, and topographically the tendency may be to place homes overlooking the neighbor's yard to gain the best lake views, similrj to what we see along the east side of Tonkawa Road. Exhibit H depicts the buildable envelopes for each lot, taking into account the lot line setbacks and bluff or lakeshore setbacks. The septic sites have not yet been laid out for each lot. On-Site Sewage Treatment: Septic site locations will be very limiting. The septic testing information provided to date is inadequate to define individual system types and locations. Based on the Hayden and Lester loam soils mapped for this property, typically at least 80% of the systems will have to be mounds. According to Septic System Inspector Steve Weckman, a number of sites which will likely need mound systems do not meet the 6% slope limitation (See Exhibit C). The applicant's site evaluator did not contact the City prior to starting work, which could have avoided this problem. More septic testing detail is needed to confirm usefulness of sites tested. It is likely that some lot lines will need to be revised, and possible that 8 lots may not be feasible. For instance, the tested sites for Lot 6 leave very little useful area within the allowable buildable envelope when bluff setback is accounted for. #2321 - Sketch Plan January 14,1998 Page 3 4. 6. Bluff Impacts: Lots 4,6 and 7 contain a bluff which will reduce the area of the buildable envelope and result in required setbacks from the lake ranging from 130-160' rather than the 75' standard. The bluff impact zone is also an area where intensive vegetation clearing is prohib!‘ed (See Exhibit F). The buildable envelope of Lot 6 will be impacted by the required bluff setback. Tree Preservation: Tree lines and wooded areas are shown on the topographic bcckgroimd map (See Exhibit 1). The site is mainly open, only about 15-20% wooded. Most of the wooded areas are near the shorela e or along the west property boundary. Of great concern is that the dense woods along the shoreline will be under tremendous pressure. We could expect that individual homeowners will want to establish views of the lake from their new homes, by thinning the woods or creating open corridors to the lake. Such changes in the nature of the shoreline landscape would be unfortunate in the context of this virtually untouched arm of Ma.\well Bay. The tree preservation ordinances currently in place would disallow cutting any 6" or larger diameter tree within 75' of the shoreline, and prohibit 'intensive vegetation clearing' within 75' of the shoreline, on steep slopes and in the bluff impact zone. If preservation of this wooded shoreline in its current state is critical, the City may wish to require that some type of 'tree conservation easement' be specifically developed for this site. This would appear to be possible under the provisions of Section 11.60, Subd. 1. The developer should also be required to plant boulevard trees along all roads per the subdivision code requirements. Park Dedication: The Park Commission has indicated that a bike/hike trail corridor should be preserved along the w'est side of Old Crystal Bay Road, for future extension of trails from the Luce Line to Noerenberg Park. Althought the City has not attempted to design this segment of trail, and although a similar corridor already exists directly across from this property on the east side of the road, it may be appropriate to obtain a 20'-30' easement along the right-of way, with the value of said easement being deducted from the 8% park fee requirement. Hennepin County Parks staff has indicated a long-term intent to establish a connector trail between the Luce Line and Noerenberg Park, but has no plans for trails within the park; they would only be at its perimeter if developed. However, this portion of Old Ciy'stal Bay Road is not delineated on the official County Bike Trail Plan. It is unknown whether Hennepin County Public Works will request additional right-of-way for the road itself (currently Old Crystal Bay Road has 66'). #2321 - Sketch Plan January 14, 1998 Page 4 7.Archaeological Sites: The developer should check with the State Historic Preservation Office to determine if any archaeologically significant sites are within the property. 8.Wetlands: There are no wetlands apparent on the property, and none mapped. The developer should have a wetlands consultant confirm whether any wetlands exist on the site. 9.Stormwater, Drainage: A site grading plan will be required when the preliminary plat application is filed. Stormwater ponding will potentially be required The developer should contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding stormwater facility needs. The topography indicates that most drainage on this site runs away from the site, either directly to the lake or to neighboring properties Also note that the topography used for the submittals was created by Horizons. Inc., not Mark Hurd as noted on the submittals. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review with the applicant each of the above noted topics related to the development of this site. While this development does not appear to involve any issues which require significant land use decisions, certain facets of the proposal need further work by the applicant to confirm the viability of the plan. Specific issues the Plaiming Commission may wish to address for the benefit of the applicant include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Access, number of access points Viability of building envelope of specific lots Confirm that septic system feasibility is key to determining number and layout of lots Tree or woodlot preservation methods 1 A O Q Application # Date Received /jg ^ "7 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address________ A * Property Identification Number (P^ _ Please check one - Property tX abst Attach legal description to application. ^inzzz.\ no&io torrens? ^ S -----------^ >snaCL cr» ru APPLICANT Name Address Sg~4o Phone (home) City /0tg>:?Py>L»4>^ _________Zip^^ Phone (work^g^ 2. OWNER (if different than applicant) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 1 _ia^62v Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acies Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of umts Other (specify)______ Present Zoning District lJ^\ ^ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buiidling sites'^ ^ Subdivision for New Building Sites ■# I Existing Units New Units 0 Total Units Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 9______Units per ^ Acres '7, Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) ^UlLUJ TO: FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager January 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for application #2321, Don Anderson 905 Old Crystal Bay Rd. S.- Sketch Plan Review The proposed eight lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. The information submitted to us by Otto Associates is incomplete and will not be acceptable for a final subdivision approval, however, the following is a review of each lot and its potential to have suitable drainfield sites: Lot 1 Soil borings performed by Otto Associates indicates a seasonal water table at 40 to 47 inches, but my soil borings from 1993 indicate a seasonal water table at 30 to 36 inches. Their soil borings indicate that trench systems may be feasible while mine show that a mound system is the only alternative. The soil borings are located in areas where the slope is too steep for the installation of mound systems meeting City Standards. Additional testing would be required to verify whether two mound sites are possible on this lot. Lot 2 Soil borings performed on this lot by Otto Associates indicate a seasonal water table at 38 inches or less and would require the use of mound systems. The slopes on these areas is too steep to allow the use of mound system. Additional testing would be required to determine whether suitable drainfield sites exist on this lot. Lot 3 Soil borings performed by Otto Associates on this lot indicate that mound systems would be required, but slopes throughout the lot are too steep for mound systems. It does not appear that this lot can meet our standards for septic systems. Lot 4 Soil borings by Otto Associates indicate that mound systems must be used on this lot, but the slope direction and narrow lot shape are not favorable for any drainfield site. This lot will not be suitable for septic systems. i Lot 5 The soil borings performed by Otto Associates bring up more questions than answers. One soil log indicates that a sandy clay textme was found at 40 inches, but mottled soil was observed at 47 inches. Soil boring number 6 had a seasonal water table at 34 inches while soil boring number 7 had a seasonal water table at 45 inches, yet these borings were performed within 20 feet of each other. It is very likely that mound drainfiel^ would be required for this lot and the slopes are too steep to meet City Standards. Additional testing will be required to determine whether suitable drainfield sites exist on this lot. Lot 6 This lot looks good for locating drainfield sites. Lsa Soil borings by Otto Associates indicate that trench systems will work on this lot. There appears to be sufficient area on this lot for drainfield sites. Lots This lot appears to have sufficient area for two drainfield sites, but the building pad would be forced into an area with steep slopes. Based on the above information, staff recommends that several of the lots be altered to provide suitable drainfield sites. At this time much more information must be provided before we can approve any subdivision plan. Each lot must have two drainfield sites which are suitable for a five bedroom residence completely designed and located on the survey. Special concerns on this parcel include assuring that the mound sites are located on slopes less than six percent, identifying potential building sites and providing driveway locations on difficult lots. o i JL.SSOC/ATES ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS, INC. December 15,1997 Dan Anderson ANCO Construction Company, Inc. 3540 Montgomerie Avenue Deephaven, MN 55391 RE: SoU Tests on “LITTLE ORCHARD” Otto Job No. 97503 Dear Dan: As you are aware, we have finished the soil tests for on^sitc septic system suitability on the Orono site. I enclose three sets of the soil boring logs and the percolation test sheets. As you look these over, some critical points are that in order to put the stwIlQwcst trench system in. we need at least 42 inches to the mottled soil in the soil ^rings. A mound system can be installed if there is at least 12 inches to the mottled soil. Soil borings 1,3,4, 5,7,10,11,12,15, 17,18,19,20,21,22,24 and 26 have a depth of 42 inches or more to the mottled soil. All the soil borings have more than 12 inches to the mottling. In the perc tests, we are looking for a perc rate from 5 to 60 minutes per inch for a standard system (with 5 being fast and 60 being slow). The majority of the tests indicate a perc rate between 8 and 40 m p i. The only two tests that I am concerned about are THs 27 and 28 which had a per rate of 79. These holes were tested in what I would think would be the alternate site on Lot 3 and a mound system could be installed on this type of soil but the basal area of the mound ' Would need to be enlarged. So, in conclusion, these tests were good and do indicate that all the lots are buiidable using on-sIte septic systems. If you have any questions, call me. Sincerely. Olio Associates Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. Edward J. Ott^L.S. MPCA No. 964 Enclosures lb » Z & 3 k vS 4 r i.. ^ m Bonestroo ffijS Rosene ^ ■ Anderlik & |\ \ Associates Engineers & Architects January 12,1998 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik ^nd Associates. Inc is an Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE. • Joseph C Anderlik, PE • M,^rvin L Sorv;<l,i. PE • Rich.ird E Turner PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht. Pt • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE. and Susan M Eberim. C PA. Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A. Sanford, PE • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O. Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A I A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rauimann. PE • Ted K Field, PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Vtark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P. Williamson. PE.. L.S • Robert F. Kotsmiin Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wiilmar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee Wi Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re:Andersen Subdivision File No. 139-2321 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the sketch plan for 'he proposed eight lot Andersen subdivision. The site is located west of Old Crystal Bay Road South (C.R. 84) in the northwest quarter of Section 9. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: Access to Lot 8 is unclear. We would recommend moving Outlet B approximately 150 feet southeast to provide access to Lot 8 and eliminate private driveways onto C.R. 84. How will future access be provided to the Lots immediately west of the site? Will the existing buildings on Lots 1, 2.4 and 5 remain or be removed ? The existing grades on Outlet A exceed 10 percent. City code allows up to a 12 percent grade on private streets, however, we would recommend that grades not exceed 2 percent for the first 50 feet off of C.R. 84. It does not appear that adequate sight distances exist for either cui-dc-sac. Plans should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review. 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 lakeshore. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses and septic systems. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City ’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within two major drainage districts, half draining easterly and half draining southwesterly. We recommend that storm sewer be included as part the project to direct flows in accordance with the SWMP. The final plans should include a storm water quality pond to treat runoff prior to discharging into the lake. A drainage area map. storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Easements: Final platting should include 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way for C.R. 84. Drainage and utility casements should be provided 5 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. 5. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the touil cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, RtJSRNE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg ' Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highvtfay 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636*4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 J 1 V • TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. GafTron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 13, 1998 SUBJECT: #2329 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Sketch Plan for Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision for Duplexes Zoning District:LR-lC-1, Single FanrMv Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre minimum lot size subdistrict Total Site Area:1.503 acres. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat and Topography Maps C - Survey/Proposed Site Plan D - LR-lC-1 Code Standards E - Duplex Credit CUP Code Requirements F - Staff Sketches Indicating Various Development Possibilities/Pitfalls G - Staff Concept Plans of Area Between the Marinas H - Comments from City Engineer Tom Kellogg I - Excerpts from Zoning History of Site Overview This is a sketch plan for development of the property directly east of Lakeside Marina, also known as 'the Straley property', which was owned for a time by the DNR as a possible site for an access, then sold by the DNR when the Maxwell Bay access was built on the Gayle's Marina site. Applicant proposes to divide the property into two lots, each to contain a duplex. The property currently consists of 4 tax parcels, three of which formerly contained residence structures. Context of Site in Relation to Surrounding Uses The property in question has a unique history which may provide some context for the current proposal. Historically, the property and the four adjacent residential properties to the east of it, have been located between two commercial marinas. The entire stretch of land between Tonkawa Road and the east side of North Shore Marina (See Exhibit 1) was first zoned in 1957, designated as a I r •» Zoning File #2329 Januar>' 13,1998 Page 2 'commercial district'. In 1966, all property east of Lakeside Marina, including the easterly approximately 60’ of Lakeside, was rezoned residential. Shortly thereafter in 1967, the entire stretch was again rezoned commercial. With the 1975 City-wide rezoning, all property east of Lakeside Marina, including North Shore Marina, was rezoned to LR-lC-1, with the Gayle’s Marina and Lakeside Marina properties to the west remaining as f 2 commercial. In 1984, the City rezoned North Shore Marina back to B-2, leaving the residential properties between Lakeside and North Shore marinas zoned LR-lC-1, which zoning is currently in effect. There has been much discussion through the years about what should happen with the residential properties between the two marinas. City discussions that led to the 1984 rezoning of North Shore Marina from residential to commercial, included consideration whether the remaining residential properties between Lakeside and North Shore should be similarly rezoned commercial. The Planning Commission at that time recommended that future rezoning of the area be proved only when a future applicant controls or owns a 2 acre parcel consistent with the minimum required acreage for a lot in the B-2 zone, and proposes a use consistent with the B-2 standards. City Council minutes subsequent to that recommendation indicate no formal action was taken by the Council to adopt such a policy. However, Council discussions prior to the Planning Commission recommendation had indicated a concern that the City risks claims of spot zoning if merely North Shore Drive Marina is rczoned without a future intent to rezone the adjacent residential properties. The City never adopted a formal policy for rezoning the properties between the marinas. They continue to be zoned LR-lC-1, a single family residential use district that would allow via a CUP & PRD, up to 3 units per acre density, with as many as 4 individual units attached per building. The only other properties the City has zoned in this manner are the twin homes in Navarre and the Brook Park/Sohns/Larson properties directly to the west of them; and a small tract just east of Carman Street near the Navarre business district. Shoreland Regulation Implications The Shoreland District standards adopted in 1992 place significant limitations on any PUD/PRD located in the shoreland, requiring the establishment of ’tiers' in order to determine acceptable development density in a PRD. An additional implication of the Shoreland Regulations is that any duplex parcel on the lakeshore must be no less than 135' in defined width, which has an impact on applicant's site because it is only 123' in width at the shoreline and at the 75' setback. Please review' Exhibits F which define various subdivision schemes for developing the site and the various concerns or issues presented with each plan. These sketches were developed by staff at the time DNR was auctioning the site. Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 3 Duplex Credit Implications Zoning Code Sec. 10.20, Subd. 3 (I) allows one duplex to be located on a single lot in the LR-lC-1 2M)ne as a conditional use upon application therefore, provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Public sanitary sewer service is available. 2. The lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district. '3. The duplex is constructed within 200' of the commercial or industrial district. These standards would be met by the current proposal. A dui^lex is (briefly) defined as a single building on a single lot containing two separate dwelling units. The duplex CUP standards do nijl require a duplex lot to meet double the area standards. The Shoreland District requirements specify that any lot approved for duplex use shall be at least 135' in width and at least 26,000 s.f. in area if riparian, and at least 17,500 s.f. in area if non-riparian. Both proposed lots meet the minimum area as established in the zoning district and Shoreland standards. However, lot width and the 'back lot' status of the riparian lot stand out as potential additional issues. Back Lot Considerations Applicant's sketch plan proposes a 30' wide outlet over the existing shared driveway serving the four existing neighboring residences and the four proposed new dwelling units. This number of homes being served far exceeds the City's three-unit threshold for requiring development of a full-fledged roadway. Likewise, applicant's plan proposes a 12'-20' easement driveway providing access to the proposed lakeshore duplex, which clearl)’ is in conflict with many of the back lot ordinance requirements in regards to access, i.e.: - 11.30 Subd. 5C does not allow the creation of back lots which are accessed by easement such as that proposed. - 11.30 Subd. 5C(1 c) disallows a front/back lot division wb -*n the residence structure on a neighboring lot adjacent to the back lot is less distant from the access outlt than the zoning district front setback standard. The adjacent residence to the east is within 3 feet of the proposed outlot, rather than the 30' required. Subd. 5C(2b) requires the lot widtli of a back lot to meet the zoning district standard Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 4 when measured at the defined locations. The standard for a duplex lot is 135'; the proposed back lot is only 123'-126' at these locations. However, the back lot meets the 100' standards for a single family lot... Subd. 5(C)4d states that no more than two residences nay be served by a driveway located within an access outlot; the proposed plan would result in a total of 8 dwellins being served by a single driveway. Hardcover The applicant's proposal shows narrow driveways and garage apron widths which in staffs opinion are unlikely to function adequately, especially for the duplex on Lot 1, the lakeshore lot. The 75- 250' hardcover for Lot 1 is shown as using up its full 25%, i.e. just over 5600 s.f. Note also that for Lot 2 the 75-250' zone is not shown, but approximately half of Let 2 is within the 75-250' zone as measured from Crystal Bay to the southwest. The hardcover zones will have to be accurately depicted on any formal plan that is submitted. Lake Access Implications Applicant proposes a duplex to be constructed on the riparian lot that is 125’ in width. Under LMCD standards of 1 slip per 50' of shoreline, development of this site would presumably be allowed 2 slips. However, as a single family lot. Lot 1 would likely be allowed 4 slips as long as all 4 boats are titled to the owner of the riparian lot. The City has only one other lakeshore duplex situation that staff is aware of, that being the duplexes on Kelly Avenue in Navarre. In that situation, six dwelling units in three duplex buildings are located on property that contains approximately 400' of shoreline, but 300' of width as measured in a straight line. Those duplexes are allowed a total of 6 slips via joint use dock license, such slips being located on an outlot in the southerly end of the site. The correlation to applicant's proposal would be that a duplex constructed on applicant's lakeshore lot might be allowed a 2 slip or 4-slip dock, allowing 1 or 2 boats for each of the two riparian dwelling units. This question remains to be resolved as to riparian access in slip numbers to serve a duplex on this site. It is clear however that the City would not allow riparian access to the duplex lot proposed which does not abut the lake. The Shoreland Ordinances indicate that lots intended to access to public waters for use by owners of non-riparian lots within a subdivision must meet or exceed the minimum standards set forth in Subdivision 1 o for individual building lots. Therefore no easement or outlot could be created that provides lake access to the lot adjacent to the road, and the duplex lot adjacent to the road shall not have riparian rights. Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 5 How the Proposed Development Relates to the Adjacent Residential Uses Development of duplexes on this site may place it somewhat out of context with the adjacent single family residential development, and from a long term perspective might be considered as ultimately leading to a disjointed rather than comprehensive plan for the area between the marinas, unless the entire area is redeveloped with multiple family units. The total area between the marinas is approximately 3 acres, which if developed comprehensively could result in a 9 unit townhome complex with significant open space areas. The applicant notes that to-date, he is unable to acquire the remaining properties at prices that justify such a development. That is what is forcing the issue of creating two duplex buildings. Exhibit G-1 is a staff concept sketch of how a comprehensive townhome complex might be developed. E.xhibit G-2 is a staff concept sketch of how this area will look if the duplexes are constructed as proposed. Exhibit F-1 is staffs concept of how the current proposal should be revised to most closely meet all code requirements. Utilities The site is provided with (and limited by the locations of) municipal sewer lines. Since 3 residences previously existed on the property, it isunlikely that additional sewer connection charges will be required unless a total of 4 units is allowed, in which case staff will research whether charges are due. Applicant proposes to move an existing trunk sewer line, which the City Engineer has addressed in his comments. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review the proposal and address the following issues so the applicant will have some direction how to proceed: 1. 2. 3. 4. Determine whether there is any justification to allow the large number of variances involved with development of a duplex on the lakeshore lot. Determine whether there is any justification to grant access type/width standards for this project, increasing the number of homes sharing a private driveway from 4 to 8. Discuss the option of a PRD (See Exhibit F-3) and whether the 'underlying zoning district* should be considered as having a density of 2 units per acre or 3 units per acre. Advise applicant that the standard grading, drainage, and stormwater considerations apply to development of this site (See City Engineer's comments), that access w ill neeed to be approved by Hennepin County, that the property will be subject to park dedication fees, etc. QOCI 1 ■Application # Vi ii-//Date Receiyed 12 - Amount Paid IZSo ^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION C ^ C^- street O-ck U loc ^o) PROPERTY LOCATION , t n SiteaddrerS v^?^C> *V~ • QV^AQ PropertyIdemificationNurnber(PIP)I.I'7(^KUI D/llO / 0^' Please check one - Property abstract or Attach legal description to application. torrens? ^'00o\. ' OY-in 0012 APPLICANT Nam e O/y^cl b^ddClC.______________________ Address j nnU /x )/i-T)t4U TlQ. Phone (home)-4 City pn/y^llS Phone (workl Sg^rKA OWNER (if difP^t than appU^t) ^ ^ (LI^ i/IO od Nam e ' 4 CL/tailol , . | \ Address //QgS* <gT lc)d^i'^-z^'hL _________Phone (home)______ City U -4»>- / 2Xxi Phone (work) ^1S' (attach list if Aiore than one) fSii> EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size JL Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land ________ Acres Wet Land __Acres Total, all parcels 0 Caml^ Residential; no. of units ________ Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL aUDOlVlSlOl Number of Building Sites '?* Proposed Gross Density "7 Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) \\ju^Ul4' Subdivision for New Building Sites is>T Dupi^ lilding Sites _________Existing Units-----’~EZi latX ^ ^ . w,SA?JiO^ ^ New Units ^ Total Units ^4-sd 0'^‘^ * ' . -Y- ‘ --------------------Vvii \0L.v^ y Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land ' ^ qs^A tO .Residentid MAXWELL V IL 'ZZ. E'2. \r- 1/ Bi—■ v> . : x(i«J ! (7. t(2Me 4«.6 ' ••••••• *. 5 (2) :.K V.< (10) (I) (I?)’ » • v*i«i /- •/ 8 ?:'5* 3M.Vl*l'»^*,»5. >fi a I W ®®«^S $ s: »«.M eDv'^ Sak' .. •/ !74.9<l 5T9.$r (I4)% 8 // 5SP^ ■t «# % L t $0,000 O V % c • / • « ^ / A \ / / / FwpestdHirdc^- •*Ti •. . • ; . A^K y. • - ■ uti«• -7y • . Itt% tMtlAU"***7;srp ■"**•• . *■ •' ' * *?*'BibttagArM^’SSr - ^ Eri-i.A«iisr:5or - ^ • •; ...... ty ■.Jr ■Mvcway ■ 340Sq.Ft .f .\ r I>-/ SBC. 10.26. SUBDISTRICTS . LR-lC-1 ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Uses. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, and Accessory A. Any use as regulated in the "LR-IC" District.(^/^pjitC^ Subd. 3. Additional Permitted Use. Within any "LR-lC-1" One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict a credit allowing a 50% increase in dwelling unit density over the "LR-IC" District may be obtained providing all conditions below are complied with: A. All provisions of Section 10.32 Planned Residential Development are complied with; B. Public sanitary sewer is available; C. All dwelling units must be attached but hot more than four dwelling units to any one structure with a maximum height of thirty 30 feet; D. *_cels of land lying beyond 100 feet from any shoreline shall not have more than 35% of the land area to be developed made impervious by buildings, blacktop, or other forms of hard cover;E. Building size and location meet Council approval; , ^ ,F. Vehicle ingiass and egress meet Council approval; G. A minimum of two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit, one of the parking spaces shall be enclosed and attached to the principal structure it serves; H. Density provisions under Section 10.60 are not exceeded. Subd. 4. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. (See Section 10.25, Suodivision 6). 1 'P-Z, SBC. 10.25. LR-IC ONE FAMILY LAEESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka, special regulations are necessary to protect that natural resource from the effects of intense development. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary fewer. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA" . District. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-IA" District except that a Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted' accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-lA" District any 'private docks subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. Mo structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. be observed: B. Lots, The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street_ 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet § 10.20 SEC. 10.20. R-IA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. ^ ^ Purpose. The -R-lA" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permit. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "R-lA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for ohe or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. C. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-lA" One Fiunily Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial bulld/n^V ^ is defined as a two-family unit residential 1 M 4 4 § 10.20 esldential 1-1 allow a nd limited snts may be ihall have One Family except for One Family ed for the seated on a or provided the lot is 5 duplex is industrial esldential :■ ^ V* A >■* V, r 0 s'^ is sO f u K 0 caon <V'Slll J i-llP I 4 \ ^ 5? J P C^vA t/1 I- ?? It la « •l“ cr~ 01 f^in 2 or\ 13- <3^ <r-r A A ■5 0- % i f: 4l CO<n « •I* <r tAr*in c I § r» 3* i\ i ti M I Hu p h i F' \yt >4 04 7 ^ cS 4 cj t) In t cn ci to S 4 U crt •ft H- ©n 4 |i Vi. m\ ^4' 5l?L| i • • I F 4 1 i •'4 ^ 1 ir*ii illljla C Q 5s ^ I i 3Z1 5 <t w s 4> - i »ft»r on ^ ® o 2 2 2 ? - € it !i: I % • 3Ac:t « tlWlTS ' 2V>7C* z-LO/ez, ^330Oc/. ’ ^ TO 6aa) .4/2--(C-/ W • t'-’iTH'/iO liAJ^ 77^T^ ^ • f>HA?36f^ PoCJcT COf^cef^'TpiM^ cu^(M'> ^ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\ \ Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. AnOerltk and Associates, tnc. is an Affirmative Action/Equai Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G Bonestroo PE. • Joseph C. Anderlik. PE. • M^rvm L Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn >7 Cook. PE. • Robert G Schunichi. PE • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. • Rooert W Rosene, PE and Susan M. Eberlin. C.P.A. Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. PE • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Robert R. Pfefferle. PE. • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskota. PE. • Robert C Russek. A I A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE. • Michael T Rauimjnn. PE • Ted K.Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • P.lark R. Rolfs. PE • Sidney P. Williamson. PE.. LS • Robert F. Koismiih Offices: St. Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud. VN • Milwaukee. Wl January 12, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Waade Subdivision File No. 139-2329 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed three to four lot Waade subdivision. The site is located at 3280 and 3290 Northshore Drive (C.R. 51) east of Tonkawa Road(C.R. 135) in the southeast quarter of Section 8. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: The private road on Outlot A does not meet the minimum widtli, design speed or right- of-way for a private road as outlined in the City Ordinance. The private road currently serves 4 homes and potentially would serve 7 or 8 ho.mes. No more than two units may be served from a private driveway. Private streets serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide, more than seven units require 28 feet. Due to the existing house locations it would be impossible to meet all of the code requirements. We recommend a minimum pavement width of 24 feet and minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet across Outlot A. The two driveways shown to serve the site should be combined to form a single driveway at least 20 feet in width. The proposed pavement at Unit I\o. 2 should be enlarged to allow for emergency vehicle turning movements. The fire department should review the plans and provide comments. Plans should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review. 2. Utilities: The proposed easterly realignment of the sanitary sewer falls within 6 feet of an existing home. The proposed alignment may need to be shifted westerly to allow for construction. The existing overhead power may need to be relocated to allow for construction. Utility construction plans should be submitted for review. 3. 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 lakeshore. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses and septic systems. 4. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Pian (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Maxwell Bay drainage districts. The entire site 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 - Fax; 612-636-1311 H J r January 9, 1998Mr Michael P. Gaff ran City ofOrono Page 2 drains northerly to the lake. A water quality pond should be located on the site to provide for storm water treatment. A drainage area map with pre and post development calculations should be submitted for review. 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Utility easements will need to be revised based on the final sanitary design. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetlands and drainage ways. 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 (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, EONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. ICTM Tom Kellog'g Orr»rr Oonno Ornnn I J I #•* • — wu . _______Co >M»H g^Ac.<4/g^ClW ctio^r.i^zcNe^., ____________________A^..CWAA!6«^.7ieo^ ce>M»M4^o<4<- -r® /tCl(C»|*N>T7/Vt- /A* TO TD 19 S7 — Pt0oeetirfes_Aio£rffLt^Q^^,^/^__________________S"~‘ ________________________________________________ - ^--.................. ,\ ............ _e«?Tyew^s'cc.. tM^.. ui±po^eb___^lli^ryM... 0^ i^m - „ ujeirap TvnkJMk ___ Srt..*. '9/SfO. P^ .^L y Z««v<tt£^............. yVtCA /7C0*A . «4*<VU?^iT, €^sr TP /UaA^- SttotCf l^/!/». J^/OeCr»J7f!;=.y<i.Oif!jl^^__________________________________ nA*^^M>._CMr€,»^r- «AiT. ______ .. Tp /'/rT./t-L •........... 3-//-S7 Q<^ - ^A»rg C>. b/5rt^ey* __ _____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Z, Sa^ rK^f^tjr.£uu4rt>fiJViri_ ___ ___________YJ\kMntL. ptUif»Ajry n’o Hgs>7~or A 4./M& SeCt.i^.____________ eo»/Mt:¥»<c.v* CcofjtiAea ^r' tAJirh A^tdrn .SiMm_________ MAtuA^fV CKpy^TeAir. 2>gB»0>fc> /r>gftj<^gg~- <£gzoAJt>t> ^/toPefiXies. .€A^rLOEJL ) mm— «•• • < <S>fVgM-MA*g, fTb i«^lb!?eJ774t .J!th^----------- IS. A NoM\.^oi^Ml^SL:^»2- fprr tr^ear-oF^ me sneArt-gy ifleoPtatry . <^A/A^g W0 UU> t€_ ASoun SASCDE.____ gA^r~ujftc<- or Mu^ius’ AvwA>4j »• W*« __________jCUi«:^!ffJT:,^yvAtO _____________:----- '.••”••• '».• •• •—••v.*'. •,... ...» fVW' Quest Real Estate. Inc. Quest Development. Inc. Wednesday, January 14,1998 '' _ Mike Gaffron Oroix) City Offices 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono. MN 55323 Dear Mike: After considerable review on the subject, it has become apparent that our proposed development projects in Orono are not economically viable, under the present conditions. Therefore we are withdrawing both applications as of this date. Please refund to us any unused portion of the fees already collected by the city for these project applications. While the process has been difficult at times, it has been good working with you and other city staff, as we were always treated fairly and courteously. Good luck in the future. Sincerely. Jim Waters COO tOTOO Old County Road IS • Suite 150 • Plymouth. Minnesota 55441 • Tel. 612-595-9511 • Fax 612-595-9512 TO: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commissioners FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator RE: January 20,1998 Please note that staff has organized the agenda by type of application Update Oh applications: #2290 Steve and Elaine Silus, 3225 Casco Circle. The previous garage was moved the second week of January. If you have not been by the property, please look at it with the old garage removed. The Spilseths, the adjacent neighbors, have informed me that they will be out of town next week. #2320 Christopher and Mary Smith, 3650 Casco Avenue, are changing their proposal and have asked for this item to be tabled until next month. We will need to open and close the public hearing because it has been noticed. #2323 Tim Nelson, on behalf of David Pomije, 3120 North Shore Drive, this application came in as a hardcover variance. In reviewing the plans staff discovered that the addition included a kitchen which should be considered a guest apartment. A guest apartment requires a conditional use permit and the notification process is different than for a variance. However, staff is recommending denial of the hardcover variance, so the c.u.p. issue is a moot point. However, if you do grant a variance, then instruct the applicant that thcj have to bring in a new mailing list and pay the fee for a c.u.p. #2332 Car Sale Amendment, Dick Bury called on Friday, January 16th, to say that he is no longer interested in the Bay Furniture site and Aat he is selling his interest in the Classic Car Sales business. This was noticed as a public hearing so it needs to be open and closed. The furniture store owner will probably want to speak to this issue, however, if there is no proposal foi the this use, staff recommends denial of the text amendment. 1 have been getting lots of complaints about 3115 North Shore Drive, known as the "big house on the lagoon". This property received multiple variances in March of 1997. Do you want to discuss it at a future meeting? Staff made its best effort to get all the items done and out to you on Wednesday. Unfortunate! v, we were only able to send out about half of the packet. We are really striving to get these done and out earlier. We are committed to giving you more time to review these applications. GOOD NEWS! As of noon Friday, January 16th, there is only one application in for February's agenda. The next deadline is noon on Wednesday of riext week. REMEMBER: City offices will be closed Monday for Martin Luther King's birthday. L. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 17,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Conunission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, eind Lili McMillan. Charles Schroeder and Sandra Smith were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Intern Brad Bressler and Recorder Sherr>' Frost. Mayor Jabbour was present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS (#1) NAVARRE HOUSING STUDY - BRAD BRESSLER Bressler reported that the Navarre Housing Study was conducted in two phases, one being a mailed out survey to the residents and the other a field surv’ey conducted by Bressler. There are four sub-areas. The purpose of the study was to see if there was any interest in housing rehabilitation and grant funding. Bressler reviewed the tables included in the information regarding home ownership, income groups, age and family unit, housing condition, and desirability of making home improvements through a grant process. Bressler said a large majority of the people would apply for a grant if it was provided. The majority of homes were foimd to be in good condition, but there were some homes needing improvement. During the field survey, Bressler personally viewed the conditions of the homes and properties. The vast majority are single family v..th some multi-housing units towards the west end of Livingston Avenue. The housing was categorized according to visual inspection by Bressler. The majority were in good or excellent condition. The overall ap(>earance of garages showed that detached garages have received less maintenance. There were a number of homes where brush, w'ceds, and outdoor storage took away from the appearance of the properties. Bressler provided a picture board showing a representative pictorial view of what he found in the neighborhood by study areas. Lindquist inquired about the affordable housing level in Orono. Bressler said the housing valued at $115,000 or less is considered affordable hoi sing for 1997. Information of housing in this category is available from Hennepin County but needs to be entered in a database. i ! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17.199^ (#1 - Navarre Housing Study - Continued) Van Zomeren stated Lake Minnetonka area cities have met over the summer to discuss gathering information on housing in the revision of each community's Comprehensive Plan. Some of the cities lack affordable housing. The cities are attempting to work together on this issue and intend to hire a consultant to assist in this research. The Met Council has provided $17,000 towards the hiring of the consultant. The groundwork has been laid out in respect to review of affordable housing. Berg asked if a HRA block grant would be required, and if so, who would administer it. Van Zomeren said she did not know if this was necessary but noted that the programs use the san.e contact person and will investigate the matter. Lindquist asked Staff to keep the Planning Commission updated noting additional work is required. Bressler said additional work will be performed as review of the Comprehensive Plan continues. OLD BUSINESS - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#2) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6:45-6:47 P.M. The Applicant.-. »vere unable to attend the meeting. Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2290. Lindquist reported that the application would not be reviewed again until the January meeting of the Planning Commission. However, if the applicant agrees with the 5' minimum location of structure from the property line, the application will not require further review by the Planning Commission. Van Zomeren said she has spoken with Building Inspector Lyle Oman, who will issue a temporary certificate of occupancy for the applicants. Gravel will be placed on the driveway over the winter months. Van Zomeren will notify the neighbors of this situation. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#3) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARI ENVVOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - 6:47-7:03 P.M. The applicant and architect, Kathr>'n Alexander, were present. Dressier presented pictures of the property. The applicant is proposing remodeling and expansion of the residence to include a 4-stall attached garage. The application requires variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75' setback. There is no problem with average lakeshore setback as noted in the topographical map. The residence currently has a 3-stall side loading garage. The driveway configuration is proposed to be changed. The existing residence encroaches the lakeshore setback. The allowable building space is limited by the property. Only a portion of the existing foundation will remain; further information is included in the packet. The total hardcover is proposed at 19%. The 1.02 acre property is located in the one acre zoning district with 2/3 acre in the 0-75' setback. The street setback is also restricted. Bressler reported Staff recommended approval subject to maintaining a 34' lakeshore setback from the designated OHW where 75' is required. Encroachment on the lakeshore setback will not be increased by the improvements. Staff recommends hardcover be maintained at a maximum of 14.5% in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 20% is existing, 16% is proposed, and none is allowed. Bressler indicated that the amount of existing hardcover excluding landscaping underlain by plastic is 14.5%. This figure could largely be met by eliminating several proposed decks and existing patio area on the lake side of the residence. By approving this percentage, there would be no net gain in the amount of hardcover on the property, not including plastic under landscaping. Staff recommends all landscape underlain by plastic in the 0-75' lakeshore setback be removed prior to commencement of new construction. The applicant has agreed to this provision. Staff also recommends that no further hardcover variances be granted to this property in the future. Mr. Olsen, in noting the difficult lot, said he preferred not to reduce the hardcover further than the proposed 16% to 14.5%. Ms. Alexander said the total hardcover is less than the 25% allowed. Hawn informed the applicant that trading hardcover for landscaping underlain with plastic is not the same and does not justify the additional hardcover. Lindquist said he agreed noting there is a large amount of structure on the property and is of the opinion that the applicant should maintain the 14.5% hardcover maximum. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 ^#3 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued) Stoddard asked Dressier to explain the suggestions for hardcover removal. Alexander noted that as suggested, the hardcover would still be over 14.5%. Dressier informed McMillan that he arrived at the 14.5% by subtracting the landscaping underlain with plastic from the hardcover. The balance of hardcover to be removed would come from eliminating a portion of the patio, dog run, decking, or decreasing the size of the addition. Olsen said that he would have to eliminate the existing patio or addition even if all of the decking was eliminated. Lindquist informed him that if the residence was new construction, he would not be allowed any structure in the 0-75' setback. Olsen acknowledged that the home .^ould not have been able to be built to meet today's standards. Alexander noted that the patio ''onsists of pavers and asked if pavers with drainage holes is still deemed hardcover. Lindquist said they were. Alexander said eliminating 1.5'/o of hardcover would consist of 497 s.f. When asked by Hawn what items are necessary, it was noted that the dog kennel could be gravel and the patio could be reduced in size. This would amount to less than the decrease being required. The patio is 810 s.f. and could be reduced. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2305 for lakeshore setback, hardcover variance in 0-75' setback, subject to revised Staff recommendation including a 41' lakeshore setback variance for structure to remain at 34' from the OHW, hardcover variance for a maximum of 4415 s.f. in the 0-75' setback, and plastic under landscaping removed in the 0-75' setback. The reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' setback will be decided by applicant subject to staff approval. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3560 SHORELINE DRIVE - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:03-7:39 P.M. Bill Gleason was present representing Brook Park Realty. Van Zomcren reported that the application was tabled at the last meeting to allow time for the applicant to meet with Staff, City Engineer, and landscape architect consultant from DSU. A revision was provided last week by the applicant. Engineering comments have been received. Van Zomeren did not receive comments from the landscaping consultant. She did speak with a representative of the fire department. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) The revised plan includes construction of 30 townhomes on 9.93 acre site with access from Livingston Avenue. The units are connected with four per building. The northerly units will be served by a road. The southern units will be served by a driveway. The Mound Fire Department would like to see the 6" water main looped, which will increase the unit cost by $1.50-S2.00 per square foot, or the units sprinkled. The 22' road width was recommended by the landscape architect in order to maintain trees. The City Engineer has agreed to that width, while noting it does not meet City standards. The issue involved is fire safety versus saving trees. The City Engineer su.'^ports the sanitaiy' sewer and water design, which conflicts with the opinion of the fire department. Details will be required for final plan. City Engineer Kellogg recommended Livingston Avenue be extended to the west and sanitary and water main stubs be extended as well. The drainage area map was thought to show high calculations at 20 minute concentration and recommendation is made for a maximum time of concentration of 15 minutes. Pipe grading or sizes may need to be revised. A paved swale or erosion control should be provided downstream from the piping. Details of the pond outlet control and weir should be provided for review. The timber weir may present a future maintenance problem and an alternate outlet structure may be desired. The 19 units served by temporary cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum of 10 allowed. Van Zomeren noted there is no histor>' in Orono of similar townhouse development and questioned whether this should be maintained or changed. Livingston Avenue design is not built to a 30 mph speed and the radius should be increased to 275 ft. or reduced speed warning signs installed, which Staff recommends. The City Engineer also asks that a typical street section be provided to verify the proposed pavement design. Van Zomeren said the landscape consultant has indicated that the revised plan is an improvement and noted the identification has been provided for the larger stands of trees. The preservation level of trees is at about 50%. Van Zomeren said it was her opinion that the application be tabled to the January meeting in order for review of fire department and engineering recommendations. Since there is a two month span of time. Van Zomeren said a recommendation could be made by the Planning Commission based on the comments received by the City Engineer and landscape consultant. Mr. Gleason said he received a letter dated November 13 from the landscape architect. Van Zomeren reported that she had not received it. A copy was given to Van Zomeren for her immediate review. 1 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Gleason said the 6" water line will come to the property line and there had been concern over the amount of water flow. As far as looping the main or sprinkling the units, Gleason said he would do what is required and asked if there was a way that the system could be looped. Gappa said he was unfamiliar with it and would have to review the layout to see if enough water could get to the location. Lindquist asked for comments frcm the applicant regarding the road width. Gleason said the fire marshal thought a 20’ width was satisfactory and 22' is proposed. He thought there was no other option for the dead-end cul-de-sac. Gleason said the owner of the property to the west is currently not interested in selling. Van Zomeren said the road would not be extended to the end of the property, only the sewer and water improvements would be located there. The driveway would dead-end at the cul-de-sac. Lindquist agreed that whatever occurs with the property to the west does not factor into this application. Hawn asked if the driveway could extend to CoRd 15. Gleason said no. Concern was voiced regarding the inability to turnaround at the dead-end. Lindquist questioned whether a cul-de-sac could be built there. Hawn was informed that the driveways would be two car lengths. No parking would be allowed along the side of the road. Guests would have to park in the driveway of the units or gain permission from other residents to park in their driveways. There were no public comments. Lindquist asked about the time schedule. Gleason said he was beginning to enter a time crunch due to having to redesign the subdivision. He noted that he was uninformed of any problem with the driveway until now. The fire department had not indicated that having to back into a driveway to turnaround would be a problem. Gleason said it is not a through street, only a private driveway, and access can be gained. Gleason did not believe there was room for a cul-de-sac and additional trees would be lost. Lindquist noted that three residences are allowed on private driveways for single family residences and in this proposal, there are 11 units. Gleason noted there were no guidelines for townhomes in Orono and as a result, new issues are continually being raised. Stoddard indicated that the Commission was attempting to balance safety with tree preservation. He supported having a turnaround. He did not envision a problem regarding the looped water main or sprinkler system since the applicant was willing to do what is necessary. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Gleason suggested the possibility of constructing a hammerhead at the end of the driveway instead of a turnaround. Gappa thought that was feasible noting it has been done elsewhere. Gleason said this would solve the problem of inadequate room for a complete turnaround. Gleason said he would mark the driveway as a private drive. Lindquist asked if there were any problems with the landscape report. Gleason indicated there were no problems as far as he was concerned. He said he is in favor of adding landscaping and reducing the setback for saving trees. He questioned the need for a buffer from the garages facing CoRd 15 as there is a considerable distance separating the two. He said landscaping is beneficial for marketing. Gleason thought the landscape plan could be approved when the final plat is presented. McMillan noted the design for the front doors being in the middle of the units. She asked if this was advantageous for those in the middle units having to walk all around. She asked if this was a question of providing a common area versus losing privacy. Gleason thought the residents will^use their garage entries. Guests may walk around or possibly use the garage entry as well. Gleason feels the courtyards will be attractive and be private with the trees surrounding them. Any problem w'ould be more for guests than for the residents. Gleason said there was the possibility of moving the two middle units forward and placing a service door on the side of the garage. Gleason did not believe this was an issue, however, with only four units per building. McMillan said some privacy would be lost by the middle units with walking traffic going back and forth. McMillan asked about snow plowing. Gleason said the shoveling will be provided by the homeowners association. He added that the area would be very wooded and walkways will wind around the treed areas. Gleason thought the courtyards will be used by the residents noting there are patios by the front doors as well. Lindquist noted the issues of the 6" loop or sprinkler, hammerhead, landscaping recommendations, and fire chief report have been reviewed. Van Zomeren said she would like to know what the applicant is required to do regarding the road. Lindquist indicated the 22' width and hammerhead would be a sufficient tradeoff for preserving trees and was satisfactory with the fire chief. Hawn asked if a 22' w idth was the maximum that could be provided. Gleason did not know if any wider road could be provided and did not see any reason to expand that width. The length is more of a concern but is solved with the use of a hammerhead. Gappa noted the difference between single family and towiihome units and the ordinance applying to single family residences. He thought the shorter length was a trade-off. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Van Zomeren said the preliminary plat and PRD will move forward to the Council for their review. Conformity to subdivision regulations will be reviewed. A letter of credit will be necessary or public improvements installed. Lindquist thought a letter of credit would be satisfactory. The next step after Council review will then be final plat. Hawm asked about the center island suggested by the landscape architect. Van Zomeren said the reasoning was to lessen the amount of pavement made by a cul-de-sac. Gleason said he thought the decision was made to eliminate an island. Van Zomeren said the City Engineer did not favor the island but the recommendation was made by the architect. Gappa reported that an island is not desirable for effective snowplowing. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2308 for preliminary plat. Before final plat review, the water loop or sprinkler system needs to be resolved. A revised plan with a hammerhead turnaround that addresses the landscape architect's and City Engineer's comments will need to be submited. The revised plan will not include a center island in the cul-de-sac. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2311 LOREN FRITZ, 3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - 7:39- 7:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing w'ere noted. The Applicant was present. Photos of the property were presented. Bressler reported that the applicant is proposing a total of 914 s.f. of additions to the existing residence. The existing residence is located 7' from the rear lot line. The proposed addition will be located within the required rear setback but will not further encroach the required yard than the existing residence. Bressler reviewed the issues 1 through 6 as reported in the packet. The sloping topography was noted. The existing deck, residence and proposed additions are 5', 7', and 16.r from the rear lot line, respectively. A prior rear yard variance was granted in 1975. It was noted that a wood retaining wall is located on the neighboring property to the south. The high volume of traffic is also considered a deterrent to locating the addition closer to the road. Stair recommended approval of the rear yard variance with the existing shed relocated to a location meeting the yard setback requirements or be removed. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#5 - #2311 Loren Fritz - Continued) Lindquist recommended the applicant come to an agreement with the neighboring property owner regarding the wood retaining wall. Fritz said the wall is a replacement of what already existed to prevent erosion, and his neighbor supported the building of the wall. Fritz said the shed has been there for 30 years and is in good repair. It is used for lawn equipment. Fritz said he would object to removing the shed as it does not create any problem for the neighbors and is overshadowed by the bam to the west. There were no public comments. Lindquist said he supported the proposed addition and maintaining the wood retaining wall. However, he recommended the shed be moved. Fritz said the relocation of the shed would create an eyesore if relocated. Fritz also indicated that he would have to dismantle the shed as it is bolted down. Mrs. Fritz said the area suggested for the shed location is marshland and unbuildable. McMillan asked if the shed would require rebuilding when it became deteriorated, if it could be built in the same location. Bressier said it would require a variance. Bressler said the shed is in good condition at this time. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the rear setback variance of 13.9* to allow' the proposed addition to be located 16.1' from the rear lot line where T is existing and 30' is allowed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2313 TOM AND KARI STEINKE, 910 DAKOTA AVENUE - VARIANCE - 7;45-7;49 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler presented photographs of the property. The proposal is for construction of a second story addition over the existing residence. The existing residence currently encroaches the side setback. The variance would allow additional structure in the required setback but would not encroach further. Bressler reviewed the four issues as indicated in the packet. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Steinke had no further comments. • - I I--------- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#6 - #2313 Tom and Kari Steinke - Continued) Mrs. Steinke indicated that the addition would be a bedroom over the dining room. The residence currently has a v\'alk-up attic. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2313 for a side yard setback variance of 17.6' to allow the existing side yard setback of 12.4' to remain where 30' is required. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2314 JOHN BESSESEN, 2505-2507 KELLY AVENUE - ZONING AMENDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 7:49-9:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported the applicant is requesting a zoning amendment to revise the duplex credit district. If that approval is received, a conditional use permit would be required. As the ordinance is currently written, a conditional use permit would only be possible if the zoning lot is adjacent to an industrial or commercial zone and built within 200' of that zone. Van Zomeren showed the location of the Highway 12 industrial area and the residential area within 200' that is not separated by a roadway. The area eligible is located to the south of the highway. Staff has historically required that adjacent lot lines be contiguous. If a more liberal viewpoint was taken and the road was not considered, that area could possibly cross the road. The other location is in Navarre. Van Zomeren displayed where the subject lot and commercial zoning is located. Van Zomeren said the terminology in the code needs clarification. The existing location where the fire station was located is not eligible for duplex credit as it is outside the commercial zone and the 200’ limitation. Van Zomeren said she and Gaffron discussed modifying the duplex credit. The B-3 zoning is the only zoning that could be extended to capture that lot and eliminate the 200' requirement. The 200' eligibility could be changed to reflect 400’ from the B-3 district. The B-1 and B-6 zoning districts would be eliminated for duplex credit. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Continued) Van Zomeren said, if the City's intent is to allow duplex housing, it first needs to be determined where that housing should be located and then place it in the zoning. She does not feel it makes sense where the use is currently allocated. She says it is important to buffer the industrial and commercial areas with higher density but is not the best method to achieve this end. The zo" ‘ng situation for the subject lot needs to be revised before the lot is eligible for a conditional use permit. Van Zomeren is concerned that the "duplex credit" is a moving target because it changes based on commercial or industrial zoning. Van Zomeren reported that there are alot of small lots where duplexes can currently be located under the duplex credit process. She feels this should not be encouraged. The church property rezoning that occurred in 1996 changed the 200' eligibility and needs to be eliminated i. her opinion. Van Zomeren asked if the non-conforming structure should be demolished and the area zoned for duplex. The presence of Outlot A at the lakeshore precludes single family development, according to the applicant. Research found that the reasoning behind the outlot had to do with a concern over multiple docks on the wetlands. Van Zomeren said the most restrictive way to change the ordinance to allow the property to have a duplex constructed on it would be through the B-3 district. This would not affect the existing duplexes. John Bessesen had no comments at this point. The hearing was opened for public comments. Todd Jones, 2501 and 2503 Kelly Avenue, reported that his property is adjacent to the subject property. Jones said he is unclear on what four lots are affected. Van Zomeren explained where the lots are located. The 400' limitation would add two single family lots to the south. Jones said he cannot see the single family lots being utilized for the duplex use. He agrees the site is blighted and understands the problem with setback. He believes the opportunity for duplexes would be good for the city. He believes the plan is reasonable and would clean up the property. Austin Evans, 2497 Kelly Avenue, lives north of the subject property in a townhome, and cited the text amendment. He said the subject property has been on the market for five years and its current condition is not in keeping with the neighborhood. He understands the economical problems with providing a single family residence. He feels changing the zoning to accomplish the request is extreme. He feels changing the existing duplexes zoning allowing one dwelling unit on 1/2 acre is more feasible. Evans feels the only use of the property as it is now is to have the City condemn it and make it a park. Evans believes all the residents along Kelly Avenue would support the redevelopment to a duplex. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Continued) Chuck and Candy Nadler, 2509 Kelly Avenue, live south of the subject property. Chuck Nadler said he is concerned with rezoning the area to the east to allow more duplexes. He is not sure this would be the right solution. Nadler wanted the applicant to answer whether he will do as he is proposing. If so, Nadler said he would support the application. He believes the proposal would result in a high quality duplex. Nadler indicated that Outlot A creates the problem for creating a single family residence. He is not convinced that the outlot could not be eliminated if the townhome residents and City work together. Evans said he would be willing to aid in eliminating the outlot and get all docks in the same location. Jones thought this solution could be worked out but wanted to maintain the right to enjoy more lakeshore for walking. Bessesen said he had presumed the property was zoned for duplexes when the purchase agreement was written. He found out differently when the property was surveyed. Bessesen said the plans call for duplexes at a value of $350,000-$400,000 for each side. He did have a concern with the gas station nearby but had a Phase I EIS conducted, which showed no problems. He then found that the zoning is for single family site but the outlot is problematic. Bessesen said the Kelly Avenue Association owns the property around the townhomes. Outlot A is landlocked and causes problems for single family purposes. If the outlot was eliminated, he would prefer to build a single family residence. The existing four townhomes could establish docks in front of their own units. Bessesen said he represents the owner, Bradley Hoyt. He would like the opportunity to w ork out any problems if possible to improve Kelly Avenue. Stoddard said he appreciates Staffs initiative in extending the zone to 400'. He believes it will affect four lots, two of which have sold for over $1,000,000. He does not believe it would be a good idea to change the zoning in order to change these lots. Stoddard said the outlot has presented a problem for perspective buyers of the property. He believes single family housing is preferable in the neighborhood. He said consideration could be given to change the zoning for the one lot. Bessesen responded that State law does not allow this to occur. Bessesen noted the rights of the townhome owners regarding the outlot and would like to be able to build another townhome. He indicated that Hoyt has listed his home for sale and plans on living in one of the units. Stoddard suggested Bessesen speak with the neighbors regarding their feelings and obtain information on the background of Outlot A. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Continued) Van Zomeren said previous noted Staff concerns with impacts on the wetlands if more docks were established. She believes the outlot was established because of dock issues. Van Zomeren said othc regulatory bodies will have to be contacted regarding establishing docks in front of townhomes. She noted the amount of wetlands is large. Steve Weckman had informed her that the wetland map is confusing and requires further delineation. Berg noted there w'ere similar docks located on Carman Bay. Nadler said he had been informed that Outlot A had been negotiated with the City and dealt with where the townhomes were built and the desire of a property owner to have docks located in one area. Jabbour agreed that dock clustering was encouraged at that time. Nad er suggested working with the property owTiers to have docks located in front of the unrs if proven economical. Jabbour said the history behind the outlot needs to be determined •ud the Commission needs to either agree or disagree with whether economics i dictating the location Berg noted that the lot across the street is unbuildable. Lindquist indicated that the action to be taken at this time is for conceptual approval. Commission noted difficulty in changing the zoning. Commissioners all agreed that new development is desired but questioned whether it should be single family residence or a duplex. Hawn said she would be willing to look at eliminating Outlot A if it can be done and changing the zoning. She agrees with V'an Zomeren that rewriting the zoning around one property is not a good solution and Commission should determine where duplexes should be located in the City. Bessesen said he understands the reasoning behind Van Zomeren's suggestions and the need to determine what method can accomplish it. Hawn said the issue needs to be reviewed comprehensively. Berg said research must be done on the history of Outlot A. Van Zomeren read the minutes of the 10/3/7"’ Planning Commission Meeting regarding Outlot A. She asked if the docks could be re-established for each duplex in order to eliminate Outlot A. Berg said the townhomes first have to be reviewed. Lindquist said rezoning can then be done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bcssesen - Continued) Van Zomeren said the existing townliomes and this site could be rezoned and the density changed by text amendment using 400’ or less. She noted she is not particularly in favor of using a distance measurement. She would prefer to eliminate the duplex credit as it currently exists. Jabbour informed the Commission how the duplex credit was established with the Shoreland Ordinance in the early 1990's. He noted there would be two PUDs for consideration in the near future. Jabbour thought tlie areas could be changed and the application done as a PUD. Van Zomeren said because the property does not quality for a conditional use permit, she does not believe it meets the acreage requirement for PUD. Van Zomeren indicated that the Planning Commission could consider recommending that the legal non-conforming use be re-established as a use on a lot of record if it met all other requirements; that would require amending a different section of the Zoning Code relating to non-conforming uses. The extend of the impact for this method is not known. Hawn asked what would take longer, the 400' text amendment or determining location for duplexes. Van Zomeren said the problem is textually amending the ordinance, which has the effect of a spot zoning. She is reluctant to do that at this time because the Comprehensive Plan is due to be revised before the end of 1998. Stoddard noted the neighbors comments that were made regarding the legal non- conforming use, zoning for the neighborhood, and the blighted site. He felt the outcome is dcp. .ident on the applicant. He suggested the applicant speak with the neighbors regarding changing the outlot and then construct a single family home, which he felt would be the best solution for both the City and the neighborhood. However, Stoddard said the issue before the Commission is to determine if a duplex would fit in with the neighborhood. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2314 approving a duplex at that address due to the existing legal non-conforming use and change the zoning to establish the legal use provided no other variances are required on the construction. Lindquist questioned whether this can be done. Van Zomeren said it would be an amendment to another section of the zoning code but there is no language to that effect. She indicated this cannot be drafted without renotifying the public. Van Zomeren said a text amendment can be broadly done. This motion would require the application to be reviewed again in January. Van Zomeren cited the ordinance sections suggesting the text amendment be revised to apply only to the B3 District and the distance be reduced from 400’ to 250’. Stoddard withdrew his motion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Continued) Jabbour indicated that this would require a 4/5th majority vote by Council and could not be reviewed until December 8 when a full Council would be in attendance. Stoddard moved. McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2314 for construction of a duplex amending this single lot zoning to include duplex credit approvals for construction within 250’ from B-3 building due to its legal non-conforming use. McMillan questioned whether the property was more than 250' from the B-3 zoning. The number of docks (3; and their length (25') were noted. They are located adjacent to the neighboring property and allows people to walk across the outlot. Stoddard noted that the motion would allow the applicant and Staff to see what can be done before review at the 12/8 Council meeting. McMillan noted that LMCD approval would be required for moving the docks. It was noted that the language as it currently exists m the ordinance needs to be narrowed and limited to the B-3. Stoddard said there may be no need for an amendment as he feels the distance is less than previously thought. Stoddard amended his motion to eliminate the existing language in the code regarding duplex credit. McMillan seconded the amendment to the motion. Lindquist questioned how the Commission could get duplex zoning back in place with this motion. It would require Comprehensive Plan review and changes made. Lindquist said the motion would allow this application to go forward but additional work would be required. Hawn questioned whether the motion could legally be done noting the current rights of the propert)’ owners. Van Zomeren said the public notice posted would serve as notice for this motion. The motion was separated into two motions. The motion read: to approve Application #2314 for construction of a duplex and amend the single lot zoning to include the duplex credit approval for construction within 250' of the B-3 zoning district due to its legal non-conforming use. Vote: Ayes 3, McMillan, Stoddard, Berg; Nays 2, Lindquist, Hawn. Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Continued) Stoddard moved but received no second to eliminate the language to allow duplex credit to the zoning code. McMillan suggested the issue be further reviewed before sending the recommendation to the Council. Lindquist said he voted against the motion as he is against spot zoning but supports the plan itself. The applicant was asked to research the background of Outlot A prior to the Council Meeting on December 8. Bessesen will work with Van Zomeren to solve issues of concern. (#8) CITY OF ORONO - ZONING AMENDMENT - LAND ALTERATION REGULATIONS AND PERMIT CRITERIA - 9:10-9:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gappa reported that the zoning amendment is a housekeeping matter to streamline the current code. The code currently requires a conditional use permit for any land alteration over 100 cubic yards. This creates a problem for what may be minor work. Staff has concluded that a Staff permit process should take place and change the ordinance to reflect the need for a CUP for land alteration over 500 cubic yards. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of the Zoning Amending for Land Alteration Regulations and Permit Criteria. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 27, 1997 AND NOVEMBER 10,1997 No report was given. (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION The Planning Commission will meet on December 17,1997 at 6:30 p.m. Items for discussion will include tree preservation, home occupation, and review research regarding prior variances. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#10- Other Issues for Discussion - Continued) McMillan asked that Park Commission Chair Wilson be notified of the meeting, Jabbour indicated that the meeting may include information regarding the elimination of calculating landscaping underlain with plastic in the 0-75’ setback. Landscaping with plastic underlayment will be allowed in the 75-250' setback if the 25% hardcover allowance is met. Jabbour reported that the park dedication ordinance is being challenged, and the City Attorney will be drafting a new ordinance. He stated a direct ne.xus must be shown between the park services provided and any subdivision requiring park dedication fees. Jabbour asked the Planning Commission to further investigate any application where prior Councils placed future restrictions to determine the reasoning behind their decision. He cited an example where the Planning Commission listened to prior Council advice in a recommendation, but the current Council mistakenly did not, resulting in what he felt was a hastily drawn and incorrect conclusion. (#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 20,1997 MEETING Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting jf October 20, 1997. Vote: Ayes5, NaysO. (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 24,1997 AND DECEMBER 8,1997 November 24 - Stoddard December 8 - Berg ADJOURNMENT Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 9:23 p.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person