Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-1998 Planning Packetr ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 16,1998—6:30 p.m. 2780 Kelley Park>vay—Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Mayor Jabbour AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants w ill be asked to move to the front table to answ e.* 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 APRIL 13,1998, City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 1.#2325 Lake Col'^try Builders on behalf of John & Cindy Olson, 950 North Arm Drive. Variances. Tabled at the request of the applicant on 1/20/98. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). 2.#2340 Robert Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive, Preliminary Subdivision with Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). 3.#2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee, 3285 Carmen Road. Variances. (Staff: Brad Bressler). 4.#2292 Tom Okerstrom, 770 Tonkawa Road. Variances. (Staff: Brad Bressler). SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS 7:00 p.m. 5.#2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve, 4196 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.#2343 7.#2344 8.#2346 9.#2347 10.#2348 11.#2351 Timothy and Bonnie Johnson, 627 Ferndalc Road North. Variances. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe, 1056 Loma Linda Avenue. Variances. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Mark and Pamela Palm, 1447 Park Drive. Variances. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Tim Sweezo, 4480 Watertown Road. Conditional Use PermitA^ariance. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). Mary Jane Hauser, 1540 Bohns Point Road. Variances. (Staff: Brad Bressler). Laura Zauner, 3262 North Shore Drive. After -the-fact Variances. (Staff: Brad Bressler). ZONING AMENDMENTS 12. City of Orono Code Amendment Re: Park Dedication Fee. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). 13. City of Orono Zoning Code Amendment Re: Land Alteration. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 14. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on February 23, 1998 and March 9, 1998 15. Other issues for discussion. 16. Planning Commission approval of minutes for February 17, 1998. 17. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on March 23, 1998 and April 13, 1998. ADJOURNMENT 2e tit iiii rtst SliS Uii iUi r Public A ttendance :s/4;/vtMeeting D ate □ C ouncil ^ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ OTHER ■ Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS • :».v v!;;: ^x-. xX-xV-'x^ :• * H NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 6Z7 2. 3 P«r\ ■\-T<W>J\C4rt____________ ----------------- ---------- V\ Au»v ^ I A/ 1. , P' T»HM PaK-V^ •i-^4U / TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:February 11, 1998 SUBJECT: #2325 Lake Country Builders, on behalf of John & Cindy Olson 950 North Ann Drive Variance(s) - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (1 acre) LotArea: Application:This application has been revised since the January 20, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. The current proposal is to rebuild the existing lakeside deck which extends 8' from the residence. A 14'x8' screened deck would be built over a portion of the area where the deck is currently. A bluff setback variance is needed to rebuild the deck and to add the screened porch. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.56, Subd. 3, (2) Definition of a Bluff Section 10.56, Subd. 16, (2) and (3) U2325 Lake Country Builders, John & Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Date of PC, February 17, 1998 page~l ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140'35'10'75' minimum and average lakeshore Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .84 acres (est.)215'49.8'38.7' (east)105* The subject property meets the lot width and setback requirements for street yard, s'de yard, and lake front. The existing residence is located in the area between the 75' lakeshore setback and the top of the bluff. 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 The applicants have indicated in their original letter with the original application that they want to replace an old deck (see Exhibit C). Please refer to the survey to understand the location of the existing residence and the top of the bluff. if2325 Lake Country Builders, John & Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Date of PC, February 17. 1998 page~2 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 used as a residence. However, the deck is not in good condition and the applicant wishes to replace it. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The existing residence is located almost entirely in the area between the required 30' bluff setback and the top of the bluff. The zoning lot area does not have a suitable building pad for any further additions. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for bluff 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. Deck replacement is consistent with the zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Adjacent properties are also located along the bluff. The subject lot is more restricted by the bluff and the existing road. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Replacement of the deck will preserve an existing property right. Adding a screened porch will enhance their property rights. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants. But is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. No improvements can be made to the property without a bluff setback 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 area defined by ordinance as the top of the bluff. 3. 4. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing deck in poor condition. Minimal description of the slope and bluff would occur to replace the deck and to construct a screened porch. U2325 Lake Country Builders, John & Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Date of PC, February 17,1998 pages 4 5.The permit record indicates that the existing structure record indicates that the existing structure was built in 1973. The shoreland management ordinance was adopted in February 1992. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The existing residence straddles an area defined as the top of bluff by the 1992 Shoreland Management. The revised proposal replaces an existing deck and will not impact the bluff Staff recommends approval of the revised plan as submitted. f Attachments A B C D E F G H Application & New Letter Plat Map Original Letter Topo Map Survey Revised Plans Permit Record Bluff Ordinance 1 U2325 Lake Country Builders, John & Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Date of PC. February 17,1 998 page—4 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 S2?0 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fe PROPERTY information Site Address_q M Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ Application # ZS' Date Received •2.Z~97 Amount Paid ^ 2.^0 ss w ^c& o cn included on required surveyDate ProEe^Acquired_ <p/ I (do) ^o_no0 also own the adjacent parcels of lid ' .^residential ___pother (specify)ZomngDistnct:_fes.o^_ ^ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name V a -u . >g-Tfcie Jacobsen Phone (home) t+l 9- L y _ Phone (work) ~ p _______Zip: Phone (home) \ Phone (work) 3 3 **> — I <? "7 ^ 'si> . ^ Zip: Address:,-^ q OWNER (if different than applicant) Address:^.;^ 17 DKCRffTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction CostDesenbe request in detail; nsg^oon Lost S_tlg>, eg c? SooO -------------.---------<—o:—/ce £T9^Tt » ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED -----Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Setback: .Lot Coverage Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) . < ao.~ Hr^Smp/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS cornH^norl^t P”'**! difficulty or unusual property conditions preventingcompliance with Zonmg Code requirements: k-/ J ^^----------^ C’P //Z fh >c »>-y 71. a-r^, ^7. ' rT UJ____ ^fY)/0. 'n jM ^^ p.,.~ r rjM---- ^ ^ _J M-----S-->2 <^.7^,.. .s-«.«.>• (attach additional sheets if necessary) ... -7, _7-. ...bc-fe 0.<WuaKJ TL. Cli,*T-S ^ Oy~> <^rb'c.f^y 1 9 J REQUIRED SUBMITTALS the folipwing infprniiition must he ^uhmimd bv th> j P.rdgr for vpur application to be cf^nsidered complete; i^^Completed Application Fonn - y"°Vi V'' ‘50-. labels and plat map (you must obtain tos list, labels and map from Hennepin County Departmenr of Finance. A-603, Govt Center. 348-3271). r: Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/." x 11" for reproduction. v / r/ Topographic survey (existmg and proposed elevations) if any charges in e.xistina proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy g'/j" x 11" for reproduction* i::: Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11"). ist 0 e eg^ names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in ^e property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). __ As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 5, 6, 7. 8. The Applicam and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance gpphcafion is not cnmolete if (he nhaye information has nor h-en in.i..a.a APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Adrnimstrator agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenspa-tnciKx^ in /eview of this application, and certifies that the information supplied i^e and^pfect t6 the be^of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE ^ The owner hereby acknowledps and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the properpi^y City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpos^ yfjnvesti^tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meerings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 LAKE COUNTRY B U I I D E I S' 6 February 1998 lARI COUNTRY BUILDERS, INC 339 SECOND STREET O EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 0 THE THRILL IS BUILDING O 613. 474. 7121 612. 474. 7 9 S 7 loktcofitrybtildtrs.coM ^ / V______wnufNUInjBEaov CITY OF ORONO J Ms. Liz Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Oron Re: SUBJECT #2325 John and Cindy Olson Residence / Bluff Setback Variance Application 950 North Arm Drive fEE a 1398 » A N r> ----------- Dear Ms. Van Zomeren, Attached you will find revised sketch documents that pertain to an alternative request for a variance for the Olson Residence at 950 North Arm Drive. In this revised version, we request the opportunity to rebuild the deck where it currently is situated, tdong the back 28.2 feet of house facing the lake. We would rebuild the deck to 8’-0’ from the house along this back length of the house. Along the southerly half of this deck, we would build a 14’ x 8’ screen porch. See the attached documents for further information. It is our intention to apply for a variance for this Eiltemative at the next planning commission reviewal meeting. Thank you for your assistance in this matter Sincerely, LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS, INC. Peter W. Jacobson, President Enclosures 4~i~u C% ^ ■) —-.^ :: -h1 :» December 19,1997 Planning Commissioners City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono, MN. 55356 Re: Variance Application Dear Planning Commissioners, From the infonnation we have presented you can see that our desire is to add a screened porch and small 8 ’x8 ’ deck onto existing residence. Additionally, we want to replace oin 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 bcautifiil lot and view of Lake 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 our home as it relates to the neighbors line of sight, city code setback and hardcover surface issues are not affected by our minimal scope of work. However we understand that there is a “ biafF“ area that exists that approximately 80% of our whole house lies witliin. 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 HW Y 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 is certainly 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 ofHWY151. The particulars of the construction for the decks and porch are a post and beam construction which does not require extreme excavation of our earth 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 respectftilly ask for your approval on our variance request. Most/sin^r^sljyfours, John & Cindy Olson CITY OF ORONO 612A730510 11/06/97 11:0A 0 :02/03 N0:629 096 \ >^ZS/ T^. 4?y'i f*/" '-* ‘ 2 c=«e*r, /» T«<>« fi>^ o--^ ^ a lo:p ’• j-Sn/^ ' *7 ‘i•T^ ftjiiLOn^er PfO / Uil t g i g t g 92t S a*. ♦ coKW^ «’■' \ \ . X X •»53.t \ \ *«EI.l s 58"24'00"ESURV0. UKe . r«i»0 3 — — “*M» benchmarks corner of EXISTING BUILbING • «d.Z IS 4«T^/ ♦ 97ST •^7 // '972 5 J.9TIJ 'SLUfr 7 Top. V* —0 9 ------ N 40®0*0'00"W COUNTY JiOAD NO. J51 Bim I I JOB QjL.ry\ . PERMIT RECORD Type of Permit u S 10.56 2. "Bluff" - A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area 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 to a point 25' or more above the Ordinary High Water Level averages 30% or greater; and D. body. 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 of 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) S 10.56 C. Placement of Structures on Lots. V7hen 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: Structures Sewage Treatment Setbacks Public Water Classification NE RD GD Tributary 2. Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply# regardless of the classification of the water body: Unsewered Sewered System 150 150 150 100 75 75 75 75 75 100 75 75 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 frontage# must either be set back double the normal Ordinary High Water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography# assuming summer# leaf-on conditions. 5. Fences# docks# retaining walls. No fence shall be placed within the shore setback zone. Portions of dock located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as a landing# subject to the regulations for landings per Subdivision 16 (F) o this section. Retaining walls shall not be placed within the shore setback zone. ORONO CC 376-11 (2-24-92) 13 —R I 12 r 2 =• HARDCOV'ER CA.LCULAT10N WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) rviCTlNC HAROCOVER IN ZONE 75-;50*250-500’500-1000' S.F. A. House __ Lcnsxh WtdOi X X S.F. S.F. b.r. S.F. B. Oarage C. Driveway X X xr ^Sm Sr. SF. D. Sidewalk _X X E. Patio/Dcck X X ._/-3 ____ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X «c s: O. Other __ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERPiT AREA IN ZONE - B _X 100 ^Z. pROPOSPn hardcover in zq\£ A. House Length WicLh X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plosnc X X X G. Other A _ total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area IN ZONE ^ B____X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •"a S.F. SF. S F. S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. R - 0 2 A B S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. •SF. S.F. A B -t y i hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER TN Tnivnr A. House ______ Length 250-500'500-1000' Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway A3.AX D. Sidew E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERIT AREA IN ZONE B 3 3 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER TN A. House ft X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Bade/Deck A»Ac .l « K F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other a- 1, I fe X X X X X X X X X i£-_ IH TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -i- B r>65i X 100 an ■l-a*T 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. oLS ~ S.F. ‘^.q-7 % 3k r~) . S.F. S.F. ' S.F. ] S.F. . S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. ■I S.F. . S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. S.F. . S.F. 3. \ S.F. Hoi (D A B A B f r-/ •- r. '•i; yf v^_vycrrt of ORONO Municipal Ofllces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parlmay Orono, MN S53S6 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 a^CQVER ORPn^^NCF, - In 1975, the Orono City Council adopted an ordinance imiting the percentHge of lot area that can be covered with impervious surface ("hardcover”) such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the lake. The intent of Orono ’s ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. Hardcover Zones - Allowed Percentages: Hardcover includes: - Roofs 0-75 0% 75-250'25% 250-500'30% 500-1000'35% - Sidewalks Paved or gravel driveways Patios & decks (includes slatted decks) Tops of retaining walls & rock walls Decorative landscape areas underlain by plastic sheeting or fabric Any other surface that does not allow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 1. Circle which setback zone (0-75', 75-250', etc.) the calculation is for. 2. J. 4. D. For each item of hardcover within that zone, enter the length and width, and multiply to get square footage (s.f.). Add up all the square footages to get total square footage of hardcover. Divide by the total area of property within the zone and multiply by 100 to get percentage of hardcover in the zone. If changes in hardcover are proposed, you should do a "before" worksheet and "after worksheet. If either results in percentages greater than tliose allowed, contact City staff before proceeding with your project planning! Telephooe (612) 47^-7357 • FAX 473-0510 12 ^(ZexAseci) •ertc nx-l remodeling designs for JOHN & CINDY OLSON RESIDENCE 950 North Arm Drive, Orono, MN 55364 A r^nn r a nnrr\i^ t TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM;Michael P. GafTron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE;March 13, 1998 SUBJECT; #2340 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat Review - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre, Sewered Total F:te Area:1,503 acres Proposal: Two-lot residential plat to create a single family lakeshore lot and a duplex lot near the road. The l^eshore lot is a back lot and subject to the pertinent standards. List of Exhibits A - Revised preliminary plat drawing B - Preliminary grading and drainage plan C - Notice of Planning Commission Action ca. 3-1-98 D - Memo and Exhibits of 2-12-98 Revisions Since February Meeting Applicant has revised plans and provided addditional information as follows: 1. Incorporated stormwater rate control pond within the proposed lakeshore lot, and provided a preliminary grading and drainage plan. 2. Provided Outlot C for dedication for County Road 51 right-of-way. 3.Reduced private road outlot (Outlot A) to 40' width from 50' standard, incorporating a 24' paved road to serve 7 dwellings, such pavement being about 10' from the adjacent residence structure to the east which is only 3' off the lot line. 4.Reduced private driveway outlot (Outlot B) to 20' width from 30’ standard, and ended it before it reaches the widened-out portion of the lakeshore lot (this constitutes two variances to the back lot ordinance). I File #2340 March 13,1998 Page 2 5.Provided revised hardcover calculations reflecting twinhome moved further south, slightly nearer the County Road, and reflecting revised lot areas due to lot line revisions. 6.Showed a proposed berm along the west lot line as a buffer to Lakeside Marina. This berm is over the existing City sewer lines/easement and reflects grade changes within 5' of a lot line which requires a conditional use permit. 7.The 55' X 35' stomiw ater pond has not been excluded from the area of the lakeshore lot. When excluded, this leaves the lakeshore lot at 0.748 acres, just a tad under the 0.75 acre back lot standard. Getting it this close was only accomplished by the substandard width and length of the driveway outlot and substandard width of the private road outlot. Revised Plan Conformity to Lot Standards Lot I is a lakeshore lot that is proposed for a single family residence. As a back lot: It nearly meets the "150% of 1/2 acre" back lot standard when the stormwater pond easement is excluded (0.75 acres required, 0.748 acre proposed). It meets the LR-lC-1 100' width minimum (124' at the shoreline, at the 75' setback line, and at the street yard setback). It meets the required 45' street yard depth (150% of the 30' LR-lC-1 standard). It meets the required 15 ’ side yard depth (150% of the 10' LR-lC-1 standard). It meets the required lake setback of 75'. Average setback is not an issue, since the proposed residence is further from the lake than the residence to the east, and there is no residence to the west. The access outlot (Outlot B) at a 20' width requires a variance to the 30' minimum width requirement; the driveway meets the required 10' setback from the east lot line per Section 10.03, Subd 27 (C) (3), but requires a variance because it is up against the lot line of the front lot. At least 5' is normally needed to provide for snow storage, etc. ' File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 3 Hardcover for Lot 1 is proposed at just under the 25% limit in the 75-250' zone and at 25% in the small portion in the 250-500' zone; but the narrow driveway proposal still has a minimal apron at the garage which may be difficult to maneuver, suggesting that at final site planning a more flexible layout may be desired. Lot 2 is technically a "front lot" and in this case is proposed for construction of a duplex, i.e. a single building with two dwelling units, on a single lot. Under Orono's ordinances this duplex lot could not be split to have two separate owners. The result is that at least one of the units will be a rental, and/or possibly both will be rental. Regarding lot standards: Lot 2 meets the 0.5 acre minimum lot size required for a non-riparian duplex lot, the same standard applicable for a single family lot. Lot 2 meets the 135' minimum width for a duplex (shoreland ordinance requirements) if measured along the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. {The Zoning Code identifies the shortest side of a corner lot such as this, as the 'front'. However, in this case the side abutting Outlot A will function as the front lot line and if the line abutting Outlot A is formally defined as the front lot line by City action, the lot could be considered as conforming in width for a duplex lot. The intrusion of the AffVCC lift station into the site suggests that this would be an appropriate conclusion, given the impacts that intrusion has on the building envelope for this site). The duplex proposed for Lot 2 meets the 15' required depth of the side yard adjacent to the back lot access outlot (Outlot B). The 10' side tnd 30 ’ rear yards are correctly shown on the drawings assuming the east lot line is defined as front. Section 10.03, Subd. 27 (C) (4) states that no more than two residences may be served via an access outlot (Outlot B) but applicant's plan has three units being served by Outlot B. The solution is to design a duplex with a separate access driveway coming off the road outlot, Outlot A. As drawn, this requires a variance. Hardcover for Lot 2 is now shown as 14% in the 75-250' zone where 25% would be allowed, and 45% in the 250-500' zone where 30% w'ould be allowed. However, the 250-500' zone should be credited with unused hardcover allowance from the 75-250' zone, because an unused hardcover allowance can be transferred to a zone further from the lake while still meeting the intent of the code. This is demonstrated below: i 4 File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 4 Area of 75-250' zone in Lot 2 = 12,915 sf 25%=3,229 sf Proposed hardcover in 75-250' zones = 1,830 sf Excess available allowance = 3,229 sf - 1,830 sf = 1,399 sf (Credit to 250-500' zone) Total area of 250-500' zone in Lot 2 = 8,865 sf 30% = 2,660 sf Add credit from 75-250' zone: 2,660 sf + 1,399 sf = 4,059 sf Proposed 250-500' hardcover = 3,970 sf, which is less than 4,059 sf, hence the proposal should be considered as meeting the intent of the hardcover ordinance. Outlot B does not meet the 30' width requirement and requires a variance, and use of Outlot B to serve as access to all three units does not meet code standards as noted above. At least one of the units must have its access other than Outlot B or a variance would be necessary. Outlot A is being platted as a 40' private road outlot, requiring a variance to the road width standard, but containing a 24' paved road which does meet the paved width standard. Outlot A currently contains a narrow gravel driveway serving three residences to the east of this site, plus the garage for the adjacent house directly east of Outlot A. Since applicant does not control the remaining properties which would be ser\'ed by the road, it may be unreasonable to force him to create a cul-de- sac, but it is reasonable in staffs opinion to require that a 24' paved road be constructed the length of Outlot A, and at the north end connect to the existing private driveway system. Outlot C is being provided at the request " Hennepin County Public Works for needed sight distance improvements and added right-of -way at this location. The hill along North Shore Drive needs to be cut dowTi to provide adequate sight distance. This e.xcavation would be the responsi. dity of the developer. General Comments and Issues 1. V Both proposed buildings appear to avoid existing sewer lines by at least 15'. The survey must show all utility easements of record; no existing easements are shown on the current preliminary plat drawing. This group of four properties previously contained a total of three residences and was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1963-64. No additional connection charges are required. The property has three SAC units credited from demolition of the pre-existing homes, hence no SAC charges will be required. Existing sewer stubs are available to serve all three proposed units. The site will be served with private wells. File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 5 3.The Orono Trail System Plan includes a corridor along North Shore Drive. The Park Commission reviewed this plat on February 2 and recommended a cash dedication, noting that it appears sufficient right-of-way exists for any future trails along the County Road. Riparian Access Issue (See discussion in the February 12 memo) Only the lakeshore lot will have legal riparian access under City ordinances. Stormwater Ponding The preliminaiy drainage and grading plan was received late on March 12 and has yet to be reviewed by the City engineer. The City normally excludes the area of required stormwater ponding from the area calculation of individual lots, per Subdivision Code Section 11.41, Subdivision B (4). When the 35 ’ x 55' pond is excluded, the area of Lot 1 is very slightly under 0.75 acre. The City normally excludes stormwater ponds from calculable lot acreage. However, the City did allow wetland acreage to be used for the ’extra 50%’ acreage requirement for unsewered back lots in the Old Crystal Bay Road Addition. Does Planning Commission feel that the goals of the back lot ordinance are met by crediting storm pond acreage toward the e.xcess 50% area? Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. Does Planning Commission support the concept that the lot line abutting the private road outlot, Outlot A, can be the front lot line, thereby making Lot 2 a conforming duplex lot? If not, will Planning Commission grant a lot width variance for the duplex lot? Will Planning Commission in favor of establishing a policy that stormwater ponding can be credited toward the 'extra 50% area’ required for a back lot? Does Planning Commission concur that applicant should be responsible for constructing a 24' paved road the entire length of Outlot A, and granting easements over such road to all property owners that will make use of it? Does Planning Commission agree that this should be a private road, and not public? Will Planning Commission recommend approval of the width and length variances associated with Outlets A and B? File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 6 5.Will Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to allow the driveway outlot to serve three total dwellings? 6.Does Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding access to this property or to adjacent properties? 7.Since the proposal for a duplex on Lot 2 appears to meet all the Conditional Use Permit standards listed in the code, does Planning Commission have any additional concerns or wish to place additional limitations on the use of Lot 2 for a duplex? 7.Does Planning Commission find any Justification to grant special approval for lake access for the proposed duplex units? 8.Will Planning Commission recommend approval of a CUP for land alterations to create a berm within 5' of the lot line as part of this subdivision proposal? 9.Does Planning Commission concur with staff that crediting unused 75-250' hardcover toward the 250'-500’ zone meets the intent of the hardcover ordinance without the need for a variance' Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should address each of the 9 issues noted above in any recommendation. If the conclusion is that the subdivision should be recommended for approval with certain variances and conditions of approval, staff would recommmend the following additional conditions:: 1. 2. City Engineer to review preliminary grading and drainage plan prior to Council review. Applicant shall construct a 24' paved width road within Outlot A and grant easements to all property owners w'ho will make use of that road. 3.Applicant shall be responsible for making whatever changes are necessary to the grades adjacent to North Shore Drive to improve sight distance. 4.The duplex lot shall not have riparian access, and the City shall require the filing of covenants in the chain of title of Lot 2, to document that Lot 2 shall have no access to the lake. 5. Subject to the standard park dedication fee. p File #2340 March 13,1998 Page 7 6. Subject to thc^tandard Developers Agreement requirements. 7.Subject to the granting of the standard drainage and utility easements. Applicant must confirm and show all easements over existing sewer lines, and if no easements exist, grant them with this plat. Applicant will be advised that the 60-day limit for application review will be extended another 60 days due to the previous tabling and future meeting schedules. This item will be brought to the Council for review on March 23. Options of Action 1. Recommend approval with appropriate conditions. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table for further information. 4.Other. 4 1 4 r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2329 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: TO: Robert VVaade 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound MN 55364 COPIES: James McKinnon 1055 E Wayzata Blvd Wayzata MN 55391 DeMars Gabriel Surveyors Attn: Russ 3030 Harbor La N Plymouth MN 55441 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 2/17/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled in order to allow applicant to revise proposal to incorporate stormwater ponding and County Road dedications, provide a grading and drainage plan, and analyze how exclusion of road and ponding areas from lot area calculations will impact lot sizes, etc. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the March 16, Planning Commission meeting is March 9. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. jig I ti TO; FROM; DATE; Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator a , (t) February 12,1998 ' L 13. SUBJECT; #2340 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary- Plat Review - Public Hearing Zoning District; LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre, Sewered Total Site Area;1.503 acres. Proposal:Two-lot residential plat to create a single family lakeshore lot and a duplex lot near the road. The laJceshore lot is a back lot and subject to the pertinent standards. Per the sketch plan review, a 50' private road corridor is being platted, since the road will serve up to 7 total dwellings. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List v D - Survey/Proposed Site Plan E - Staff Sketch of Building Envelope and Hardcover Zones F - MCWD Comments 2/4/98 G - Hennepin County Public Works Comments (Not revd. as of 2/13) Memo and Exhibits of January-13, 1998 (Sketch Plan Review) Background This property is zoned LR-1C-1, which would allow a planned residential development (PRD) for attached dwellings as a Conditional Use Permit. Under the LR-lC-1 standards, with a density allowance of three units per acre, the site could potentially accommodate up to four attached dwelling units. However, the PUD standards of the Shoreland ordinance would severely limit the potential dwelling locations and still only allow three or four units on the site depending on an interpretation of the ordinance. As a result, applicant is n2l proposing this as a PRD. He is proposing a standard front lot/back lot plat to create a single family lakeshore back lot meeting 150% of the lot area and setback standards; and a front lot adjacent to the road for construction of a duplex. The duplex would be an allowed use because the site is within 200' of the B-2 Comir rcial Zoning District. File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 2 Please review the sketch plan memo of January 13,1998 for discussion of: a. The context of this site in relation to its surrounding uses. b. More discussion about shoreland regulation implications and duplex credit implications, and back lot considerations. The applicant has proposed a revised plan since the sketch plan stage. The new plan is nearly identical to staffs Exhibit F-1 of the sletch plan review, and results in a proposal with few if any variances required. Conformity to Lot Standards Lot 1 is a lakeshore lot that is proposed for a single family residence (see Exhibit D). As a back lot: It meets the "150% of 1/2 acre" back lot standard (0.75 acres proposed). It meets the LR-lC-1 100 ’ width minimum (124' at the shoreline, at the 75' setback line, and at the street yard setback). It meets the required 45' street yard depth (150% of the 30' LR-lC-1 standard). It meets the required 15' side yard depth (150% of the 10' LR-lC-1 standard). It meets the required lake setback of 75'. Average setback is not an issue, since the proposed residence is further from frie lake than the residence to the east, and there is no residence to the west. The access outlot (Outlot B) meets the 30' minimum width requirement, and the driveway meets the required 10' setback from the east lot line per Section 10.03, i i 'bd 27 (C) (3). This is to provide for snow storage, etc. as well as separation from the neighboring house which is only 5' from the lot line. Hardcover for Lot 1 is proposed at just under the 25% limit in the 75-250 ’ zone and just under the 30% limit in the small portion in the 250-500' zone; but the narrow driveway proposal with minimal apron may be difficult to maneuver, which suggests that at final site planning a more flexible layout may be desired. 1 File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 3 Lot 2 is technically a "front lot" and in this case is proposed for construction of a duplex, i.e. a single building with two dwelling units, on a single lot. Under Orono's ordinances this duplex lot could not be split to have two separate owners. The result is that at least one of the units will be a rental, and/or possibly both will be rental. Regarding lot standards: Lot 2 meets the 0.5 acre minimum lot size required (Note that the duplex CUP Ordinance, Section 10.20, Subd. 3 (I), does nol require additional lot area for a duplex; and Shoreland Ordinance Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (A) (1) requires area minimum of 17,500 s.f (0.40 acre) for a duplex within 1,000' of a general development lake if not riparian, or 26.000 s.f. (0.60 acre) if riparian. This duplex lot does not meet the area standard for being riparian, i.e. this is a factor to account for in to determining whether the duplex lot could have lake access). Lot 2 meets the 135' minimum width for a duplex (shoreland ordinance requirements) as measured along the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Ouilot A. {The Zoning Code identifies the shortest side of a corner lot such as this, as the 'front'. However, in this case the side abutting Outlot A will function as the front lot line and if the line abutting Outlot A is formally defined as the front lot line by City action, the lot could be considered as conforming in width for a duplex lot. The intrusion of the AfJVCC lift station into the site suggests that this would be an appropriate conclusion, given the impacts that intrusion has on the building envelope for this site). The duplex proposed for Lot 2 meets the 15' required depth of the side yard adjacent to the back lot access ou»’ot (Outlot B), i.e. equal to the "side street yard" setback for the district, which in LR-lC-1 is 15'. The side and rear yards are correctly shown or *he drawings (also see staff sketch, Exhibit E). Section 10.03, Subd. 27 (C) (4) states that no more than two residences may be served via an access outlot (Outlot B) but applicant's plan has three units being served by Outlot B. The solution is to design a duplex with a separate access driveway coming off the road outlot, Outlot A. - Hardcover for Lot 2 is shown as 7.3% in the 75-250' zone where 25% would be allowed, and 50% in the 250-500' zone where 30% would be allowed. However, the 250-500' zone should be credited with unused hardcover allowance from the 75-250' zone, because an unused hardcover allowance can be transferred to a zonefiirtheL from the lake while still meeting the intent of the code. This is demonstrated below: File #2340 February 3,1998 Page 4 Total area of 75-250' zones in Lot 2 = 532 sf + 12,248 sf = 12,780 sf 25%=3,195 sf Proposed hardcover in 75-250’ zones = 900 sf Excess a\ailable allowance = 3,195 sf - 900 sf = 2,295 sf (Credit to 250-500' zone) Total area of 250-500' zone in Lot 2 = 9,000 sf 30% = 2,700 sf Add credit from 75-250' zone: 2,700 sf + 2,295 sf = 4,995 sf Proposed 250-500’ hardcover = 4,500 sf, which is less than 4,995 sf, hence the proposal should be considered as meeting the intent of the hardcover ordinance. Outlot B meets the 30' width requirement; however, use of Outlot B to serve as access to all three units does not meet code standards as noted above. At least one of the units must have its access other than Outlot B or a variance would be necessary. Outlot A is being platted as a private road. Outlot A currently contains a narrow gravel driveway serving three residences to the east of this site, plus the garage for the adjacent house directly east of Outlot A. The City Engineer has correctly noted that the City's road standard applicable to Outlot A is a 24' paved width for up to seven units. Since applicant does not control the remaining properties which would be served by the road, it may be unreasonable to force him to create a cul-de- sac, but it is reasonable in staffs opinion to require that a 24' paved road be constructed the length of Outlot A, and at the north end connect to the existing private driveway system. Hermepin County Public Works viewed the proposed private road access location with staff in January. The hill along North Shore Drive needs to be cut down to provide adequate sight distance. This excavation would occur potentially within the County road right-of-way and within Lot 2, and is the responsibility of the developer. Hennepin County's written comments had not been received as of this writing. General Comments and Issues 1.No grading or drainage plans for the site has been submitted, but is required. The City Engineer has asked for stormw'ater ponding for this site, although MC WD has considered it to be exempt due to the size of the site 2.Both proposed buildings appear to avoid existing sewer lines by at least 15'. The survey must show all utility easements of record; no easement are showTi on the current preliminary plat drawing. File #2340 February 3,1998 Page 5 3. This group of four properties previously contained a total of three residences and was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1963-64. No additional connection charges are required. The property has three SAC units credited from demolition of the pre-existing homes, hence no SAC charges will be required. Existing sewer stubs are available to serv’e all three proposed units. The site will be served with private wells. 4. The Orono Trail System Plan includes a corridor along North Shore Drive. The Park Commission reviewed this plat on February 2 and recommended a cash dedication, noting that it appears sufficient right-of-way exists for any future trails along the County Road. Regarding the need for additional right-of-way for the County Road, Hennepin County comments have yet to be received. Riparian Access Issue Lot 1 abuts the lakeshore, with approximately 124' of shoreline. Lot 2 does not abut the lakeshore. Under the City's code standards, only Lot 1 may have lake access. The applicant initially requested that the City' consider whether the duplexe units on Lot 2 might gain access to the lake, via a joint use dock, an easement, or some other method. The City has a long history of denying such access for lots which do not abut the lake. In fact, the ordinances disallow subdivisions to create lakeshore lots which have less than the required width at the shoreline. Therefore, creation of an access corridor along one side of Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2 would not be allowed, regardless whether such access was via an extended leg of Lot 1, an outlot, or an easement. The classic case of this is the "Chapman Addition" on Shadywood Road near the Narrows, where a front lot/ back lot subdivision was created in the early 1980's. The City represented to the applicants during the subdivision process that the nor. : keshore lot would not have lake access, and then the property owner a few years later create.:! « ;vi>ivr‘;nt for the non-riparian lot to gain lake access. When the City eventually learned of this during a sale of the non-lakeshore lot, the City sued to have the easement declared invalid, but lost, because the court found there was inadequate documentation to prove that the easement was not valid, but did not get into the issue of whether it was in conformity with Orono's ordinances. The Shoreland Ordinance Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (B) 2, specifically states: "the number of inland non-riparian lots which may gain access via (an) outlot shall not exceed the number obtained by dividing the outlot width measured at the shoreline by the required lot width, rounding down to the nearest whole number." If an outlot intending to create an access corridor to the lake was platted at a width of 20', 20' divided by 100' rounded down, still equals zero, i.e. no non-riparian lots could gain access. And, the width of such an outlot could be no more then 24' w hile still allowing the lakeshore riparian lot to meet the File #2340 February 3,1998 Page 6 100' width standard. In staffs opinion the code does not in any way support nor allow the creation of lake access for the proposed duplex lot. If this had been proposed as a PRD, the Shoreland ordinances note that "the allowable number of dock slips or moorings in the designation of which dwelling units or sites will have the right to use those slips or moorings shall be subject to Council approval and shall be defined in the covenants governing the PRD. In no case shall the number of slips or moorings exceed the number of allowed under the official controls of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. All docks serving three or more dwelling units shall be subject to the joint use dock licensing requirements in Chapter 5 of the Orono Municipal Code". However, applicant is not proposing this as a PRD and therefore it would be inconsistent with past City practice and policy to allow non-riparian lots to gain lake access at a density greater than one dwelling unit per minimum lot width increment of the Zoning District. Notwithstanding the above general discussion, applicant has noted that providing a single slip for each of the three dwelling units on the property, would perhaps have less impact than the possibly four slips that might be created to serve just the lakeshore lot. It is staffs understanding that a four slip dock would generally be allowed by LMCD on this site, as long as all four boats were licensed to the ovMier/occupant of the lakeshore lot. Stormwater Ponding The City normally excludes the area of required stormwater ponding from the area calculation of individual lots, per Subdivision Code Section 11.41, Subdivision B (4). The current proposal has just the bare minimum acreage in each of the two lots, and creation of stormwater ponding and the subsequent exclusion of the pond area from lot area calculations, will result in the need for lot area variances. The MCWD has indicated the site is small enough to be exempt from their ponding requirements. Since applicant has not submitted a grading and drainage plan nor plans for stormwater ponds, the impact of such facilities remains to be seen. However, it is likely that a lot area variance could be needed once such facilities are defined. The topography of the site indicates that most of the runoff from the private road and new homes would be to Maxwell Bay. This is also true of the runoff from the other homes to the east. A joint pond might be possible someday. Of greater concern is the runoff from the nearby marinas which are in the 90% hardcover range and which have no ponding facilities currently. File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page? Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Is there any reason why applicant should not provide the normal grading and drainage plans? Should a stormwater pond be required? Does Planning Commission support the concept that the lot line abutting the private road outlot, Outlot A, can be the front lot line, iherefo»‘e, making Lot 2 a conforming duplex lot? Does Planning Commission concur that applicant should be responsible for constructing a 24' paved road the entire length of Outlot A, and granting easements over such road to all property owners that will make use of it? Does Planning Commission agree that this should be a private road, and not public? Since the proposal for a duplex on Lot 2 appears to meet all the Conditional Use Permit standards listed in the code, does Planning Commission have any additional concerns or wish to place additional limitations on the use of Lot 2 for a duplex? Does Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding access to this property or to adjacent properties? Does Planning Commission find any justification to grant special approval for lake access for the proposed duplex units? Staff Recommendation Although the proposed plan appears to meet most pertinent code standards, the lack of a grading and drainage plan and it's potential effect on lot areas, makes it difficult to reach a conclusion on this subdivision. Applicant was advised of the need for a grading/drainage/stormwater plan on February 3. Pending receipt of such a plan, staff recommends as follows: 1. 2. 3. Approval of the conceptual front lot, back lot layout. Designation of the east line of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A, as Lot 2's front line, making its frontage along North Shore Drive its side street lot line. Applicant must provide a grading/drainage/stormwater plan prior to further Planning Commission review. 4. Applicant's surveyor shall re-calculate hardcover zones based on corrected zone definitions. File #2340 February 3,1998 Page 8 5.Applicant shall construct a 24' paved width road within Outlot A and grant easements to all property owners who will make use of that road. 6.Applicant shall be responsible for making whatever changes are necessary to the grades adjacent to North Shore Drive to improve sight distance. 7. 8. No variances will be granted for lot area/lot width/hardcover/setbacks. The duplex lot shall not have riparian access, and the City shall require the filing of covenants in the chain of title of Lot 2, to document that Lot 2 shall have no access to the lake. 9. No more thflp two total dwelling units may gain access via Outlot B, hence the driveway layout for the duplex must be revised. Pending receipt of a stormwater plan and knowing how it will impact the site, staff recommends tabling this application until the stormwater plan and revised hardcover calculations have been submitted. Options of Action 1. Table per staffs recommendation. 2.Recommend conceptual approval, send this along to Council after required submittals have been received. 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4.Other. v1 ci; . . . . ; -3 Application ^ 2-3>^( O PT~- ^ Date Received A^3-<?S> Amount Paid '^ 31^A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ Site address 7~/t^ Property Identification Number (PID) "pS/B ________ Please check one - Property____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT ^ Name 7 Address y?(^'^<d. Phone (home) ^ 'FZ 7^ City Zip^5^ Phone (work).iiiP*- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) Citv Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District /. ^Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Lii~\c-\ Acres total, all parcels \ Residential; no. of units ^t/^CAtoTy Other (specify)_________ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) >C____ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _________Existing Units _________New Units ^ Total Units <S rf^ Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ iVUNIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature _______________________________________ Date ^^NIMUM 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 Totals I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check (X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1,11 & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 X' Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/Iot (Class III & all non-residential) ZZZZ _____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 application) _______ _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) _______ B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineaI ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ _______ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ _______ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 _______ _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _______ _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 _______ _____ 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 _______ _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwclling Unit _______ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Adminisn-ator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Applicant's Signatuce^^°!^^^^^^"^^^^^^l<^ Date ^ Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the mr i <g. ll ■r' 'N t »** • .f ;./ V,.\ •-?• V •'•TV Application it ^3^0 p/. 2 i Date Received /^2'?>-9g> ^ > / 2- Amount Paid 2-OtO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ Site Address Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT^ ^ ^ Phone (home) ^ 7jZ Phone (work) ^ ^ 5~r^ Address^/^<^ ~ City __Zip_££X^£f_ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (monih/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 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 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 C ~ • Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. ^ Describe request in detail. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). ^/ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed suiveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. s/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ___ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). ___ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ___ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date _____ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signa OWTMER ’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plarming Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. FROM • Robert Uaade 2. Assoc.RHONE NO. : 6124727652 Jar., 23 1S93 04:49RM ROl OniPio 777 Ml OAju>OtOfWv paA^:/- /015S ' ph\ A RUN DATE 10/2^/97 BATCH 507 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 24 PROP ADDR OWf4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44 0009 03265 BOHNS POINT LA E J MC DONALD/C J MC DONALD EDGAR A CONSTANCE MC DONALD 3265 BOHNS POINT LANE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0010 03225 BOHNS POINT LA H A V SWEATT HENRY L SWEATT 3225 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J A MARY K DOOLING RICHARD D ALLEN 3220 BOHNS POINT LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44 0018 03280 NORTH SHORE DR STATC- OF MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 44 0019 03270 NORTH SHORE DR METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM METRO WASTE CONTROL COFtM HEARS PARK CENTRE 230 E 5TH ST ST PAUL M?V 55101 TOTAL BATCH 507 00023 c VI t • v'i -V N..«17 ri \, ! 0^.1 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 /^2^’^'Tby ^ RUN DATE 10/2^/97 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TA^-^AYER NA. £/ADD\ PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAil- NAME/4U:Vs PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 08-117-23 ^1 OOOA 0322^ NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE harjna INC 3222 NORTI' . RE UR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 ^1 0007 03260 NORTH SHORE OR DANIEL J rORBERG DANIEL J TORBERG 3260 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA m 55391 38 08-117-23 0010 03290 NORTH SHORE OR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 41 0013 03332 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MN DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0001 03264 NORTH SHORE OR RUSSELL A NORUM RUSSELL A NORUM 3264 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0006 03220 BOHNS POINT LA R A S ALLEN RICHARD D ALLEN 3220 BOHNS POINT LANE NAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 41 0005 03240 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA NN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0008 03262 NORTH SHORE OR LAURA ZAUNER LAURA ZAUNER 3262 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-25 41 0011 03286 NORTH SHORE DR STATE ^F MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 41 0020 03342 NOPTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 000? 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGf^ED STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0007 03230 BOHNS POINT LA D F a J A DALVEY DAVID F DALVEY 3230 BOHNS POINT LA NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT m. PI435401 PAGE 23 38 08-117-23 41 0006 03250 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0009 03268 NORTH SHORE DR RONALD D STAUFFER JAMES J DUNN 3324 ^^ORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0012 03324 NORTH SHORE DR MINNETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE OR ORONO !iN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0021 03324 NORTH SHORE DR Mlf^NETONKA PROPERTIES IfIC JAMES J DUNr4 3324 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0005 03300 r^ORTH SHORE DR MINNETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0008 03260 BOHNS POINT LA F E CHURCHILL A L CHURCHILL F E CHURCHILL I L CHURCHILL 3260 BOHN’S POINT LA NAYZATA MN 55391 i PRELIMir FPOII : Robert Usade Z HSioc. RHONE rJO. : bl247270T-2 Feb. O'? 19?0 02:49PH POl Minnelialm (Irci^k Watershed nislrict Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19. Navarre y , , Improving Quality oj Water, Quality of Lije P Mall: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MN 55331-9578 Phone: {612) 471-0590 Fax. (612) 471-0662 tmail; admln®minnehaiiacroek.oro Web Site; wwv/.mlnnehahacreel( org Board ot Mattaderv. John E. Thomas President C. VJoodiow Lriva Vice President Pamela G. Blixt Treasurer Monica Gross Secroiaiy Thomas W. laBounly Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Field Dislrlcl Otilce; Diane P. Lynch District Administrator 0 ryu»«<) 0" #1 tout 30^* pO»l rebruarv4,1998 Mr. Robcti Waodc R&l Construction, Inc. 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 . • • RE: Plat Proposal, County Road 51. Maxwell Bay, City of PTonn^ Dear Mr. Waadc: We have reviewed the plat for the above meiuioned proj>eny and have the following comments. 1. 2. 3. 4. The site is less than two acres in size and will Iiavc fewer than four living units. MCWD Rule li (stormwater management) allows an exemption for sites which fit this criteria. Therefore a MCWD permit will not be retiiiired for treatment of stormwater runoff. The MCWD does hove a concern that ero.sion control measures be properly installed and maintained until the site is leslobilizcd. Wc urge you to lollow the City «>f Orono ordinances which govern erosion control. If the topographic study of this site indicates an impact to any area below devotion 931.5 (the 100 year flood elevation) the MCWD would consider this to I'e floodplain alteration and require a permil for that aclivily. The plat submitted had no elevation contours. Please submit u plat with said contours when Uml informnlion is nvniloble. The MCWD i.s the local government unit (I-G13) for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City of O ono. If the site contains any wetlands, a plat should be submlucd indicating their location with respect to the proposed activity on the site. If wetlands arc present a permit may be required. Please call me at 471-0590. extension 2B2, with any queslion.s. Sincerely, District Technician o GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 January 29,1998 David Zetterstrom Hennepin County Public Works 320 Washington Avenue S. Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: Three subdivisions for February 17 Planning Commission meeting Dear Dave: Attached are three proposed subdivisions abutting County Roads for your review. Please advise me of any issues or concerns on these prior to the February' 17 meeting. Senior Planning Coordinator of h Telephoue (612) 473-7357 • FAX 47341510 H TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, 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: Total Site Area: LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre minimum lot size subdistrict 1.503 acres. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat and Topography Maps C - Surv ’ey/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 current' / 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 tlie 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 Zoning File #2329 Januan ’ 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 cast 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 B-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 fomial actif' i 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 rezoned 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 maimer are the tw in 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 'fhe 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 detemiine acceptable development density in a PRD. An additional implication of the Shoreland Regulations is that any dunlex 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 zone 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 duplex is (briefly) defined as a single building on a single lot containing two separate dwelling units. The duplex CUP standards do nol 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 outlot 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 clearly 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(!.':) dir Jlows a front/back lot division when 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 oi 'ot, rather than the 30' required. Subd. 5C(2b) requires the lot width 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 Lot 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 constmeted 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 ow ner 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 duple.\es are allow ed a total of 6 slips via joint use dock license, such slips being located on an outlot in the southerly end of the site. Tlie 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 16 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. Zonin-' ^ #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 temi 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. Exhibit G-2 is a staff concept sketch of how this area will look if the duplexes are constructed as proposed. Exhibit F-1 is staff's 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 direetion how to proceed: 1. 2. Determine whether there is any justification to allow the large number of variances involved w'ith 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. 3. 4. 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 will neeed to be approved by Hennepin County, that the property will be subject to park dedication fees, etc. o O A 1 ' *; .-Vc4 Application# ^^2S\ Date Received Amount Paid IZSO ^ A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION [j CE- STvecf PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress^^SC)s-3^0 Propert>' Identification Number (PID) 0'^ ill onlO : 02 //7A^ f Please check one - Property____abstract or torrens?~ - V V ' Attach legal description to applicacion.osr-//7-^3-w APPLICANT Name nhbcY^ O/rxd UJCldCle. Address City __ nnto u)lLn^u^^sr ~nP. lo/y A.1 Phone (home) A-'l3^'~l(o *S7^ Zip^S3^ Phone (workTI^drKjiL OWNER (if difiereiit than applicant) ^ (Ll^i (lO or^ Name 4 Cb\y\SL/i. 'fX\Ou: K i MI'iU f. Address City L' Jn ^, a a-4- ' Phone (home) I < (attach list ifmore than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Zip Phone (work) V-7fT-/Sf^ -4 Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ________ Other (specify)______ -LH?L- PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) r:JlJ2^L __ Subdivision for New Building Sites isT dl'VO'• Number of Building Sites Existing Units------labt ^ ^ _._S.-H.NewUnits ^ Total Units ^ . .7 ^ \ 7 Proposed nsity "7 Minimum Loi Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres \X —r- T"^ \aXa- j Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land ' \osfiAjVo Residentialvercfeil^ Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information qnCcrtificat^ofSurvey__________________________________________ • - 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance 5. As an addendum to this appTicattonrpleaseattaclras^rate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature ___________________________________ Date_______________________ -603 ML'^IUM ^ . * ERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminaiy 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_____________ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. ^ppIication Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class 1, II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original applicatio.n) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $_____ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineaI ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $_____ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 _____ 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 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit Totals The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested oy the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City' Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this applicatic--. and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ''.C Applicant'sDale ______/0~oi3~77_________ JIjlTuOV unjik Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and t'j advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. .A y ,iJou'r ' AS 0 ive B-z T>-l 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.^^A*^^ 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 not more than four dwelling units to any one structure with a maximum height of thirty 30 feet; D. Parcels 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 ingress 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, Subdivision 6).> P-2, SBC. 10.25. LR-IC ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd, 1. Purpose. The "LR-IC” One Family Lakeshore Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Because of the location of the district near Lake 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 sew«ir. Sufcd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: District. A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA” . NetcrPf^ Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-lC” 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-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted' accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-IA" 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. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area 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. Subd. 1. 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 one or more of the following uses: A. P. C. One family detached dwellings. Public owned parks and playgrounds. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: I. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial ^ duplex is defined as a two-family unit residentialbuilding. CsD iS VI ho 3: u: 2 \A %a 5 A 0 § I ^ 4 ^ “:i Q Tfc Ui? ^ I- i %<t c-4 Vi •/V iplis 3 ^ 2 K "I P 3 <;i <d r^ I e •.. . 3^ dcs S! i <r* 01 Vi1 ta \f\ cJ (I 0 0 li % % ^ r« 3“ i\ i cn cfi “I W» /V*T {? C> U |IA Crt •• Q>u (I Wi -1- 8 4^ ?i \ % t >0 I 4 “'Sl i !■ «l cnI ^ • 1 /r> i I'b ^ b,h1; V- 0 I c* vty O ^ *:r- 5 £ j:l«!>* 2 Si ^ £k ^ o 2 ^ 4A O Vi ^,s=la — l!h I c4 ®ail aisi“ sll^il I (V) f? *A c4\3- ^1 Ol « • I li F I • .r • < I • •/ •* >' • .* . •<» I. • SAci: , g I/1»01TS - 2H ’nO' Z^LO/iTL. ^3300 =/. • AR-IC-; ret /VU^ uoir^if^ 77^^ Z- ^ld4fr 5HA?a^ P ock‘S COf^C^T^plM^ cuixCst^^ Cot^C^T pi^Posei^ ^ 1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\J I Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. AndcrUk and Assocuites. Inc is *in Afftrm^itive Action, BquttI Opportunity Employer Principals Olio G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • M<irvin L SorviiUi. PE • Richard E Turner, PE • Glenn R Cook, PE • RoPert G Schunicht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberhn, C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals. Howard A Sanford. Fc • Keith A Gordon, PE. • Robert R. Pfefferle. PE. • Richard W Foster PE. • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. ASA. • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. 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. Willmar and St Cloud. MN • 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 width, 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 homes. 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 ail 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 No. 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 constn ction. 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 Plan (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 I .k i U..- January 9, 1998Mr Michael P. Gajfron City of Orono Page 2 drains northeiy 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, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. /OT*^ Tom Kellog'g Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono J ______^/oAX\ir S^/.^^^MfSr0^i. iklo^To_H 5 7 - ----- cjox>^’-.itezcNe^.. __ __________________co*^»M<W-OiAC *TO iteit^yt^n/^ /aJ eA<4^ to _____/‘f^t^r^tcfi-UAeL. 5 —2— ........................... pp UJfni-.ofz->?^.ii'..(!r^'-^’'^-------------------------------------------------------- ■ i ----------- A «^^s-ec. Sj^. __l}:Zi^-yH.^ 0^ *m - utffA-.. - <fes4 <^t. e«o4eit>P_.................. . ..........MSA _S«.t/Wco«>r/, ■--»«*•,*«. ZoNtf:,............. . ..................&^T 60‘'r^K^ T^ ' K^',C^r>^ As oe.J?^'i — ________________________- ■ <- «»-T. UOMA.M*-!'^ ... _______ TO ............... 'Sllh33_Dp> r«/rs_-/O^S^bs..^,, ^ g, _______________________B-2- (S— fr)gs.ror A //rV«_ggl ScC..V^.-------------- Bo</*^o»«r<C.y ____T^gn/^ t^/\AtufiJkj C‘'tA4^r:CAir. 2-g8"0>Ci7 /^£i^ - gczoM«?fc__/^^agJ7g_€d^H^£jl d^fVgfO- MNg,J/o_?g«g:it>ggJ.n>^f. ...7?H31 yL/^^ /.g AiO<em S0U7?( Uh^!S.:I7?f2. .f^esHL ____//_/A»g wo uu> e.-e_/^^AsrTf>£. ______jCUi^fc9An^.fyvMN)_€^i __________ »«»r — ■ ■••'* ♦ •• »■•*r* • •-• • “ ■ ■1 P^ee- 5j *? .• t .* * ..?•• • : %..> . V .• V.r •?' '•? 1 c ✓ > 7 if :l:- •I ■fr :(- tf'-' V ^V • ly*.- : I/-!’- : , i: s.> . r'lv'>i=: (maxwell BAY) h . r* * •. *v i’fr! - .«.» • 3 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant March 9,1998 #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:19,290 square feet (.44 acre) Application:The applicants propose rebuilding and expanding an existing upper level deck on the lake side of their residence. Variances are required for structural coverage, hardcover in the 0’ to 75 ’ lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback. The application was tabled at the February 17, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as the applicant was directed to reduce the proposed deck size in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 15(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations U2335 Lawrence Mohather/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances Sfarch 16. 1993 Page I i , / ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard LR-IB 1 acre 140'75'10’35' subject property .44 acre 142' at OHWT. 118 ’ at 75' Setback 58'-existing 53'-proposed 16.13'42’ The subject property does not meet lot area or width requirements. The lakeshore setback does not meet the minimum requirement. The proposal would encroach an additional 5' into the required setback. Lot area and width variances are not necessary for this application. A lakeshore setback variance is necessary. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 19,290 s.f.Existing: 2,758 s.f (w/o overhangs)14.3% 3,137.31 s.f (with overhangs)16.3% Proposed: 2,950.3 s.f (w/o overhangs)15.3% 3,329.61 (with overhangs)17.3% Currently, the lot does not meet the structural coverage requirement if all portions of the residence having an overhang extending beyond 1.5' from the structure are counted toward structural co\ erage. City policy states that if overhangs extend beyond 1.5' from the structure, they count as structure. If overhangs are not counted toward structural coverage, the lot currently meets the 15% structural coverage requirement. As proposed, whether overhangs are counted toward structural coverage or not, a structural coverage variance is required. Most overhangs on the residence appear to be approximately 2', while the rear overhang is 3.4'. The amount of proposed structural coverage has been reduced from the previous proposal. M233S La\vrence Molsather/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances March 16. 1998 Page 2 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 0’-75’ Total Area in Setback 11,185 s.f. Existing Hardcover 2,116 s.f. (18.9%) *2,140 s.f. (19%) Allowed Hardcover none Proposed Hardcover 1,711.3 s.f. (15.3%) *1,745.3 s.f. (15.5%) Variance Requested 1,711.3 s.f. (15.3%) *1,745.3 s.f (15.5%) 75'-250 ’8,105 s.f 2,701 s.f (33.3%) 2,026.25 s.f (25%) 2,701 s.f (33.3%) none * Hardcover calculations show the approximate increase in hardcover if portions of the residence with an overhang exceeding 3' are calculated as hardcover. City policy states that overhangs extending beyond 3' from structures count as hardcover. WTiile not reflected on the sur\ey, the elevation drawings show that the entire existing deck is located under the overhang on the lake side of the residence. As existing, the lot exceeds allowable hardcover amounts in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. As proposed, hardcover would be decreased by 4.5% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. Approximately 572 s.f of rock under plastic and 25 s.f of paver stones exist in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback that were not reflected in the previous survey or hardcover calculations. This additional hardcover considerably increases the amount of existing hardcover on the lot, however. If rock with plastic is not considered, there is a 1.5% increase in hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. A hardcover variance in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback is not necessary as no construction is proposed in this zone. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants' statement of hardship is included as Attachment J. They should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. U2335 Lawrence Stolsalhcr/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances March 16. 1998 Page 3 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 existing residence and deck were built prior to current zoning regulations. Any proposed improvements may require variances for structural coverage and hardcover. 2. The plight of the landowTter is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The house and deck were also constructed before the current zoning requirements. This results in a lot that exceeds the allowable hardcover limits. 3. The variance, if granted, may alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for structural coverage, hardcover in the O' to 75’ lakeshore setback lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback may change the character of the area. 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. A deck is allowed in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. While the existing residence is closer to the lake than several residences in the neighborhood, many other lots in the neighborhood also have hardcover excesses. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Many lots in the area are already fully developed. U2335 Lawrence Mohather/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances March 16. 1998 PagfA 7. 8. The granting of the application is necessary for the preser\ ation and enjo>Tnent of a substantial property right of the applicant. The consensus of the Planning Commission is that the applicant is entitled to build a functional deck. The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The existing use of the deck is limited in its current state. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The zoning lot does not meet area or width requirements. The current deck is 2.5' wide and underneath the 3.4' overhang on the lake side of the residence. The deck could be expanded to 3.4' wide and which would not increase either structural coverage or hardcover nor would it further encroach on the lakeshore setback or the average lakeshore setback. The Planning Commission has determined a deck of such size is not functional. Funner encroaching on the average lakeshore setback may negatively affect views for the adjacent properties. A variance application was submitted in 1990 for the addition to the south side of the residence. The application was tabled for lack of an accurate survey. The application was not brought before the Planning Commission again and the addition was not built. The applicants hardcover calculations for the revised deck reflect the percentage increase in hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. The applicants calculations reflect a less than 1% increase, which is for the entire property. The increase in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback is approximately 1.5% exclusive of the plastic under rock. Based on consensus reached at the February 17 meeting, the Planning Commission appeared to favor a deck increasing hardcover less than 3%, preferably no more than 1%. Much of the rock over plastic near the house to be removed is located under the proposed deck. The hardcover calculations in this report indicate that removal of hardcover under the deck and overhangs will not significantly offset the amount of hardcover added by the deck. ^2335 Lawrence Molsather/LinJa Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances March 16. 1998 Page 5 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of variances to allow the reconstruction and expansion of an existing deck that would consist of 192.3 s.f. extending beyond the edge of the overhang on the lake side of the residence subject lo several conditions. Staff recommends approval of a structural coverage variance of 2.3% to allow 17.3% coverage if overhangs exceeding 1.5' are calculated as structural coverage. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 15.5% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback to allow a 1.5% increase in hardcover exclusive of rock under plastic where 14% hardcover is existing and none is allowed. Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 22' to allow a 53' setback from the OHWL where 75' is required and 58' is existing. Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback to allow 32.5' of encroachment where none is allowed and 27.6' is existing. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval all plastic under rock and the flagstone walkway be removed. The applicants have agreed to this condition. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that no future variances be granted to this property. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Revised Survey Hardcover Calculations and Revisions Revised Elevation Drawings Statement of Hardship 02335 Lawrence Shlsather/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances March 16. 1998 Page 6 Application fi Date Received l-^o jX 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 $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address carman RnaH Excelsior. MTJ 55331 s o CO >» CL CO IT» Property Identification Number (P.I.D.1 20-117-23 i4 non Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquire d Narrh iqq4________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: x residential ___other (specify)._____________________ ZoningDistrict:_____lr - ib_____________________________________________ APPLICANT Phone (home) (6I2) 471-1039__ Name Lawrence R. Holsather and T.inHa n. 1cPhoneCwOlk) (612)_832 ~27 9.Q---- Address: 3285 carman Road_____________ Citv: Kvcplsior- MN SS33lZip»--------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Same________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. Estimated Construction Cost $.DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ------------------------------------------------------ Describe request in detail: Replace and Extend Existing Deck on Lake Side of House (attach additional 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 imusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements : ra*. Attachment l-------------- (attach* additional sheets if necessary) / / T- /•••■. 6 '''/'. •'...■■.■•(26) / ■>,• -f/ ^ y / / / \ / //. / I (5^ . > / 2^>’rv '--s' # ~'^- ^^50 33 S / I ' .:x - •' \ :? \ / \ >£vC9. 6 nj.49 ''^La ' >'9S^' y / ( :t?K*-' "?P tr\ ^-oV ■"/;•• 43.4 \\^ /■^\ .'"•^•■/^x CiOx*^' ^ «:;???, % x\✓ ^ n} Se^Sve- ' - • .; 'v-X.:-;;'' .;*••..•*• •. V ^ < s/v*,--- V . • • •. . * / •- • • * * i • - • . • , • • •.* 1' f’-.; ) •- ' / '<*4' *-3 Parcel Information Parc«l 102011723140013 Ho«im Number 03285 Street Name CARMAN RO • • ^ ' t : # • • -• ' / »s ‘ > • *. • 0 *'• •/ . • .*• .' •. • ':^V • •*. ’ • ■ '- * ^ • .**' • - ... - . • .* .% • •• . X* . *• : ■ • . •r r y-Y ■ * *”*’ - • ". '- • V; - * * • * .* ' - ••V* * ■'■ ' -•‘•i'* ’ ••’'. V*?' ’. ' ■■; . HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEMPROPERTY OWNERS LISTPROP ADDR OWIBR NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/AODR 38 20 117 23 14 0010324S CARMAN RDC A STEIGER & W N KUENDIG C A STEIGER & W N KUENDIG 3245 CARMAN RD 05/30 EXCELSIOR 55331 10/27 CONDMN tt 38 20 117 23 14 00113265 CARMAN RD B D & K A MILBRATH BENJAMIN & KAREN MILBRATH 3265 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN #38 20 117 23 14 00123275 CARMAN RD MICHAEL HALLADAY ET AL SORAMAB G HALLADAY 3275 CARMAN ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN # PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/ADDR 38 20 117 23 14 0013 3285 CARMAN RD L R MOLSATHER & L D SALLEE L R MOLSATHER & L D SALLEE 3285 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN « 38 20 117 23 14 0014 3295 CARMAN RD T P LOWE «■ R A LOWE THOMAS P LOWE 3295 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN « 38 20 117 23 14 0015 3300 CARMAN RD JOAN B NIELSEN JOAN E NIELSEN 3300 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR KN 55331 CONDMN # PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/AODR 38 20 117 23 14 0016 38 ADDRESS LTIASSIGNED VILLAGE OF ORONO CITY OP ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CONDMN # 38 20 117 23 14 0025 2655 KELLY AVE J W EOGSTER t C M EUGSTER JACK EUGSTER/CAROL M EUGSTER 2655 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN 8 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/ADDR ■k r, ■■ -I C) I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESEITTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE I-20-98 'Uo. J SEE MAP 61 1600 6AMC fum RO t S MNmilO 8 MU K» trooo ^ igMINNETRISTA !i 8 —BS£ mocofii u/f ITISMt X r. riyiivwf Harrison yy •ARfll^ 400C I lJ8:)T I'NMT U Co<^ks Ba\ A«;OU^JD LflA(? Minnetonka • UirdtctohU i/ ^•4. 1191^5M«6I,=m.SEG MAP o-i 'm’i , C ^ yr%x*^ V blUiiLT FILU 3 CCirTr^.f^ ^A PERMIT RECORD PERMIT NO.DATE TYPE OF PERMIT U>' 'Pi6.• ^2>S 6? 'UJP'k'' ^ n^A^^rhn^ • *9 6 ^L/ yh\• ;i 7 •. V : •i I i< • •'• .• •••.*. ••• V*:’ « •.. .V.- . . • »• • •••• % f « ,r • • ^ Id - f ^gEty^t>yAU~^F~ft:ASTg~^~[^PDQOER W • \ .. -1 . • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ^ • • Lot 7, Block 1, CARMEN COVE Hennepin.County, Minnesota , Area above 929.4 feet contour line = 19,290 sq. ft. HARDCOVER PERCENTAGES: Hardcover: House Deck & kJb^Siif/rs Concrete ZONE 1: O'-75' Area above 929.4 contour 968 sq. ft. 26^ ■ /V- 3Z sq. ft. 253 SQ. 1,519 39. It.t8£ sq. ft. pfic^aseo Sir • • /etc 22^ . percent hardcover • *. Hardcover:- - . • Driveway . . . ' Sidewalks, planters., House. • •.. ■ Total ^ ■ d • , • • ZONE 2: 75'-200' Lot area above 929.4 contour . . 720 sq. ft. .V 36/ sq. ft. ■ 1,620 sq. ft. .= 2t"Kyt. sq- ft; = 8,105 sq. ft. • . -33.3 percent hardcover y.\ •m • U t f % <• PREPARED FOR r k2. L^vJ (^Gkide: ■32,^ OAPv^A■A.^^ \i^£A.D U^^JDA^ ^AtuEs: 0ac £W-^\OR , rv\Ki SC22| ffe?- Urr Of \0/»o/S7 * • DVfct^f^U- Urr AR'H^ - ^Kofo<cx> iiJae^A^t Irt hard OiVeR. ^ For P6.CJC EKTGNi^lONr R€V)^cD^ ’=^ i^'2.3 % ivicueA^a r 2PiC) ^ ~ o»^V7t ”1".. _............. .. .; '” . . / ' . < (% 1_ ^ ATTJNc.^^KAGjN^tA^*’ i . ...; .. Aoomo'^A'- ^^apvACT\ovA , , • (^tMo\/e..fvA6eT0»^t ViAUCWWy - ■Sv/_ ; coi2j>je;R oF TO "rt> la F-F'- A rea c : 24 ’)^ \.F on ^ 2S «Sa >4i ■ , Pe.oucTioi4 (5c:Mo\rAL or PuAtrr\c wder KOcf ^ - Uo\x)t.Fx TERfiA.cg. UtNiOER Prc ^^ peJMf^^ ............;... . .. _ t^QKlE OF THIS V^S m^lUUPE-D Ciovje^ 0>iU<uLAT/^:)*^‘Si TuRaKae PecK . . ^ -$6e PaTA^MeKrr-,'^\5^‘^. %6JE hrhLvu^^ '''c i ---------:•»- *• • J MOL^ATr!El^/S^;w.uee: ^ File ArTTj^KtAej^r - ^ au^Ttohi OF Co\/ei^ At^jiEO ci K $ ^•w 4- X I 0% (*1 tC o % A o o oo c4r^ + 0 od 1 \n % 1 o c» c^ -i 4- \ o-=t V) Oi d- 11 - • f m ■^I'H 3/o+|98 - ^rosJ^KlC? F\lB ^'2-336' AttA^^k\^t C l^ccK AeeA UKiD£.Px < P\ilth * u,-.. ’ ... i • • L -. ■7^ Hculfc. uecK I wmA TT ITT msss / n’-*' 7 t%-e' /(Win»o 0141;. &ere*Klo^ -C^iir. lUcAT^ vImU ^BjyiaiV J-' — fBKXlf aoMMbcrf L*v«£.r*“. VlfcY<MiaaiyBfcS S^ t MV 4 BM ttfTHmfti OAKC t>»rr. FfioH HMHl. tterui ^ fiAtric 1 Marti Ai>RAvricfK^u^ft«^ jiSwSK <LgN/ATtQ*4 ^/le^bT ■ J ^ ^OOt^ ^OUTX O F«AT A ttCVATlON NAC»i I oOM*^ • fMT 4 rarTTrirr^1 ■!!S S!—H — □ESC X ^•«««2 Lsd T-— i*0« Barr. ■f €>■»—r riGUKg I PETX i?CPLA4.€Mt*4T / CxiU*4tl'* < ^Aol^i\tme.r, I Skim > CA«HV\N KO^t COD0iO^ HN Attachment 1 O O O.1^ «*<;r\ y .. % City of Orono Variance Application Molsather/Sallee Deck Replacement/Rxtension 3285 Carman Road Orono, Minnesota Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions: Our existing deck has aged to the point where it needs to be replaced. Our records indicate that the house was built in 1962 or 1963. The existing deck was poorly planned in that it cannot b used if any of the crank out windows are open. The windows extend . feet out into the deck walkway which has a clesu: width of just approximately 2-feet 6-inches. In addition, neither of the two doors to the deck can be fully opened since they are 3 foot doors and again the deck with is just 2-feet 6-inches. Encroachment of the windows or doors into the deck space creates a potentially unsafe condition in case either door must be used to exit the house to the rear from the first floor. In addition, maintenance of our roof gutters along the back (lake) side of our house requires that we work firom the roof or from a ladder at a height of approximately 17 feet above the ground. We have a heavy tree canopy over our house, and we have to clean our gutters about every two weeks and/or after most storms. The requested extension of our deck will enable us to keep our lakeside gutters clear of leaves, seeds, and branches without the existing hazardous climbing or working from our roof. In addition to the above, the existing deck is basically useless for enjoyment of our view of the lake. It is so narrow that there is no room to place a chair to simply look out on the lake. This seems unreasonable. An extension of our deck as requested will in no way interfere with the view of the lake by any of our neighbors since v/e are located on a gradual point, and each adjoining neighbor ’s house faces the lake at an angle away from our house. Also, the view of our house from the lake will be virtually identical to the current view from the lake. List of Legal Names (including marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property: Lawrence R. Molsather and Linda D. Sallee, Husband and Wife 3285 Carman Road Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 471-1039 d . - — - — , * '2. V^- - S - —rrr^ -*•—“•-njr-'tJ *•- * «sJ»- TO: FROM; DATE; Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant March 6, 1998 SUBJECT;#2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:13,440 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.31 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 648 s.f. detached garage with a dormer above. The application was previously tabled at the September 15, 1997 Planning Commission meeting as the survey did not accurately reflect hardcover on the property. Variances are required for hardcover, structural coverage and street setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations ii2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances March 16, 1998 Page 1 . t,!.* -*--------- V. .*:m-r~ _ ir rt ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 32 acre 60 ft. at OHWL 58’ at 75' setback 92 ft.-existing 8 ft.-proposed 10 ft.109 ft. The lot size and width do not meet the zoning district requirements. The proposed garage will not meet the siieet setback requirement. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 13,440 s.f.1,892 s.f.-existing 2,540 s.f.-proposed 14% 18.9% A variance for structural coverage is needed to build the proposed garage. It has been determined that the deck on the lake side of the residence is also considered structure, which increases the amount of coverage over the original calculation. M2292 Tom Ok'*rsfrom 770 Tonkawa Hoad Variances Starch 16. 1998 Page 2 J ** .T2 ~----------------^ ^ ^ V^iMTr,UE . V r -’Si' Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'3,000 s.f.253 s.f (8.6%) none 253 s.f (8.6%) none 75'-250'10,440 s.f 2,039 s.f (19.5%) 2,610 s.f (25%) 3,032 s.f (29%) 422 s.f (4%) A variance for hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback is required. The revised survey has determined that none of the lot is in the 250' to 500' setback. The lot also does not meet the hardcover requirement in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See Attachment A for the applicant's statement of hardship. 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 residence was newly constructed in 1996 without a garage. The property can be put to a reasonable use without the proposed garage. However, a garage would provide the applicant with a means of protecting various vehicles and equipment from the elements and open view. 2.The plight o vlandowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the lai. 1 >>tcr. While the zoning lot does not meet the requirements of the zoning district, part of the hardship has been created by the applicant. The existing residence and deck were constructed in the past year and could have been designed in a manner to allow for a garage without requiring variances. U2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Rood Variances Sfarch 16. 1998 Page 3 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The variances for hardcover, structural overage and street 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. A garage of the proposed size is permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to th^ structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many lots in the vicinity do not meet the minimum zoning district requirements. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most properties in the area have garages, while the subject property does not. While the garages on the adjacent properties appear to meet street setback requirements, most along the east side ofTonkawa Road do not. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The application can be revised to reduce the magnitude of the variances required. The granting 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 limited lot size and the size ofthe existing residence, it is difficult for the applicant to construct an adequate garage and driveway that meets all zoning district requirements. Issues 1.The lot area and width do not meet zoning district standards, which impedes meeting zoning district requirements, particularly hardcover. U2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances March 16. 1998 Page 4 r—.----:--------:^;z-. -v. ,.r.-\- .. - >j.,~,i> ,. ^ -------- r~—;. ci^ZL l J ill"' tS9 2. By constructing the existing residence and deck at 19.5% hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback, it is not possible to meet the requirements. 3. When construction of the current residence wa*- completed in 1996, drainage patterns were altered resulting in a negative impact to the adjacent property to the north. The temporary certificate of occupancy approved February 21, 1997 states that drainage on the north side of the property must be redirected away from the adjacent property to the north by July 1, 1997 before a final certificate of occupancy will be issued. As of yet, this condition has not been satisfied and the applicant does not have a final certificate of occupancy. 4. Hardship was created by the applicant to some degree as the residence constructed in 1996 could have be constructed in a manner to eliminate the need for future variances to construct a garage. 5. WTiile the 35' required street setback could be met, this would result in an approximate increase of 315 s.f. of hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback, or 32.1% hardcover where staff recommends approval of 29.5%. 6 If varianees to construct a garage are denied, a paved or gravel driveway will likely be added resulting in a similar amount of hardcover to w hat is being proposed on the lot. Vehicles and other equipment will also remain stored outside, which may have a negative visual impact on the neighborhood. 7. The survey for construction of the house noted that the 64 s.f. shed on the O' to 75' setback would be razed. It remains on the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed 648 s.f. accessoiy' structure with a dormer above subject to several amendments and conditions. • Staff recommends approval of a variance of 5.1% to allow 30.1% hardcover in the 75’ to 250' zone where 25% is allowed and 29% is proposed. This 1.1% increase recommended by staff is to allow for additional driveway required for moving the garage 20' back from the right-of way. The increase is somewhat offset by the reduction in the length of the proposed sidewalk. If the 64 s.f. shed to be removed in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback is considered, there is a net gain of 51 s.f. of hardcover on the lot. U2292 Tom Okerslrom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances March 16. 1998 Pages Staff recommends approval of a structural coverage variance of 3.4% to allow 18.4% structural coverage where 15% is allowed and 18.9% is requested. The .5% reduction is accounted for by the removal of the shed. Staff recommends approval of a street setback variance of 15' to allow the accessor>- structure to be located 20' from the platted right-of-way where 35' is required and 8' is proposed. Having a 20' setback allows adequate room to park a car in the driveway without encroaching into the right-of-way in case Tonkawa Road is expanded in the future. Staff recommends that prior to the issuance of a building pemiit, drainage shall be redirected away from the adjacent property to the north. The 64 s.f. shed near the lakeshore must be removed upon final inspection of the garage as this will reduce hardcover in the O' to 75' and reduce the magnitude of the structural coverage variance. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval that no future variances be granted to this property. Staff recommends the applicant note that the garage may not have plumbing or heating facilities and the dormer above may not be used as living space. The applicant has indicated that the dormer will only be used for storage and a workshop not requiring plumbing or heating. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Elevation Drawings Hardcover Worksheets U2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road Tariances March 16, 1998 Page 6 rrrir— -j: '»aar/.; jra Application # c3cA^J^ Date Received ^ ''4^^ J 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 7 "70 . Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)______^ S' 9_0 8 O cu S’o. & i Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired tion It not men (month/year) 00 noQ Present use of property: ^ residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:_____R f ^_______________________ APPLICANT Name #v^ Address: 17 0 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^_______ Phone (home ) ^7/~ 3^ _____ Phone (work ) ^7! ^ 0 077 City: n_______Zip: vSy Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: UJj (Alt. Estimated Construction Cost $ •' Siajc 4'k oL^ (attaeft^ additional sheets if necessary) •/o c,Dt^Afyijc4- ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width X Setback:^ Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore \ ___Other (specify) Tn C^iXrZX^‘foruXLrA O? YgStcWvCg^----------- HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: T)\ajl . 4o —Styy^ff IbT ^ ) Ca.t^ r)oi posi,t :T‘f UjuL hAfP (K UJi\LtA Ibi. CK 0^0^^ Cp:. id ilcors l\M {juo^\^ ^Vll ruuiJl CK OdhroMcU^^ % r REQUIRED SUBMTTALS All, of thg.foHowing._inforin8tion Piust be suhni^t^ed bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered pomplete! 1. 2 X. ei<,\shri^ piop 4. Mo 5. 6. K 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels arid—map^frorn Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center,(^8-3271^ LC-S cl I Certificate of Survey (signed oy a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYi" x II" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to th^est of his/ly r knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants^^a^nts, Commissron members, and Council members for purposes of investigation /qid yeri|K:aj4on of thisre^p^st. —r/>//97Owner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to b?ve an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of th*i change prior to the meeting. 8 •aarr^. , ' A;\ '5$* V '•?•* . ** ^• • • m . ■ • •• V '/V 1 '•4* .♦ •• *• * •y-v*.-* -wV .-** ’ . ••* - .. ’ i •" . ••■ ** .‘i - ^ -V A -• *\0.x .A Vr \ . \*ii> j^X-, lo,..'-;. I : . i i J \ ‘■f ;! RUN DATE 08/21/97 BATCH 511 PROP ADDR ONNEP NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ^DOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OH^R NAflE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 05-117-23 33 0003 00755 TOMKAiU^ RD J A L ROGERS JO»IN E A LOIS A ROGERS 755 TONKANA RD LONG LAKE m 55356 38 05-117-23 3<^ 0008 007/0 TONKAHA RD T S A S J OKERSTROH THOHAS S A SUSAN J OKERSTROH 770 TONKAMA RD LONG LAKE Ki 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0013 00675 PARTENi'IOOO LA J P A E K BECHDOL JO|{N P A ELIZABETH K BECHDOL 875 PARTENHOOD LA LONG LAKE HN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OIWERS LIST 30 05-117-23 34 0006 00750 TOrrAI*iA RD LAHRErK:E N E0ELH/H«4 LAHRENCE H EOELMANN 750 TOMCANA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0009 00774 TOtKAWA RD AfJN C FISHER ANN C FISHER 774 TONKAHA RD LOrJG LAKE m 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0001 00801 TONKAMA RO J E A L B MOORE J E A L 8 riOORE 601 TO^ACAHA RO LOtKi LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 26 38 05-117-25 34 0007 00760 TONKAHA RD C BERTELSOt^ A A BERTELSOT^ CHARLES A BERTELSON 760 TC^ACAHA RO LONG LAKE IBI 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0010 00700 TONKAHA RO T R A T J HAU6AN TODD R A TERESA J HAUGAH 760 TOI«CAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 511 00008 f,\)Vi. I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE KEPRESINTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEAI^ THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST or h!Y KNOWLLDGE AND BELIEF. O DATE o I’.i PERMIT RECORD 110 iJ CmJil cu cA f Permit No /V3 Sts' 'P^‘2. 3isy __________ VSK) ___ J/izs jSS2,b___________ 3'>J9 SSsD _54i^.____ _________________ ?foSC) gl^S'b Date 9- C> / ______ r..2il._. yo- ^'74 3 • 7 '72' W-//* 79 /,?-<?-<}(c l^'io -^iU> .. 3 -9(^ _________________________________________ Type of Permit _________________________________ /r^ood' He, ^ <> ___fO/?/ 7-/ TC^tlm d .V.Q- S/?C ____ '7l(_x 7 ■ 7 (0 r/CmJ<l CUC^K F PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date Type of Permit /V3 34,*'/noJc^ j!ic,d>C d' Co 1 AO/Dj TiAjJ 3^S ’^10 ‘ /S- 7< J3S~‘i . _ ____^-fc-7d A<~ rdTiyfi^ c JUS HS^I .70- 7 4s SAC /O- ^'74 sau^^ N. P .p:3'7y 3 • 7 '73'€£yyu3(silL __ ^^3 0 WW/- T?LoiZi-a <54/V f‘'''7 ^ Ci \^'\0-^lia ^/ipSO \5 -3l 3 - q 'r 9jlU. \^'9l 3 -9ifi '7lL-t tJk "A'fL t Top of Block Goroge Floor Lowest Floor Type of Building • THOMAS OKFRSTROM -ZSO p'. Uv\c HY-LAND SURVEYING. P.A. LAND SURVEYORS 8700 Jefferson Highway Osseo. Mtnnesoto 55369 493-5761 _ S>urupyors (ttprlifirate "AS BUILT" Total Area - 13,440 A\ \ Rti.dc/ict Area of House 1,432 SqJaW Feet Area of walk, shed and s\ps # /40iu!^t\re Feet — 219.06*— I- <92^ — 1* \ P ““ X*Jf‘ ____ ; V T foundation i ONLY 3 -qj €'-ol> w ,* t > \ /!».'»I. lV vv.-' ^e''i 7777777. — 207.41 — ^ u.'- ' + \ ----------- 4I0»—V\ INVOICE NO. F.B. NO------ 12207-63 202/06 SCALE r-___ O Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Wood Hub Set For Excovotion Only xOOO.O Denotes Existing Devotion Denotes Proposed Elevation ^----- Denotes Surface Droinoge r.%v<% V 07TTT7' ^e3iJcrxas/ The North\,esterly Hal^ of Lot 14, "Parten's Point, First Divisi^V For purposes of this survey the Southeasterly line of the North%<esterly Half of said Lot 14 has beep^^s^u^g a line drawn from the oidpoint of the southwesterly lino of said Lot, northeasterly paraHer with tr northeasterly extension. the Northwesterly line of said lot, and its ooiy 40««ni«nla W^O««> or* from plots o> rtcord of informattor« proWdtii by cUant. I h ‘*y Ihol tMs survey «OS prtportd by mo or under m •rviiion, ond tnot 1 om o Ouiy Reqtfllered Lond Su. . tne lows of tnc State of Mirvnttoto 3IST flay flf OCTOBER ig 97 _Surveyed by ue this tB, 2ejj. ‘ Signed Milton E. HylandJiLMinn. Reg. N<Reg. No. 20262 ^|3 —u W9 *. -»_* to I 1 "f. Ct BMOH « •• -r~r.T J^rr *.-T •tfryi'i -,—*\r* li.'tf «-irJJJ I I f T 2.9.6' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0-"5’75-250’250-500’. 500-1000’ F.XISTING 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 Bv Plastic X X X G. Other Shed 8 8 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 253 -r B 3000 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___ X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 189 -t- B 3000 X 100 = X 100 - 189 253 3000 8.6 189 189 .3 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. SO fl A B A B J HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*250-500 ’. 500-1000’ EXISTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House Ava. 4 9 Length Ava 29*2” Width 1432 X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X 3.5 154 E. Patio/^c^ 12 X X 12 >396 31 xnascapeF. ban< Und^ain Bj/m^tic 1.5^X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERIT AREA IN ZONE 2039 ^ B 10440 2039 10440 X 100 19.5 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Avg. LengCi Avg. 29*2” Width 1432 X X X B. Garage ^V9 646 C. Driveway X X 231 D. Sidewalk X X 114 3.5 154 E. PatiJ^e^ _ F. b8(ids^pe B/Pl^tic X X 12 ■>396 3 < 38'X X X 1.5 G. Other ' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ■ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 3032_____ -i- B ___10440 x 100 3032 10440 29.0% 13 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. /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. % iz A B A B 5^ To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator March 11,1998 #2350 - Kevin & Lisa Olsen and James Touve, 4196 North Shore Drive - Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. Sewered Application: Detach Lot 57 from Lots 55 & 56, to allow combination of Lot 57 with Lots 58-61. List of Exhibits: A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Concept Plan for Lots 57-61 F - Sketch with existing/pioposed lot areas G - Hardcover Review H - Applicant Letter of Request/Comments/Deeds I - Memo from Raymond F, Hirte, Hennepin County Property Descriptions Dept. J - Materials Related to Buildability of Lots 57-61: 1. March 22, 1994 Letter to Jim Touve 2. August 4, 1987 Letter to Jim Touve 3. July 13, 1987 Letter to Kevin & Lisa Olsen 4. Wetland Delineation Report Excerpts 5. Tax valuation comparisons 1974-1997 6. Sewer Assessment Documentation K - Zoning Code Sections 10.03 Subd. 6 and 10.55 Subd. 15A Summary of Request Lot 55 was purchased by the Stenbergs (ancestors of the applicants) in 1923. Lot" :6 thru 61 were purchased by the Stenbergs in 1946. A residence has existed on the site for many years, mostly on Lot 55 but partly on Lot 56. At some past date, probably prior to the 1960's, Lots 55-56-57 were legally combined. Nobody is sure how, v hen, or why the combination occurred, but the City has relied for decades on the 55-56-57 combination as defining the 4196 North Shore Drive property, for granting variances and issuing building permits (reference a 1979 side setback variance application by Touve). Lots 58,59,60 and 61 have always remained as 4 separate vacant tax parcels. Jim Touve took over the entire property in the 1970's and sold just Lots 55-56 to Kevin & Lisa Olson in 1986. When City staff became aware of this transaction in 1987, staff advised Touve and Olson #2350 - 4196 North Shore Drive March 12, 1998 Page 2 that legally 'uncombining' Lot 57 from Lots 55-56 would require City subdivision approval. Staff further advised that this division would not be supported by staff because it would reduce the homestead parcel to less than 0.80 acres, which is the zoning code minimum for construction on existing lots of record in the 1 acre zone; and because it would potentially result in making an unbuildable lot buildable at the expense of an existing already substandard lot. Issues for Consideration 1. The subdivision code generally docs not allow the creation of tracts or parcels that will be substandard in size. When completing a lot line rearrangement such as this, the code does require that the remnant parcels must be combined w ith adjacent lots If Lot 57 is allowed to be separated from 55-56, it will have to be legally combined with Lots 58 thru 61. Applicants appear to have no problem with this. 2. Under the current proposal, the house at 4196 will remain on a tax parcel that is reduced from 0.81 acre down to 0.58 acres in a 1 acre zone. The 5 remaining lots (57 thru 61) would then be combined to create a lot containg 1.16 acre of which 0.46 acre is a wetland dominating the center of the lot. This becomes a 0.7 acre vacant lot w ith questionable flinctonal buildabilily due to the location of the wetland, which impacts the house location as well as access to North Shore Drive. 3. Would a combination of Lots 58-59-60-61 be granted variances for buildability without adding Lot 57? Variances likely required would include 1) wetland setback, 2) filling of w etland for driveway, 3) rear setback, and 4) lot area variance, since the dry area of the 4 lots is likely less than 0.5 acre and encroachment of the wetland eliminates credit for the wetland in a sew'ered area (see 10.55 Subd. 15 A 3). 4. If such variances would not be granted, would adding Lot 57 to 58-59-60-61 suddenly make them more buildable, eliminating the need to fill wetland for driveway? Would this be in essence making an already substandard lot even more substandaid in order to make an adjacent substandard lot buildable? 5. The 'common ownership' standards dictate that the City must consider Lots 58-59-60-61 on their ow n merits as a buildable group if a building permit/variance is requested (not part of the current application). The common ownership standards do noi suggest that the City must approve a lot line rearrangement to make them mo» buildable. Regarding Buildability of Lots 58-59-60-61 Any discussion of the proposed lot line rearrangement must to some extent consider the buildability of the remnant parcels: #2350 - 4196 North Shore Drive March 12, 1998 Page 3 Lots 55-56 contain a house, and their buildability is not an issue regardless whether 57 is included, to the extent no changes are made to that house. Lots 58 thru 60 have not been considered as buildable by the assessor (see Exhibit J-5), and the taxes paid on them have been minimal. None of Lots 55-61 was assessed or provided with sewer, and the existing house was allowed to connect to the nearby sewer for a modest connection charge in 1980. Sewer connection for the vacant parcels is technically possible from either the 1970 Saga Hill project ($8,700 connection charge) or the 1981 Highwcod project ($12,875 connection charge). - Lots 58-59-60 61 are not accessible from North Shore Drive without crossing a portion of the wetland. Applicant Touve suggests that the wetland is not naturally C''*«ting, but results from damming of its east end, probably when the house at 4140 was built many years ago. The wetland delineation report addresses this topic, noting that this was a Type 3 wetland prior to the damming ca. 1950 and then Kcame a Type 5. The basin was also partially filled as a result of County Road 51 reconstruction in the 1960s. Staff interprets a>' this to mean that the wetland was always there, but has been changed due to man's influence. This does not support a finding that it isn’t a bona-fide wetland, and it is on the City's 1974 protected wetland inventory. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the proposed subdivision, based on the resultant reduction in conformity of the existing substandard homestead parcel. Tlie problem was created by the applicants when only part of the legal property was sold in 1986, and this sale was an illegal subdivision because it did not have City approval. This is not a problem the City is obligated to solve by moving lot lines when such a move would be contrar>' to the zoning code. It w'ould be contrary to the code because it would result in a reduction in conformity of an already substandard lot, while potentially creating buildability in an adjacent lot that is only of questionable buildability to start with. Denial of the subdivision will not resolve the applicants' dilemma. It will likely force them to come to some agreement for transferring title of Lot 57 from Touve to Olson. Touve will have to make a case for the buildability of 58-59-60-61 as a separate variance application. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial. 3. Table for further information (specify) (f^ ff\ Application ^ ^ ' '* V 1 1? Date ReceivedcS^ jS^*^ l \ . __ __s’^l Date Received c^t^o Amount Paid • >4 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address fJo/^7>i cS~^ .•i i 3- Please check one - Property abstract or Attach legal description to application. torrens? .V/^-'^^/applicant Name L/Sa Address 3^&o Phone (home) V-ZYct'A City Zip^'^i^'Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name .^/VJ Address / .<’36V-? ^ R.oa-o Phone (home) ^.^7- City xL/Dr?/V /^ / iL Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District IM- Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ / PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ______/ Existing Units O New Units ( Total Units cor Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ____Units per____Acres ____Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential ____Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM MA’ ERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list fi-om Hennepm County Department of Finance A-603 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______________________________________ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1, II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 ______ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class 111 & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Totals Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _ Renewal of Class HI, Preliminar> Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class HI Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from origral application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineaI 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 Sanitar>' 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 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/T)weIling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary io process this application ancjjurther agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. _ C /O , /) ignaturei/t^pplicant's S 7* / Owner’s Signature Date 7^ i^____________ Applicant must have'aff^bmittals into the City Office 25 da^^efore the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. (79) : V ( \ v; V'.,',;'9iv \‘j^'’-;{t^y' , i„ \ \ c-‘.>> x\’-5’A 15 ^ ' 59) <tj' V'oV # 1^ / X ' »9 -V / • // v*’^ \ y^y- ‘ ' y >•' f\ L- '• V'-'-%^y^.7 " /L f /■ i \ A 7irv^)'7Af ! ’ * <c I p 'rs^. «iN>M g *,c I <C ■5 ccwr^i X ,-' - {^e.) CJ* ^ >?i- V *. V// ■■ »s,.'^< /(t5)i A>X, / -i^V'x. X > • # As'^ / ' V mmmm >yMmt-yS ^J / / / A4,f'A ’i-;' ,7^ '(53, ’iJAe,' ,pifei5?rx*r ^ t^7fx?-'r-. • ’'7t-• /'vji?. '.; • ' -V. At ' ' * * - f y, = •"; UAV:'• V'X ^ - • .j .^. 7^ . 4 ; ■ - ,5 • ' ». • ir ‘ ,'■ ■ • .- .i‘ r tf' - 7 *W-** /®7 / :^'3? 25)i-. <■. J ^"''Aso/ccr'i, / /(5y)/ /. /; ^j X-vSr / ^' ••>4' /T'S«37V.875' / " AS7y44-.f*',4'<86) . '^4/ \M •O+T .^ ,,i-.M 1 v'j^. -A ■•**'■' ;.'V'.' '•T*/-* •* ’ ■■ -if*' .^ii-£1/11 »; ' V -'.V 'J. RUN DATE 02/19/^-^ BATCH 508 PROP ADDR OKNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR 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 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OmERS LIST 38 07-117-23 41 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY ORONO MN 55323 38 07-117-23 42 0015 01462 PARK DR LUCILLE 0 KUTZ LUCILLE 0 KUTZ 1462 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0003 01530 ORCHARD BEACH PL L A DONNAY L A DONNAY 9687 63R0 AVE N MAPLE GROVE MN 55369 38 07-117-23 43 0006 04235 NORTH SHORE DR DOUGLAS E NALOOCH DOUGLAS E HALDOCH 4215 NORTH SHORE DRIVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED UNITED CH HOSP ASSN FAIRVIEN HOSP ASSN 2312 6TH ST S MPLS MN 55454 38 07-117-23 43 0013 01496 PARK DR F J HARDIN III A C A HARDIN F J HARDIN III A C A HARDIN 1496 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0074 01400 PARK DR RICHARD 0 NORUM RICHARD 0 NORUM 1400 PARK DR MOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED F J HARDIN III ETAL FRANKLIN J HAFDIN 1496 PARK DR RT 1 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 00Q4 04205 NORTH SHORE DR MARY JO PETERSON MARY JO PETERSON 4205 ^K)RTH SHORE OR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-n7-23 43 0007 04201 :ORTH SHORE DR B M KEITZEL-HARTIJETT BETTY M WEITZEL-HARnJETT 4201 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0010 04199 NORTH SHORE OR UNITED CH HOSP ASSN FAIRVIEN HOSP ASSN 2312 6TH ST S MPLS MN 55454 38 07-117-23 43 0014 04240 NORTH SHORE DR DEBRA W SMITH DEBRA N SMITH 4240 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND m 55364 REPORT MO. PI435401 PAGE 24 38 07-117-23 42 0014 01442 PARK OP G L SCHULTZ ETAL GEORGE L SCHULTZ 1442 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0002 04198 NORTH SHORE DR C J A S M JORDAN CHARLES J A SUSAN M JORDAN 4198 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0005 04209 NORTH SHORE OR DAVID L VHRVILLE ETAL DAVID L VERVILLE RT 1 BOX 370 MOUND MM 55364 38 07-117-23 43 C006 04203 NORTH SHORE DR F G HAHTERA ACL WAHTERA FREDERICK HAHTERA 4203 N SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0012 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY m 55323 38 07-117-23 43 0015 04210 NORTH SHORE DR SARA E BROEKCR SARA E BROEKER 4210 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 •H ' N •> . i 0 RUN DATE 02/19/98 BATCH 508 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAhtE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 07-117-23 93 0016 09200 NORTH SHORE DR D T RYAN A M J A RYAN DANIEL A MARY JO RYAN 9200 ^40RTH SHORE DRIVE MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 99 0025 09182 HIGHHOOO RD S A A J H RICHARDS II SARAH A A JOHN H RICHARDS II 9182 rilGHHOOD RD MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 99 0039 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES M CLEARY JAMES CLEARY 9109 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 99 0095 00038 ADDRESS UT4ASSIGNED AT4N MARIE MAXFIELD ANN M MAXFIELD 9175 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 99 0098 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES I TOUVE JUNE TOUVE 17216 PETERBORG RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5539^ 38 07-117-23 99 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES I TOUVE JUNE TOUVE 17216 PETERBORG RJ EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55396 38 07-117-23 99 0023 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JULIUS C HALLUM FAIRVIEH HOSPITAL ASSN 2312 S 6TH ST MPLS MN 55959 38 07-117-23 99 0026 09179 HIGHHOOO RD H B DEVAAN ALE DEVAAN HERBERT A LORETTA DEVAAN 17605 SUSAN DR MIhiNETONKA MN 55395 38 07-117-23 99 0093 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED AN?4 MARIE MAXFIELD ANN M MAXFIELD 9175 F40RTH SHORE DR MOUND M?4 55369 38 07-117-23 99 0096 09191 NORTH SHORE DR LILIAN ANDERSON LILIAN ANDERSON 9191 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 99 0099 00038 ADDRESS UnIASSIGNED JAMES I TOUVE JUNE TOUVE 17216 PETERBORG RD EDEN PRAIRIE W 55396 38 07-117-23 99 C052 09190 NORTH SHORE OR RANDY H ALBRECHT RANDY ALBRECHT 9190 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND MN 55369 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 25 38 07-117-23 99 0029 09190 HIGHHOOO RD T A A D M ROOKE TODD A DONNA ROOKE 9190 HIGHHOOO RD MOU^4D MN 55369 I 38 07-117-23 99 0027 09166 HIGHHOOO RD R D A A L RUMSCH ROBERT A AMY RUMSCH 9166 HIGHHOOO RD MOUND MN 55369 % I. 38 07-117-23 99 0099 091/5 NORTH SHORE DR ANN MARIE MAXFIELD ANN M MAXFIELD 9175 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 99 0097 09196 NORTH SHORE DR JUI4E TOUVE ET AL KEVIN R A LISA TOUVE OLSEN 9196 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 99 0050 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES I TOUVE JUNE TOUVE 17216 PETERBORG RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55396 38 07-117-23 99 0053 00038 ADDRESS Ur4ASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P O BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 RUN 02/19/98 BATCH 508 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OmER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 0074 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED VIL OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 44 01535 HIGHWOOD ERICK G & LAURIE ERICK G S LAURIE 1535 HIGHWOOD LA MOUND MN 55364 0083 LA S CELMS S CELMS TOTAL BATCH 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. DAT p >,\ ^ ••:, •:\ ■ \ •• :# f •> •■•* ■ ’ urj r '■ ■'/, H4 IT> i ^ -un 0 o >A \J TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR JIM TOUVE a UliSCKU-flON: 1.0 is '>/, ‘^8, 59, 60 d.i'l 61. niGIlWjO.uV’lvit :■' / "• MINNETONKA, City ut Oioiin, lloniu;|>in Coiuity, Minriosola.'jCAlX I*-50 - 1 1 • • >N. 1 ^1 N ■ » *. I •'"LT" " ^ ^ NOTE: Tliiii manliolu usod as 8.M. f iiiLu. flUlli City of. I Orutto Eni,» * VAtkKWoi-C (x»- O %' «Wi»ra T>9UZ II* O'“1 ■.f . i ' •• .fii & ■i i • KJ4^ w 'I' I^Ut I' ’c; ,^.. t> ■ o /ToK>*J//ff ^in D(y%o & c^hioaiaUif One. MOFCSSieNAL WAND SUMVCVOnS ANO LAMO OeVCkOPMENT CONSULTANTS (612) 421*9126 t3«21 ViNeWOOD LANS OAVTON. MN 5532T ‘Scilt: i“‘So PflOPOSEO top FOUNOATIOM EtEVATlON PAOP06E0 CARAQE FLOOD ELEVATION PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR ELEVATION NOTE: v«rtfy all propoMd grad** pith tha actual hvuaa plana* “ Oanotat Existing Can+»*<i Danetaa Prppoaad Final il: .•4- DESCRIPTION: Lots 57j 58, 59, 60 and 61, HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA, City of Orono, Hennepin County, i'iiniiesota. I ■ I IdUx cirllfy Uit Uli lurvix ill pripiril 1/ ti or iilir ax Oiritt niiirvliloft ml thit I ii i lulf oifiituid ProliiiioAir Iml lurvixor volir Ui liii o( Ui Stiti o( •*n! rt < -----------/ t IP- olui*uliT£^flTCI /^AreJi Hi/. _^0____/y______a ..n \ * t-H . I r ■t U- rf r f AND LAND OCVttO^CNT COJSUtTANTS (612)421-9126 13621 VINEWOOD LANE DAYTON. MN 5S32T / \ \ X \ / m/ '''}} / ''"kfcf . V ^ \ ^ikui .{Ti \ ■ \ V PIIOPeSeD TOP FOUNDATION ELEVATION , PROPOSED OARAOE FLOOR ELEVATION 9(^4' PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR ELEVATION NOTE: Varlfv All prOD«i«d srtddE nllh tRs 40Iua1 hou44 plani* — •* — Otnotsi Exiiittntf 04not«i Prpppt4d .Final Lota^S?!^??! 59, 60 and 61, HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA, City of Otono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 4 0 </ o» //»/ I kiriljf Cirtlfn tilt tkU i«rv«y sit iriiinl ky ii tr vilir ly dirict luyirvltlSB IB( Ikit I ii i duly liylttirid krtfillioMl' llBd tumytr yndu tki Un «f Ul tUU Of VlMIIOU. ^ ^ A (itid Ihlitidnof UlAAIiOtl liCIAII He. 112(7 I 5 li r> o • • • • '.«•••• I.ols V7, liS, 59, 60 ami 61. llIGIIW.Opj Iv\8i: * MINNETONKA, City ol' Otutio. IUMuic|>ln Cuuiity, Minnesota. t>CAL£ r-50 •1 erg •* ^J 2. ^ j?' •n \ V • • •c \; §J \ \ '<rs * •• ^ • • t •• % » • . *• NOTE: * This, manhole'^ used as D.M.• • InTu.'from m m Sim r'HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 75-250’ 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X SB B. Garage C. Driveway 2- ^•a- o 7^ t-X X 2- 2- D. Sidewalk X X / i E. Patio/Deck d 7 X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 2~f 7^ B 3 r <4<>0 X 100 L • PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X ______ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X a xs E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B ZT.toO xlOO y S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.t S.F. S.F.• S.F. . i .* •*.' ■ ■ i• « . 7 r S.F. .. j •» • , V-?Z.S.F.' ■ •V i j *1 * • S.F.R “ 'i S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2-S.F. A S.F.B ■i 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 S.F. B f^-l Mike Gaffron, Projects Coordinator City of Orono P.O.. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 re: 4196 North Shore Drive; conforming the tax record to reflect the legal records. Dear Mike; As you suggested, we are writing to provide historical data regarding a lot that was attached to ours on the tax records, but never legally a part of the property we now own. The following is what is reflected in the deeds of record since 1923, and the recorded documents. This property has been in our family since acquisition by our Great Uncle and Aunt. Lot 55 was purchased by them in 1923, lots 56-61 were purchased in 1946. The deeds of record have always shown only lot 55 with the house (see attached). In 1986, we purchased the house. We purchased lot 55 and 56 with the house, since the house encroaches upon lot 56 (see attached deed, which is recorded with Hennepin County). The attached copy of our Certificate of Title reflects that the property legal records include only lot 55 and 56. According to plat book records, sometime between 1963 and 1976, lots 55, 56 and 57 were arbitrarily attached for tax purposes (see copy of attached plat prior to 1976 revision). You have indicated that there was no record of owner permission granted for this combination. Upon your recommendation, we have applied for a lot subdivision. The Registrar of Titles offlcer and our title insurance company attorney have vehemently argued that a subdivision is not required in this case. However, short of the City of Orono clarifying the record as a matter of course, we agree that this should be the expeditious solution. We expect that this process will clarify the tax record to reflect the legal records. The legal description is to remain: Lots 55 and 56, Highwood, Lake Minnetonka. We hope that this information helps to clarify the unique details of this situation. Thank you, Mike, for your help and feedback during this process. Yours Sincerely, ^evin and Lisa Olsen { i 1 I * " It i ^i}lS lullFMtUirj?, Made this........-Vl/. ......day of.......Jftl.U?J/. in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and .. .. Cvat Alfred Jchr.3pn, vritsrrl.ei, ........................................................................................................ ................. fi-'Z ......between ......... /^2e>p€uD> of the County ........nnd SUUe oA...l'inr.>l3CIi.........VaH'I ..........of the first part, and ..............Custaf ^.s.r............................. •' ^ o/i/ie County of..X.yj^Jin\XT^.............and State o/...'....Uir.r..?P.Ma ...............parties of the second part. SlitnrMrtil, That the said paHy..........of the first part, for and in eonsideruiton of the sum of Thrse IJundr!d_T'A'3r.ty_-fiy..........DOLLARS, «o....hlD....................inhandpaidby the said paHies of the second part, the rueipt whereof is hereby ucknowledfed, do.?.i hereby Grant. Bariain. Sell and Convey unto the said parties of the second part as Joint tenants and not as tenants in common, or their assiins. and to the survivor of said /mrlus and the Juirs and assigns of the survivor Forever, all ......-tbit........tract ......or parcel.... of latid lying and being in the County of.................................................and State or ............................ described as followst ............................................................................................................................................................ _Lct .flfi>:-fly.?..{.WJ..ln..KUby/5P.i...L?.Ve..i;icn.3t:iita...9ccording tc tt?.... } lat .tb?recf il9..arid, .cf...r.9.cp.r.d. dn..tb.? Faijietrar .cf. “fltiaa ir. »nd fcr o?12 Her.r.a^ln Cc\,r.^......................................................................................................................................................... ........• • • • •• Za liaut onfi to Holfi lljf Oamt, Together with all the herediianunts and appi^enances there­ unto belonging or in anywise appertninuig to:ihe said partUs of the seoond part or thetr assigns and to the survivor of said parties and the heirs and asrigns of the survivor. Forever, the said parties of the second part taking as Joint tenants and not as tenants in common; And the said ............................................................................................................. .....................*.............. ...........X. .....................................................................- part .'J..... of the first part, /orJCifca?Jli..?.r..d..hi.a...........heirs, e.vecuturs and adminUtralors. do.lA.... covenant with the said parlies of the second part or their assigns and the survivor of said parties and the heirs and assigns of the'survivor b?„}.0................well seised in fee of the lands and premises aforesaid, and iia X.?.. good right to sell and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are free from all encumbrances....................................................................................................................... .. i the above bargained and granUd lands and premises in the yuiet an-t pea.t^iU pcnsessimt of the said . .’ties of the second part, and their assigns jnd the survivor of said partus one the heirs and assigns of ti-e survivor against all persons latvfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, and the said :rt:j..........of the first part will WAURAK)' AMD DEFBJfD. In arratiiuony IXI^trrof. The said party..........of the first part^ig. hereunto set .X.s.h........Jtand.... and seal ........the day and year first above writen. _ ^ /* fl / {SEAL) SICNtO^ SCAltO. AMD OtUVMtO III PRCStNCC Or \ t • - - ^di^KSBAL) 475 r#rm H4, I. ,m »••• • • .. K.ucaii. „ •, * .............IdSta^t'r ii£ttt*»»U -------,«<i-P>. */lAr ..roiuf Hcr.fitpln -------•"*<< c«.WU.4:. (|l\cp) >-io. pTV^>. /<>u /^r. »'•- Vr*,7«../ .. M«f<*««‘- th«rt . In l..|(ii ;«>I(1 hy p y ^,;.t im,ri:pt o/ thr tfrumj pnrt a* • nx\ urtv-teven CS7). »»lty-tl£hl 15®)* Urty-r.lf.* (54), 1-lrtj (6V) ‘O" ^ on file ej record In the o.fU*rr‘;;t“5.u-*r s*u'a:'."i .i/L...» illf •rtirf- -• _____. .^ ... ----------------- —-----— - -- _______________________ -_____:• .. ,1- Jiftt,, e.ututM* «n.l a,h>ilHUtr,it<.r» in -------------- "'"■ "”■' “■' ............... /rr# /rom <fu'i4®Tv^ran^^«. ./nrf l>W fo*fw ,-wl t-int'd Unit yJ ‘cA.nhchfir» nnd •/ :;£';ri;i':: ........-....... /fhd I IXt±. ]n Vefttmunr l»t»cw(. Tht mI/I pari.lna—•/ /'*' AonJA-lAe rf«V >0 . / • ./) f /ft /Vrj«fi^r« ©/ (2:^ . • • . — %••' XL I 4 1 i N \ FormNo.6*M-WARRAN^v q ££o IndIvidusI (i) to Joint Ttointi Mlnnciota Unlfom Convayindni BUnki (1971) No delinquent Uxet and tndsfer eoCcD^CdrUncate of Real Estate Value ( ^) filed,^^^>ln<^required Certificate of Real Estate ValuejK^__:_______ ■flfCso ISiS ‘4 lo Co . 1 \ ^/?^6 PRIOR TAXES PAID Henn^Co. DirectOM)! Property Tautiu. I^DEfuIj County Auditor Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ Date: ^ 3 O_ _ _.19^ 1. \ (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,James I. Touve and June E. louve. husband and wife ___________ Grantor (s), (mvital ttatutl hereby convey (jJ and warrant (x) to Kgvin Qlsen and T.ign Toiive Qlgen tenants, real property in Hpnnpnin .Grantees as joint Lots 55 and 56. Higjhwood. Lake Minnetonka County. Minnesota, described as follows: HEWCPIH COUNTY PiaPERTV TAX DEP HN DEED TAX PAID 12f50/86 l>4dPH PAID I88.0Q (if mort tpKt it netded. continut on bock) together with all hereditamenU and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: reservations, restrictions and easements of record, if any .and that certain first mortgage in favor of Minnetonka State Bank registered as Doc. No. 1335033. Files of the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County. Minnesota which the Grantees hereby assume and agree to pay according to its terms and conditions. \f(ix l ax Slam(» Ih-ri*James I. Touve STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Coune E. Touve IS.! The foregoing instrument wu acknowledge by ______James T. Touve and June E. ed before me this jti ' ‘SO -■fi Touve. husband and wife day of I 1 j NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHIR TITLE OR RANK) i #»»»»»###»»##»»»#»»######*»»»###**»»»»» THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD NOTARY PU9UC — MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My ComMUMiOA uptrm r*b. n. two Grin tor (s). ' SIGNATURE or PBISON TAKlNO*72iOT6WLtl>OMBNT T«s Suumtnu for ih« rt«l property dfKtfbod la Utla bwtnui«it AovM bo Moi to Uncludt nomt o«d oddtoM of OtMiuo): THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRArTXD BY (NAME AND ADDRESS): Thones F. Ihdexwood 1100 First Bank Place Vfest Minneapolis MI 55402 tilA Tiovt Ousfexj a (a ■ l/ yOMA S/^rxA. 0&-U. zz^HC 1030 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE N9 692S55 No.692855 DISTRICT COURT No.(i) 129 Transfer from Nos. 269397 & 692854 Originally registered the 17th day of Deceaber A. D. 1903 Volume 1 Page 241 • > SHOE d Mncsota. REGISTRATION Gflomr d HEim This is to certify that Kevin R. Olsen and Lisa Touve Olsen as joint tenants, 4196 North Shore Drive, City of Orono, County of Hennepin, StaCtt of Minnesota . • are now the owner(s) of an estate in fee simple of and in the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, to wit: Lots 55 and 56, Highwood, Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles In and for said County. •I • • ^ Subfect to the encumbrantes, liens and interest noted by the memorial underwritten or endorsed hereon; and subject to the II t • • ’ 4 I 'J% T • ••• •• i I ■ 79.00 »CS *>£S GOVT LOT 5 STORM SEWER DISTRICT WUNOARY SWSK.. 1NCREH€NT boundary c.L Or S- 3' ^ At^C> 5 % MTACi^X) A^- ~fO LE-^AI — 'i?:^C't>r</^S t • A. C( F f ^ . QF 'T~(Tt-^ 0 P££.c.S t • *. « • <..> {.«..{ 0'> » .' ■ X Memo «4|.. ••••*, *«#•«• • / . •. . . * ;V . .• f . ^ • . • . «. I • • •• t To:Lisa Olsen From: CC: Date: Re: Raymond F. Hirte ■4!1 May 5,1997 Combination of parcel 07-117-23-44 I checked down in our B-level vault to see when this combination took place. As far as I can tell it was done prior to 1960’s. Our old books do not go back any fartoer than this. There is no way to tell how or why we combined the property or who if anyone would have requested it I hope this is a satistoctory explanation for you. Yours truly F. Hirte Property Description Technician • •J~l CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parlc/^ay Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 March 22, 1994 Mr. James Touve 1440 Sumter Avenue North Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Re: Property on North Shore Drive Dear Mr. Touve: After our discussion on Febtuaiy 25th I again reviewed the background on Lots 55 through 61. Highwood Lake Minnetonka. The issue of your sale of Lots 55 and 56 .to the Olsens without including Lot 57, e^n though all three lots had been legally combined for many years, has never been resolved. This is stUl considered an Ulegal subdivision and it is still the City’s position that permits cannot be issued for the Olsen property until the matter is resolved. Your two choices for resolving the matter are: A. Sale of Lot 57 to the Olsens; or B. Successfully complete subdivision to legally separate Lot 57 from Lots 55 and 56. From our discussion, it is clearly your mtent to not sell Lot 57 to the Olsens, but combme it ith Lots 58-59-60-61 and build a house to the rear of the wetland. This presents a number otW1 issues: 1.A Class I "metes and bounds" subdivision is required to separate Lot 57 from Lots 55-56. 2. This would leave the remaining Olsen parcel as a subs^dard lot, being orfy 0.58 acres in a 1 acre zone, whereas the existing combination of Lots 55-56-57 yields 0.80 acres meeting the "80% of 1 acre" rule for buildability in the LR-IB zone. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 tS Mr. James Touve March 22, 1994 Page 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Further the fact that Lots 58 through 61 yield a parcel with less than 1/2 acre dry biiildable contiguous area which can ’t be readUy accessed without encroaching on the wetland, suggests that Lots 58 through 61 are not buildable. It can, however be argued that while adding Lot 57 makes 58 through 61 potentially buUdable, that reduces the Olsen property to a less conforming or nonconfonmng status. Under the Wetland Conservation Act, any filling or draming of wetland approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and Perhaps U S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is likely that in order to confirm your dry buildable area you will have to hire a consultant to perform a wetland boundary delineation under the State mandated methods. Note that the City code allows no fillmg, grading etc. within this wetland or within 26’ of its boundary. Even with Lot 57, it may be impossible to create a driveway to the rear of the property without encroaching into the wetlsmd setback. You must gain approval from Hennepin County Department of Trangorta‘i«“ a new driveway location entering on the county road. The Orono Public Wo Department would have jurisdiction over use of the alley for access. The 30’ setback from the rear lot line and 26’ wetland setback yield a building envelope barely wide enough for constmetion of a house. A rear setbacK variance for new construction may be difficult for the Planning Commission and Council to justify, given all the other factors involved with this property, as wen as the fact that a City namral park area exists directly north of the property. Fillino of the wetland to create a better driveway or building envelope situation, even with 2 to 1 mitigation of wetlands, might be viable only if determined to have merely storm water quantity/quality values which might he enhanced by such work without destroying other values. As of this writing, the City has not determined whether a water pond (east of 4064 North Shore Drive) is viable, necessary or appropriate as a tradeoff to your contemplated filling of the wetland. Lots 58 through 61 have been valued and taxed as 1974 according to City tax records. For example, in 1977, 55^6-57 we assessed at a toul valuaUon of $3,388.00 for 0.81 f« “ Lots 58 through 61 had a total combined value of $880.00 for 0-92 ®cre o $960.00 per acre, i.e. less than 1/4 of the value of the homestead lots. In 19»s. Lots 55-56-57 were valued at $31,600.00 or $39,000.00 per acre whUe I^ts 58- 59-60-61 were taxed at a valuation of $100,00 each or $435.00 per acre. Mr. James Touve March 22, 1994 Page 3 10. l/90th of the value of the homestead parcel. These valuations do not support the idea of Lots 58 through 61 being buildable. Your proposed building site, whether it contains Lots 58 through 61 or 57 through 61, has never been assessed nor provided with sewer. Sewer manholes exist, however, approximately 150’ west of the southwest comer of Lot 58. and approximately 75’ east of the southeast comer of Lot 61. City ordinance requires payment of a "sewer connection charge" when properties not previously assessed connect to the sewer. The connection charge is based on the assessment rate paid by property owners for the original project, increased by the rate of inflation. Therefore, the connection charge to coimect to the west is $225.00 initial charge plus $4,263.00 unit charee plus $26.25 per foot front Mtage charge which would be $9,738.00 for Lots 58 through 61. Connectin*^ to the east, the connection charge is $11,510.00 per unit. Add to either of these figures the $800.00 SAC charge and $35.00 permit fee. All of the above figures are for 1994. Note that in addition to these costs, you will have to bear the cost of physically making the connection between the house and the existing sewer in the street. Procedure A. B. C. As we have discussed, you should contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to discuss the wetland, and their reaction to filling and mitigation in order to create a driveway or expand the buildable envelope. Even if MCWD reacts favorably, this is no guarantee that the City of Orono will allow encroachment of the wetland. Your next step would be to apply jointly with the Olsens for a Class I metes and bounds subdivision to separate Lot 57 from Lots 55-56. A copy of the subdivision application form is enclosed. This application will necessarily have to be reviewed in the context of your proposed use of the remainin g property as building site. Should the Planning Commission and Council conclude that Lot 57 must stay combined with 55 and 56, then the potential buildability of Lots 58 through 61 relies on a significant number of variances being granted, including but not lumted to lot area, dry buildable area, rear/wetland setback, encroac hment into wetland, etc. If, on the other hand, detachment of Lot 57 is allowed, then the magnitude and number of potential variances needed may decrease. A variance application form is enclosed. — ‘.,m . Mr. James Touve March 22, 1994 Page 4 As I noted to you previously. I do not expect that staff will lend any support for your proposal. However, if you do proceed, your application for a subdivision should include a clear representation of what you propose to do with the remaining Lots 5V through 61. includmg a detaUed site plan noting exact proposed location of aU improvements and a written statement defining reasons and hardships supporting your variance requests. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Admimstrator MPG/ch Enc. /•j >'■ -...» I^RpNOri < ^ On tht'ifcfth Shan c/ Lmkt Minntto mkm August 4» 1987 §y.’: ■••Jim Touve lt<fy.y- •< V •C:- - > ? ’• •V .. 1440 Sunter Golden Valley Re» North Shore Drive Property • T ,• * ’ * % rf * Dear Mr. Touve: Per our recent discussion* the City has taken the position that your sale of Lots 55 and 56* Highwood Lake Minnetonka* to Kevin and Lisa Olson constitutes an unapproved subdivision by City ordinances. This is because Lots 55* 56* and 57 exist as one combined parcel for tax purposes* and to separate them requires subdivision approval by the City Council. As we have previously noted to you* the conbination of Lots 55* 56* and 57 constitutes the 801 of 1 acre that is required for a building site in the LR-IB zoning district. With Lots 55 and 56 only* the property containing the existing residence at 4196 North Shore Drive is substandard in area. You have also indicated an intent to create a second building site‘on the remaining lots* to the rear of the pond. Your procedural options appear to be as follows: A) Convey Lot 57 to the Olsons. Apply for a lot area variance for the remaining lots 58 through 61. You will have to provide a 2* contour topographical survey of the property in order for the City Engineer to verify the extent of the designated wetland on the property if you wish to apply for the lot area variance: B) Convey Parcels 57 through 61 to the Olsons for combination with their Lota 55 and 56* to create one large lot with the existing house: BUtLtHNCa ZaNtNC > 47^f]i7 ASSCSSINC ADMiNirniAnoN a fwanoi - omui nmUCWO«KS>47>-7159 •* - V •. •*4 •’ JlB Jouve - Korth Shore Drive Property. Au9U8t 4/ 1987 . v’ V.- .'* . ; Pageof'2 •'.•■ '• V' • >• ‘ rm •♦ •. .•*. ^ s'• • • •' V A* •;. V • y •• . : ■ . * . • ■ • ■. ■*' ’ v ■V V? V>A ■..: :>vV-- C) Apply for a Class I Subdivision to split Lot 57 fros'Lots 55 and V 56. This subdivision application would be rsvlswed-in the'context or.;'' the variances it would necessitate for Lots'55 end 56 as V*** **•"!*..^^ potential for creating a new building site out of Lots If as a result of the City Engineer’s detersinatipn of the .wetland , boundary, that the area of Lots 57 through 61 exceeds 0.8 ,drj^;> contiguous acres, and if the subdivision is approved, you would not h need to apply for a lot area variance to build on that parcel, on the other hand, if 57 through 61 is less than 0.8 acre dry contiguous lard, you would need to apply for a lot area variance even if the subdivision is approved. If you convey Lot 57 to the Olsons, the issue of the buildability of Lots 58 through 61 does not have to be resolved now. As I have previously stated, you should not count on staff support of a subdivision application. Staff feels that Options A or B would be appropriate, but Option C does not follow the Intent of the Municipal Zoning Code. I am enclosing both the subdivision and variance application forms. Please contact me if 1 can be of assistance. Sincerely, lO r/H. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning t Zoning Administrator HPG/tln Enclosure - Letter Prom Glenn Cook cc» Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building t Zoning Administrator Hark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Kathleen Blatr, City Attorney Lisa 6 Kevin Olson, 4196 North Shore Drive, Mound, MN 55364 r»»ry l-rM: . lip July 13, 1987 CITY of po«( OffK» Hot i6*07«u) B«jr. 5&323t Municipal OfActa On tht North Short of Lake Minnetonka Kovin R. k Lita Touvt 01i«n 4196 North 8hor« Drive Mound, MN 55364 /• j;v • .»*. •' V .%• Ret Illegal Subdivision of Lots 55-56-57, Tax Parcel P.X.D. 107-117-23 44 0047 Hlghwood Lake Minnatonka Dear Hr. k Mrs. Olseni This letter is intended to clarify for you tho City's position regarding your purchase of Lots 55 and 56, Hlghwood Lake Minnetonka. Since prior to 1974, Lots 55, 56, and 57, Hlghwood Lake Minnetonka, have been legally cotabined for tax purposes. (Please see the attached tax records for 1974 and for 1987). Orono Municipal Code Section 11.03.66 (a) defines "the division of property previously combined for tax purposes* as a Class Z Subdivision. Tax parcel PID 107-117-23 44 0047 is considered as a Lot of Record per Section 10.03 Subdivision 6. Your warranty deed dated December 30, 1986, appearing in City files as a result of Homestead Classification request, indicates you purchased only Lots 55 and 56, Highv/cod Lake Minnetonka. You have additionally provided us with Registered Property Abstracts indicating that Lot 55 was originally on a Certificate of Title No. 269397 and Lots 56 thru 61 inclusive were covered under Certificate of Title No. 269398. I believe that Mr. Jamen Touve during our phone dicussion on 7-7-87 was attempting to explain to mo that as a result of the sale to you, he has had those Certificates revised to include lots 55 and So on one Certificate of Title. If that is the case, that still has no bearing on tho City's policy or ordir.ariVt.-.. As of this date, you are paying taxes on Lot 57, although you do not have title to it. It is e normal occurrence that the Hennepin County tax department requests City approval on subdivisions prior to revising tax records*. The City has disapproved the bounty .request for.changos to ttu records for.PID 107-117-23 44 0047 since.it has .not been legally subdivided.^ ^ - • • • r •• r V* The City, iias teken .the position that'no"further building permits will be issued for your property until the matter is settled. This positionopt] results in pert from .the past reliance that-your property .includc^i Lota 55,56 and .57. and at Buon contains the BOl.of. 1 acre required to hs ooneidered as e buildsbla site, and leavea e eubstanderd lot of 0.63 nry acres in Lots SI# 59, €0 and 61 inclusive. The City considers 58 thru 61 C.. iUHOlNCaZONMO-. i . , 6 ... .. . , - :* -- ./i • ' V ‘ : . /-.v* .* ^ MML47'p71I7 •; 4 :# c ADMWBTJUr.OX a MNANCl - 4»Mm‘ .• v- S v , rvStJCWOaSS - 4l7J-7;i7 ■ *• •' y'..- . ' • ' ■. •' .v.f'- . .. r ' ■’'* ••' <!. ... - r‘. • . 4- . « * • r f• » ________■ r . »__________ I Page 2 of 3 July 13, 1987 taken together, aa a subatandard unbuildable lot unless variances aro granted. In fact, in a paat aide aetback variance application on file, the property la repreaented to the City aa being one lot Including Lota 55 thru 61. Bxcluaion of Lot 57 from 55 and 56 would leave your homestead parcel at 0.58 acres, a substandard lot, and would give Lots 57 thru 61 a total of 0.85 dry acres, meeting the 80% area requirement and becoming a aubstantially conforming lot at the expense of your property^ however. Inclusion of Lot 57 with 58 thru 61 violates the Intent of section 10.03 Subdivision 6 (A) (1) because It reduces the Record Lot containing Lots 55*- 56-57 to a substandard size. Staff believes that since all previous building permits were Issued under the reliance that 1) the property in total contained 1.43 acres dry land and 2) the combination of Lota 5S-56-57 contained In excess of the 0.80 acre required to be a bulldable lot, that It would be contrary to the intent of the sonlng code to allow Lot 57 to bo detached from Lots 55 and 56. Lots 55-56-57 should remain aa a substantially conforming 0.80 acre building sltei Lots 58 thru 61 would then have to bo subject to a variance process If there was any Intent to use them as a building alto, and would bo approved or disapproved on their own merit. Staff believes that based on the location of the designated wetland within the central portion of Lota 58 thru Cl, that this would like]y bo denied as building site, although that question ultimately is a City Council decision. Staff feels that inclusion of Lot 57 with Lots 56 thru 61 will not have an appreciable effect on their usability for a building site, that 57 thru 61 would still be an extremely marginal buildi.*'.g site n'; best. Staff will not, therefore, support a proposal to divide Lots 55 and 56 from Lot 57. Tho following are your options as we see them; 1) Apply for a Class 1 Subdivision to split Lot 57 from 55 and 56. 2) Purchase or acquire Lot 57 from Mr. Touve. Note that In addition, staff recommends that all of Lots 55 thru 61 be combined aa one property. 3) Do nothing, continue to pay taxes on land you do not own, and danlad any building parmits you may apply for.. Pleaaa contact ma as to how you wish to proceed r#4» ^ "r- *-— —•------- S 1 , •* .. •-.“ .• .- V- ••fI • V...* ‘> V \* *-rVt;v.r5^^>rd ^S# m-. July 13, 1987 CITY of PmI OfficM Hot tttCnrMol Boy, Hiomoou 663Z3*Moaid9d OfBcw On tht North Short of Lake Minnttonko KBvIn R* k lIbb Touvb Olstn 4198 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Rei Zllegel Subdlvleion of Lote 55-56-57, Tex Parcel P.I.D. 607-117-23 44 0047 Dear Nr. i Hra. Oleeni Highwood Z.ake Minnetonka letter le Intended to clarify for you the City's position regarding your purchase of Lota 55 and 56, Highwo<i Lake Minnetonka. a Lot of Record per Section 10.03 Subdivision 6. A deed dated December 30, 1986, appearing in City files as Lota a^**w4**v ^^■■■^J^c*tion request, indicates you purchased only uS ui^h Mlgh»/ood Uke Minnetonka. You have additionally provided SI A riJlwii Abstracts indicating that Lot 55 was crigi.nally covered uidir rIrl1#V‘I* **#• •”** inclusive were tS^v. duSi«« NO. 269398. I believe that Mr. James thAfc P^®^* dicussion on 7-7-07 was attempting to explain to me those Certificates revised o?.i Vi?l^ -If?? ?* «nd 56 on one Certificate of Title. If that is the case, tnat still has no bearing on the City's policy or ordinaricts. h-i,-y®“ taxes on Lot 57, although you do not dlnlrltlnf If™ -*?-}? • normal occurrence that the Hennepin County tax rae«rd!I*”Vk«*}fAlM. •PP*^®''*^ ®*' aubdlvisions prior to reviaing tax racftVdV the jCounty,request for changes to tax be that’BO’furthe^ permits will rlstle. until the matter la eettled. Thie position -- -•*• *** the M r.e.liance that<your property Includes Lots ;^0l,of. 1 :aiire iaquired to bs aoJii aa^ 'i *"? IfAvea a aubatandard lot of 0.63 dryLoti 51# SI# €0 inA CX inoluiivie . Iht City contidori 51 thiru 61 Paga 3 of 3 July 13, 1967 Joanna h, Habusth, Building t Zoning Adminietrator ThoMB J* Jacobs, Building Official Nark B. Barnhardson, City Adainistrator Kathlaan Blata, City Attornay Janas Touva, 1440 Suntar Ava* No., Goldan Vallay, MN 55427 cci and I 1) Plat Map 2) Watlanda ovarlay 3) 1974, 1987 tax racords 4) Lot araa calculation workshaat 5) Municipal Zoning Coda Sactions - 11.03.66 ( - 10.03 Subd. 6(A)(1) - 10.24 6) Survay on fila V \ V ^ • * • .*• .; •* •.* .• V,.*; i<i. 5 ■ # .a *a • ' .i\•^ a 1 . f *■. .1 « ^ ,'# * • a • ‘ a * 1\: .*y.• •’ » ** * a a *• , r . ^ , * . .• * . ■ . *kV .' a * '. * .• •*•• .. .• 1 «. ► r a • a * ♦ so. a • a • , i ’ s *• • . - . ■ V *4 ^ ‘.•’i: -V : Vvv* . • a a # • • ♦ • *,••••' • 'a >• •. • .• ^ •9 .• • * a %■ . V:vV-: •-.-J . • - r.y-' • -V *^•1 * • -•■ . » Pag* 3 of 3 July 13* 1987 cei Joann* h, Mabuath* Building a Zoning Adalnlatrator ThoM* J* Jaeoba* Building Official Nark B. Bornhardaon* City Adalnlatrator Kathlaan Blati* City Attornoy Jaaaa Touva* 1440 Sumtar Ava. No.* Golden Valley* MN 55427 anelt 1) Plat Nap 2) Watlanda overlay 3) 1974* 1917 tax racorda 4) Lot area calculation workaheet 5) Nunieipal Zoning Cod* Bactlona - 11.03.88 (a) - 10.03 8ubd. 8(AM1) - 10.24 8) Survey on fil* i *. V .<•* ••• v .-v •, ■'• • •• V 5 • • f ■ • •• • •*• • • - * - . 4V.-* • • • .»• • * ; •:.• • . . • *•. S ' •' - ^ . - * . . ^ • i -t < * *. •• • 4 >* •» L. - ■ ^ t. m •• •• J EnviroData John C. Anderson 5831 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis,MN 55416 '612.544.1761 Fax: 612.525.2021 e-mail: hydric@aol.com Web site: www.expert-market.com/Envirodata/ I WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT FOR: JIM TOUVE PROJECT IN ORONO, MN 'i • ( 'A WETLANDS DELINEATION DOCUMENTATION FOR JIM TOUVE PROJECT IN ORONO. MN John Anderson. EnviroData. Minneapolis. MN delineated and documented wetlands ^undaries on the subject property on April 23rd. 1997 at the request of Jim Touve. This report provides information as to the dominant wetland characteristics at the site as result of the investigation. The parameters of the wetland/upland boundaries are provided in each delineation report form as this information is redundant below. Please review documentation of these findings (referenced in report and site plan) A sketch of the staked wetland boundaries is included in the report. LOCATION Lots 57. 58. 59. 60. and 61 HIghwood Lake of Minnetonka Cfono. Minnesota METHODOLOGY Wetlands were identified and delineated using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987) Revisions to the former method have been proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are currently under review. Pending the adoption of these revisions, the U.S. army Corps f applying the 1987 Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual The wetland ?A? habitat were classified according to the methodologies set forth in ^tlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39. Shaw and Fredine. 1971) and Classification of Wetlands and Deep water Habitats of the United States fFWS/OBS Publication 79/31: Cowardin et. al.1979). CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS INVESTIGATED Transect A.m This is d Type Five (PABF) wetland checksiie. Dominant specie Is Duckweed (OBL) pond^^^ Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met. as site is Transect A#li wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Green Ash (PACVV) Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated and in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect A.#l 11 ^ non-wetland checksite. Dominant specie Is Green Ash (FACW). Soils are wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded or saturated, or in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect A. #IV This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and American Elm (FACW-). Soils are Estherville, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology Is not met. Site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated, or In a wetland drainage pattern. • i ‘ J SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS One wetland boundary was delineated in the field. The interior Is dominated by Duckweed and open water. The area of standing water has lncrea.sed over time due to obstruction of natural drainage by filling for construction of a house on the south side of the wetland. Accumulation of debris in the backyard of the house Is part of the historical drainage way. This portion of the historic drainage way also no longer function due to an accumulation of yard debris (leaves etc.) which prohibits overflow drainage during periods of high water. The duration of standing water also has increased as a result of fill placed in the wetland during realignment of Highway 19. Included in this report are ground level photos of the area obstructed by debris and laser copies of aerial photos showing changes to the wetland over time. The ground level photos were taken in May, 1997. Aerial photos taken in 1937, 1940, 1945, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1971, and 1991 were examined. iioHl A natural outlet was filled for the construction of a house at'4T96 County Road 19. Prior to this alteration the wetland was a Type Three (PEMIC) wetland. The wetland now is classified as Type Five (PUBFh) wetland. The wetland had standing water at times during the growing season prior to the filling of it’s natural outlet. The wetland now has standing water throughout the growing season. A type Four wetland would only be dry during a moderately severe drought, such as that experienced In the area In 1987 and 1988. Available aerial photography shows the fill was placed at the site between 1945 and 1953. County Road 19 was realigned between 1960 and 1971 per available photography. The western portion of the wetland was filled to accommodate the straightened road bed. The additional fill has displaced water and increased the duration and area of flooding in other portions of the basin. Concrete and other debris was found at the southern and western portions of the wetland. The wetland boundary is very irregular in these areas. Irregular boundaries often result from delineations In wetlands which have been partially filled. These changes are visible on aerial photography. Prior to construction both the southern and western portions of the wetland had an oval shape typical of Pothole type depressions. After construction had occurred both of these areas have a straight edged appearance, which is typical of wetlands that have been partially filled. histoSly^^Incre^^^^^ Sa periphery of the basin were not wetland LIMITATIONS OF WETLAND ASSESSMENT y noi oe accurate and should be reinvestigated during the growing season. I appreciate this opportunity to present this analysis. Sincerely. dohn Anderson PWS & CMS - RS i] A f/20^ V2-20C.5-900 ^0 n&o 51 S'C^oo Ig < J/ S3zr y Sd, < S3^ u " / /IJqT .j-f.r!TP . ,M>V' C'.'' ^- ^ ■■^'rci'^- <'c>"■' . 1' . ; ‘. •'* I Ht?-' - \ SeiT /irT7«^t> /2bH_ ]^no-LS-/ ^. •y^’cro _ S^^rO-fC-s^oo ^vor^-'srt^ r #/Uo’T /4^r^»sse=(^ h- h l:i •!:!j 'iUillt'irt ij2000'. •ii2100< •2200^ ff?2°' ^ii*2425< " ’2700- 2800 , ’2900-? ! .0000 i ,• 3loo< '!:3200 !3300- ^3400 • jlV3550^ k07oo ; iii'OBOO i?'*! 3900- iPir^OOO >' ’'^loo • ••. li-'•I|> •1!i ft* • r : : i:) i-' ?200 Ii'4500^- " 4600 ;i['-^4700 ^ ‘ ii;:^4000 -fe, Hl;l 1 5110 •; r * ‘r % ^ * ll li • .• I I I ;! ' vifHil.i'.Sooo-' ' •T- *- 1/2 iil’X,:, . . .. 'i'Oii’! ! 1/2 i •i!.l i/2;i !ii!^ !‘5.1 r 'I- t I »* f .0 1.1*• I . .fg 4^5140-' . '7900^jih,M :• U 1 8000-^. i :• •;iV:^-.i h;‘!'V!‘8350'':- liA:\r\v 1-9050 fu\ };9250‘’ :i: ^ii|510-^<.i. 1200 •• . »st r* • ; • *r.*5 n :« ll»PiWA: Aaseosable Footage . 50.0 I 50.0 50.0 50.00 152.34 45.68 50.0 50.0 50.0 50., 0 50.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 96.62 50.0 50.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 25.0 103.36 131.45 93.9550.0 100.0 100.0 75.0 125.0 100.0^ 57.0; ■ 50.0 67.2 Ho. of Conn. 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1i 1 1i 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 . . • Aesdsainent for Units Assesamentl fori PootaM 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 2540.00 0 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270,00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 635.00 635.00 0 635.00 1270.00 635.00 0 635.00 635.00 0 1270.00 0 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270/00 1270.00 1270.00 . -i-avoiQo 1270.00 1270.00 kliJ i for Foota : n\\< . 39b.-06 ‘ t! !39o;oo :i 39OVOO, •! 390;00, 1188.26' 356.'3lj 390.00' 390:00; 390.00 . 390.00, : 390:00; .390:00. 390:00'. • 780,00: ■ 390,;ooi i 390,'oo;ri 390.00. :^; 753c64.iii 390.00, :'i! 390:001.;- 780.00 k 390:ooj!f| 390:00 !;.i 390.00 390.00, 390, OOj 390.00, |:. 195. OoV'^' ' 806.21 ,1025.31 : 732.81 390.00 780.00 . 700,00 ;= 585.00 • ; 975.00 r [;i ■ 78 o.;oo :i~444.60 iSorfcom® '00 (ISP 225? 0.0. 225iop: 225:0.0 225:00 jiiip^ 225:00. ||lll!|f225;00 W2ZSi00 •^£225.00, ••“i225:00'j |ji i;.j:225':oo!Lu ^ I? 225:00,^*: Mi!225;00iP fc225:00r"II225.00* {■•i!225:00 j- '.ir ?^!jritfli il-- ftSKi : s-: tV ;!• H ■ ,;‘‘.'225:ooj| *!( :225!?00lBJt. 225,OOi{i^0.i , '-225;‘ 00 ilr;225.ool!y>iS'<5'o'l'.i-':!, Iii:225.00j{:,;,;if!jflil : 390.00 524.16 =iv- • • •V-. - . : - \ : •. . • . • '=-•* .'• _ Q. ^ (S-) ui q IO . .-q qq ^ - -----------• O O' ‘Q - gb- -• . ‘^ndscap .ng a sS ■'ON LOT 63 TO »r i^.f - ' replaced by owner - °y^? ..^NO 2’'STEaGA< - C Co.Rrl I Ok I t 1 < i \ I I i I I K-L § 10.03 I. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 J. Apply to "Uses" Only. The non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Chapter apply only to the use to which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Where, however, such a situated existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance under Section 10.08. Subd. 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if required. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 V A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 1. In "R" Districts of One Acre or Less and With Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Zoning Chapter in any "R" District of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. However, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless ORONO CC 253 (4-1-84) combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 2. In "R" Districts of Greater Than One Acre and Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R” District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (a) It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet? (b) It is served by public sanitary sewer; (c) It otherwise meets the requirements ot this Chapter or other applicable City Code provisions. 3. In "R" Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R” District in the City not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement, which results in any segment^ thereo being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning dis­ trict, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying under the minimum acreage, open space, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any provisions of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction ot improvements thereon. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non- conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 ORONO CC 254 (4-1-84) I I I I I I 9 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 9 I I § 10.55 Subd. 13. City Determination. Based upon the technical evaluation of the c^esignated engineer or expert, and based upon the factors ? sted above-, the City shall determine wh^ether tne proposed use is i the floodway or flood fringe and th^ regulatory flood protection elevation a^ the site. / Subd. 14. Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon consideration of the factors listed above and the purposes of this Section, \the City may^ attach such conditions to the granting of a conditional use perinit as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this o^tionl Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: facilities. ooeration. A. B. Modification ofNwaste disposal and water supply Limi^tions on p^iod of use, occupancy and C. Imposition of operatl'Onal controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. \ D. /Requ i remen ts for construction of channel modifications, <^ikes, levees, and other protective measures. .'E. Flood proofing measures, in accordance with the State Building'"^ Code. The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flooc^proofing measures are consistent with the regulatory flood protection elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. _ _ ___ Subd. 15. Land Development and Platting. No part of any lot within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area shall be platted for residential occupancy or for other uses which will increase the danger to health, life, property or the public welfare. All lots containing land within the flood plain districts shall contain a building site above the regulatory flood protection elevation. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this Section and have road access no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Whenever a portion of the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area is located within or adjoins a land area that is being subdivided, the subdivider shall dedicate to the City an adequate perpetual easement over the land within the protected area and along each side of such area for the purpose of improving or protecting the area for drainage or other purposes expressed in this Section and other recreational uses, as determined by the Council. Public or private streets, driveways, drainage openings and culverts shall not be constructed unless the design thereof has been approved by the City, and such structures shall be designed so as not to restrict the flow of water. Subdivision applicants shall provide all certified engineering data, surveys, site plans, flowage calculations and other information as the City may require in order to determine the effects of such development on the affected land and water areas. ORONO CC 370 (4-1-84) ( \y I * § 10.55 A. Minimum Lot Ar©a Requiremants. The minimum lot area reauirements of this Chapter shall be interpreted to mean that all of the required land area for each building site shall be in one contiguous parcel undivided by Floodway or Flood Fringe and no land within the protected area shall be included in determination of minimum lot area, except as specifically provided for herein: 1. For properties not served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood rringe lands provided at least 2.0 acres of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. 2. For properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. 3. For residential properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, a limited density credit may be allowed for inclusion of Flood Fringe lands as part of the required minimum lot area for ourposes of complying with the land use density, open space, building unit to land area ratios or other similar requirements of the land development and zoning provisions. The owner or developer of such property will be credited with an amount of his land within the Flood Fringe equal to, but not exceeding, the amount of his adjacent land which otherwise qualified tor development under this Chapter. Such credit shall be conditioned upon dedication of perpetual open space and flowage easements to the City over all protected areas so utilized for density credit. Subd. 16. Special Assessments. The land area in the Plood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area which is not to be developed and is not used for credit as in Subparagraph A, Item 3 of Subdivision 15, and which is dedicated as an easement shall not be subject to special .ssessments to defray the cost of other municipal improvement projects, including but not limited to LrunX sanitary sewer and water mains and storm sewer improvements. Subd. 17. Nuisance. Any filling, alteration, construction or artificial obstruction of the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area is declared to be and to constitute a public nuisance unless a permit to construct and maintain tne obstruction has been obtained in the manner provided herein. A. Removal of Artificial Obstruction. If an artificial obstruction is found after investigation by the City, an order shall be issued to the owner, following ten days written notice and hearing thereon, for removal within a reasonable time as ORONO CC 371 (4-1-84) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TO: FROM: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE:March 5,1998 SUBJECT:#2343 Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Femdale Road North Variances-Public Hearing Lot Area: Application: Zoning District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (1/2 Acre) 90,265 square feet (2.07 acres) The applicants are proposing the construction of a 736 s.f. detached garage with a dormer to provide additional storage space on the property. Variances are required for locating an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure and for side yard setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 8(D): Location of Accessory Structures Section 10.03, Subd. 15(F): Setbacks for Accessory Structures H2343 Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Ferndale Road North Variances March 16. 1996 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard RR-IB 2 acres 200’50’30’ (10’ for accessory structures) 50’ subject property 2.07 acres 98 ’329 ’31.5' existing 5' proposed 222’ The subject property currently meets all zoning requirements except lot width. As proposed, the side setback requirement would also not be met. Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Staff estimates the amount of structural coverage on the property as approximately 4%. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application as the property is not located within a shoreland overlay zone. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Refer to the application (Attachment A) for the applicant's statement of hardship. Criteria for Determining V iviu? 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 as an attached nvo-car garage currently exists on the property. The configuration of the lot makes constructing a detached garage on the property difficult without variances, however. f^2343 Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Femdale RoadSorth Variances March 16. 1998 Page 2 1 :-4 V. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The house was constructed on the zoning lot in a fashion that makes locating an accessory structure that meets zoning requirements difficult. The portion of the property abutting the street is a long, relatively narrow strip. The location of the residence prohibits locating the structure on either side of the existing residence, or expanding the existing attached garage. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for locating an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure will not change the character of the area. The variance for side setback may change the character of the area as the garage would be located 5’ from the side lot line and would encroach 5' into the 10’ drainage and utility easement running along the east side lot line. 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. 'r'2 5. A garage for storage purposes of the proposed size is 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 subject property does not meet lot width requirement. The existing residence is located in the portion of the primary building area that is located nearest the street. The survey of the property (Attachment G) demonstrates this lot configuration. Constructing the garage in a viable location that meets all zoning requirements would be difficult. <1 6.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most lots in the area meet lot width requirements and are generally rectangular. ^2345 Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Femdate Road North Variances March 16. 1998 Page 3 7. 8. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property currently has an attached two-car garage. A garage of similar size could be built elsewhere on the lot. The approximate proposed location appears to be the most viable, however. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Due to the configuration of the subject property and location of the existing residence, constructing an accessory structure in a viable location on the property without variances is difficidt. Issues 5. The property meets all zoning requirements except lot width. The lot configuration and location of the residence on the subject property makes constructing an accessory structure that does not require variances difficult. The garage doors will not be visible from the street and will face the residence instead. The applicant is proposing the garage be located 5' from the east side lot line. There is a 10 drainage easement along this lot line and granting the side yard variance would result in encroachment into this easement. The dormer over the garage will not be used for additional living space. The garage will not have plumbing or heating. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this application to allow the construction of a 736 s.f. garage with a dormer with the condition the 10' side yard setback be met. Staff recommends approval of a variance allowing fhe accessory structure to be located 227' from the front lot line where the principal structure is located 329' from the front lot line and no accessory structure is allowed to be nearer the front lot line than the principal structure. Staff recommends denial of a side setback variance of 5' to allow the accessory structure to be located 5 from the side lot line where 10' is required for accessory structures. Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Ferndale Road North Variances March 16, 1998 Page 4 Application ff Date Received Amount Paid _j^3oo CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S^O:QQ ^ 5~o • oo (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures S220.00 After-ihe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress_-------627 Ferndal e Road North. Qrono. MN SB.^Qi Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^-ii8-?3.n.nn?Q ----- Ar^ch legal description to appIication~not included on required survey ---------------- Date Property Acquired m.. iqoc ^ ^ I m (do not) also own the adjacem parcels of land. .(month/year) Presentj^e of propeity: _X_residential ___pother (specifrO ZomngDistnct: t m ^ ---------------------------- APPLICANT Name Timothy 0. Johnsnp Address: Phone (home) /;73-?Rn7 Phone (work) 33:>.-«^qip Q»^ono _________ Zip: 55391 OWIviER (if different than applicant) Name f ^ -Bonnie D. jQhn<;nn Address:(Same)Citv: Phone (home) ^samo) Phone (work) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ______________ . . •Estimated Construction Cost S 20,000-------- «uiu<tica v.,onscrucnon t^ost 5 itU.OUO Descnbe request m detail: .JIgriangg from setback reauirP.Pnts to lor.t. . pv.,?. detached 2-car garage TTfront^pf residenrp .nH ^ from nLLy [jL (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED -----Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback: X Front X Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Other (specify) Average Lakeshore • • ■ m ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) RUN DATE 02/04/98 BATCH 502 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENWEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 36-118-23 11 0007 00585 FERNDALE RD N DANIEL D DANIELSON ETAL DANIEL D DANIELSON 585 NORTH FERNDALE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0016 00775 FERNDALE RD N B A a K J ERICKSON BRADLEY A I KAREN J ERICKSON 775 FERNDALE RD N NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0029 00627 FERNDALE RD N BONNIE D JOHNSON BONNIE 0 JOHNSON 627 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 14 0002 00575 FERNDALE RD N J G a M M DAYTON JAMES G a MEGAN M DAYTON 575 FERr^ALE RD N WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO, PI435401 PAGE 3 38 36-118-23 11 0009 00635 FERNDALE RD N L JACOBSON a V A O'NEILL LARRY JACOBSON VICTORIA A O'NEILL 635 FERNDALE RD N ORONO MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0010 00645 FERNDALE RD N RICHARD E STRAND ETAL RICHARD E a JOAN M STRAND 645 NO FERNDALE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 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 FRANCISCOS G BASTIAENS 625 NORTH FERNDALE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0031 00629 FERNDALE RD N J R THOMAS ANA THOMAS JOSEPH R a NANCY A THOMAS 629 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 14 0001 00575 FERNDALE RD N J G a M M DAYTON JAMES G a MEGAN M DAYTON 575 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 14 0009 00585 FERNDALE RD N DANIEL D DANIELSON ETAL DANIEL D DANIELSON 585 NORTH FERNDALE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 502 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 KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 2-5-98 ,v ^ ^ !:> 0 o MEDirJA CMilttf aM ■•CAf Lonji Lake LiMWVCfl It'...-* " "U ............*^*/*Tt^ v>'V- *’ Orono Country Cub f Acidic I^Or^Ly V I - i \___/ \___/ c?:) CD r—*. •CZD O CZ3 CD CZ3 CZl f O t m « O A CL m MA lA. tf t» !• CA M' ■il! ffl «C «t» «c tie IAS POL tta Mil ■Al ■A| tw* !■« Silt.* !«§•• •• 0 NE 1/4 ‘ T1 tPM PERMIT RECORD F Permit No.Date Type of Permit ^937 6,909' ?-'/ 7-9 -3. ■9- - 93 hi:i6L 6>r3i /S - /- 93 /X •iOC 6f>::=/y2(lc/i s^UjL -<?/) 4/24 S'/O-fd ____ V5 -/6-9o ^ly.cV- 9i5'</c-jo - ? X </' «?7*^pxilv- 2Hl / X.-^/P <a 0;j6,v y ?7 -9P £^ oJ ^^KU-d>iP ______________ ■r ---------------*1^- to the point of beginning. ,..,o rr. oewNAa /ino owjtt casemcnt i S89'58’33*W ..-i*’ 100.00 / thot this mop wos prepored by me or under my ion ond thot I om o duly Registered Land Surveyor ; of the Stote of MInnesoto. lory, 1998. by.___( ^ Jock Bolke Minnesota License No. 20281 f this beoring system is bosed on the east line LAURENT ADDITION which is assumed to hove o *4 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds West. i furnished for the preporotion of this survey to escription or the existence of ony eosements or •erty described hereon is 90,265 squore feet or /€77 r-5 n. ORAINACC and UTlJTf EAStutNTS--9 j----------------------------------------t- '-SOUTH LINE OF LOT 1 / L________ F00»« «0N-'.N89‘59*30*E / 0 • *69.28 -.// # 1 t1 1 f 1 81 1 y r=3(7'r-*«h- fSs'' )• 8 6 _____-2 2. 2 TTTTT^ f O f f f f f rxscvoi'*'' niSv>r* 255.20 S86-2200-W • . » . • 9 -mm •... tj .) }. ) ^ Cf--------:m PAT^PKWM s«v TO: FROM: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE:March 11, 1^998 * SUBJECT: #2344 C. Douglas ?Jid Marilyn Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances —Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:12,204 square feet square feet (.28 acre) Application:The applicants are proposing to rebuild a main level deck on the lake side of the residence and enclose the area below to become a porch . A new second level deck, a stairway leading down from the main levti deck and a deck and steps along the lake side of the porch are also proposed. Variances are required for hardcover in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setback? , average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and structural coverage. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C); Lot Coverage Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C6): Average Lakeshore Setback Regulations C. Douglas and Xfarilyn J. Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Parlances March 16. 1998 Page I y Lot Area and Yards ANALYSIS Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard LR-IB 1 acre 140'75'10'35' subject property .28 acre 94' at OHWL 72' at 75' setback 53.'-e\isting 62'-proposed 18'-existing 11'-proposed 27' The subject property does not meet lot area, lot width, lakeside setback and street yard requirements, For the purposes of this application, a variance is required from the lakeside yard setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 12,204 s.f.Existing: 2,600 s.f.21.3% Proposed: 2,406 s.f.19.7% The property does not meet structural coverage requirement as existing or proposed. The proposal decreases the amount of structural coverage on the property. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'6,080 s.f.568 s.f (9.3%) none 254 s.f (4.2%) 254 s.f (4.2%) 75'-250'6,124 s.f 3,391 s.f (55.4%) 1,531 s.f (25%) 3,370 s.f (55%) 1,839 s.f (30%) Variances are required for hardcover in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. While the requirements will not be met, hardcover will be reduced in each setback. ^2344 C. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances March 16, 1998 Page! STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Refer to the applicants statement of hardship (Attachment K). 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 is dilapidated in its current state and remodeling is taking place. As part of this remodeling, the applicants wish to replace and enclose decks primarily in the same footprint as approved by a previous variance. These replacements cannot take place without the granting of variances. « 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing residence was built prior to current zoning district requirements. While the portion of the lower level deck nearest the lakeshore was added by a previous owner illegally, the majority of the replacements being proposed are within previously approved footprint areas. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for hardcover, average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback will not alter the character of the area. 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. The porch and decks are permitted in this zoning district. M2344 C. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances March 16, 1998 Page 3 5. 6. 7. 'Fhe special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The zoning lot waj platted prior to current zoning requirements. Due to the non- conforming lot size, meeting the hardcover requirements is difficult. The location of the residence on the applicant's other property to the north at 1040 Loma Linda Avenue is farther west than the subject property due to the northwest slant of the lakeshore, which makes meeting the average lakeshore setback difficult on the subject property. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most of the lots along this portion of Loma Linda Avenue were platted prior to current zoning requirements and the residences on them also were built before current zoning and are therefore non-conforming. Not all residences in the neighborhood are located as close to the lakeshore as the subject property, however. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants would not be able to replace the dilapidated decks that were previously approved by variances without the granting of variances at the present time. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The proposal is to rebuild and enclose a portion of the decks that have been previously granted a variance. There will be a decrease of hardcover on the property. Encroachments on the average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback will be reduced also. U2S44 C. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcomb^. 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances March 16. 1998 Page 4 Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The property does not meet lot area or width requirements. A lot line rearrangement between the subject property and the applicant's property’ other property at 1040 Loma Linda Avenue to the north was approved in January, 1998 that improved the conformance of the lot. A variance was approved in 1969 to deem the lot of record buildable. The stairs and decking around the porch will be the only increase of hardcover and structure over what was approved in 1977. While the porch and decks could be constructed without increasing the footprint beyond what was approved in 1977, the downward slope away from the porch and need for a exterior means of egress from the porch and second level necessitate the construction of the 3.5' wide stairway and deck. The alternative would be to build a grade level stairway that is allowed by code but would increase hardcover in an equal or greater amount. When the variances were approved for the existing decks and lakeside addition, average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and structural overage apparently did not apply s' ihese variances required now were not necessary for the addition at that time. WTiile the decks were not mentioned in the variance report, the elevation drawings showing them was approved. Allowing the enclosure of the area under the main level deck will not increase hardcover or structural coverage since the existing main level deck already counts toward structural coverage and hardcover. Furthermore, it w'ill not increase encroachment on the lakeshore or average lakeshore setbacks. The second level deck will be located over the existing decks and w ill not increase the magnitude of the necessary variances. 7. The existing lower level deck nearest the lakeshore was built without variances or a permit. 8. It appears as though all decks as existing and proposed are considered structural coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the necessary variances to allow the replacement of existing decks and enclosing the area under the main level deck, replacing the existing main level deck which will be constructed on top of the porch, constructing an new additional 6' by 8' second level deck and adding a 3.5' wide stairway and deck leading down from the main level deck and around the porch. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 4.2% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where none is allowed and 9.3% is existing. 1^2344 C. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances March 16. 1998 Page 5 Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 30% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback to allow 55% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 55.4% is existing. Staff recommends approval of a structural coverage variance of 4.7% to allow 19.7% structural coverage where 15% is allowed and 21.3% is existing. Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance to allow 41' encroachment where none is allowed and 49' is existing. Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 13' to allow the deck to be located 62' from the OHWL where 75' is required and 53' is existing. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval the illegally constructed lower level deck nearest the lakeshore be removed pnor to issuance of a building permit. The applicants have agreed to this provision. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Elevation Drawings Hardcover Worksheets City Council Minutes From July 11,1977 Applicant's Statement of Hardship 1^2344 C. Douglas and Sfarilyn J. Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances Starch 16.1998 Page 6 i i r!«*j.fj.ui;. rium [•rtniTt] ms [•i«ii«rfS<^*jfict)« I ii 1 ^lT«ril rtr^rtvti 'A* \ W r«rtsim4 ^iTiRI rl!I»J r^mms] rtrciifiti Q Q »ia •:llfIT itiitif MlTtRIItllVat rtiMitiip.! c-X r * f * •. :* •>/ .. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3.v' 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property OwTiers List of owners within 150 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVz' k 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (e-\isting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8I/2" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been ircluded. APPLICANT S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature s true ana correct to tne oest Date ^luj- OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ; r“ ♦ VMM •«••»« *«• m-^i .• V'v^ %«.■''«i»l '. J ‘ V;.■■v.f!;-r::r7s\>fKr.^, . > . ;V A-’.- . V.V.-tI. t,', ■' ‘ ’ ' *T^' '' - '9 v- '"'V ^- -, - 'i- i. , =■ r> 7' r .' -r'** - *.>.‘'v»*^^ • .-*.•: V.'\ *•. I i- • h. . -^L .‘1 (T*%i7i! •»T ■immmm • >v^'-*^. ’v'o>- ■'/‘. -:4 ; *4 - * • I ••v . : et :; l-r- V ’'jr.?3 V. • * ’ '*:'.' ___________________ LOVA\iri:.r^.r 1 ! •— --._• W^W§: iM i?&s5Jgp :.§WmMim- Sv•> b; u - <54 MmM mmMmm te' HENNEPIN COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE Parcel Information Parcel to 0611723230006 Hotcse Nurnbef 0l0f6 LOMA LINDA AVEStreet Name Condomtmum TfM >t n«l a irgah *t<o>C*s V rtpr««ar*» a corv<j»on of r#0fm«M>rt and data »«*n C#r Corfty and Stato read aunor*»« and cea.* aaarea ••■rx- V--|-^'----Jrr: 0/ \ ^r/____-T—'»• • ' •- , ■. -. Wsift:r^- :*r» r--.''r -'• -‘>; RUN DATE 02/12/98 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR Ot-MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HEWIPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHFiERS LIST 38 08-117-23 23 03980 DAHL RD THOMAS P MCGLYfffl THOMAS P MCGLYNN 7350 COMMERCE LA MPLS MN 55432 0001 N E 38 08-117-23 23 0007 01066 LOMA LINDA AVE CAROL M RADUNZ CAROL M RADUNZ 5505 RIVER BLUFF CIR BL00MINGTC»4 MN 55437 38 08-117-23 23 0022 01045 LOMA LINDA AVE T G OSTERBERG/K J OSTERBERG TIMOTHY 6/KRISTl J OSTERBERG 1045 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0025 01040 LOMA LINOA AVE C 0 HOLCOMBE S H J HOLCOMBE C DOUGLAS HOLCOtraF; 1040 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 34 38 08-117-23 23 0005 01056 LOMA LINOA AVE C D S M J HOLCOMBE C 0 A M J HOLCOtOE 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUMO MN 55164 38 08-117-23 23 0006 01058 LOMA LINDA AVE T M A M L SCHAIDLE TODD M A !1ICIIELLE L SCHAIBLE 1058 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0008 01074 LOMA LINDA AVE MARGARET E MAFTSON MARGARET E MATTSON 1074 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0C09 01082 LOMA LINDA AVE K H A F DAIVARI KMOSROH A FATEMEH DAIVARI 2354 CHERRYNOOD RD MINNETONKA MN 553C5 38 08-117-23 23 0023 01035 LOMA LINOA AVE R C BRONN A M A BROWN ROSS C A MELINDA A BROIM 1035 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0024 01038 LOMA LINDA AVE ROBERT B ANDERSON ROBERT B ANDERSON 1038 LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND m 55364 TOTAL BATCH 507 00010 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFOR.IATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COU4TY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. CT"' DATE f •. »’ ft 'r«. -.vj; J t> L ii r\ t r<’o^«+'s V. S $ /osC> /crrvKx. /dCL. * • • r y- V 1 O y — Shoreline } ^ 75’ Setback Line ~ 7"' South line of Lot 4. LOMA LINDA N 89 ’58 ’20" ^ 169.20 f Story Fromo i.W58 6<l/«lu>rc 19.5ti i ••■WL ------>« sviasjexxi i. ' 1 vVUttV. > ;• , ' P.soiso If*-—-» ^1.' !---------l..»lN - ^v.T ts • c«-»-r 111..-. .'. .• .rj^T‘itvjT I- M- _ i.t P4n ^tvss. '-( offe^^ __<!&t *; ii %0mm0rnm^ ipiitfMo. ■•/.'».-:;C{jvJT 5rV)»^ >• ‘ i'1^. Vfl ST^H-%* t<i t**U•STt^V h < »^w Tap ^ H3 r .<zomia .c BAI i’^*C.t.i-\ppX>. ftcQE/^X;ct>| V ri‘ ■V. i'. 1 r 1 * T**r % *j ?4 V « ._i^r.’ r-t. •• / :\''5 > - •>. -4- % ^ Si\ %Nr- .T-r,--. Cs'catAS^'T*- CAM;u.t-vt(i.e:t> B TP.'tA.np isTv a Uhlttp. |VA-.OHtt r rir —"t. ^■s rraB a^rjjex \ iSlI 7 ^7 r j- s. "1!Hrl| r%.w?3 ■ ^;* I - \ ■ J J/l. . * ■isiamimm lii # 1,. IT' ttvCitXA- i. pA>.xei • I n I BZSC3lE3K3Prfr^ ■ ii!Bia!i;i I |ii)ii|i§ i jili|;!i i aiiiaiiiiiS RAiKtiLlJ- • r v»i ..'s. ... .-.•.•-IF*Tt?'5> ASj St ^EVATION ,1 •• ■ : . •• /:•:..•■■>•.v:<.’\rrz\ /•* .<; ’ ■ ■'* • ^ ■..> -• ■' '■. . .• .• •■••••'' ■ c- .» txliyTW *‘^ - . -i.. ■*• 31 . ,..- 4.$7gZ.\c Ai. ■ > ^py- .w*%w il..-v/.;»“.-.V,;v- •* :. • • :•>•..■•. .. ..• ,1 ••...• V ■, -„ '... ' •• ••' •/• »’.r. ■ I I ■ «i«^'-.-;, ■■ : ^ rr ' »? >-v’ * ^• ' f •*' • * •• “.i .:'•>’ • •‘- • . t ‘*- • • • , v|/’. V ■.*''■*-■. ! • #^ ■5 . • ‘■/ vltit ■> V • :T'V,| ■ ■"' vr?^:v-4:=:^:-y-:;::\ • ••. •<■ * *• - • H • • •• .<•#. ». v«' «• • « ^ ‘ ’ .>.■. • T\ IIARDCO\T SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) LCULATION WORKSHEET 75-250’ 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length X X A B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk % . .%Ac. . '-K 'j ^ E. Patlo/Deck X X ........ ?■ .3 *: T. Landscape Underlain X X By Plastic Or Fabric X X Xrn '*<C> cJg. Other I '. I ifi '4. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ ^ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Houje _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Length X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other Width S3 C3 0,0SO X 100 Width S3! cs TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE , - . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A gSW -*■ B X 100 500-1000' 2^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. O S.F. CP__S.F. S.F. c:^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /O/ ZS4 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. O. OBO S.F. 7.3 % 3 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 • 1 • f ’ 1 I 1 U.' 1:1 1 * J # ^ IIARDCOVKII CAI.CULAXIQN WORKSHEET SETBACK ZCiNT;: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-250^ 250-500*500-1000' « •[-Z A. House • X 1 __L94^S.F./?/'-/ Lengtfi X Width —ty-x-n -------- S.F. X __ss S.F. X __8 S.F. B. Garage X o S.F. C. Driveway *X __8 /. S.F.f‘9 f X ^8 S.F. D. Sidewalk X __2.74 S.F.33 r •X __8 S.F. E. Patio/Deck X __8 5 S.F. • X __c S.F. F. Landscape X _S.F. Underlain X 8 S.F. By Plastic X __8 S.F. Or Fabric • G. Other X ea S.F. a TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 59 / • S.F.A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -C. /2^S.F.B A 4 D _X 100 »SS.-4 L* PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X _Z/Si .S.F. • Length X _ Width S.F. • X _8 S.F. X _8 ‘S.F. B. Garage X _.S.F. C. Driveway X _8 J. o8s-S.F. •X _8 "s.F.• D. Sidewalk X _8 J33 S.F. X _8._S.F. E. Patio/Deck X _ •.'Sr S.F.• X _8 _S.F. F. Landscane X S.F. Underlain X 8 "s.F. Bv Plastic X 8 IS.F. Or Fabric 0. Other X 8 _S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE t 1 i- —S.F. -J A . TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 6>. !Z4 ■"s.F.B A B _X 100 =55*. 6 % ^'« f. •' ■ . I • . ^^rg«} * n\T - •*.» ' i •<5 v/f'V- •’.V i >. • C! V op vuz o^Oiio coukoxl # julv ii, 1977 SCchie'A^ liuildinot • Aga>iniotrator» ’u £u 3 in<^9 tho socord tho ^ollowina roqueo^ of i:^a:‘a2.(3 23j:obcir4j/ I0S6 Loa>i Linder for a lot oroa vidtl) var;Lanco, dated Jttno 15# 1977# which V^gMC \jt056 LO Page 7 lies Lena Xiinda «276 Donald Ekoboxg io roquoiitinc a variance for construction c'i a 12 X 15 addition to hia orioting houao. 7ho itnolf waa built subso^'uent to a varianco cipyJOV<i6 in Ootobor# 1974. The addition would r^ot t>;o rsc;uirad aide yard end laXoshoro aatbacka oomor is jui*t 75* froa the top of tho Jhs-r2 tiioX} and ia in an oroa prusontly oecupiod ty £uft open doex. 7ho addition would not oxtund t ti'.a adjoining’ houo. • 43.S6O m;. ft.; Accwl 10,259 ft.; Variance 33,320 »q. ft. (76:) lot hicth Required: 240 ft. Actual - SO ft. Variance - 90 ft, ■ 641 Kardcoven Existing - 1,752 sc. ft. • 17S Addition • I8O sq. ft. • 1.81. Total Pn^posed - 1,932 sq. ft. • 18.81 (r .• variance required) Planning Coftmieeion Meeting • July 5# 1977 a.?co;au.*.*)ded approval becauao addition would not ohstirucw tho neighbor*a laXe view and doea not cr.croach on tho laXeahore aotbaoX aroa. * Council Meeting - July 11# 1977 i.u’«:lur novod# Kaouonjalo coco.ndcd, to approve tho varsance request of Donald Ekoborv# 1056 x.oma L:r.cU/ per tho Planning Cor.tiaaion recomnondatiens of'July 5# *1977. Motion# Ayoe (6) - Nays**(0). Jtrator,^.'Ci'.ry f*iuhich/ iJuilding a 2onini^ JLr.wO ci'iO ruc’ord tho followir. of 'iUxw i^lotn^ VonXawa Hoad, for a variance# c:..'i:i.cl June 15# 1977# which states: VARIANCE 473 Tonkawa Road 3277 Ray n>oth iu r.vqueating a lot area variance for construction of an addition to hin exiatinq hone. VIui proposed addition will laoet all setback roquirenents. There is on existing garage on t-’ic property very close to the highway. Mr. Uloth arates that his plans are to eventually remove this or.d replace it with a new garage north of the house. 1 think that ve should encourage that plan. The property is now ttireo separate parcels (Lots 3 6 4# atd part of Lot 5; and Lot 6 and port of 5) which should bo coobined into one parcel. Lots 1, 2# 15 6 16 v/orc tho subject of a variance approved in February# so no additional land is available for this property. (Continued) iMy'' T - Re: Application for Variance In Setback at 1056* Lome ""dnda /fv^ V /.I Jd:m • \ A brief history: We bought 1056 Loma Linda under the assumption its footprint had been approved years ago. We discovered, when we brought in our plans, that the deck on the ground level had never been approved. This Is why we are applying for any variances. Our original plan did not exceed any of the original footprint. We had no intention of seeking any variances. However the variances we do seek will greatly reduce the present hardcover and will fall under previous approvals in 1977. There Is one small exception, and it will add no hardcover that wouldn’t be added by the alternative. The original plan approvals In 1977 did call for a 12x15’ deck off the main level of the house with a stairway leading to the ground level. Beneath that deck we want to put in a porch. We would also like to put in a 3 ’ x 15’ walkway on the lakeside of the porch which gives us access to the yard. Otherwise we would have to extend the stairway a significant amount to reach the yard because of the steepness of the slope at that point. The hard cover required would be about the same either way. We would also like to build a small 8'x6 ’ deck off the upper level over the main floor deck where hardcover already exists. We will tear up the ground level deck and will only replace that portion that is directly under the main level deck plus the walkway that gives us access to the yard. We also will take out the wooden walkway that is on the north side of the house and leads from the main entryway to the lakeside lower deck. This lot is a small lot, typical of this portion of the lake. The present hardcover in the setback zone of 0-75’ is 568 S.r. With our proposed plan, we have reduced the hardcover to 254 S.F. That takes us from 9.3% to 4.2%. 45 S.F. are the new walkway which we would have If we have to extend the stainway. The rest of the hardcover is previously approved hardcover in 1977. In the 75-250' zone there is minimal change. The present hardcover is 3391 S.F. and our proposal calls for a very slight reduction to 3370 S.F. This changes the percentage from 55.4% to 55.0%. Although we hate to lose the present deck which is in good repair(one of the few things that are), we also want to make sure what we do have is built correctly, and can be maintained or improved in the future. We do not want a future buyer of the property to encounter the surprise we did. K , .X a m. S' TO;Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM; DATE; Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator March 4,1998 SUBJECT; #2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive Side Yard Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District; LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area;16,883 sq. ft. including vacated Forest Lane (.387 acres) 14,653 sq. ft. without vacated portion of Forest Lane (.336 acres) Application;The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add a second story to the existing residence. The proposed addition would include a master betkoom, a bathroom, two bedrooms, and storage. A side yard variance is needed because the existing structure encroaches into the required 10' side yard. Pertinent Ordinances; Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.03, General Standards, Subd. 15, Non-Encroachments U2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16, 1998 page~l ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre) Lot Width 140' Street Yard 35’ Side Yard Lakeside Yard 10’75'and average lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 16,883 sq. ft. (.387 acres) 65.12' at street 49.14’at lakeshore 28’ approximately to garage 3.4' for west side yard; chimney is 1.7' from west property line 108' approximately to deck; meets average lakeshore setback The subject property does not meet the minimum lot area requirement of 1 acre, with or without the vacated portion of Forest Lane. The applicant is pursuing attaching the vacated portion of Forest Lane to their property. Other parcels in the area have attached the vacated portion to their property as shown on the plat map from Hennepin County which references document numbers for the vacations. The subject property does not meet the lot width requirements. The garage encroaches into the required street yard. The existing residence does meet the average lakeshore setback and the 75' setback from the lakeshore. The existing structure encroaches 6.6' into the required 10' side yard The chimney is 1.7' from the property line. The chimney is 1.7’ x 5.5' in size. The chimney is not an allowed encroachment in the side yard because it is more than 18" in depth. The proposed addition would be located above the existing structure. A side yard variance is needed to allow more structure to be added in the required side yard. #2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16, 1998 page-2 \ 4 Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Allowed Existing Structural Coverage 16,883 sq. ft. with vacated Forest Lane 2.532.45 sq. ft. (15%) Garagc=939.9 sq. ft. House=l,208.85 sq. ft. Porch=96 sq. ft. Deck=452 sq. ft. Total=3,636.75 sq. ft. (21.5%) The subject property currently exceeds the 15% lot coverage requirement as calculated including the vacated portion of Forest Lane. The proposed addition will not be located over existing structure and will increase the amount of structural coverage. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed fiardcover Variance Requested 0'-75*3,678 sq. ft.92 sq. ft. (2.5%) None 92. sq. ft. (2.5%) None 75'-250'10,050 sq. ft.4938.4 sq. ft. (49.15%) 2,512.5 sq. ft. (25%) 4,938.4 sq. ft. (49.15%) None 250'-500'3,155 sq. ft.1,285 sq. ft. (40.73%) 946.5 sq. ft. (30%) 1,285 sq. ft. (40.73%) None The subject property exceeds hardcover requirements in all three setback zones. The hardcover in the 0'-75' setback is 92 sq. ft. or 2.5% for wood steps that provide access to the lakeshore. In the 75'- 250' setback the deck, house, rock/plastic, and rock wall cover 4,938.4 sq. ft. of area or 49.15% of the area in the setback. In the 250'-500' setback, the garage and driveway cover 40.73% of the total area in the setback where 30% is allowed. M2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16. 1998 page-3 i : { r STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has stated on the application that their hardship for requesting a side yard variance is the location of the existing residence on the property. The chimney is 1.7' from the west property line. The lot narrows from the street to the lakeshore, varying from 65.12' at the street to 49.15' at the lakeshore. 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 house can continue to be used without the addition. The proposed addition includes a master bedroom/bath and two additional bedrooms. The existing house has a 1,208.95 sq. ft. footprint. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The need for a side yard variance is created by the location of the existing structure and the landowner's desire to build an additional floor using the existing foundation and walls. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for a side yard variance will change the bulk of the house by adding a second floor. The height of the building needs to be 30' or less from the street side elevation. Because the topography lopes down towards the lakeshore, the height will be more dramatic from the side yards and lakeshore yard than the street yard. 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. Residential uses are allowed in this zoning district. §2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16, 1998 page-4 i 6. 7. 8. 9. 12. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The subject property is similar in size to other properties in the area. The location of the house close to the property line is unique. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. All properties in this zoning district are subject to the side yard requirements. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants will need to provide the Planning Commission with testimony regarding their ability to enjoy the current residence as constructed compared to their need for a second floor addition. 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. 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 applicants cannot add any more space to their current residence because of hardcover and structural coverage requirements. The applicants have two options to have a larger house on this site. The first is to seek a side yard variance to add another floor. The second option is to remove the existing structure and build another house with a footprint of 1,500 sq. ft. or less. Construction of a new residence on this lot would be restricted if the garage remmns because the garage is 939.9 sq. ft. and the allowed structural coverage is 2,532 sq. ft. Therefore, the footprint for a new residence would be only slightly bigger than the existing residence. #2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16, 1998 page-5 Issues 1. 2. The subject lot does not meet lot width, lot area, hardcover, or structural coverage requirements. Average lakeshore setback is not an issue with this property. The topography of the zoning lot is higher at the street yard and slopes down to the house and lakeshore. 3. 4. 5. The existing residence is 3.4' from the west property line. The applicant should discuss obtaining a maintenance easement from the adjacent property owner to be able to maintain the west side of the residence and the chimney. If the adjacent property owner decided to construct a fence on the property line, the subject property owner would have difficulty making improvements to the residence. There is a considerable amount of rock over plastic on the property. llie existing deck should not be enclosed or remodeled because it w'ould require additional variances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adding a second level is the only available option for the occupants to add additional living space. This option requires a side yard variance. It is not practical for the applicant to relocate the residence to fit inside the allowed building pad. Removing the house and keeping the garage would be restricted to a footprint approximately 384.55 sq. ft. larger than the existing residence. This amount does not include the deck or porch. The house, deck, and porch exceed the 15% limit by 68.85 sq. ft. The Planning Commission needs to discuss the impact of adding structure to a building that currently encroaches in the required side yard given the limitations of the lot. Attachments A B C D E F Application Plat Map Adjacent Property Owner's list Floor Plan Hardcover calculations Survey G Building Pad H Topo I Building Elevations U2S46 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16, 1998 page-6 A Application # Date Received ^//^/9y Amount Paid . CIT^ OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 550.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) -*7*. A.-.' —. J i- J u*— .a PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Q02i ^ t'ccfS Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. S/i6> j-HVL Date Property Acquired !_____________^(month/year) | I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert}': X residential ___pother (specify)________________ Zoning District: Ll2,^ 1& (*>V». APPLICANT ^ _ .T~, Phone (home) Name [^AL-N\ Phone (work) ^71^ T~1 'ID Address: lUM-l PARlC h^\M£ City: 0^0^ O Zip:_^£3kl£ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ____ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 10,000 Describe request in detail: ^ ‘BgDfiooM . '2. BAB\( ^OOmS (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propert}' conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:___________________________________ ■3TaariviRip i ■Oc^'~a-otv'S (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. >< 2. >C 3. X Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt CenteiO48027T); 4. 5. 6. X X 7. 8. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V2" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic sur\^ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SV2' x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/i” x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tn/e andjcprrect^^p-^hc'ije^^f-hi^^ knowlei\ie^and^ Date zj\^m OWNER'S SIGNATURi; The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes jbf investigation ajjd-verificatkriTT>fUhis request. Owner’s Signature \n»wvl^ic5ir\ciV — Date Z~l i Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 (_ I j: > .» ■ i 7. n •. ' -'fc // VAC D^C io M15422 A } VAC OOC «0 60^4235 ' 5 ^7 -.I4± 7la7.-25->ep> f/#?- C....4>/7/>/X ^’2> ^/ Vi/ \ •?, ' •' / ^•&v fX # 1 V/ V/ ^ 5/<4vV .54 !2 •3(37) :ii^S r ^ R i3iC3C) \ A* \ :i<-i>\ \ \ V. si 'i 'V?' 9 -N^- .^'^JaxT ^^60: r9.6?lb?. 8 A \ ;A^ \ /V^\ \ 14^^' 'X.l\ X'i' • N < \-'X 1V3 ;i6S'z :(74)i !:-5 V' ,\ (10) e _ <ll Al (I) lOS ■“>1 "X ' ^ • \2 .A _ 65 ■" ^ is; X>^2I“L !' vi^-. Si § '•■’'®” roMWN (26) § 'X\"^Xt A is: (2) 77? / ■^'< ■&>■\ r / 0/(6) / -f *%J^/ / /X, /«^'(I2'- fx/ P 7$ ' / /" (6; 13 _ .a __k' *C%'C. 7} « 1 • • ♦ ^ *.*'N i ? • 1 * • • • • - '^' * r :' • v' I w «ii •• •* Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form kflimo______of p4igj:- Dgug Is • I (we)J [print name(s)][print address] understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to cli!^n fhf/rT V property or use but merely to confirm for the City (we) am ^) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. neignoors Date “Z. Property Owner Date I («e) ~5P0vn~ (^^^ItOTtoTlT- ____of Hg3 ?/\glC. Dg\v’e [print name(s)][print address] P^'oposed improvement or proposed use of the property located -l-i—--» r — 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 requu-es Council approval. AkjM Property Owne{ ./Date Z (T h y Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use AppUcation, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. •• .V I. ■ » HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE1 Sc^<- SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-250’250-500’500-1000' FXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X 0. S4d6W«(k ^3 X X S3 S 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 /4A&X 100 = PRnposF.n HARDCOVER IN zn?vn? A. House Lcnfih Width X X B. Garage ' C. Driveway X X D. Sidewatlc X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.J S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i.F./*• V. .. S.F. S.F. S.F.*/v A B S.F.A ..1^* S.F. S.F. S.F.r 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 I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE1 setback ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*250-500* iryijSTlNC HARnCQVF.R IN ZONE A. House _____________ Ltnsihz X X X Width S B. Garage C. Driveway X X wXIa.i_5 0. SidiwaHf X X A/7 €. Tatio^ck ‘P&ac.H X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^9JS.4’ -i- B fOOSo X 100 = PROPnsF.n HARnmvER in zonf A. House Ler\|ih 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 Q. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL I^ROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 = -7— 500-1000* S.F. szo>z Z5.7 45^ S/.l S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /09.S S.F. _ S.F. ____S.F. /03.& S.F. S.F. S.F. /OO^G 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 SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75‘ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ^ (^50-500O 500-1000’75-250’ FXIjsTINO HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____________S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. X X £,79.0 S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X So E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S s G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /73S.C + B J/SS X 100 = PROPOSRn HARnrnvER in zqnf. A. House X Lcn|ih Width X X X B. Garage* C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X 8 ts F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A "r B-X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 30,4. S.F. /Z3B. O S.F. S.F. 40.73 % A B S.F.• S.F. S.F. S.F.If f 'i- .'V-''' S.F. S.F.< S.F. S.F./••• • * i .iS.F. S.F.f . A S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ . S.F. S.F.A S.F.B % « r-j .*4 fOREST LAKE ^CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MARK & PAMELA PALM OF LOT 8. BLOCK 15, SAGA HILL REVISED HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA re^?* 1 o£ca^ —^rT ■seiib Sck"l ^ m ¥K)Oq WOOD STtPS STEPS) oec»^ ft % WELL ft % Q i \ •- » .• *•., 0 : Denotes Iron marker Bearing shown ore booed upon on oooumod datum.RR TCS V H«ontp5n Co, Won." Thi* survey Inleode to ehow the boundaries of the obove described property, the loeotlon of on existing house and gorogs thereon, and the loeatlon of ol visMo "hordcover" thereon. It doee not purport to show any other Improve- ments or encroochmenU. * fOREST EARE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY MARK & PAMELA PA OF LOT 8, BLOCK 15, SAGA H ENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNES / HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNES forest 92^ centBiii CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY MARK Sc PAMELA PA LOT 8, BLOCK 15, SAGA H ENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNES XHlBir Gr fO : Danotes Iron marker inge shown ore based upon on assumed datum PERMIT RECORD Xhl b‘i » I .. • ; I 1 ■i! LAKi; tltVArim • • 1 To:Chairman Smith and Planning Commission Members From:Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Date:March 12, 1998 Subject:#2347 - Tim Sweezo, 4480 Watertown Road - Variance and CUP - Public Hearing (To be continued to April 20 meeting) Zoning District: RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre. Unsewered Application: Land alteration CUP and wetland setback variance for placement of approximately 53,000 cubic yards of fill on the property, in conjunction with the reconstruction of the Watertown Road / Mculley Road / County Road 6 intersection. The contractor for the road construction, Busse Contracting, is a co-applicant with the homeowner. List of Exhibits: A - Application B - Plat map C - Property Owners List D - Proposed grading plan E - City letter requesting additional information 2-26-98 Application Incomplete After an initial review of what appeared to be a complete application, staff noted the following discrepancies: 1. Wetland delineation required in order to proceed with wetland variance. 2. Survey must show entire property, not just areas to be filled. 3. Extent of proposed grading could have a major impact on future septic sites, and property has a non-conforming system. Need to have septic testing so we know what areas of property to preserve for septic. Applicants were advised that the additional information was needed one week before the March 16 meeting. Such information has not been received as of this writing. Staff Recommendation Table this item and the public hearing to your April 20 meeting. The applicant will be advised that the 60-day statutor>' review period will not begin until the requested information has been received. -■ -I |1 ■ o /I n-Application H ^ Date Received Amount Paid A CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . . Site Address_________fH 1^ QA .. Type of Application to be Filed A \4^A‘rrc>^ Cu\V Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) applica OT “ ?<r City ^cve>/f>f Name _ Address ;X30. <T iP~ ~7S>~) *hone (home) / '! 3^ ^ ■ veZip c~?C. Phone (home) ^7 ^ 2- y' __________________ ____________ Phone (work)_______________ Address City r»\A^lt» PU'^ Zip OWNERS ([if different than applicant) Name ”T/«v\ ovO t! ~iJi> I (do) (do not) also le^ adie/ce (month/year) parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$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 X Grading and filling SS^ 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______Residential Other (specif)). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 3 4S-1771 ) Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic surv'ey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propert>\ This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this ^plication, and certifies that the information supplied is true-ai^ correct taJjie best of^s/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and ^ees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of/mvestigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature ' /iZ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Piaiming Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Mf :ings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at ail scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE 02/17/98 BATCH 506 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR * i PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR -1 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 58 31-118-23 12 0010 0^3A0 SIXTH AVE N C S WILLIAMS & E R WILLIAMS CRAIG A ELIZABETH FIILLIAMS 43^0 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0022 04300 SIXTH AVE N ROBERT & MARILYN GEHRMAN ROBERT S GEHRMAN 4300 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE 55356 38 31-118-23 21 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NORBERT JOHNSON NORBERT JOHNSON 2245 PLATWOOD RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 TOTAL BATCH 506 00009 38 31-118-23 12 0011 04360 SIXTH AVE H DAN FLIES JR DONALD A NAWAL FLIES 4360 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-13 13 0002 00420 TURNHAM RD L E BERG A K M BERG LEONARD A KATHLEEN M BERG 420 TURNHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0001 04480 WATERiaiN RD TAM SNEEZO TIMOTHY M SWEEZO 4480 ^lATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 21 0001 4490 WATERTOWN RD KENNETH TURNHAM KENNETH TURNHAM 4490 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 23 38 31-110-23 12 0018 04380 SIXTH AVE N J E A J E CARPENTER JAMES E A JANET E CARPErfTER 4380 CO RD MO 6 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-110-23 13 0013 04300 WATERTOWN RD JAMES JAY JOHNSON A WIFE JAMES JAY JOHNSON 4300 klATERTOI't^ RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0004 04545 WATERTOIN RD J L A M R DROLL JEFF BROLL 4545 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEWEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION# TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATI iASfJjLAJ I t I • f ... ; \\ .j .w --i 1 I \ r- I« . •.» a i:-'; ^ A «.# • r • Eo JU o z Ql ^ ^ . uj < >- q: 2 ggSis^isf <<UJWW- SsSessgs&sli ““go^arl pc o O «5 2 ^3gd|c» W^3“v»Z«/) NIW ,0C' H f LU O LJJ O U)•Du U23 U oooo cJin M O:s £> 3 O So# CO (i: D O CL CD I (/> u. O I, X (/) 2 O H O CO Og LU CO CO CO (O q: D2 2 O o 2 Q, 3 O CO q: 32 2 £ GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323*0066 February 26,1998 Timothy Sweezo 4480 Watertovsn Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 Patrick Brazil Busse Contracting 2325 E. 75th Street Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 Re: Application #2347 - Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for filling at 4480 Watertown Road Gentlemen: The City is in receipt of your application for placement on the Sweezo property approximately 53,000 cubic yards of fill from the County Road 6 reconstruction project. This letter is to advise you that additional information is required in order for the application to be considered complete, as follows: 1.Wetlands on the site must be delineated by a professional wetland delineator. The delineated boundaries of the large w'etland at the north end of the site, as well as the small pond near the road and any other wetlands on the site, must be shown on the survey. 2.The survey must be revised to show the boundaries of the entire property. This is critical in relation to item 3 below. Because the property has a non-compliant septic system which must be replaced in by December 31, 2007, it is critical that future primary and alternate sewage system drainfield sites be identified and confirmed now. You must show that the proposed filling or grading will not occur on drainfield sites that must be preserved for future use. Please contact Septic Systems Inspector Steve Weekman at the City Offices if you have questions about the testing and design process. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 L. Timothy Sweezo/Patrick Brazil February 26,1998 Page 2 Without the above noted information, the application wll likely be tabled at the March 16 meeting. The information should be submitted at least one week before that meeting. Although the legal notice for the March 16 public hearing has been published to include both the land alteration CUP as well as a variance for filling within 2b' of a wetland boundary where no filling is normally allowed, you are advised to revise the proposed filling and grading plan to avoid such work within 26' of the wetland boundary. You will have to show show that there is a hardship in order for the variance to be granted. Finally, I note that Sue Van Moorlehem of 4490 Watertown also signed the application. As I discussed with Pat Brazil when the application was submitted, the lack of a completed grading plan for her property has resulted in her property being excluded from the current application. The deadline date for submission of applications for the April 20 Planning Commission meeting is Wednesday March 25 at noon. Please feel to contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator cc: Steve Weckman, Septic Systems Inspector Greg Gappa, Director of Public Services TO: FROM: DATE: 10 Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant March 13,1998 SUBJECT: #2348 Mary' Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:57,200 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) square feet (1.13 acre) Application:The applicant is proposing the construction of a new residence on a vacant lot that would not meet hardcover requirements. A variance for l.ardcover is required in the 75' to 250' setback Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C6): Average Lakeshore Setback Regulations tf2348 Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance March 16.1998 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard LR-IB 1 acre 140’75’10’ subject property .1.13 acres 183 ’ at OHWL 182 ’ at 75’ setback 118 ’ to main deck 130’ to house 14' proposed 37’ The subject property meets lot area and lot width requirements. All setbacks will also be met as proposed. Furthermore, accessory structures are allowed to be located closer to the street than the principal structure on lakeshore lots as there is a detached two stall garage proposed in this yard area. Structural Coverage The property will meet structural coverage requirements as proposed. U2348 Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road ranance March 16.1998 Page! Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 57,200 s.f.5,524 s.f.9.6% J Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75*13,800 s.f 24 s.f (.1%)?none 24 s.f (.1%)none 75'-250'31,900 s.f +-1,500 s.f (old driveway) 7,975 s.f (25%) 9,524 s.f (29.8%) 1,549 s.f 250'-500‘11,500 s.f +-700 s.f (old driveway) 3,450 s.f (30%) 2,439 s.f (21.2%) none A hardcover variance is required in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback. In the O' to 75' setback, there is 24 s.f. of steps that are shown on the sur\ ey that may be existing and are allowed by code. These steps are not included in the applicant's hardcover calculations. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Refer to the application (Attachment A) for the applicant's statement of hardship. 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. It is possible to construct a house and driveway that meet the hardcover requirement. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot meets area requirements and meeting the hardcover requirements should not be problematic. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for the requested amount of hardcover in the 75'to 250' lakeshore setback may alter the character of the neighborhood. U2348 Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance March 16. 1998 Page 5 \ I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 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 sing/e family residence is 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 proposal is for a new residence on a vacant lot that meets all zoning requirements. There are no peculiar features that necessitate such a variance. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The immediately adjoining properties have been granted variances for hardcover in the 75' to 250 ’ setbacks in recent years under different circumstances. The lot to the north has less area and also has a residence on it built prior to current zoning requirements. An after-the- fact variance was granted in 1988 to allow 26.4% hardcover for the construction of a deck. The property to the south had built a pool when the residence hw constructed which not considered hardcover at the time. A variance was granted in 1996 to allow 27.18% hardcover to remain when an addition was made as the amount of approved hardcover without the pool was calculated at 25%. These residences were both built prior to current zoning requirements, versus this application which is for new construction. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant can build the house essentially as proposed. By eliminating the loop driveway and reducing the size of the decks, only minor adjustments would need to be made to the footprint of the house to meet hardcover requirements. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Granting the variance would serve as a convenience as the hardcover requirement could be met with minor adjustments to the application. H2348 Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance March 16, 1998 4 I 9.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors may be a consideration with this application as the applicant has stated the hardcover variance is necessary to build a house in keeping with the value of the lot. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. The property meets lot area and width requirements. Constructing a residence that meets all zoning requirements should not be problematic. The main deck on the lake side of the residence is a non-encroachment on the average lakeshore setback as it is at ground level without a railing. The deck and spa on the south side of the residence may be considered an encroachment if it is 6' above grade or 30" above grade with a railing. This second deck is not shown in the elevation drawings. The applicant has indicated that this deck will be constructed to either be a non-encroachment or pulled back behind the average lakeshore line. The amount of hardcover could be reduced by having the driveway coming straight in from the street. A significant amount of grading would be needed to do this, however. An existing driveway is existing in the approximate location of the proposed driveway. This proposed option uses existing grades. The applicant has stated there will not be sufficient off street parking if the loop driveway is not allowed. Staff feels this should not be a problem as there is a total of five garage stalls on the properly in addition to the parking areas in front of them. Allowing a hardcover variance for new construction on a lot meeting all zoning requirements may set a negative precedent. 6. The brick columns near the street are non-encroachments and are allowed by code. The applicant is proposing to construct a stormwater detention pond in the natural swale on the south side of the property. The applicant has stated this is being done to offset the hardcover variance. The Planning Commission and City Council have historically not looked favorably upon using stormwater ponding in lieu of meeting hardcover requirements on residential properties. f^2348 Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance March 16, 1998 Pages \ 8.A conditional use permit is not required for the pond as it would not be constructed within 5' of a lot line, would not be located in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback and would not alter more than 500 cubic yards of earth according to the applicant. Since these standards are met, this project can be undertaken with a staff issued permit. The ponds shown on the drawings were conceptual and do not accurately reflect the applicant's latest proposal. The neighbors to the south have expressed concerns about the possibility of breeding mosquitoes in the standing water. The applicant has stated the pond would normally be dry. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of a variance of 4.8% hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback to allow 29.8% hardcover where 25% is allowed. A residence and driveways can be configured in a manner to meet the 25% requirement without difficulty. Attachments A B C D E F G H 1 J K Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Hardcover Calculations Elevation Drawings Letter in Support of Variance From Neighbors to the North Letter of Concern from Neighbors to the South U2348 Stary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance March 16,1998 Page 6 j i u IT c\ r ''")?v i * -‘i .1 V. . »r* ♦ • i ✓ :> f . , -■» * •■ ^.**.•w Application ^3 Date Received 'Z/l Amount Paid a T?>0 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) S I u’5 OJ •-n l.*L COcri try ai PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress ^^40 Bohns Point Road Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 09-117-23-33-0007 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey, (see enclosed survey) Date Property Acquired______October 1> 1997 ______________________(month/year) I (d»^(Mo notnalso own the adjacent parcels of land. Presentuse oi property: ___presidential x other fspecifV') Vacant Land - Residential Zoning District: LfK- B_________________________________________________ APPLICANT Name Mary Jane Hauser Address! 3425 Warner Lane City:. Phone (home ) (612) 472-7177 Phone (work ) (612) 338-1000 'Minnetrista______Zip: 55364 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name N/A_________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost $ 1,000,000 +/- Describe request in detail: Hardcover variance fron 25% to 29.8% in the 75* to 250* zone to accommodate the substantial natural steep slopes and .drai nage (including .. drainage from (attach additional sheets if necessary) adjacent Lots & Bohns Pt. Rd.) as described herein. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X 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: Substantial natural steep slopes across the property, lot configuration, and existing drainage (Including drainage from adjacent lots & Bohns Pt. Rd.) The house is positioned in the natural level area of the lot (attach additional sheets if necessary) (same location of previous house) to disturb as little natural grade as possible REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2^ Completed Application Form 2^ Certified Property Owners List of owners writhin 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). X Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy Z'A" x 11" for reproduction. X Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVj" x 11" for reproduction. ^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11"). N/A List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). N/A As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you w'ish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff The Applicant and Properly Owmer must sign this application. Please remember that y.QU£ 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 Zo.’ing Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review' of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ruvQK Date aI t n q^. , rN ^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Ovmer's Signature Date n Applicant must have all subhudals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ple^e make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 RUN DATE 02/09/98 BATCH 504 PROP ADDR ONI^R NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR tj-117-23 44 0014 01535 BOHNS POINT RD RICHARD A DORN RICHARD A DORN 1535 BOHNS POINT RO ORONO NN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 44 0015 01595 BOHNS POINT RD C J A S L HINSLOW CLARK J A SHARON J NINSLOH 1595 BOHNS POINT RD HAY2ATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 30 38 09-117-23 33 0005 01500 BOHr^S POINT RD BARBARA B JOHNSON TRUSTEE EICENE A BARBARA JOHNSON 1500 BOHNS POINT RD HAY2ATA m 55391 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 09-117-23 33 00C6 01520 BOHNS POINT RD DOUGLAS E KIRCHNER ETAL DOUGLAS E KIRCHNER 1520 BOHNS POINT RO WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0007 01540 BOHNS POINT RD MARY JANE HAUSER MARY JANE HAUSER 1540 BOHNS POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0008 01580 BOHNS POINT RO RICHARD M KOVACEVICH ET AL RICHARD M KOVACEVICH NORKEST CENTER 6TH A MARQUETTE MPLS MN 55479-1062 PROP ADDR OHNER irA/€ TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 504 00006 ^ r ^ 7 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE -V Ctih l! ^ r O s.s. 1 1 $ Permit No SB 1 S'-lC) '(H . * * PERMIT RECORD Date 6-9.-^ Type of Permit SQiL^L^rvQ -<S~ATS .(^U->-) crl Q.%. It) - ix-A'7 HncrkLi t- 1 Ur~tT t ^o A---. 10 'Si-qi /' ' “ ------------------------------ ■ jXkdcoK^i><sf V • i • • ..I hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75 EXISTING HARDCOVT.R IN 7Q[vr];; A. House ’ ^ 75-250^250-500 Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X £. Pacio/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 A.House B.Garage C.Driveway • D.Sidewalk E.Patio/Deck F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic G.Other Length Width X X X X X m X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ----+ B X 100 % 500-1000’ S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. s • ' TV .7 M S.F. " ■S.F.*7 1 S.F. •v~»* •••♦ T ; ». I.--*.. V - , S.F. S.F.■( 'i i• *S.F. S.F. S.F.' 1t \ <v S.F.\\ S.F. S.F.A * S.F.B 3‘144-_ S.F. 55 S.F. =S.F. _ S.F. «_ S.F. sn^.S.F. S.F. a l85 S.F. . «=52 _ S.F. • B - ^ S.F. B _ S.F. B S.F. B •S.F. B _ S.F. =_ S.F. •S.F. -S.F. »% \ A B hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER TN A. House V 75-250'^250-500^ 500-1000' Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck T. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ‘ B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER TN 7.0hf]s; A. House Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway X X X • D. Sidewalk ' E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. -©fher X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^4^ -I- B 11,500 4^ 35^ X 100 ^hsoc . 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.m . S.F. S.F. ’S.F. ■ S.F. ' S.F. S.F. |S.F. S.F. S.F. ' S.F. . S.F. S.F. f/,SOO S.F. LZ % Tr- A 1 r. • A B Exterior Fiiiislics: Brick mid Sli.'ikcr Roof (b i ^ ii r * ' * \ -C* 1 » iV-C. ■£>TT£^eir eu£v7A;rva^ ST&v2eis-4 vaspp&j-'v-i-i^ 1 ■] Exterior Finishes; Brick and Shaker Roof r ^ i t ' f t / / •t 1 w^e. e.v_£.Ny.i^ricM eTE4v-j«e. 4 i<itopRei_*-vHa , I February 27,1998 Rick & MJ Hauser 3425 Warner Lane Minnetrista, MN 55364 Greetings neighbors-to-be! Kathy and I look forward to having you as neighbors on Bohns Point Rd. Your proposed home looks lovely and will be a great addition to the Point We have signed and mailed the forms you sent Hopefully the city will approve the variance you need and construction can begin. You have our endorsement if requested. We have lived at 1520 for over 23 years and have enjoyed this location immensely. We have 3 married sons who have blessed us with 9 grandchildren, from 10 months to 9 years old. You ’ll see them aroui?d on weekends. Maybe they will be playmates for Matthew and Amanda. On the survey of your property you can see that our house is lined up with the lake shore like yours, rather than the lot line. As a result the property line appears to cut diagonally across our front yard. Many years before we bought our home the rock at the lake shore was placed in front of the house which resulted in some 20 or so feet of rock being on your land. Please let me know if you plan to remove the rock that is on your property and install some other type of lake shore treatment. If so, we may want to work with your landscape people and go all the way across our lot with the same. Let tlie construction begin! Sincerely, Doug Kirzner H 471-7581 W 546-5440 Fax 546-3858 1 ,I ■■ || JENiEN HOID^, INC CARLSON CENTER • 601 CARLSON PARKWAY. SUITE 1225 • MINNETONKA, MN 55305 • 612 / 475-0548 • FAX 612 / 475-2459 303 ASPEN AIRPORT BUS! ESS CENTER. SUITE J • ASPEN. CO 81611 • 970 / 544-8036 • FAX 970 / 544-8038 March 9. 1998 Brad Bressler Planning Assistant City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE: Mary Jane Hauser Variance Dear Brad; On behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Richard Kovacevich, residents at 1580 Bohns Point Road, I would like to present the following comments and concerns. It is my understanding that the setback line established by the homes on either side of the proposed residence is to be drawn fr'im the points closest to the lakeshore. I believe the closest point on the Kovacevich residence would be at the northeast corner of their home. Should this be correct the proposed setback line would be located further back from Lake Minnetonka. The natural drainage way between the Hauser ’s property and the Kovacevich residence now proposes the addition of two “Ponding & Detention Areas". In that this drainage way has always been free of standing water to the best of our Knowledge we would like to discourage the construction of artificial ponding areas, it is our view that the possibility of additional mosquito production would be most undesirable to all concerned. I would like to review these issues with the City of Orono prior to the Planning Commission Meeting on March 16. Sincerely; JIL. James N. Jensen President cc: Mr. & Mrs. Richard Kovacevich 1580 Bohns Point Road Malkerson G illiland Martinilp Suite 1500 ATaT Towtr» 901 Marquette A venue Minneapolis * Minnesota 5540.’-3205 Telephone 6I2-344>iiii Facsimile 612-344-1414 Bruce D. Malkerson* Fsq. Direct Dial (612) 344-1699 March 16, 1998 Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Application by Mr. and Mrs. Hauser for a Variance from the Hardcover Standards Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Introduction. 1 represent Mr. and Mrs. Hauser, who have applied to the City of Orono for a variance relating to the hardcover restrictions to enable them to build their proposed home on Bohn’s Point Road. 1 am mindful of the City of Orono’s desire to protect the environment within the City, including but not limited to Lake Minnetonka. In fact, I was the City Attorney for the City of Orono from 1973 to 1984, after which another member of my then-law firm took over as the lead attorney. Since 1984, from time to time I would assist the City Attorney in understanding some of the factual history relating to some of the zoning and other matters that took place while 1 was the lead City Attorney. 1 left the Popham Haik law firm in 1984 to act cs in-house counsel for a client. 1 then returned in 1988 to the Popham Haik firm, where 1 stayed until two years ago when 1 started my own firm. I note this history to you so that you understand that I have personal knowledge concerning many of the ordinances of the City and the legislative history relating to them. In regard to the hardcover ordinance, as 1 recall, 1 drafted it in 1975 after input from the Planning Commission and Council relating to the objectives which were sought to be achieved. At that time, quite frankly, it was a very radical ordinance in that 1 cannot thii.k of any other municipality that had in effect then h?“dcover restrictions, other than what was then a 50-foot setback of principal structures from the lake, which later became a 75-foot setback in the City of Orono and elsewhere. At that time, we developed these hardcover standards without having, as I recall, any empirical data to support the percentages that were sei forth in the proposed ordinance. This was in part because of the lack of data available. However, it was thought that the percentages that were adopted would generally allow for the development of high-quality homes around the lake. • I I5264DDM Planning Commission March 16, 1998 Page 2 which could comply with those general standards, absent long lots, unique topography, unique situations relating to treed areas, etc., that in any event should be preserved from alteration if at all possible. The intent of the Council then, at least, was to grant variances liberally, as long as the variances did not result in too much alteration of the standards, absent e.xtreme situations, because at least we had established a general standard that could be modified liberally as necessary to allow for development. In fact, the shoreland regulations in effect today, that are promulgated by the State of Minnesota and must be incorporated as minimums into shoreland ordinances, only require a hardcover restriction of 25 percent applied over the entire lot and not a 25 percent restriction between the 75 and 250 foot setback as is set forth in the Ci%y’s ordinance. My clients propose a home on Lake Minnetonka which is not c.xtraordinary in size, number of bedrooms or garage stalls, etc. As can be seen from the plans submitted by my <'lient, the home is a four-bedroom home with a three-car garage, and one of the bedrooms is in the basement. That is not an extraordinarily large house for a Lake Minnetonka home, or, quite frankly, for any new home in the City of Orono. However, V»ecause of the distance of the home location from Bohn’s Point Road, the driveway leading to the home that is within the 75 to 250 fool setback is longer than one might normally find on some lots that are of a normal configuration so that the home site is closer to the public road. Iii this case, the lot length has resulted in a need for a longer driveway that has contributed to the hardcover slightly in excess of that which is allowed under the ordinance without a variance. As my clients will demonstrate, they could move the house further back so that there need not be a driveway of such length within the 75 to 250 foot setback area, but then that house would look out of place when it is viewed from the lake or from Bohn’s Point Road. Moreover, the view ■ to the lake from that house at that location would be blocked substantially by houses on each side that have been built at the 75-foot setback line. As my clients will discuss, they have with their architect and builder considered various configurations of the house to try to be in a position, given that long access driveway, so as not to require any variance, or if any variance is required just a very modest one of one to two percent. Moreover, they looked at moving the house further back, even though there would be visual impact to the lake, but there would be a need then for extensive moving of dirt or filling of lower areas on the lot. Therefore, they propose to build the home outside of the 75-foot setback area and on the building pad of the home that was there previously. In any event, at the present time, the hardcover as allowed by the City ordinance, would be 7,795 square feet, or 25 percent of the area between the 75 and 250 feet, and 3,450 square feel, or 30 percent of the area between 250 and 500 feet. The total area for the lot is 57,063 square feet. I5264DD.M Planning Commission March 16, 1998 Page 3 The total hardcover allowed without a variance for the entire lot would be 11,245, or 20 percent of the entire lot in this situation. My client proposes a total hardcover on the lot of 11,963 square feet, 11,963 square feet ^ 57,063 square foot lot = 20.9 percent. That hardcover of 20.9 percent for the entire lot is in conformance with Minnesota Rules Section 6120.3300, subpart 11, which states in relevant part the following specific standards: “1. the lot area. Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed 25 percent of In fact, under State law, my client could have 14,266 square feet of hardcover (57,063 squere feet X 25 percent = 14,266 square feet). It is clear from a review of the Minnesota Rules that liie Department of Natural Resources, the MPCA and others that were involved in the development of them did not believe it was necessary to restrict hardcover less than 25 percent for the entire lot. I realize that is not necessarily controlling on the decision-making of the City of Orono, but it does indicate that there is nothing wrong from the State ’s perspective of allowing variances to your standards in such a way that do not exceed overall 25 percent impervious surface for the entire lot. The Application of the Undue Hardship Standard in the Variance Standard Sometimes people feel that the variance standard is such that it should be strictly applied in all situations. Even if one were to apply that feeling here, i believe that this variance request is justified under the variance standard for the following reasons: 1. The hardcover that my clients are proposing is not excessive, given the location of the home and the neighborhood. 2. Part of the reason why the general standard is exceeded is because of the configuration of the lot and the need for a more lengthy driveway to reach the home site. 3. To move the home site back to the road does not make sense, because then the view to the lake would be adversely affected by the adjacent homes, and the house would look out of place both from the lake and from the roadside. 4. My clients, by adding some holding ponds to their property, are making sure that the surface water runoff in any event is treated better than it would be with the normal development of the home, which would not provide for holding ponds on the site. 5. Much of the surface water runoff on this property now and in the future is from the public road, which water is passing through the property, untreated presently, and that water and the lake would be benefitted from my clients’ proposed treatment ponds that otherwise would not be built, unless the City wished to acquire an easement over the property and build those ponds. I5264BDM Planning Commission March 16, 1998 Page 4 6. Granting of a variance would not set an adverse precedent, since this fact situation, as noted above, is readily distinguishable from other situations. 7. The legislative history is, as I recall, that variances within reason should be granted liberally because of how stringent the 25-percent limitation between 75 and 250 feet of the lakeshore was. 8. The State standard is 25 percent applied to the entire lot, which would allow hardcover of substantially in excess of what my clients are proposing. In Rowell V. Board of Adjustment, 446 N.W. 2d 917 (Minnesota Court of Appeals 1989) the Court interpreted the State mandated variance test which applies to cities in a very flexible manner. The Court clearly allows and promotes such flexibility. For example, the Court stated: “The first requirement is that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. This provision does not mean that a property owner must show that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. In such a case the constitution would compel a variance regardless of the statute. See Uolasek Village ofMedina, 303 Minn. 240, 244, 226 N.W. 2d 900, 903 (1975). The statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances in cases where the constitution does not compel it. Thus, we read the first part of the definition of “undue hardship" as requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance.” We ask that the City be similarly flexible in applying the standards. Thank you very much for your consideration of this application. Very truly yours. 0 Bruce D. Malkerson I I5264UUM L // TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant March 11,1998 SUBJECT:#2351 Laura Zauner 3262 North Shore Drive VarianceS”Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:12,118 square feet (.28 acre) Application:The applicant is requesting afler-the-fact variances for the replacement of a deck on the lake side of the residence. Variances are required for hardcover in the 0’ to 75' lakeshore setback', average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C6): Average Lakeshore Setback Regulations U2351 Laura Zauner 3262 North Shore Drive Variances March 16. 1998 Page 1 r ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Rear Yard LR-lC-l .5 acre 100' • 75'10’10' for side loading garages on lakeshore lots subject property .28 acre 63' at OHWL 63' at 75' setback 34.3'10'14' The subject property does not meet lot area, lot width, lakeside setback requirements. For the purposes of this application, a variance is required from the lakeside yard setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 12,118s.f.1,833 15.1% The property does not meet structural coverage requirements. This is not an issue with this application. 11235! Laura Zauner 3262 Sorth Shore Drive Variances March 16. 1998 Page! r Hardcm^ Distance from Shoreline 0’-75' 75’-250' Total Area in Setback 5,250 s.f. 6,868 s.f. Existing Hardcover 795 s.f. (15.1%) 3,486 (50.8%) Allowed Hardcover none 1,717 (25%) Proposed Hardcover 795 s.f. (15.1%) 3,486 (50.8%) Variance Requested 795 s.f. (15.1%) 3,486 (50.8%) A variance is required for hardcover in the O' to 75’ lakeshore setback. The amount of hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback is not an issue with this application. Before the deck reconstruction, 15.6% hardcover existed in the 0’ to 75’ lakeshore setback. The removal of a concrete patio located mostly within this zone accounts for most of the decrease. For unknown reasons, the amount of hardcover in the 75' to 250’ increased from 50.6% to 50.8% since 1992 when a variance to build a garage was granted. There has been a net decrease of hardcover on the property, however. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Refer to the applicants statement of hardship (Attachment H). 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 deck is a replacement of a previous one of similar size. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The residence and original deck were built prior to current zoning requirements. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for hardcover, average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback will not alter the character of the area. §2351 Laura Zauner 3262 Sorth Shore Drive Variances March 16, 1993 Page 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 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. The deck is 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 residence is on a lot of record that does not meet current zoning requirements. Due to the limited lot size, meeting hardcover and lakeshore setback restrictions is difficult. The property is also located at the end of a long shared driveway and its location on this driveway is the reason for it being located closer to the lake than the adjacent residences. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The immediately adjoining properties were also platted prior to current zoning requirements but they were not built as close to the lakeshore. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants would not be able to retain the deck replacement without the granting of variances. 8. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The deck replacement is similar to the previous one and would not intensify non­ conformance beyond what existed. Issues 1.The property does not meet lot area or width requirements. The substandard lot size creates a difficulty in meeting hardcover and lakeshore setback requirements. 2.Variances were granted in 1992 to allow the garage on the southwest portion of the lot. The intent of the garage was to replace several accessory structures on the property that had a greater combined footprint. M2351 Laura Zauner 3262 North Shore Drive Variances March 16. 1998 Page^ 1 4 3.The majority of the residence is already ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Allowing the deck to remain would not further encroach on neighboring views beyond what has historically existed. 4.The applicant had removed several hardcover areas in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback when the deck was rebuilt, which resulted in a decrease in hardcover in this setback. It is not clear why the 75' to 250' setback has been revised to reflect a .2% increase over what had been approved with the variance in 1992. Even with this increase, there has still been a net decrease of hardcover on the lot. 5.Much of the hardcover in 75' to 250' setback is accounted for by the shared loop driveway that crosses the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the necessary after-the-fact variances to allow the retention of a rebuilt 18' by 19' deck on the lake side of the residence. SUiff recommends approval of a hardcover variance to allow 15.1% to remain in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where none is allowed. Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance to allow 39' encroachment to remain where none is allowed. Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 40.7' to allow the deck to remain 34.3 ’ from the OHWL where 75' is required. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey With Hardcover Calculations Applicant's Statement of Hardship U235I Laura Zauner 3262 North Shore Drive Variances March !6,1998 Pages \ 'ar I I .V [! Tt .'J !*■' i -•1 ' •».* .* > •)v; .-v r.-J* i./ •‘ — i / L r: Application # Date Received Amount Paid zSr\ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Vziriance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ Site Address k)oA,TH StlArze Dn.lOe U'l 00 CL rn CT> •*uis Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OS|iy-~ oeofe_________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 0~u.l-l^ __________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: y residential___pother (specify)_____________________ Zoning District:________________________________________ 4^-1 - 86,6 I APPLICANT Phone (home) Name L/’A:L l¥LA ^>ArU.ik3€:il^___________ Phone (woric) ^ -1^0*^ Address: A*lfrHTM tV Citv: (D>//iA>«s Zip: 6S3 5*_J OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover ___Lot Coverage __Rear A¥ewig e 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: _______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following mfoi*iHation roust be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to he considered complete: 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 3^ 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Go\1 Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy Z'A" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8>4" x II"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional .,jtems as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is/true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATUl The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entr>' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHB TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 08 117 23 41 0005 3240 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08 117 23 41 0008 3262 NORTH SHORE DR LAURA ZAUNER LAURA ZAUNER 3262 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08 117 23 41 0011 3286 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OP MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE NOT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08 117 23 44 0018 3280 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OP NINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST CONDMN # CONDMN # CONDMN # CONDMN 8 38 08 117 23 41 0006 3250 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN # 38 08 117 23 41 0009 3268 NORTH SHORE DR RONALD D STAUFFER JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 08 117 23 41 0012 3324 NORTH SHORE DR MINNETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 CONDMN 8 38 08 117 23 41 0007 3260 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL J TORBERG DANIEL J TORBERG 3260 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08 117 23 41 0010 3290 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OP MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08 117 23 44 0001 3264 NORTH SHORE DR RUSSELL A NORUM RUSSELL A NORUM 3264 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF CONDMN 8 CONDMN 8 CONDMN i DATE ¥rs SEE MAP i niiTfiuo ^ MiMriC IM __________ \iuT wo^ o 1 mmm.^ * •S' pr 1 llM ••il1« W Jenniit\*\ mM Itvo'• 3 •:1 ^ f KUIfU rcNA^iiii 10 'Ycif«(0All MC C( oks Bay WOUMC Minnetonka North bR0^30 Arm MJ ShaUfi i*iHl Point ‘ DFERINCi ^ Fat(erneis Pinnt W ■tUUCBMU ! Spring j* ^ Park ^ -< Piint «aiiamm J I WAWATOS/V island’ SHADY ISLAND SPRAY ISl.Arfc Howards Poin vU. ENOIANTED ISLAND dll ___ WOOD ttOI M \ — )/ lOGEWeOO M 1^8 fi a"1• Ta^ •MU ' g-^ mu: ■eaaqf i iifi. 0 P P*«ID PAJIt^o —CPaiCl P«A«|a8 , ,CUMO*A|i » —^—1 —• *UtOo PAlM SlOfwaii 1 1 ••lOCC ooc« --------------cmtiii <»ni - ••locc 11• CUkiCI’ WnaC/ro«0 ttaiAfi OMAlnaa ilac •l-ll cxo>tail cotfa CZTJ ('••O PUC OutilBC fOCf call •HI CZI •viUOiaC •uliOia« • m •CD ltavct(i«Ct C3 coacaiit uu f • 1 tvimiBe Pooi 1 __1 accacaf lOBH t —tlCBt O taaa •POkC t tiacct ucMt -uiuitt toa ■aaiiaoao SIC A aauaoao t«l o caouBO coaia caouBO ceata mq«i: —-. |bC4i COBtOl • |Bt|ai«0Uf| MPaiftlOB c ———-- OtiCuHIO €0» y fSf.t IP8I Cilaal SEl/4 SEC. T1I7N.R22 HENNEPIN CO 3 5- ^JCr ph ^l\ c ^ Permit Mo. PERMIT RECORD Date r Type of Permit ^ CITY OF OnONO I BY_rfo:aw^ ^ [ r>.;Tr o.Ji*T«tau Stoop (4x10)40 40 Walk (2.5x26)90 90 House (nom)436 660 660 Deck (ie>x19)342 342 Step (2x<i)&6 (2.5x3.5) •9 9 Chimney (2x6)12 12 Slab (nom)*056 1056 Gravel Drive (nom)1426 1426 Retainin^vvalls 0 0 0 Totals 795 3466 4261 j. •5250 r<d&e& ^15.1%=50.67. J c r r-'e, • • • • ^77/J C»- JnAff^ ^ tsC-TL t^on^^rfS. ___ ___^ * «i« a* _ •——I • •r:*5o - - 4/0 4/0 • #?o j?4» hr^**^€Ajo^.4'5£- BC#0 /411.--------1 /6 V 2-0**3t,n 3^.0 , . _ n X S'*_/S- 7 IS >• U/^iLl^V -7> CJ ;z.fTL • ••./05^iosz. /V2^ .._z/-^ • *V4-C4,S ___4> ^ ../3____r.2. ___ •q__ r---------------------^zn i.C.—SZjOri. - siso -r 49:.S .A • • •••/s.^;/. 5b.Vt>. ■■ °uI'lrYr /i-pPi0D\/ tiAi^oo\te^ • • « ///?r?PC3V»t^ T® ^.r* x«.r’ sH«Ci» to ytT,'^ /o 2;= so.&y^ (T V) 6 ?‘“r^ /' 1 i ) »'Vi.'-v~vr>' \-^.y- -“r-^.>^ 'n+t5 t-AmjLA ^ U^tftf^nAc\4 <^T 1 ■i 19 - ?.C«> 4- . u>4 Ui44ut Km/I^<t> Ti^7 Tttt<; |>n.4|74/^n/ Mirvc >tK a^Tt ^ “IL^ t^n^cH^[> Af^&o<A t4"iV#L/i cd^'C ^ ^u lu <^<r n.f 4te 96 c^(Tm ^ JD^V lA)it5 '^^caur^^£ ^^l>fU*_/- ’T/'Hf: Hn<S^ ^ t'Wt \Mi-C -1 Ujt: ,^^j>uc€ THT on? €/C Uig: feucu-^ VW at 0^6 ou^d^b SCtf.^r*iS 4/ ».*nv^«. tf ib i).4 •>r* D ? .irm^ « •. / \ r'*:r.v* ‘c:^ iV -■■ j ___________■-■■t.*pw«g«r ‘«<«»»’ft<!ar<if<«»T~.-^M.>i-»..--•<»»•■ - ■ /X TO: FROM; DATE: Sandra Smith, Planning Commission Chair, and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator February 9,1998 SUBJECT : Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment In recent years. Supreme Court rulings have effectively placed restrictions on dedication requirements cities can place on land subdividers. One of these restrictions is that the amount of a park dedication must be roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. The City's current 8% park dedication requirement does not in itself meet the Supreme Court test of rough proportionality. Because of the vastly differing land values in Orono, the 8% park dedication requirement could result in park dedication requirements that are either significantly greater than or significantly less than the amount which is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. It is recommended that the current park dedication ordinance be amended to retain the 8% park dedication requirement, but to indicate that the dedication required cannot be greater than the amount that is roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. This can be accomplished by determining both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount to ensure the dedication amount will not be greater than or less than the proportional impact of the development on the City's park system. The maximum and minimum park dedication amounts for residential subdivisions can be determined each year based on an updated projection of the cost of the City's park system and the proportionate share of these projected costs to be borne by new dwelling units in Orono. Commercial and industrial development also has an impact on the City's park system, as the employees of these businesses make use of elements of the City's park system such as trails and natural areas. Although the general park dedication requirement for commercial/industrial zoned land is 8%, the dedication requirement must be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed subdivision on the City's park system. This requirement will be met by determining a maximum and minimum dedication amount based on park system impact. This can be done by determining the number of employees that is equivalent to a residential dwelling unit in terms of impact on the City's park system. The City can then establish a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per employee that is tied to the residential dedication requirement. This amount can be set each year by Council resolution. An amended park dedication ordinance that reflects these proposed changes is attached for Planning Commission review. DEOICATIMEM SEC. 11.62. SUBDIVISIONS. PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, CLASS II AND III SUBDIVISIONS. Subd. 1. Lands For Public Use. The City finds that when land is subdivided, including a planned residential development or a planned unit development, the resulting additional housing units or commercial/industrial buildings have an impact on the City's park system. Therefore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, (1989), Section 462.358, subd. 2b, the City requires all persons, corporations or other legal entities that subdivide land within the City of Orono; as a prerequisite to approval of a lot division, final plat, planned residential development or planned unit development : to convey to the City or dedicate to the public, for use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space, a given percentage of the land being platted or developed as hereinafter specified, said portions to be approved by the City. In lieu thereof, the subdivider shall, at the option of the City pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development or improvement of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open spaces and debt retirement in connection with the land previously acquired for such public purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the fair market value of the land to be developed. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the City Council based upon the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The amount of the dedication requirement shall be roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the City's park system. Subd. 2. Dedicated Land Requirements. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this Section shall be reasonably adaptable for the above public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. Subd. 3. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the City for parks, playg Dunds, trails, open spaces and other public purposes as a minimum that percentage of gross land area, or other such amount as may be determined by the City Council, as set forth below: A. Residential/agricultural/multiple residential zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided. The dedication required shall be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. Because of the vastly differing land values in Orono. the 8% park dedication requirement could result in park dedication requirements that are either significantly greater than or significantly less than the amount which is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. Each year, therefore, the City will establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per dwelling unit based on an updated proiection of the cost of the City's park system, and the proportionate share of this projected cost to be borne bv new dwelling unit s in Orono. This will be done bv a resolution of the City Council. 11 B. Commercial/indusirial zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided. The dedication required shall be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City’s park system. The City finds, based on its experience, that the employees of commercial/industrial developments in the City make use of the City's park system, particularly trails and natural areas. Because the City's park system is focused on trails and natural areas versus active community parks and ballfields. commercial/industrial employees use the City's park system in wavs similar to City residents. Therefore, the commercial/industrial dedication requirement will be tied to the residential dedication requirement bv determining the number of employees that is equivalent to a residential dwelling unit in terms of impact on the City's park system. Each year the City wi!i establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per employee based on this determination and the determination of the residential dedication requirement as set out in Paragraph A of Subdivision 3. This will be done bv resolution of the City Council. C. Because the City of Orono's park system is focused on trails and natural open space areas, the City does not have a broad system of neighborhood parks. If a subdivision is planned to be served bv a neighborhood park, this subdivision will receive a greater benefit from the City's park system than that received bv the general population. Therefore, the maximum park dedication amount as determined in Paragraph A mav be exceeded up to the full 8% dedication requirement in the case of a subdivision that is nlanned to be serx ed bv a neighborhood park. Subd. 4. Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the subdivider, in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the equivalent undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicated. The City shall account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. These funds are to be used only for the acquisition, development and improvement of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open spaces, and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes. Subd. 5. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value" for purposes of this Code shall be the land pre-development value to be determined by the City Council as of the time of preliminary plat application in accordance with the following; A. The City Assessor shall recommend to the City Council as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. B. If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following: 1 . Fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider, at his expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate societies. 2. If the City disputes such appraisal amounts, it may obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted by the City as being an accurate appraisal at fair market value. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the subdivider. 3. The subdivider may appeal any final determination of fair market value as provided by Minnesota Statute Section 462.361. C. The determination of fair market value of the undeveloped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or designated appraisers, shall be determined §1 the time of preliminary subdivision approval is granted provided that there is final plat approval within the time limits as set forth in this chapter. The time of preliminary plat approval is utilized because the nature of the subdivision, its probable population, lot size and value, and other relevant factors are known. If an extension of the time limits in this chapter is approved by the City Council, the fair market value shall be determined as of the time of the approval of that extension. Ii; determining the fair market value as of time of preliminary plat application, or the extension thereof, the factors to be included in the analysis shall include any and all factors which are generally accepted and used by approved members of SREA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. 'r •^3 X\APPS\\\WTN60\WPDOCS'5UBDIV1SM 162 REV /i To: From: Date: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator March 12, 1998 Subject:Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Staff Administration of Limited Types of Land Alterations on Lakeshore Property List of Exhibits A - Existing Code Sections:-10.03 Subd. 19 -10.03 Subd. 21 - 10.56 Subd. 16(J)(4) - 10.55 Subd. 8,10,11 B - Legal Notice Proposed Code Revisions The primary intent of this ordinance is to allow small amounts of filling/grading/excavation within the shore setback zone (i.e. within 0-75' of Lake Minnetonka) without requiring a conditional use permit. This change will be of benefit to residents who wish to perform very minor filling, excavating, or grading within their lakeshore yards in amounts up to 10 cubic yards. Under the current ordinance a Conditional Use Permit involving review by both Planning Commission and Council is required for any land alterations within 75' of a lake. Under proposed new ordinance, land alteration permits could be issued by staff for up to 10 c.y. of earth movement for those projects which are determined by staff on a case-by-case basis to have no negative impacts. Any project in the shore setback zone involving more than 10 c.y. would still require a CUP, and staff would have the authority to refer to Council anv land alteration project where negative impacts are anticipated, regardless of the amount of fill involved. As a gauge of the impact of 10 cubic yards of fill, this is the equivalent of one 10-yard dump truck load. This amount would cover a typical 100' by 75' lakeshore yard to a depth of 1/2 inch. Section 10.03 Subd. 19 was recently reorganized for clarity (Ord. 163 2s.) with no substantive changes in intent. Subd. 19(C) requires a CUP for all grading/filling/excavating activity on lakeshore properties. Section 10.03 Subd. 21 constitutes the "Exceptions" to the provisions of Subd. 19. As recently revised, Subd. 21 limits to 500 c.y. the amount of land alteration allowed via staff permit. Proposed Zoning Amendment - Land Alteration March 12, 1998 Page 2 To accomplish the proposed change, an additional 'exception' should be added to Subd. 21, as well as language referencing the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, as follows; Subdivision 21. Land Alteration; Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the following land alteration activities: 1.Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building. 2.Any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Grading, filling or excavating of 10 cubic yards or less within the Shore Setback Zone of all lakes enumerated in the Shoreland Management section of the Zoning Cod^. Such grading and earth movement shall be subject to approval by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of a building permit, provided that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Where such earth movement is not being perfomied in conjunction with a building permit, a separate land alteration permit shall be required. Any unusual land alterations including earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in this Chapter. The following land alterations shall be considered as 'unusual land alterations': A.All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet average depth if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. B.Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 500 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footing protection; the intent being that structures shall not be artificially raised above the pre-existing surrounding topography. C.Grading or alterations that that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. The Building Inspector shall have the authority to refer any requests for land alteration permits to the City Council for review and approval in instances where said land alteration appears to potentially create negative impacts or be not in keeping with the goals and policies of the Orono Community Management Plan. r Proposed Zoning Amendment - Land Alterations March 12,1998 Page 3 Section 10.56 Subd. 16(J)(2) regarding land alteration permits in the Shoreland Overlay District, would be revised as follows to also reflect this change: J. Topographic Allerations/Grading and Filling. 2.Grading, filling and or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinarj' High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. Grading, filling or excavating of 10 cubic yards or less shall require City staff review and permit and be subject to other pertinent sections of the Zoning Code. Section 10.55 Subd. 10 provides for permitted and conditional uses in the Flood Fringe District (the area between the OHWL and the 100-year flood elevation, i.e. the floodplain). It is stafTs assumption that Council intends to allow up to 10 cubic yards in the Flood Fringe, although filling in the floodplain may also require MCWD approval. An additional Pemiittcd Use in tlie Flood fringe would be added as follows: Subd. 10. Flood Fringe District. The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the Flood Fringe District to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City Code provision or regulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, including without limitation the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conser\'ation District. In addition, no use shall adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch or any other drainage facility or system, and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water runoff or the quality of the natural environment. A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this Chapter): 1. All uses permitted in the Floodway District. 2.Agricultural uses such as general farming, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming and forestry. 3.Recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archer}' ranges, parks and nature preserves. In areas other than wetlands, grading, filling or excavating of 10 cubic yards or less, and subject to the appropriate permits as regulated elsewhere in the City Code. Proposed Zoning Amendment - Land Alterations March 12,1998 Page 4 Stair Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance because it will give residents more flexibility in conducting minor lakeshore land alterations without the typical 2-month delay caused by the CUP process; because it gives staff the authority to refer questionable projects to the Council for review; and as a side benefit, may slightly reduce the number of CUP’s needing processing. ORDINANCE NO. SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19 AND 21, AND SECTION 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16 (J) TO REVISE AND CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS ON LAND ALTERATION AND LAND ALTERATION PEIUVHTS The City Council of the City of Orono ordains; Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10/03, Subdivision 19, is hereoy deleted and a new Sn'-division 19 substituted in its place as follow; Subdivision 19. Land Alteration; Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the Council: A. Remove, fill, use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar earth material within the limits of the City. B. Fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. C. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of.lakeshore property. All of the above-referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed only with "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Section 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 21, is hereby deleted and a new Subdivision 21 substituted in its place as fdllovvs: Subdivision 21. Land Alteration; Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the following land alteration activities: 1. Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building. 2. Any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Page 1 of3 t i i&Bl Such grading and earth movement shall be subject to approval by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of a building permit, provided that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Where suc^l earth movement is not being performed in conjunction with a building permit, a separate land alteration permit shall be required. Any unusual land alterations including earth filling, removal or grading • proposed by a builder shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in this Chapter. The following land alterations shall be considered as 'unusual land alterations ’: A. B. C. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet average depth if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 500 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate firost footing protection; the intent being that structures shall not be artificially raised above the pre-existing surrounding topography. Grading or alterations that that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. The Building Inspector shall have the authority to refer any requests for land alteration permits to the City Council for review and approval in instances where said land alteration appears to potentially create negative impacts. Section 3. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Sub^ision 1 6(J)(4) is hereby ^leted and a new Subdivision 16(J)(4) substituted in its place as follow: J. Topographic Alterations / Grading and Filling. 4. Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways, a land alteration pemut will be required as follows: a. For movement of 1-500 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff-issued land alteration permit shall be required. b. For movement ofraore than 500 cubic yards of material within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional use permit approval by the City Council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. Page 2 of 3 f >. r-^. i‘- r ► t.L m Section 4. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and TTie / .Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 8th day of December, 1997 by a vote of 5 ayes and o nays. Dorothy M. , City Clerk GabrieNabbour, Mayor Publish the week of December 20, 1997, in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers. 1 Page 3 of 3 § 10.56 a. For movement of 1-100 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff issued land alteration permit shall be requxred. b. For movement of more than 100 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland conditional use permit approval by the City Council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. 5, The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: a. Grading or filling in any Type 2, 3, A e; 6 7 or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how eiteiisively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland: and retention; prevent or reduce flood damage; (1) Sediment and pollutant trapping (2) Storage of surface run-off to (3) Fish and wildlife habitat; (4) Recreational use; (5) Shoreline or bank stabilization; (6) Noteworthiness, including spe­ cial qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat or endangered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being FlleraT\g^®ucfet" in” udfri 'bu°t \TmlUd‘’L°watersgd Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the Onited States Army Corps of Engineers. b. Alterations must be designed conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; c. Mulches or similar materials must be used where necessary, for temporary bare soil _ible^ pemanent^tgetation cover must be established as soon as possible, d. Methods to minimize soil erosion ^d to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature be used; k ORONO CC 376-15 (2-24-92) ! r ! I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I § 10.56 e. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conser districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service; f. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; g. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes or 30% or greater; h. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones; i. Any alterations below the Ordinary niah Water Level of public waters must first be authorized by t e Co^issioner of the Department of Natural Resources under Minnesota Statutes, Seciton 105.42; j. Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property; 3^, Placement of natural rock rip rap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of ^ niter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical, the landward extent or th rio r^D is within 10 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level, and the heiqht^of the rip rap above the Ordinary High Water Level does not .tt-.ed 3 feet. A rip rap permit shall be obtained Per the requirements of Section 10.03, Subdivisions 22, 23 and 24 of this zoning code. 6. Connections to Public Waters. Excavations +-he intended ourpose is connection to a public water, such as boat siins canals,' lagoons, and harbors, are prohibited above the OrSnary'^llgh water Level. Such excavations below the elevation or the Ordinary High Water Level are subject to Department of Vtural Resources and other agencies with concurrent jurisdiction K Storm Water Management. The following general and specific standards shall apply in addition to those standards fSund in Sections 10.S5 and 11.41 of the Orono Municipal Code. 1. When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be to convey, store, filter and retain storm water run-off before discharge to pui)lic waters. ORONO CC 376-16 (2-24-92) \ S 10.55 Subd. 6. Zoning Use Districts. The Zoning Use Districts as designated on the Official Zoning Map shall remain unchanged with the adoption of this Section. The provisions of this Section, including the designation of Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Areas, shall be in addition to all other provisions of this Chapter. Whenever conflicts occur between other provisions of this Chapter and provisions of this Section, the most restrictive provision shall prevail. Subd. 7. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on'the flood plain. A. The regulatory flood protection elevation within the Flpodway and Flood Fringe Districts shall be established by adding 1.0 foot to the Base Flood Water Surface Elevations within Floodway listed in the Floodway Data Table contained in the Flood Insurance Study. Regulatory flood protection elevations between cross-sections shall be interpolated. B. The regulatory flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka shall be 932.5 MSL. C. The regulatory flood protection elevation within the General Flood Plain District shall be calculated by a qualified registered profe^ss-i-onjil encineer in accordance with nmcednre^ «?et forth herein. Subd. 8. Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specificjtlly permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, exca^A^ ion^^^^Ji^r dcove r , temporary or permanent structures, obstructrionsT^septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Section and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. Subd. 9. Floodway District (FW). The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the Floodway District to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City Code provisions or regulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, including without limitation, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. In addition, no use shall adversely affect ORONO CC 365 (4-1-84) I I I 1 I I I i I I I I I I lii n m m m S 10.55 the capacity of the channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system, and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water runoff or the quality of the natural environment. A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this Chapter) : 1. Agricultural uses such as pasture, grazing, and wild croo harvesting. 2. Fish and wildlife sanctuaries. 3. Recreational uses such as fishing accesses, unpaved hiking, biking, horseback or nature trails, and picnic areas.4. Residential uses such as lawns and gardens provided no filling, grading or hardcover is involved. 5. Seasonally installed residential boat docks for single family dwellings. 6. Natural stone rip rap shoreline protection. 7. Sand beach blankets meeting the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources Regulation 6MCAR1S021B. B. Conditional Uses. (When in conformance with this Chapter); 1. All other forms of shoreline protection including wood, metal, mortared stone or concrete seawalls. 2. All dredging or excavation of material from any lake bed, pond, or wetland or £rom land adjacent thereto. 3. ' All permanent boat docks or other similar structures. . , 4. All multiple boat docks including residential or commercial structures, whether seasonal or permanent . 5. ' Water control structures such as dams, culverts, and weirs. 6. Bridges and abutments. 7. Utility lines. 8. Other similar uses not specifically listed when approved by the Council and other regulatory agencies, but no use shall be approved which will restrict or obstruct any flood flow or which^firll—ffai^iaethe level of any flood flow. / Subd. 10. Flood Fringe District (FFD). The following uses h^e a low flood d^age potential and do not obstruct flood flows/ These us^5 —«ir^l be permitted within the Flood Fringe District—to—trffe"”'ex^nt that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations ate received as may be required by other City Code provision or ORONO CC 366 (4-1-84) § 10.55 governmental agencies having jurisdiction p__ ^ . out limitation, the Minnesota Department of Natural Sire^or^'a tributary capacity of the channels oV^Vloodways^ or^lJlytributary to the mam stream or of any drainage ditch o^r anv of-h^^ drainage facility or system, and no use shall adverselv af?Lrth^ Chapter):A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this District. permitted in the Floodway outdoor plant nutseri;s,X\^“c^u\Tu%^^ p'r%"s"«veT “"' rangel “a°"c\^r7?anget Tariffnd°nlt“c4 this Chapter): ®' ««« = • («hen in conformance with Ploodway District. conditional uses as listed in the equipment in the "B-2“ marinaequipment in tne a-2 Zoning Use District, provided all storaae meets the requirements of the "B-2” Zoning uU oistricot iJ.!rh^iSrre%^^7crl>''oh?'%"s the level of any flood flow uses_ Shall h™^uctfd^n^^^-‘“rXL^wm“‘=t’^^^^^ ConditiAnal“uses.^^‘ VFloodway and Flood Fringe permanent), fiU, <3eUsity“bsttuo”t°ionr s^or^^e® of’"m^t^^^ or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as conditional uses which lc!pa%\7%urure-usr,^-d%-"eirrffe^c*^%‘^e-floodway or increases .lood heights. ^apacicy or cne ORONO CC 367 (4-1-84) I I I ! n n § 10.55* B. Fill: m m m m n a m m m ii §M 1. No fill shall be deposited in the floodway and any fill deposited in the flood fringe shall be no more than the minimal amount necessary to conduct a conditional use listed above. Generally fill shall be limited to that needed to grade or landscape for ♦'hat use and shall not in any way further obstruct the flow of f] 'vd waters. 2. Spoil from dredging shall not be deposited in the floodway nor in the flood fringe. 3. All fill shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover in the form of grass, natural ground covers, shrubs and trees as determined by the Council. 4. All filling and grading activities shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted* 2-22-fa8 C. Structural Work For Flood Control. Structural works for flood control such as dams, levees, dikes and floodwalls shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit. In addition, any proposed work in the beds of public waters which will change the course, current, or cross-section of the waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1976, Chapter 105, and other applicable statutes. Subd. 12. Conditional Use Permit Review. Applications for conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council in the same manner as other zoning conditional use permit applications. No conditional use permit shall be issued unless the applicant, in support of his application, shall submit certified engineering data, surveys, site plans, flowage calculations, and other information as the City may require in order to determine the effects of such development on the affected land and water areas. A. Notice to State. Upon filing of an application for a conditional use permit, the Zoning Administrator shall submit to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed conditional uses sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. A copy of all decisions granting conditional use permits shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten days of such action. B. Conditions of Approval. In granting a conditional use permit the City may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards, which are in conformity with the purposes of this Section. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the conditional use permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation or this Section punishable as provided herein. (4-1-84) H ORONO CC 368 o CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTlCi: The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, March 16,1998 on the matter of proposed amendments to Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19 & 21; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.55, Subdivisions 8, 10 & 11; and Section 10.56 Subdivision 16, to revise requirements and standards for the issuance of land alteration permits within the Shore Setback Zone of lakes within the City. The intent of the proposed revisions is to allow City staff to administratively issue permits for specified low-impact, low-volume (up to 10 cubic yards) filling, grading, excavation or land alteration projects within the Shore Setback Zone. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. A copy of the proposed revisions is available in the City offices for review. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator To be published the week of February 28, 1998. .. >ai ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 17,1998 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, William Stoddard, and Lili McMillan. Charles Schrocder and Elizabeth Hawn were absent. Mayor Jabbour and Council Member Peterson were present. The following represented the City Staff; Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2312 CLAUS WEILER AND RENEE MEERKINS, 1135 NORTH ARM DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES - 6:34-6:41 P.M. The Applicants were present. Bressler reported that the application is for variances to rebuild a previously existing deck and an additional garage. The application was tabled at the January meeting to enable to the applicants to determine the size of the previous decks. Staff had been unaware that decks had previously existed on the residence. The variances and a CUP are required due to the accessory structure being placed in front of the principal structure and the lot bei-ng considered a through lot The proposed decks require street and bluff setback ' ariances. The Planning Commission had requested the accessory structure be reduced in size to meet the 1000 s.f maximum footprint allowed. The structure is now proposed at 968 s.f. The proposed accessory structure meets the side setback of 10' as requested by the Commission and will be located 33’ from the side lot line. The decks are proposed to extend 8' from the rear of the residence towards Elmwood Avei.ue and the bluff The proposed decks are smaller in size that had existed. Another change to the plan is the proposal that the garage be 1-1/2 stories, rather than one stoiy. The stiucture would meet height requirements. Bressler said Staff recommended approval of the CUP for locating an accessory structure on a through lot and locating an accessory structure in front of the principal structure for the garage. Staff also recommens approval of bluff setback and street setback variances for the decks. Staff recommended the shed be located to a conforming location or removed. The applicants have agreed to remove the shed if approval is received for the accessory structure. The applicant said he agreed with Staffs recommendation. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#1 - #2312 Claus Weiler and Renee Meerkins - Continued) Smith was informed by the applicant that the additional garage would be used for an extra car, boat, and storage of bikes and lawn equipment. A 3-car garage currently exists on the property. Smith asked Staff about the policy to allow a deck to be replaced. She questioned the time limit once the deck has been removed. It was noted that the previously existing decks were removed about one year ago. Smith said the application would be viewed differently if the decks had been removed farther in the past Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2312 per Staff recommendations. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) #2320 MITCHELL AND ASTA GERSOVITZ, 3650 CASCO AVENUE - VARIANCES - 6:41-6:46 P.M. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. He reported the proposal is to install a bay window over a portion of the existing deck and building a dormer over the existing garage. These improvements require an average lakeshore setback variance as the entire residence is ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Bressler reviewed the issues as presented in the information packet. He recommended approval of the application as submitted. The applicant had no additional comments. There were no public co^u•..xm^ Stoddard asked if the neighbors had any comments regarding the proposed improvements noting the neighbors are generally asked for their opinion when the plans involve a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Gersovitz said he recently purchased the property and has yet to move there. Van Zomeren indicated the neighbors were notified and no comments were received. The applicant asked if the Council review could take place at the February 23 meeting. Bressler agreed. Stoddard asked that the applicant submit a letter noting that request. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2320 per Staff recommendations. V'ote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Agenda item #3 was moved to the end of the agenda due to absence of applicants.) 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#4) #2326 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES - 6:47-7:30 P.M. Tom Dillon and Mike Sepena were present. Gaffron reported that revisions have been made to the plans since the sketch review in January. The revisions include a site plan with building elevations, landscaping, drainage and grading plan. Gaffron reviewed the revisions as noted in the information packet, pages 2 through 4. He questioned whether the fiill 60’ depth of the building was needed given the site limitations created by the parking in front and pond and driving lane to the rear. The general traffic flow continues to be a counterclockwise movement as previously shown. Gaffron noted that a pedestrian walkway on the northern boundary of the property was considered but found to be difficult with the slopes. The planned green space adjacent to Shadywood Road is less than the required 20’. Gaffron indicated that the number of required parking spaces will be met. Gaffron reported that the City had requested additional design features to break up the large expanse of the roof, and these have been added. The cedar shake over brick wall facade will require a variance. The comments by the DSU mainly relate to the need for additional landscaping. The 12-14 ’ retaining wall height will be screened with plantings. Stoddard inquired what the black bumpouts were that are noted on the plans in front of the building. Gaffron indicated they were spaces to accommodate trees. Smith questioned whether the trees would remain alive after being planted with basically no green clearance and so near the roadway receiving dirt, snow, and salt debris. Gaffron said the plan has not been reviewed again by Mr. Case of DSU, but Gaffron did not believe the proposed landscaping along Shadywood is as requested by Case. Gaffron said the applicant feels the design as presented is critical in realizing the site plan. Gaffron indicated that the slopes in the parking area will be 4% or less as requested by the City Engineer. The north end slope has been decreased. Curb and gutter will be included in the parking lot area. Gaffron reviewed issues 1-11 noted for discussion. He noted this is a difficult site for planning and indicated the applicant has addressed concerns expressed by the City. Gaffron requested that Planning Commission make a recommendation regarding approval of the site plan for variances for hardcover, building facade, and parking setback along the front. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRU.ARY !7, !998 (#4 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Tom Dillon felt the majority of the issues have been satisfactorily worked out with Staff. He feels the 5' setback to Shadywood is critical in maintaining two rows of parking while maintaining the required size of the pond. There is a sidewalk planned for the front of the building. He also is unsure of the viability of the proposed trees Dillon felt the cedar shake design would create a transition between the commercial, residential, and lakeshore areas. The other half of the building will be brick. Smith was informed by Dillon that the main reason for the cedar shake facade is aesthetics. Other choices include lapsiding or all brick, which would be more expensive. Dillon said the building use is moving more towards service type businesses rather than retail. The building will include a bank corporate office and a conservation district office. He has received some letters of intent on the building space. Dillon noted the additional use approved for a bagel and coffee restaurant. There were no public comments. Mike Sepena, architect, highlighted the areas of landscaping. Lindquist expressed concern with the landscaping for the front of the building along CoRd 19. I he plan currently calls for 6-8' of sidewalk and 5' of green space. Stoddard said he would like to see more green space noting safety is a concern with the building being along the county roadway. He asked if the building could be moved back 5' to accommodate more green space. Dillon indicated that this would have a domino effect back to the 20' drive lane to the rear of the building. Stoddard suggested if the concern was for the pond to take 5' from the green space in the rear and add to the front. Sepena said this would afreet the retaining wall height. The green space to the rear is also sloping down from the retaining wall. Loss of this would give the effect of a higher wall. Dillon said this could be reviewed. Gaffron reported that this issue had been discussed. He noted the problem with moving the driving lane closer to the retaining wall is the possible concern with structural integrity. He also questioned whether cars should be driving so close to a wall with a 14' drop. Gaffron agreed with the concern for green space in front but questioned where the trade off should come from. Two driving lanes are necessary in the rear and space is required between the building and the road. Gaffron suggested the building may be too big for the space. He said the applicant had informed him that losing 10' in depth would change the building length, affecting the entire site plan. Smith suggested the building be shrunk 5' and 5' taken from the rear green space to increase the green space in front 10'. This would result in 15 of green space in front instead of 5' as proposed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17. 1998 (#4 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Lindquist said his concern is also with what will be within the 5' of green space in the front. Sepena said the plan calls for trees with plantings and sod inbetween. Lindquist did not feel this landscaping would survive having snow and salt on it. John O'Sullivan reported that his hedge landscaping in a strip of 5-6' has been maintained for over 10 years. He felt this amount of space is adequate. O'Sullivan also indicated that this area of CoRd 19 has the least amount of traffic on it as compared to the other three quadrants. Smith said she was still concerned with the need for more green space to the front. Berg said she would support a hedge instead of grass along the front green space. The Commissioners continued discussing the other issues noted and voiced approval. Additional comments by Commissioners include agreement with the cedar shake over brick facade. McMillan felt the end bump out islands to the parking area were a negative feature. Gaffron indicated that he has found them to be a necessity for a parking lot. McMillan was informed that the access for Culver's would be in the same location as it is presently. The applicant will be required to submit a lighting plan and will work with Staff. The Commissioners were generally in agreement with the landscaping plan, except as noted in the front of the building. Dillon informed Stoddard that a crosswalk could be painted in to indicate the sidewalk location at the rear northerly comer of the building. McMillan was informed that the garbage pick-up would require a truck backing up to the dumpster. Berg questioned the signage in front of the building and its size. She did not feel it was in keeping with the character of the building. Dillon said the signage is in compliance with code area limitations. Sepena said the lighting plan is yet to be submitted. Direction was given to the applicant for a uniform look to the signage in keeping with the architectural design of the building. Gaffron indicated that the signage code does not give clear direction regarding this issue and suggested a condition be included regarding signage. Dillon noted that the tenants will want lighted signs. The applicants were informed that the Commissioners were in agreement with the site plan except for signage and green space. Commissioners were in agreement in sending the application on to Council with the stipulation that an additional 10' of green space be found for the front of the building. Dillon said he hoped they have shown the ability to work with Staff. He indicated he has not studied how the building can be moved and will address it with Council. Berg informed Dillon that she lives in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood needs the building to set the tone for more green space. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (U4. #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2326 for commercial site plan with building design and building material variance to allow shake facade, a hardcover variance, front yard parking setback variance of 5' requiring a 15' setback, and subsequent signage approval by Staff for a uniform sign plan, and as further recommended by Staff. Dillon asked what will occur if the study finds that they are unable to get a 15' setback. Stoddard said the Council will discuss it and use the Planning Commission's recommendation in their consideration. McMillan noted in her opinion the applicant should consider that they have not demonstrated a hardship for this variance. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS (#5) #2339 JAMES D. RENDER, 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:31-8:15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. James Render and Mark Gronberg were present. Gaffion reported that the proposal is to subdivide a 1.9 acre parcel into three building sites. The original plan had proposed three lots with an outlot that continues only to the third lot. The revised plan would expand the outlot to a 42' total width. Along with the 8' easement already in place, it would result in 50' for a future road connecting Birch Lane to Tonkawa. The plan includes issues of concern for a cul-de-sac and its impact on hardcover. The plan also does not address the need to serve the neighbors in the future, especially in emergency situations. Birch Lane is presently a 20' corridor that serves about 10 homes. The property between Birch Lane and Tonkawa is presently served by a driveway. Gaffion asked the Commission to consider the need to expand Birch Lane over to Tonkawa. He questioned whether the road needs to be developed now or provide the means for future expansion. The issue also involves whether to require a private road and cul-de-sac to serve 3 or more lots. The subdivision would provide the land for the road extension. The hardcover impact is a primary concern for the westerly lot as the area within that lot is smaller. The Commission was asked to consider whether to give the applicant hardcover credit for the property given for the roadway. Gaffion recommended that a temporary cul-de-sac be constructed between lots 2 and 3. A vacant lot to the west may eventually need access as well. J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#5 - #2339 James Render - Continued) GafFron reviewed the engineering issues as noted in the information packet, #1-6. The future street extension is provided for in the current plan. He noted no information has been received from the MCWD. A developer's agreement would be required including a financial guarantee. Gaffron reviewed the general subdivision comments noted. He indicated that the existing 33' right-of-way is satisfactory for Tonkawa Road. Gaffron said the issues for discussion center around access. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan for an urban area looks at the need for a public road. If that is the case and a cul-de-sac is built, there would be an issue with traffic and proximity to Maxwell Bay access. He questioned whether the road could be restricted in its use or if it should be posted as private. Gaffron reviewed the Staff recommendations #1-7 as noted on page 6 of the packet information. Long Lake Fire Chief, Mike Brown, was present. He indicated that his immediate reaction to the plan was to ask that the road be extended across to Birch Lane. Brown said this area is difficult to access. He relayed difficulties that recently occurred from a fire on West Farm Road. The situation is similar to that found in this area for emergencies. Brown said he discourages cul-de-sacs as they are difficult to get to and maneuver in. If a cul-de-sac is built, it should be larger according to Brown. He would like to see cul-de-sacs that are large enough to drive into and turn around and wide enough for trucks to pass each other. Brown was informed that the standard for a cul-de-sac is paving 80' in diameter. Brown felt this was sufficient for emergency needs. McMillan noted the problem with having private wells and no hydrants. Brown said water is trucked in. Brown said at least one engine has to get into a property when fighting a fire. James Render agreed that good planning calls for the continuation of the two roadways. He had informed Gaffron that he would contribute his share to that cause. While there would normally be an even share for right-of-way. Render agreed to provide 42' on his side of the property for the future road. Render noted that this results in a large loss of area that is necessary to meet hardcover allowances He requested a credit be given for the property taken towards hardcover. He is concerned with building that roadway at this time. Render does not believe the road should be built until it leads somewhere. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAI4NING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (US - #2339 James Render - Continued) Render felt a cul-de-sac would negatively affect the subdivision as it would only serve three properties. He noted that the property is less than 300' from a public launch and is concerned with the use of a cul-de-sac by boat trailers and public access users, increase in traffic, increase in paved area, and additional hardcover. The meeting was opened to public comments. Daniel Reagan said he lives two lots in from the comer on North Shore Drive. He voiced concern with the road e.xtension. Reagan believes fire trucks should be more environmentally friendly and made of a size that corresponds to the typical roadways. Lindquist noted that the Commission has no control over the size of fire trucks. He informed Reagan that the standard width of right-of-way for public and private roads is 50'. Gaffron added that the road itself would be 28' wide, which is typical in rural areas. Reagan was informed that the easement is currently 8' and the applicant proposes to add 42' to the 8'. Reagan questioned how this would affect the 1/2 acre requirement. Gaffion informed him that the 42' would be taken from the new subdivision and would not affect current property owners. The 8' easement has been in place for about 30 years and includes the sewer line. Reagan said he is also concerned with the flood plain and additional drainage from new development. Lindquist noted that this is considered in the review process. Gerald Ray, 3442 North Shore Drive, said his house is accessed by the end of a private driveway. Ray said his property would be impacted by the continuation of the roadway by loss of his 3-car garage. He did not support the road extension. Dave Lindbergh, 3440 North Shore Drive, said he would also lose part of his property if the road is continued. He indicated that his property fronts CoRd 51. If the road is continued, his children would be limited where they could play. He suggested homeowners plow their driveways wider to provide access for emergency equipment. He does not support the road extension. There were no other public comments McMillan noted that the new plan calls for a T-shaped blacktopped area, instead of the cul-de-sac. Gaflron said the applicant is attempting to strike a compromise by providing for the future without affecting the existing neighbors. The T-shape is about 50' long. Gronberg said the T shape has been approved by other cities for use as a fire truck turnaround. 1 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAh'NlNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (US - #2339 James Render - Continued) Gafiron confirmed for Lindquist that the other two options were a cul-de-sac or just a road. Lindquist felt the 50' road should be dedicated and remain private until such time that the road is extended. Lindquist noted the need to deter.mine whether a T or cul-de- sac should be built. Render informed McMillan that he would ask for an additional 17' to credit hardcover in return for providing the dedicated roadway. G2ffron informed McMillan that the typical setbacks would be required. Gaffron said the private road outlot would be dedicated the entire length. The City would take an underlying easement. The Commissioners were in agreement with Gaflfron's recommendation for a 28' wide roadway. The question remained of when the road should be e.xtended and whether a T or cul-de- sac. Lindquist said he preferred the cul-de-sac but understood the concerns of the applicant if one was built. Smith suggested a shared driveway be allowed for two lots. She recommended two driveways instead of the cul-de-sac. Render clarified that the 28' wide private road would extend only to where the turnaround would be located. Commissioners agreed. Berg agreed with Smith in preferring no cul-de-sac. Gaffron asked if the shared driveway would be between lots 2 and 3. Render said the shared driveway would be located between lots 1 and 2 for future access. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2339 with the understanding that the 50 ’ right-of-way would extend the complete length of the property through the granting of 42' from the property owner in addition to the current 8' of easement. The road would be a 28' shared private road with a paved T turnaround. The applicant would be allowed a credit of a 17' strip of land for hardcover allotment. Gronberg asked if the road could be platted as a 25’ outlot with an additional 17' easement. Lindquist said it would have to be 50' platted through 42’ from property owner and 8' from other properties. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2340 ROBERT WAADE, 3280 AND 3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 8:15-8:39 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION IvIEET iInG held OIn rcDivuArvi i /, i99o - ^2340 P.obcrt Ws?,dc - Continued) The Applicant was present. Gafiron reported that the subdivision was originally reviewed as a sketch plan. The property is located in tne LK- IL-l, 1/2 acre single family zoning distnet. l he proposal is to subdivide the property into tw'o lots, one lakeshore lot with a single family residence and one non-lakeshore, non-riparian, with duplex. The code requires 1/2 acre. The duplex would require a conditional use permit. A duplex is allowed on the property as the property is within 200' of the B-2 Commercial Uistrict to the west. The proposal includes a 50’ platted road corridor to serve these properties and three existing homes to the north as well as the garage of the home on the comer. A 30' wide outlot would serve the backlot, which requires 150% of lot area and setback standards. This requires the lakeshore lot to be 3/4 acres in size, which it is. Gaftron indicated that by crediting the 75-250' hardcover in the 250-500' setback, the property would meet the intent of the hardcover regulation. Gaiffon reviewed the lot standard requirements. He noted Lot 2 is technically a front lot. The duplex lot does not meet the area standard for being riparian, and as such, would be a factor to account for in determining whether the duplex lot could have lake access. Lot 2 meets the 135' minimum width for a duplex if the front lot line is defined as the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. This would eliminate the need for a variance. The side and rear yards are conforming. Gaffron noted that the code calls for no more than two residences being served via an access outlot but the plan calls for three units served by Outlot B. Gaffron indicated a solution would be to design a duplex with a separate access driveway coming off the road outlot, Outlot A. Outlot A is being platted as a private road. Staff believes it is reasonable to require a 24' paved road be constructed the length of Outlot A and connect from the end of the lot to the County road to the north. Lot 1 meets the requirements for a backlot as noted in the information packet on page 2. Gaffron said Hennepin County Public Works has suggested in their comments that a triangular piece of right-of-way be dedicated to deal with the slope and sight distance concern along North Shore Drive. This presents a problem because dedicated right-of- way is subtracted from the calculation of lot area. The result would be a lot less than the required 1/2 acre and necessitate a variance. Gaffron reported that a grading and drainage plan has not yet been submitted. He also noted that the MCWD suggests a payment towards ponding in lieu of constructing a pond on the property. The City Engineer, however, suggests a pond be constructed. If this occurs, the lakeshore lot would then be less than the required 3/4 acres. in* w MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Gaffi-on indicated that a lot not abutting lakeshore does not get lake access. Previous discussion had suggested applicant would like both properties to have docks. Gaffron recommended that no variance be a!:' '» i. The City and County park plans suggest a trail along North Shore Drive. There is enough right-of-way already provided to accommodate a trail. Park dedication fee is recommended. Gaffron suggested tabling the application until the pond and stormwater plans have been received. He recommended approval of the front/back lot layout. He noted hardcover zones have been recalculated. Gaffron reviewed the Staff recommendation as noted in the information packet, #1-9. Mr. Waade had no comments at this time. During public comments, Sam Marfield, 2455 North Shore Drive, indicated that a duplex in this area would be out-of-character. Jim DePietro, another resident of North Shore Drive, agreed. David Dalvey, 3230 Bohns Point Lane, agreed with Marfield. He believes the neighborhood of nice homes should not include a duplex. He asked the purpose of the proposed duplex. Waade said the upscale units would be rental. Dalvey said he has bad problems with other rental properties and submitted a letter requesting that the dupk .’C not be rental property. Lindquist acknowledged receipt of the letter. Richard D. Allen, 3220 Bohns Point Lane, said he shares the opinion of Dalvey regarding a duplex. He does not feel a duplex is consistent with the neighborhood and would be squeezed in on the property. He is concerned with setting a precedent by allowing the building of a duplex on this property. Mr. Waade noted the propeny is next to a marina and felt the location was ideal for a duplex. He indicated the plan calls for an upscale design and be an improvement to the neighborhood. Waade said he would create a berm between his site and the marina. He did not believe buyers would want a big house next to a marina. Gaffron clarified the zoning for the public. He indicated the marina is in the B-2 Commercial District. The LR-lC-1, 1/2 acre, residential zoning allows for a duplex to be located within 200' of the commercial or marina area. To the east and south of North Shore Marina is one acre single family residential zoning. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (U6 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Stoddard asked what variances would be required if the property were single family. Gaffron said the same issues exist e.xcept only a 100* width requirement for the south lot. Right-of-way would still be required for the road and stormwater ponding, which is difficult for this site, unless the outlet is narrower than 50'. Smith asked if a conditional use permit would be required. Gaffron said it would not if the entire property were single family. Lindquist noted the buildability of the property is in quest .on if a pond is required. Marfield asked if it was at the City's discretion to allow i- duplex. Gaffron indicated that it requires a CUP and the City may add conditions to it, but if other requirements are met, it would be difficult to deny an application for a duplex. He noted the issues still requiring resolution. Marfield felt the property was being stretched to gain two lots. He reiterated his lack of support for a duplex. Lindquist said information will be required for stormwater and road rededication needs of the County before any decisions can be made. He indicated that he would not support additional variances. Smith asked what the County was requiring for the road. Gaffron said the County is asking for 66' of right-of-way. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2340 pending a report on stormwater ponding and grading and drainage plan. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2341 DANIEL J. ANDERSON, 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 8:399-9:26 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Ed Otto and Daniel Anderson were present. Gaffron reported that the sketch plan was reviewed for the subdivision in January. He received comments on this date from Hennepin County Public Works. Septic sites have been confirmed. There are suitable sites on all 7 lots for both primary and alternate sites. Additional testing will be conducted in the spring to determine whether a trench system can be used instead of mound systems for some lots. Design work is still needed for all septic systems. \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION iVLCd 11N^J rc,DiMjMJM I/, iyyo (#7 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) Gaffron reported that all lots meet the 2 acre requirement and width requirement at the siiuieiine. Lois 2 anil 5 aie cui-iie-sac iois. wiiiie liiey aie 100 aiui 1/0 in ileiuicu wlilih, the lots are rectangular in shape and functional. The lots are uniquely shaped but appear to be somewhat tiexibie without encroaching into septic draintieid sites Lot i is technically a through lot and will accommodate the existing house without the need for any setback variances. All other buildings on the property are intended to be removed resulting in Lots 2 through 7 becoming new building sites. Lots 4, 5, and 6 are lakeshore iois and meet the 200' minimum width requirement. Lot 6 has an hourgiass shape that leaves a functional width of 165' at the proposed building site meeting side setback requirements. The road outlot has changed from the sketch plan. The proposal calls for a single private road with a wing to serv’e Lot 7. There will be only one access to the County road, which is satisfactory to the County. The County and City require that all other accesses to Old Crystal Bay Road be eiiminaieu. The City Engineer reviewed the road layout. The horizontal curve for the private road at 125' radius does not meet the City's 275’ standard for a 30 mph road. It would, however, meet it for a 20-25 mph posting, but this is usually not done for private roads. Revising the road to meet the 275' radius would most likely impact the septic sites A future trail from the Luce Line on the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road through French Creek Woods would not require trail dedication on this property. There would be a problem with lots 2 and 7 if the trail were to come on this west side of the road. The 6 new lots would be subject to park dedication. Hennepin County has asked for an additional 7' of right-of-way as they are of the opinion that provision for the trail should be made The City would be consistent with past practice in not requiring the Jedication of additional right-of-way for Old Crystal Bay Road. Gaffron noted that the proposed length of the road and cul-de-sac is about 700' and meets the length limitation. Gaffrori.. aicated that the applicant is net proposing any stormwater ponding on site. TK: City Engineer has recommended that stormwater ponding be provided on site. Once ponds are developed, one or more lots may become smaller. Proposed grading is planned for Lot 6 to create a better walkout site. It will need revision to avoid encroachment of the bluff impact zone. Gaffron noted that grading must be limited to preserve the septic sites with the road being close by. Building plans for lots 5 and 6 require further review. Gaffron reported that there are no City utilities serving this part of the City. He also indicated that the applicant has agreed to a tree preservation easement to maintain the significant woods on the property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#7 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) GafFron reviewed the issues for discussion, #1-8, as noted on pages 5 and 6 of the memo. Surveyor, Ed Otto, responded to Gaffron's comments. He felt lots 2 and 3 were fiinctional and adequately served by the cul-de-sac to allow for variance approval. Lot 2 has frontage on Old Crystal Bay Road. Lot 7 is preferred to utilize the 50' wing as planned in order to better control traffic. Otto said the road radius was designed to protect the septic sites on Lot 1. He indicated that the area east of the house contains fill and cannot be used for a septic site. Otto said Dan Anderson and Marty Campion met with MCVVD representatives regarding stormwater ponding and runoff. They conceptually approved a cash donation in lieu of ponding due to the septic sites. With the site being sloped and containing a bluff impact area, the MCWD would like to maintain that area for water treatment as the only functional place for a pond is on the top of the hill. Otto said the City Engineer had suggested the use of catch uasins. Otto said only a minimal amount of grading would occur on Lot 6. He would adjust the grading to eliminate any encroachment of the bluff impact zone. Otto noted that there is dso room to pull the house back on Lot 5. Stoddard asked if an average lakeshore setback variance is required. Gaffion said it depends on what house is built first. He suggested defining house locations and approving the average lakeshore setbacks now to avoid the need for future variances. Lindquist agreed. Otto said the building pads are determined based to the septic sites. Otto said he would be willing to grant a conservation easement to protect 6" or larger trees on the bluff. Lindquist asked to see a vegetation plan. Anderson indicated there were no trees on the building pad locations and only a few where the road is located. Smith indicated her concern is what happens once people move into the homes. She would like to see the land protected. Otto agreed. During public comments, Duke Hust, 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, voiced concern wth the bike trail. He noted the trail has to cross the road at some point. His home was built in 1909 and is only 52' from the road. A trail on Host's side of the road would severely impact his property. Hust indicated that the Blair property to the north of his is closer yet to the road. Hust felt the location for the trail crossing should be at Fox Street. McMillan informed Hust that an easement has already been granted for the trail on the east side of the road. Hust said the decision by Council differed from that recommended by the Planning Commission at the time the easement was granted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#7 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) Gafifron reported that members of the Park Commission and Staff walked the trail area to determine the best location for the trail. They determined that the best location was on the east side due to the topographical conditions and septic sites on the west side. Gafffon said the Park Commission is aware of the issues presented by Hust. Gaffron felt taking an easement on the subject properly on the west would allow the opportunity for a trril in the future on the west side if the properties were to be sewered. He noted that taking an easement now does not determine where the trail will eventually be built. Francis Graham, 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road, ir Heated there were topographical issues on the east side as well. She hoped that no decision was made at this time to preclude the trail being located on the west side. Lindquist informed the public that the Commission makes a recommendation to Council. The Council makes the final decisions. He suggested the public attend the Council meeting when this topic is again discussed. Mike Dallas, 1020 Old Crystal Bay Road, asked if there were restrictions along the lakeshore with the high elevations. Lindquist informed him of the 30* setback from the top of a bluff. The proposal meets that setback. Dallas asked about the loss of tree:>. Lindquist said there would be no walkout building sites in the bluff area. The lots will have the ability to have a dock at the lake and have a walkway to the lake within the 0-75’ setback. Judd Dayton, 825 Old Crystal Bay Road, asked about dock usage noting there were only 3 lakeshore lots. He questioned whether the other lots would be able to have dockage as well. Gaffron said the lakeshore property owners cannot legally grant an easement or means for dockage other than for the owners themselves. He did note the difficulty in controlling this situation. Gaffron said the City would make it clear that the City would not sanction any access for the other 4 lots to the lake; both the code and history does not allow this to occur. Smith said the revised plan is an improvement. Lindquist agreed. He indicated the need for a stormwater pond review. He also felt the 10' easement should be maintained to keep options open until a decision is made on the trail. Smith asked that the conservation easement include trees, woodlands, and natural vegetation. McMillan agreed. She questioned how it should be worded. Gaffron said this would be written prior to review by Council. 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#7 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) McMillan asked where the existing septic site is for the existing home. Gaffron said there are two proposed septic sites. Anderson clarified that the existing septic has to be removed as it is non-conforming. McMillan asked if any of the septic sites are more than 6% slope. Gaffron said all sites meet the 6% slope requirement. Additional testing for possible trench systems will be conducted this spring. Trench drainfields would require less land than the mound system sites that have been selected. Otto confirmed that there is more than adequate room for all septic sites. McMillan asked if Staff received comments from Hennepin County regarding Lots 6 and 7 being adjacent to the park. Gaffron said he had discussed the issue with Del Miller, who had no concerns. Brad Bressler reported having gone on the walking tour v.'ith the Park Commissioners. He said they determined that a 1 O' easement would not be sufficient with the grades found on the west side and would require retaining walls. There are also power poles close to the road that would have to be relocated. These reasons, along with the fact that an easement already exists on the east side, resulted in Park Commission's determination that the east side was the best location for a trail. Bressler identified the area determined to be the best location for the trail to cross over to the west. Bridget Hust, 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, noted that they hear cars driving down the road since their home is so close to the road. With the speeding cars, Hust felt an intersection would be required for crossover of the trail. She did not believe cars would be able to stop in the location noted by Bressler if people are crossing the road. Hust said they were not informed of the meeting when the Council decided the trail should be located on the east side. Another member of the audience indicated that it would be wise to resolve the trail location soon. This gentleman felt it would '>e difficult to cross the road at the location noted by Bressler as cars are traveling 40-50 mph. Francis Graham emphasized the need to protect the trees on the subject property noting the uniqueness of the woodlands. Dan Anderson said he was willing to work out a trail easement for the west side. He indicated that the 6% slope requirement for mound drainfields is not mandated by the State and felt there were alternatives available. Stoddard informed the public that the Commission will inform the police department of the speeding problem on Old Crystal Bay Road. He indicated that a decision will not be made at this time regarding the bike trail location. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17. 1998 (#7 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) McMillan noted that there are difficulties with the trail on both the east and west sides of the road from the Luce Line to Noerenberg Park. She indicated the details of the trail have not been planned out but consideration is being given for long range planning. Anderson reaffirmed that he would try to make it easy to provide an easement for a trail on the west side while being fair to septic site needs on Lot 2. Otto said the major concern is adherence to the 6% slope requirement. He is concerned with having an altemaie site for Lot 6. Anderson said another site would be about an 8% slope. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2341 with lot width variances for Lots 2 and 7, acceptance of access method as noted for Lot 7, all e.xisting accesses to the county road be eliminated, road radius of 125’, trail easement of 15’, stormwater ponding or letter from MCWD on acceptable ponding, no bluff impact variance allowed for Lots 5 and 6, tree, woodland, and natural vegetation preservation program, and adherence to normal development requirements, including perimeter drainage and utility easements, private road easements and covenants, developers agreement, and park dedication. Lindquist informed McMillan that he is requesting the applicant develop a plan for woodland preservation. Smith cited an example of criteria developed on the Spencer property that could be used as a guideline. Gafffon said it would be drafted for the Council to review. Smith said she would like to see the plan. It was determined that the applicant will work with Staff on developing the plan. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short break was taken.) NEW BUSINESS; PUBLIC HEARINGS (#8) #2338 GRANT WENKSTERN, OWNER OF LAKE VIEW GOLF COURSE, 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 9:34-9:42 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the request for conditional use permit is for land alteration in excess of 500 cubic yards for two separate areas of the golf course. One is the expansion of tees and creation of a pond for pole #18. The second is for expansion of tees and creation of a pond near the center of the course between the 4th and 5 th tees. A variance is required for grading within 26' of a pond near #18. < MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION ivicETiiNVjr nc,LU v-fiN rcon-u/vn. 1 i /, iwo (US - #2338 Grant Wenkstern - Continued) Gaffron showed the grading plan. He indicated that once the vegetation is reestablished, it shouid not change the stormwater patterns. Erosion coniroi is necessary during construction. Neither pond is in wetland areas. GafFron did not believe a conservation and tlowage easement was necessary at this time. He telt it such an easement was required, it should be done for all the ponds on the course. There will be no negative visual or environmental impacts from the excavation. Gaffron questioned whether the improvements could be done outside of the 26' wetland separation. Wenkstern said the purpose is to reinforce the dike. He noted the large pond flows to Forest Lake, while the other pond flows to North Arm. Gaffron said Staff recommends approval of the land alteration permit subject to the creation of a 10:1 bench at the wetland perimeters. Wenkstern said the bench would result in the creation of cat-tails, which is not acceptable on a golf course. He said the pond wouid not be created if the bench is required. Gaffron said the issue is one of saiety. Gaffron said the City Engineer did say he understood the issue a bench creates for a golf course and would not insist on its creation. Wenkstern noted that one of the ponds being worked on was originally a pond that had been drained. There were no public comments. McMillan moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2338 for a CUP for land alteration and variance for working within 26' of a wetland per conditions recommended by Staff with the exception of condition #1 where a 3:1 slope would be allowed in liei. of the bench. Conditions #2-5 still apply. Wenkstern indicated he would create a bench for the pond on the north side, if possible. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2317 KHASROW DAIVARI, 1082 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES - 9:42-9:55 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (U9 - #2317 Khasrow Daivari - Continued)% Bressler distributed pictures of the property. He reported that the application is for an after-the-fact variance for structural coverage and average lakeshore setback tor a screened porch over an existing deck. Bressler indicated the porch may impact the views for the property to the south as this property is significantly higher in elevation. The porch was constructed '.*'ithout a building permit. If approved, the building inspector said the porch would have to be retrofitted to meet code by improving the structural soundness, adding required frost footings, and include a solid enclosed roof Bressler noted the applicant takes exception to this requirement. Bressler said Staff recommends denial of the variances as the porch would encroach 6' ahead of the average lakeshore setback and increase structural coverage to 16.4% where 15% is allowed. Daivari said the home is a summer home only. He constructed the porch due to problems incurred with mosquitoes. He did not want to enclose the roof, except with screening, to allow the sky to be viewed. Daivari said the porch would be painted and the screen is removable. In response to Lindquist's comment that the porch does not meet building code, Daivari said he did not design the porch as a building. Bressler noted that the applicant woidd be allowed to put a tent up on the property. Berg informed Daivari that once framing is done, it becomes a structure. Smith noted that Daivari requested approval of the porch from’council last summer and was denied. She indicated denial would show consistency amongst the Counci', Planning Commission, and Staff. Bill Bockman, a neighbor of Daivari’s, supported the porch. Smith informed him of the purpose of the code regarding safety. McMillan added that if the property is sold, further problems could occur with additions to the porch. Daivari asked if he removed the porch and submitted an application, if a variance would be approved. Bressler indicated that it would require average lakeshore setback and structural coverage variances, which necessitate the need for showing hardship. He did not feel the situation was unique to this property. Lindquist informed Daivari that he did not believe the application would be approved. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to deny Application #2j 17. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0, Smith asked if there was room between the residence and average lakeshore setback for a porch. Bressler said there was about a 5-6' space to work within. Bockman questioned why other average lakeshore setback variances were approved in the neighborhood. Smith suggested he contact Staff to discuss the matter. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#10) #2334 LECY CONSTRUCTION FOR JEFF JACOBSEN, 127 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE - VARIANCE - 9:55-9:59 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and AflSdavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Bressler reported that the owner removed the existing house on a lot that does not meet zoning requirements. Construction of a new house requires lot area variance. All other setbacks will be met. The applicant said he was frustrated by the problem that arose. A permit had been issued for removal of the existing house. Smith was informed that the property is consistent in size to other lots in the area. There were no public comments. Gaflfron said the application would be heard at the February 23 Council meeting. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2334 for lot area variance. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2335 LAWRENCE MOLSATHER AND LINDA SALLEE, 3285 CARMEN ROAD - VARIANCES - 9:59-10:41 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The application is a request to rebuild and expand the existing deck on the lakeside of the residence requiring variances for structural coverage, 0-75' hardcover, lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback. The current deck is 2'5" wide and located underneath the existing 3.4' overhang. Bressler indicated the deck could be expanded to a 3.4’ width without increasing the structural coverage, hardcover, or encroachment on setbacks. Bressler noted that the hardcover calculations by surveyor did not include the overhang and calculations were adjusted by staff to reflect the overhang in structural coverage and hardcover amounts. Bressler said the proposed deck would be 6'7" beyond the roof line. The deck may impact the views for the neighboring property. Staff recommended the deck be scaled back to the width of the overhang. The deck as it exists is not functional. Bressler reviewed Staffs recommendation as outlined in the information packet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#11- #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee - Continued) Mr. Molsather said the recommendation is unreasonable. He noted the home to the east extends closer to the lake. His property is on a gradual point of land along the lakeshore and the average lakeshore setback is deceiving. He feels the main issues for the proposed deck are safety, practicality, and enjoyment. He noted the current difficulty in moving past an open window or doorway. In order to clean his gutters, it requires using the deck or climbing on the roof, which is no longer feasible for he and his wife. Molsather said due to trees on the wooded property, it necessitates cleaning the gutters every other week during the summer months. He feels having enough room to have chairs on the deck is a reasonable request. Molsather, who is an engineer and hydrologist, says the deck will hav«^ openings through which water would run. The drainage patterns would not change. He indicated rock over plastic is placed 7-8’ out from the house. Molsather said he and his neighbors currently maintain the nearby City cul-de-sac. He also changed a hard surface area used for parking into green space on his front yard. There is plastic underneath the rock on his property, and he would be willing to change it to sod. The amount of rock with plastic is about 382 s.f The deck would be 316 s.f Molsather said he would make changes to the flagstone walkway if necessary as well. Bressler indicated that Staff was not aware of the plastic under the rock, and the plastic was not included in the hardcover calculations. Lindquist said the plastic would have to be removed. Berg inquired about the average lakeshore setback, ^4olsather presented letters from his neighbors supporting his request. Lindquist noted that the current code would not allow this house to be built today. McMillan suggested reconfiguring the deck to allow the deck to extend further out in one area by eliminating a portion of its length elsewhere. Molsather questioned how he would then maintain cleaning of the gutters. Stoddard felt the request for variances was similar to other approvals made, and with the neighbors support of the proposal, Stoddard said he would support the applicant's request. He asked if there was other hardcover that could be removed besides the plastic. Sallee said she would be willing to remove the gravel over plastic under the deck. She was informed that it was a moot point as the gravel should not be there now. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#11- #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee - Continued) Lindquist informed the applicants that he did not believe additional hardcover in the 0-75' would be approved noting removal of plastic was not an option and would be required to be removed. He said from comments made, the Commission was willing to trade a portion of the deck in one area for extension in another without adding to the structural coverage. Bressler noted that any trade would add to hardcover because the deck would extend beyond the overhang. McMillan said the attempt was to gain a functional deck. Lindquist said he could not support a request for additional hardcover in the 0-75' setback Stoddard said he would approve the application as submitted. Molsather questioned whether exceptions can be made as that is the purpose of variances. McMillan informed him that since a deck existed, he would be allowed to reconstruct the deck using the existing amount of decking. Stoddard noted that the code requirements not allowing structure in the 0-75' setback did not exist at the time the house was constructed. He felt the deck is very narrow and not functional as it exists. He felt the applicant had the right to replace the deck and reconfigure it. Stoddard moved to approve Application #2335 to add a deck subject to variances including average lakeshore setback, 0-75' hardcover, structural coverage, and lakeshore setback, with limiting the additional deck to 221 s.f The applicant would be required to remove all plastic under rock in the two areas under the house and by the lakeshore. This motion would allow a deck 8' wide along the length of the house. The motion failed for lack of a second. Molsather said he would have agreed to Stoddard's motion. Sallee said the proposed deck would not change the look of the house but only add to its usefulness. McMillan informed them that she did not second the motion as she would have needed to see the deck design. Lindquist said the applicant may be able to take the same amount of deck as exists and reconfigure it. He felt no additional amount of deck would be approved. He asked if the applicant would like to table the application for further review or move the application forward to Council. McMillan said she would agree to allowing some additional square footage to gain a functional deck for the applicants. Smith questioned how much of an increase would be supported. The proposal is for 3% increase. Lindquist said he would not favor that increase. Berg was informed that the purpose of the deck is to enjoy the lake and enable the applicants to clean the gutters. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#11- #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee - Continued) Stoddard noted that his motion decreased the percentage of structural coverage increase by one-half. Lindquist said he would like to see another drawing. He said the Commissioners felt a 1 or 2% increai c in hardcover would be approved with removal ot plastic under rock and decreasing the length of the deck. Lindquist noted he was in the minority, not supportive of any additional hardcover. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2335 to allow the applicants to redraw the deck design reducing the amount of additional hardcover to under 3% to gain a more functional deck. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #2336 BRUCE NEWTON, 3580 FREDERICK STREET - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCE - 10:41-10:46 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. 1 he application is a request for after-the-fact rear setback variance to replace a deck. The residence faces the side street. The deck would not adversely affect hardcover amounts and would not encroach the rear yard beyond what is existing. Bressler indicated that the City only has a prescriptive easement over the southwest comer of the lot. The City would like to have a permanent easement for the paved area and 5' from the curb. Staff recommend i approval of the variance subject to this condition. Mr. Newton said the deck existed for 23 years. He replaced the deck as it stood as it had become rotten. There were no public comments. McMillan moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2336 for rear setback variance with the condition that a permanent easement be obtained as noted in the Staff recommendation. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The application will be heard at the March 9 Council meeting. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY i7, 1998 (#13) #2337 SCOTT YOUNG, 3359 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES • 10:47- 10:51 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is a request for a second story addition over a portion of the residence, which encroaches on the side and lakeshore setbacks. 1 he addition will meet the height requirement. The elevation drawings were shown. The improvements would not further any encroachment. Staff recommended approval of the application. The applicant had no additional comments There were no public comments. Smith noted that the homes on the street were approaching a massiveness beyond what is satisfactory. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2337 per Staff recommendation. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The application will be heard at the February 23 Council meeting. (#14) #2342 MARK CASEY, 255 LANDMARK DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -10:51-10:54 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present Gaffron reported that the application is a request for land alteration requiring a conditional use permit and variance for excavating 2.2 cubic yards at the shoreline to create a beach area. The location of the beach was shown. The applicant is also riprapping other areas along the beach. The beach would be 24' wide and extend 7.5' shoreward of the 929.4 contour. There were no issues involved or impact on engineering or views. Gatfron noted that the Council has suggested the code be amended to allow such proposals to be considered at the Staff level. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2342. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#14 - #2342 Mark Casey - Continued) Stoddard noted that the MCWD does not permit sand laid from the water line forward GaftVon noted that the applicant has the necessary permits tor the riprapping and sand blanket. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The application will be heard at the February 23 Council meeting Gaffron said he felt with strict guidelines. Staff would be supportive of having authority to approve excavation up to 10 cubic yards, which is one truck load. (#3) #2325 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CINDY OLSON, 950 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES The Applicants requested the application be tabled to the March meeting. Berg moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2325 fo» review at the March meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JANUARY 26,1998 AND FEBRUARY 9,1998 No additional comments were given. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith was congratulated on her appointment as C lair of the Planning Commission. Hawn will be Vice Chair. Smith extended accolades to Lindquist on his performance as Chair of the Planning Commission this past year. Commissioners extended appreciation to Lindquist. McMillan suggested the City provide magnetic signs for Planning Commissioners to place on their vehicles during property review to identify their presence. Lindquist felt a picture identification would be a good idea as well. Gaffron will explore the possibility of providing identification. Smith was informed that the Home Occupation report will be given to Council for further direction. No further work has been done on the Tree Preservation Ordinance. 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 20,1998 On page 39, under agenda item #20, 2nd par^igraph, 2nd sentence was changed to read, "All existing buildings will be removed." Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the January' 20, 1998 Meeting as amended. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 23 AND MARCH 9,1998 February 23 - McMillan March 9 - Smith ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator March 12, 1998 jlc SUBJECT: Aquascaping Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant, found this article on lakeshore design. You will find it interesting! \ Wm^mm g^'i''' Nii JnfLA<J' sENsrnvC rcHH. ano scoot V ^ •W S'- ^•4 m rl?^ i j^^pesota lakeside ^^tomeowners are learning to see the beauty of landscaping for a natural shoreline. »■•;(. jii.? m IV.jr \ ' >.im rw m H* wmm JOHN GREGOR.COLOSNAP PHOTOGRAPHY The Latest Wave in Lakeshore Design FLUTELIKE NOTES OF A RED-WINGED I blackbird float on the soft summer I air. A breeze ruffles the lake's sur- t'l face as a mallard hen leads a train of downy ducklings through the wild rice. Eileen Keen lounges on her front lawn. By MARGARET A. HAAPOJA 4iX .#.V v|vVV > A . ‘ •. :".|- 'r r-^ f '^.•- r.i Disturbed Shoreline Waferquickly runs off a shoreline cleared of natural vegetation, washing nutrients and pestiddes into the v^ler. A natural shoreline holds rainfall, which soaks into the soil; less water, soil Md chemicals run into the lake or river. Shoreline and aquatic plants anchor shoreline areas, helping to protect them from erosion due to runoff and waves. Natural Shoreline ►motoorapmy -i l*N.. h' iT-J* ■ V— fr '• ■- :Vi^. ' Av;-c ■‘■''^ '-;iv vv,"S- • ' i, -, • - :n;: . :i ' ' ' *‘ i -!>■ I MAMOtMtURQ. IMOCN riCniAES ftW ^'•5^rTWj f. ti B •? . MtST*'-,-*. ':-si:IIHClUflO MAUO IMON wmcM AQUATIC PLANTS, •, Plant fin less than 7 feet of water tii full stw. Plant beds pi ovide habitat for waterfowl, lurbearers, fish, frogs, turtles,: nd aquatic im ertebrates; Some species, 'such as bulrushes, act as filters to dean th > lake. tCHANO N. tMITH COLOSNAf*^qwtoon.V*:* JONNOMCOOfl. MAP PMOTOOIU^V IIN10UB BIIAUO Lake sedge ■m- BOTANICAL NAME Scirpus validus Scirpus acutus Sagittaria btifolia Arrowhead Brasenia schreberi — Water*shie(cl COMMON NAME PLANT CHAR/ CTERISTICS Soft-stem bulrush 4-6 teet tall, light-green creel stems, yellow-brow n scale flo%vers in spring. Hard-stem bulrush Same as soft stem except dark-green' stems. Arrowhead 2-3 feet tall, arro%vhead-shaped leaves, showy white ftowers. Typha latifdlia Cattail Pontederia cordata Pickereliveed Floating ova leaves, rose-purple flo%yers. Desirable sp Kries because it doem't v spr^ as mi ch as other cattails/*^ ^ 2-^ feet tali, purple flowers |une- August Thri^ res in mucky bottom. c\^‘ ‘Asdepias incamata Swamp-milkw Impadens capensh (—Spotted t ;^j^l^£upatonum maculatum Joe-pye weed mCNAAO HAUO sm ®uex iacustrk Lake sedge 1-$Veet tall; coarse, long, wide ' bluish-grei n leaves with open reddish featherlike fibers at the ends. 'Asdepias incamata Swamp-milkwee J 3^ feet ta I, tapering leaves, clusters of pink to ose-purple flowers June-Augist. ' Impadens capensis ' I—Spotted touch-menot12-18 incf les tall, succulent stems, , orange flo\ ^rs |unc-September, ^ ^ reseeds its Hf annually. ;£u^loriiirn maculatum Joe-pye weed — 2-4 feet ta II, whorl of toothed leaves, r> purplish pi ikplumes, july-September. Budbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan —1^3-feet ta I, large single Now flowers with brown center, blooms in summer. Comus stolonifera Red osier dogwood 8 feet tall, bright maroon leaves in fall and red stems that provide winter color. Rudbedda hirta WET MEADOW PLANTS These plants at the water's edge trap sediments and assh lilate nutrients running off the land. Many wildlife species, indikRng butterflies ; ind dragonflies, reside here. '! ^' Onodea sensibilh Sensitive fern 1 -3 feet tali, opposite pairs of light- grew leaflet I with wavy edges. Caltha palustris Marsh-marigold-----feet tall,glossy, round leaved tfi^, hollow steins; ^isylike yellow flowers blobm'M early spring. Iris versicolor Blue flag (wild iris) 2^ feet tall, swwdiace leaves, blue ------ flowers Uoom In late spring. ^rpScyperinus Woolgrass 5:^ feel tall, slender leaves and stems, flower looks like tufts of wool—*/.' ^ clustmofbrownspikeletsalendsof i drooping stems. % W,' Caltha palustris Iris versicolor 4 N, .UPLAND FOREST PLANTS ' Upland forest zone begins above the wet meadow and provides habitat for many 'wildlife speciq^ esp^ially;if you leave any snags of dead standing trees. Aquilegia canadensis Columbine 1-3 feet tall, long-spurred red and — yellow (lowers, blooms May-|une. Aronia melanocarpa Black dioketerry 5-B feet tall, oval lace-edg^ leaves, black or deep purple fruit. Comus altemifolia Pagoda-dogwood 15-30 feel tall with horizontal, platformlike stories or branches; oval, shiny, dark green leaves turn maroon in fall; white flowers with blue-black fruit. NATIVE SPECIES fC>B[ A - ■ • T... ♦ . . • ■. H:. P'r Vi mm & t ■ AquascapingpurcIiasL’d from luirserios or grown at the University of Minnesota from seed collected from the Hig Sandy area, we'e transplanted onto the four demonstration properties. According to Carrol Henderson, DNR Nongame Wildlife Program supervisor, a multitude of benefits accrue from lakeshore planting. "The concept of putting in a buffer zone and re-establishing native plants both on shore and in the water is kind of a package di*al," he says. "All of a sudden a whole bunch of headaches go away at the same time. You're spending less time mowing and less money on chemicals and fertilizer, and you've got more time to go fishing or canoeing on the lake. I he ultimate goal is to get the vegetation back where it used to be so that the vege­ tation does the work lor you: puri­ fies the water, provides fish habitat, and breaks up the wave action." The Big Sandy project aims to demonstrate that a naturalized shoreline minimizes erosion, pro­ tects water quality, enh.iiKvs wild­ life habitat, improves aesthetics, and reduces maintenance. Although plantings will require years to mature and spread, participants have already learned a great deal about shoreline revegetalion. Mean­ while, lake associations across the state are fielding questions from lakeshore owners interested in natu ­ ralizing their properties. "If you're interested in doing this 34 kind of work, we're interested in coming up with ways to support you," savs Pitt, "but you're prob­ ably still going to be a pioneer because there's a lot we don't know. You have to consider it an adven­ ture in gardening." Here's a look at the most fre­ quently asked questions and the resptmses of various experts. • How do I plan a naturalized landscape? Ferry Ebinger, DNR aquatic plant management specialist, encourages lakeshore owners to con- ttict their local DNR office, especially when they want to replace plants in the water. "We'll help them locale Aquascaping Do's • Maintain a natural shoreline or restore an altered one. • Include a three-story, native plant buffer /one at least 15 to 25 feet wide. • Add native trees to help stem runoff, reduce erosion, frame or edit views, and provide habitat for wildlife.------------------ • Plant native grasses and wildflowers instead of high- maintcnanco lawns ______________ • Cultivate aquatic plants to stabilize shoreline and make a home for more aquatic wildlife___ • Clear no more than 25 percent of shoreline for boat dod^ or beaches.^^—_______' Ifff MlWf SOTA ViUUVrUK transplants. We'll help them locate Sites for re-establisl'iment/' he says. "In tact, sometimes w e* 11 even assist them in piittinj; the plants in. We make it as easy on people as we pos­ sibly can." Seek out other landowners who ave restored shoreline on vour lake. ¥ Also look for people who have not disturbed the natural stale of their lake lot. Attend a lake association meeting or contact the IJN’K for a list of people who have naturalized their sliorelines. Visit Big Sandy near McGregor to see native plantings. (Call the Aitkin County extension office for directions.) frontage try naturalizing 75 feet of shore and using the remaining 25 feel tor lake access, such as a boat dock or swimming area. When you remove vegetation trom the water to make way for recreation, landscape designer Kathryn McFadden recommends clearing a path through aquatic plants at an angle so that plants remaining will help break the waves coming into the shoreline. To reduce erosion, she avoids designing trails to run straight downhill to the shore. Instead, she runs trails so they angle across the slope to the shoreline. That might f i-- u ^___ «I. t I i rt IT lU.t ;■ . r •' ■ ‘I ' i; 5*: ilii ^ ^M ^ Y . M ^ ■ * Aquascaping With tile proper landscaping, you can plant trees and slirulis ivitiunit sporting your view of tlie lake, says Susan Galatowitsch, assistant pro­ fessor of horticultun- at the Uni­ versity of Minnesota. She calls the process a matter of "editing" your shoreline by removing as little vege­ tation as you can. By planting or leaving in place particular plant material, you can often screen unde­ sirable views and frame attractive ones. According to McFadden, shrubs or trees on a 7 percent slope, for e.xample, can grow as high as 8 to 10 feet without blocking a view of the lake from a deck. How do I decide which plants are best suited to my site? "Find places on your lake or neighboring lakes where the shoreline hasn ’t been developed and see what grows tlii'ri' ______j .1 T Once you have decided <.>n the exact site you wish to plant, vou luvd to determine the average water level. (Call the D.\'K or conserx ation district to find out.) Some plants tol ­ erate dry and wet seasons, but manv will die if they are too wet or ttx» dr)'. Next, identify the shoreline /ones —aquatic, wet meadow, and upland forest. Aquatic plants generallv grow in less than 7 feet of water. The wet meadow fringe runs along the water's edge and forms a fiansi- fion between aquatic vegetation and the upland forest. Tr)' to select natives that grow in \our immediate area. "A person's first priority should be to fry to get Minnesota plants," says I lenderson. "The closer you can get—let's say 50 to 75 miles from where you are _ that's even better." \ou Ccin have flowers blooming from spring through fall. Before selecting plants, answer the following questions, because all these factors affect how well a plant will do on cl particular site: 1. What is my property's soil type? \ M>il-testing kit from your county » \lension office will help you deter­ mine texture, pH, percent of organic matter, and moisture content. Each plant has specific requiremenLs. 2. What direction does my property face? Some plants thrive in the sun on a south-facing shore while others pre­ fer a shad)' northern exposure. 3. From which direction are the prevailing winds? Plant or preserve aquatic vegetation at the proper angle io shield the shore from these winds. What's Wrong With This Picture? Barren, emerald green expanse B^HKf lawn sets off a chain of lake and ^B^horeline disturbances, including damage to the property's most important asset, lake wafer quali ­ ty, fueling oxygen-depleting algae ____blooms. # • Narrow shoreline buffer /one fails to filter runoff, anchor soil, or pro- vide adequate habitat for fish and iMHVvildlire. Eradication of aquatic vegetation exposes shorcland to water erosion -------^— nnd reduces fish habitat. M M'xH-ArKii. 199S 4. How big arc the waves that break on my shore? Aquatic vegeta­ tion might not thrive on the wind­ swept shore of a large lake. But on a relatively calm site with waves no higher than 2 feet, aquatic plants can help stabilize the shore. Bulrush, a perennial with vigorous rhizomes that grovv bigger each year, with­ stands winds better than wild rice, an annual with a small root system. 5. How steep is the slope of my yard? It is especially important to choose vegetation with roots that bind the soil and stabilize steep banks. Big Sandy project participants selected non-aggressive perennial plants, which are not likely to spread too far or too fast, from regional flora. (Research found 507 species in the area.) They chose greenhouse-propagated specimens rather than those collected in the wild, and they made sure all plants were hardy and appropriate to the site conditions. • Which plant species will attract wildlife, and which will deter nuisance animals? Riparian zones —areas of vegetation adjacent to rivers or other waters —are among the most prolific wildlife habitats. Plants here provide food and on er for animals of all kinds. Books such as Henderson's Ijvtd- scaping for Wildlife can help you find plants preferred by wildlife. For example, Henderson says, 66 species of wildlife use smartweed, 40 species I I Aquascapinguse pondweed, 23 go for wild rice, and 17 for cattails. Henderson refers to elderberr)' as a summer fruit, or an "ice cream plant," because birds cat the berries as soon as they're ripe. On the other hand, American high-bush cranberry is an e.vcellent example of a winter fruit, or "spinach plant," because its fruit is bitter when it first appears but hangs on throughout the winter months, becoming sweeter after a couple of hard frosts. (See sidebar on page 32-33 for more plants to attract wildlife.) Bob Greifzu cites one of tlie biggest benefits of planting a buffer zone between his lawn and the lake, no more geese on the mo( .-cd grass. Because the geese suspect predators are hiding in the tall grass along shore, they avoid the Greifzus' yard. • How can I establish aquatic plants? Here are some special con­ siderations for planting in the water: 1. Before planting, wash the roots of aquatic plants with a garden hose to remove all soil and seeds of exotic- plants such as purple loosestrife. Keep the roots in water until you are ready to plant.2. Leave the tops on aquatic- plants. "These aquatic plants arc- sort of like snorkelers," says Galato- witsch. "They need to take air in through their stalks, and the air goes down through chambers and aerates the root zone. If you cut off the stalks when you transplant them, water will go down through those channels and suffocate the plants." 3. Anchor or stake each plant to secure it ti> the lake bottom. Carolyn Dindorf, limnologist with Hennepin County, has experimented with coconut fiber mats when she plants aquatic species. "VVe cut slits in the coconut fiber, iivsert the plants, and anchor the fiber to the lake bottom with cither rocks or wood stakes," she says. "The fiber mats last a couple years before they decompose, and M- by then the plants should be well- established. We've also used metal staples on upland sites, and we've experimented with coconut fiber logs as wave breaks."4. Install a structure to break waves. Such structures are critical . hen establishing aquatic vegeta­ tion, ifccording to Dawn Magnusen, community program assistant with Aitkin County extension serx ice. Big Sandy project participants use sim­ ple PVC frames glued around 2-by- 8-foot panels of marine plywood. They install them in 18 inches of lake bottom as soon as the ice goes »»ut, and remove them right before ireeze up. Magnusen expects they'll need to use the structures for three or four years until tlie plants are well-established. You can pick up a fact sheet on how to build a wave- break structure from your county extension office. • Where can I obtain these native plants? Nurseries specializ- Wave Breaks Wave-break structures on Big Sandy Lake firevenl boat wakes and lake waves from uprooting newly planted aquatic vegetation before it gains a secure foothold. harder to find. Because you might need to order by mail, allow plenty of lead time. For a list of native plant sources, consult your county extension office.Locating plant sources some ­ times takes extra energy and creativity. For example, individuals may harvest some submergent plants from local wetlands and lakes with permission from the property owner. Check with the DNR for permits required for dig­ ging wild vegetation in Minnesota. The permits require that you guar ­ antee such plants are weed-free to ensure you're not transporting exotic species such as purple loosestrife or Eurasian watermilfoil from one lake to another. Aquascaping is not a panacea for the problems of every lakeshore landscape, warns Galatowitsch, and patience is essential during the awkward, messy stage while the plants arc getting established. "It's a fair amount of work, and it may draw some odd looks from your neighbors," Galatowitsch says. "But don't give up. It's w'ell worth the wait. People who do decide to naturalize are people who love their lake as much as they love their own properly." □ for more information about aqua- scaping, including fact sheets, titles of publications and videos, and sources of seed and plants, call your county extension office. The MiwfsoTA Voiuxhlk Mmn-APRiL 1993 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator - DATE:March 12, 1998 SUBJECT: Council Work Session On March 9,1998, the City Council adopted a moratorium on uses in the industrial district. A Copy of the moratorium is attached. The City Council also held a work session on March 12th to discuss the industrial district. The City Administrator's handout to the City Council is also attached. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 6, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Interim Ordinance Enacting a Moratorium Suspending Certain Uses as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the City's Industrial Zone The City Council recently adopted a resolution setting out a general concept plan for land use along Highway 12. The focus of the land use concept plan is to preserve the City’s natural rural character, particularly in areas currently serving as gateway points to the City's rural residential areas, and to facilitate high quality development and employment opportunities. The concept plan indicates the types of uses envisioned for the City's industrial zoned area are high tech manufacruring, medical, office/serv’ice, and similar uses. The City’s Zoning Code currently allows uses in the industrial zone that are substantially contrary to the general concept plan and the Council's vision reflected in the concept plan. Therefore, it is recommended that the City conduct a study to determine the ty’pes of uses that are compatible with the general concept plan for land use along Highway 12, and the conditions under which these uses would be compatible with the general concept plan. To prevent incompatible uses from being introduced into the industrial zone during the period of the study, it is recommended that a moratorium be enacted which suspends certain uses as permitted or conditional uses in the City’s industrial zone. These uses are as follows: 1.Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping, sales and storage. 2. Storage repair and wholesaling of boats and marine products. 3. Bus, truck and contractors terminals and maintenance yards. 4. 5. 6. 7. Lumber yards and millworks. Warehousing. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage. Motor fuel stations. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 March 6,1998 Ordmance Adopting a Moratorium Suspending Certain Uses as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the _____City's Industrial Zone __________________________________________________ 8. Open sales lots. 9. Outside storage. 10. Railroad switch yards. Staff believes the study can be completed, and the ordinance amended to reflect the results of the study within a period of six mcnths. Therefore, staff recommends the moratorium be enacted, effective March 9,1998 and terminated on September 15, 1998. A moratorium ordinance will be provided for Council approval at the March 9 meeting. COUNaL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve an interim ordinance enacting a moratorium suspending certain uses as permitted or conditional uses in the City's industrial zone, effective March 9, 1998 and terminating September 15, 1998. HORATOM.XHD ORDINANCE NO. 169 SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ENACTING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM REGARDING CERTAIN USES AS PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USES IN THE CITY'S INDUSTRIAL ZONE, AND ON THE GRANTING OF BUILDING PERMITS, LAND SUBDIVISIONS, REZONING APPLICATIONS, CONDITIONAL OR SPECIAL USE PERiVUTS, VARIANCES OR OTHER AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY IN THE CITY The City Council of Orono does ordain: SECTION 1. Statement of Policy. The purpose of Orono Municipal Code Chapter 10, Land Use Regulations, is to provide for the orderly development of commercial and industrial properties in accordance with the long term lauid use plan for the City as set out in the City's Comprehensive Plan. As part of the City's current Comprehensive Plan update process, the City Council has adopted a resolution setting out a general concept plan for land use along Highway 12. A number of types of land uses currently listed as permitted or conditional uses in the City's industrial zone may be incompatible with this concept plan. Therefore the City will conduct a study to determine the types of industrial uses compatible with the City's long term land use plan, both in terms of the character of Highway 12 and in terms of the rural residential character of t’ne City. To ensure that, during the study period, uses that may be incompatible with the City s Highway 12 land use concept plan are not added or expanded; the City is hereby imposing a moratorium pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 462.355, Subdivision 4, on adding or expanding certain permitted ^d conditional uses in the City's industrial zone as listed below, and on the granting of building permits, land subdivisions, rezoning applications, conditional or special use permits, variances or other authority related to development in the City's industrial zone: 1. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping, sales and storage. 2. Storage, repair, and wholesaling of boats and marine products. 3. Bus, truck, and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards. 4. Lumber yards and mill works. 5. Warehousing. 6. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage. 7. Motor fuel stations. 8. Open sales lot. 9. Outside storage. 10. Railroad switch yards. It is estimated that the study, and any zoning amendments deemed necessary by the study, can be completed in a period of six months. The moratorium is to be effective March 9,1998 and is to expire on September 15,1998. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon the date of approval. TO:Mayor Jabbour and Orono City Council Members FROM:Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE:March 11,1998 SUBJECT: Study of Light Industrial/Office Park Uses The City Council, at its February 12 work session, indicated that the types of uses preferred in the City's industrially zoned property along the south side of Highway 12 are high tech manufacturing, medical, office/service, and similar uses. Staff is now beginning the process of determining how best to amend the City's zoning code to reflect the Council's concept plan for the City's industrial area. Staffs work plan involves touring the industrial/office parks of other cities and obtaining zoning regulations related to light industrial/office park zoning districts in other cities. It would be helpful to staff to obtain additional feedback from the Council regarding the types and character of uses envisioned for the City's industrial zone. The characteristics of the types of uses envisioned by the Council are as follows: 1. The uses are clean, in that they do not have negative visual, noise or odor impacts. 2. The uses are attractive, in that the buildings housing the uses are attractive and outside storage is minimized and controlled. 3. Quality employment opportunities are provided. TO:Mayor Jabbour and Orono City Council Members FROM;Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE;March 11,1998 SUBJECT: Clarification of Citv Land Use Goals At the January 22,1998 Council work session, the City Council discussed the City's general land use philosophy goals and visions. The Council indicated that the basic philosophy and goals should not change. The key goal is to limit density to protect Lake Minnetonka. What began as a way to protect Lake Minnetonka has become a way of life and a community character. Rural density has become somewhat synonymous with rural character. Although the two are related, they are not synonymous. It is possible to have either one without the other. If the City's land use philosophy and vision is to include rural character as well as rural density, it may have an impact on the w'ay the City accomplishes its rural density. It also means that the City needs to clearly define what is meant by rural character. Also, at the January 22 work session, the Council agreed that redevelopment on the lake shore should not be allowed to occur at the e.\pense of the City's hardcover regulations. Redevelopment on the lake shore should not result in an increase in massing on the lake. The City currently has a broad range of lot and house sizes on the lake. As redevelopment of the lake shore properties continues, it is important that the Council has a vision for the lake snore to guide the Council's decision making regarding development proposals on the lake. Because the City's land use philosophy and goals are related to all of the other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, an important first step in the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan is to clarify key issues and policies related to land use. bs. I CITY OF ORONO COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN part 11 CHAPTER 1 I I 1 a 9 1 a 1 j % a p&Qir COMMUNITY PHILOSOPHY Each community has a °^^^*°^®Orono^is^no^exception to this rule, resources, ^^^^^^^For^'the^future may be exceptional because its basic p“Ll«"°is%Se main«r.n=e and furtherance of our very own unrque features. ORONO'S CORPORATE HISTORY dates "ivJderintrtowLhlps and western Hennepin County was surw y j i„ the Excelsior Township Ml of orono south of Watertown in HedLa Township.strt‘hroin:enr:roLrorirw-s-th^y;:tfe.= - E«Mlio^"'lo!"tn\86l/t!!: ^W^shtps were realigned with everything north of the Narrows becoming part of Medina. The separate Township of Orono was created out by Tedina^n April 9, 1889. The nane Orono « ‘h= Major George Brackett, a native of Orono, Maine, who designate the area now known as Bracketts Point. orono Township once included areas "j^2nship"in 1884. Long Lake was incorporated out itrincorpLaJel in^952. Wayzata grew westward and then Spring Par Finally, effective January 1, 1955, encompassing all the remaining parts ° orono anc. Bederwood separate settlements of Navarre, Crystal ay, nee then has been (Stubbs Bay). The only major change in boun ary Mound in 1963. the annexation of the tip of Three Points Peninsula to Mound in PHILOSOPHY JUNE, 1980 ORONO’S COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN IS A STATEMENT BY THE CITIZENS AS TO WHAT WE ARE, WHERE WE HAVE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE GOING. Future development and growth will occur in Orono as in most other municipalities in the metropolitan area, but the growth rate is expected to be slow as indicated in the following table of population projections. In addition Orono retain its own special identity through careful growth management in the best interest of the environment, the natural resources and the community of citizens, both present and future. CITY or ORONO - POPULATION PROJECTIONS POPULATION FORECASTS HOUSEHOLD rORLCASTS YEAR 1970 1900*1990 2000 SATURATION 1970 1980*1990 2000 SATURATION Urban Area <il60 4250 5120 5900 7200 1400 1450 1740 2000 2400 Rural Area 2627 3040 3220 3640 3800 746 980 1040 1180 1267 TOTAL CITY 6787 7290 8340 9540 11000 2146 2<io 2780 3180 3667 *1980 EttimAte, to be verified by census in progress Source: 1970 Census; 1980 City Hecords; 1990-Saturation, City and Metropolitan Council Projections 3-31-78 THE BASIC GOAL OF THIS PLAN IS PRESERVATION: Preservation of our resources; preservation of our distinct urban and rural lifestyles; preservation of individual initiative and responsibility. ORONO'5 PAST GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS HAVE BEEN GREATLY INFLUENCED BY THE EXTENSIVE AND VARIED NATURAL FEATURES FOUND WITHIN OUR BORDERS, tlap No. 2 indicates the pattern of land use as it exists today. It is apparent that development has been drawn by the lakes and clustered by the many bays and marshes. Of the City's 24.5 square miles of area, 50% is open water or marshland and another 4% is recreation-open space. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE, of course, is Lake Minnetonka with over 33% of its area and 40% of its shoreline in Orono. The largest lake in the metropolitan Twin Cities area, Minnetonka has twenty one and one-half square miles of surface area and over 100 miles of shoreline running along numerous bays, channels and inlets. Lake Minnetonka's charms drew early crowds of visitors and summer residents whose settlements and lifestyles have left a lasting effect on present- ay Orono. The lake first attracted scattered settlers and farmers who bene x e from a rural lifestyle within a day's journey of the City markets. Later, rail lines promoted resort hotels and recreational uses of the cool water. Summer cottages were built and crossroads towns developed. These cottages were converted to year round homes in the 1940’s and 1950's, becoming the core of Orono's existing urban neighborhood. I I I t { \ I I I I I CMP 1-2 1 I PHILOSOPHY JUNE, 1980 I 3 1 I I 1 J 1 Away from Lake Minnetonka, the rolling countryside is dotted with other lakes and marshlands, creeks, woods and steep slopes. This is the coun ry that fostered dairy and truck farms, orchards, and woodlots without the lakeshore amenities, these areas of Orono have remained very rural in character with low density residential and quasi-agricultural land uses, public services and facilities are limited, and the residents intended to keep them that way. Here, there is opportunity to run a horse or watch for deer and waterfowl in their natural habitat, to have a secluded homestead; these amenities attract a type of resident whose desires are far different than those attracted to the more crowded lakeshore. THUS, WE SEE THAT ORONO HAS TWO DISTINCT PERSONALITIES: THE URBANIZED LAKESHORE AND THE RURAL WOODS AND FIELDS. Both areas are primarily residential in nature relying upon the existing town centers of Navarre^ and other nearby cities for shopping, commercial and industrial activities. THE CONCERN OF THE RESIDENTS IS TO PROVIDE FOR CONTINUING MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION OF THOSE NATURAL RESOURCES AND SOCIAL AMENITIES WHICH ATTRACTED PEOPLE TO ORONO IN THE FIRST PLACE. Near the lake, density of development has to be regulated in order to minimize the resultant storm water runoff pollution which, if unrestricted, could permanently alter and destroy the ecology of this unique resource. Away from the lake, the natural marshlands are to be protected as the only ^ practical method of storm water filtration from over 1/3 of Lake Minnetonka s watershed. Steep slopes will be protected from over-development and erosion. Woodlands are to be preserved as wildlife habitat, erosion protection, noise barriers and places for personal solitude and contentment. OPEN SPACE IS TO BE CHERISHED AND PROTECTED. In urbanized areas, recreational .needs go hand-in-hand with the necessities of light, air and solar access. Views of the lakeshore are invaluable property rights and personal experiences. In rural areas, the long vistas and open fields are restful sights; reminders of slower-paced years gone by. The open fields and pastures are witness to the rural lifestyles active in Orono and each property owner has the ability to provide for his own varied recreational needs. INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS HAVE BEEN MET BY THE EXISTING CENTERS WITH NO NEED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION. Map No. 3 indicates the interreliance of the many lake area communities and the many industrial, retail-commercial and health care facilities accessible to Orono residents. School populations are declining allowing for better use of existing facilities. Orono's population growth has been historically slow, allow'ing for gradual service increases and fiscal security. Public facilities will be provided and improved at a level sufficient for protection of health and safety but unobtrusively enough to allow continued self—independence and maintenance or rural lifestyles. CMP 1-3 i PHILOSOPHY JUNE, 1980 THE BASIC PHILOSOPHIES OF THE CMP ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES CONTAINED IN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S "DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK GUIDE". Future urban density in the urban area along the Lake is to be in-fill development where existing urban services are available.^ Rural land use in the area away from the Lake, is to be free from requiring expanded urban services. In all neighborhoods, provisions are made for protection of environmental assets and for provision of open space and recreational facilities. Housing opportunities are available in a wide range of alternatives consistent with the availability of public services, sewer and transportation facilities are capable of servicing the planned density of development and land use patterns are consistent with those of neighboring cities. ORONO'S MANAGED GROWTH POLICY means that the need to use and enjoy Lake Minnetonka will be balanced with protection of its water quality an accessibility for future generations. This policy meanj that the acceptance of growth and development changes will be balanced wit conservation of our resources and natural amenities, and maintenance o our small town social character. ORONO INTENDS TO REMAIN TWO COMMUNITIES IN ONE. The area around and near the Lake Minnetonka shoreline has been called "URBAN" because of historic developed density and the availability of urban services. The area away from the Lake has been called "RURAL" because of the lack of density, the abundance of open space and the citizen's commitment to maintain this type of development. The dividing line is called the Metropolitan Urban Service Line, or MUSA Line, which is established by the Metropolitan Council as the extent to which metropolitan urban services will be provided. Orono has located this MUSA line within our City as shown on Map No. 6 to be consistent with the Metropolitan Council's broad-brush location of the line and to be consistent with the development plans of our neighboring municipalities. But most of all, Orono citizens have located the MUSA line and have defined the urban and rural service areas to be consistent with their plans for permanent use and development of the City, that is what this Plan is all about. ■ i i I I«»• I I I I • • 9 CMP 1-4 I I \ I I C II I i J 1 1 ! I 1 1 I 1 1 CITY OF ORONO COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PART II CHAPTER 2 r,nAI S AND POLICIES Any plan is necessarily a compromise of ideals and reality. What Orono is today has been shaped by its location, history, geology and past population. What Orono becomes tomorrow is dependent upon how Orono's citizens manage their social and economic decisions in the years ahead. THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THIS PLAN HAVE MET THE TEST OF TIME IN ORONO. The basic premise of maintaining distinct urban and rural neighborhoods continues a hundred-year tradition. The commitment to environmental preservation was early, has been supported by Regional, State and Federal policies, and remains uppermost in the list of priorities of Orono s residents. The interreliance of lake-area communities for shopping and commercial needs, for housing variety and for provision of basic public services is both historic and economically practical. THE FOLLOWING GOALS AND POLICIES, BOTH IN CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION REFLECT THE BASIC PHILOSOPHIES OF ORONO. Goals and policies affecting the entire city are grouped in an "overall" category. In addition, more detailed goals and policies are separated under their appropriate "urban" or "rural" classification. Finally, each separate CMP chapter has detailed goals and policies relating to that particular subject. nVFRALL GOALS AND POLICIES ORONO’S PLANNING GOALS 1. THE FOREMOST GUIDING PRINCIPLE AND GOAL OF ORONO'S IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE LAKE MINNETONKA, ITS WATER QUALITY AND IT RECREATIONAL ASSETS. This goal continues a commitment established at least twenty five years ago. It includes preservation of the associated marshlandi wetlands an natural drainageways as the only practical, co.st effective way of preventing flooding and of filtering out the nutrient pollution from storm water runoff. i I CMP 2-1 1 1 f^nAI S AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 1 a M 1 J 1 i• • 1 J \ 5. ADDITIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR IN THE DESIGNATED RURAL SERVICE AREA. Additional rural residential and quasi- agricultural development can occur in the rural areas without taxing the limited capacities of existing rural services. Rural development will occur at limited densities consistent with self- supporting on-site sewer and water services and with maintenance of natural amenities, open space and other rural community characteristics. 6. NATURAL FEATURES AND SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS WILL BE PROTECTED BY ORDINANCES BASED UPON EXTENSIVE INVENTORY, ANALYSIS 7\ND ESTABLISHED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GUIDELINES. Natural resource information will be used and evaluated in review of all land use developments. Ordinance provisions will be reasonably established, fa'irly interpretted and strictly enforced. 7. HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS, PLACES AND SETTINGS WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND PRESERVED. The character of Orono receives much of its identity from our unique historic developments. Programs will be established to identify and help preserve this heritage for future generations. Where necessary, special considerations will be made to encourage retention of significant public or private amenities. 8. HOUSING PROGRAMS WILL BE PURSUED TO PROVIDE SAFE, AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR ALL CITIZENS. Housing opportunities will be provided for citizens of all ages and income levels. Rehabilitation programs will be stressed to increase the livability and energy conservation of the existing housing stock. 9. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES WILL BE PROVIDED AND IMPROVED CONSISTENT WITH LOCAL SERVICE NEEDS AND WITH A COORDINATED PROGRAM OF AREA-WIDE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES. Transportation planning will be sensitive to local land use and environmental concerns, and to local service needs. Levels of maintenance will vary between urban and rural areas. Alternative routings and alternative transportation modes will be explored. 10. PUBLIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES WILL BE COORDINATED BETWEEN THE MANY INTERRELATED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. Orono will continue to pursue coordinated services with the County, with adjacent municipalities, with the school district and with specialized districts such as lake conservation, watershed or joint powers districts, all for the purpose of providing consistent, high quality services at affordable cost to the taxpayer. CMP 2-3 T*0* 0<20f^0 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: March 10,1998 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Greg Gappa, Public Services Director Liz Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant Resignation from position of Planning Assistant I am wTiting to inform you that 1 will be leaving my position with the City of Orono of Planning Assistant as I have been offered and accepted the position of Planner/Housing Coordinator with the City of Northfield. This is a full-time, permanent position that I will begin April 13, 1998. I greatly appreciate the opportunity I have been given with the City of Orono. Without the experience 1 have had here, this employment opportunity would not have happened. Each of you and the City staff as a whole have been instrumental in making this a valuable experience in which I have had the opportunity to work on a di\ erse variety of projects. I thank all of you for providing me the necessary mentorship in learning my way around the workings of municipal government. My last day of employment here will be Thursday, April 2, 1998. At that time 1 will be embarking on a week long trip to Boston for the American Planning Association national convention before beginning at Northfield. Thank you again for having given me this outstanding experience! p/tRUMAetHMMf ppoeepuK> IV& a 3CT of POLeS -for conJufrf at” rr\&&4-in^5. Iv allows 6v£|Ly!o^^ “to bft, bftartj 9nJ -fo mak«. Je&4SionS... wHiiotH* confusion/ PdrliameMfary proeeJure kas a tOf^G HiSroFY rr ogie«HAT<M> in the early English Parliaments (discussions of public affairs). tfCAMCIO AMeiMCA with the first settlers. Jk m If B£CPf^ wpiiFofiM in 1876, when Henry M. Robert published his manual on Parlia­ mentary LaWy.—V -■:S=S5r-—. G N m4 Today* •• Poaept^ piii*e3 of oppep- Hewiy pevidep is -ti>e basic* bankbook. pf OPCrafion -(or »noS^ clubs^ Or^9r%ix9iion^ dnj MU&r groups. ^ f) I \ f ^Q• (9 {Q / 1 ' u t/ 'J ' ' A tCAiPfOOnATMiC •OOKttT Sf CMANNINO L. Iftf CO^ OfMwtlai#. M«ea, UJ.A. €•••« l•fl■0<1KM ISMCAtt “9 -Hrr»e--^gsfeJ oF CdiH^ucflr^ buSirsSSS 3t* irtesHn^S pvbliCo WHV » parlf3mei«l^ry proeadvre> •WOPTFHT PAfM^AMe#»rA3y ppoeepupe imicphs: rr? (b;^ (f?) G'4? O O o o ^•■•Aegiuyy 9 n IR V?* rr^ I / B'p w G>-x'g)«-G ■'© G r I r V A.. IV 'll' ' . .. H" C3n be. • \ ‘dJspfeJ +0 -fif" ^ •♦bt nCeJs ^t\i / f / ^ ./ or33«i»tion. bnovd 'tb&Sfr 8MiC ^U6/ i Or33^'Z9^*Ond o£ir^ parli9m6ntary frote^we, i/^ually -follow 9 *f*ye<l OfU^CfL OF BUS>H6SS 3 -fypical e/3mple 5.. epu» lb oboc^ The chairman says, "The meeting will please come to order." "St. PoM- e^Ur Members say ''present*' as their names are called. :0t. fuiiHUTCS The secretary reads a record of the last meeting. •jSL. offtcutsf Often limited to a report from treasurer, but oihc s may report at this time. ^.eoi4Mirfi£. bcroftrs First come reports from "standing," or permanent committees: then from "ad hoc," or special committees. ^.SFCOJAt. OW»tO* Important business previously designated for consideration at this meeting. euSiHCSS Business left over from - previous meetings. -5III..H6W BvSiMCSS IntrbdOction of new topics. AHH0UKCC|Mei»lS Informing the assembly of other sublets and events. The meeting ends by a vote, or by general consent t (or by chair's decision H time of adjournment was pre> arranged by vote). cr&rrt-^ r\ 0 0 QUOpJUfA.,, rwmter of rnCmteri be presenf -for buSinfc&S -to be conJuc4'er^ legally. "rt\e ac-fu®! r«umber id u5oally S+ateJ in -fbe by-la»v£»- 1 # • # o e^e' IL O) © lO Y 1 r T faey H®tio»<d/ sur. iiow po r^ctaeepe eer tiiieiF- sa# A motion 5s a pwpoSal tl'at aas€r.blv A drAAO or P^CTtOl^ on Somer jaensbecS ebn: P|lic5€l^ mof iond (make a proposal) PeaAYl^ mofSonS. (give opinions on the motion) ■*G) -9 motions (express support for discussion of another member's motlon.l VflfTft on rnoFion^ (make a decision) •ms‘ "fUe»re. -are. introduce sut,.'cts to the ' usembiy for its consideration. They cannot be made when another motion is before the assembly. They yield to privileged, subsidiary and incidental motions. fofu 19 rr iH oM>ei>-? Your motion must relate to the business at hand, and be presented at the right time. It mutt not be obstructive, frivolous or against the by-laws. fWt I l|^€p^pr Wf. SPCM<€|LT Some motions are so important that the speaker may be inter* rupted to make them. The original speaker regains the floor after the interruption has been attended to. 4-Typef-Of MOTIOK& O PlMVltXCei? moKonS are most urgent... about special or important matters not related to pending business. (9 O iHcioefim* iwoKotss are questions of procedure that arise out of other motions ... must be considered before the other motion. .Some Qf>e9nOff9relafir'o Mono|<S PO I peep A 9€COt»D? Usually, yes. A second indicates that another member would like to consider your motion. • It prevents spending time on a question which interests only QOg person. I !• ii tr ee AHCPPCP? Some motions can be altered by striking out, inserting, or both at once. Amendments must relate to subject as presented in main motion. e^Mi tr se P€coHS«ocficp7 Some motions can be redebated and revoted to give members a chance to change their minds. The move to reconsider must come from the winning side. • • I IS IT PCBatTAeteT Parliamentary procedure guards the right to free and full debate on most motions. Some privileged and incidental motions are not debatable. what vorft t9 tteeoep? Most require only a majority vote but motions concerning the rights of the assembly or its members need 2/3 vote to be adopted. M , I j +afcl« on V ® 3««wer5 Common ... a** 3 glance Me*'e. “are. ^rv»e n^«orx& you rAi^M" ^|OW •*» make, •l^’ef^, '3'>^ •»*> e:^e£t cf 4*e. rJes. TO poT^iiS: adjourn meeting CALL AN INTERMISSION COMPLAIN ABOUT HEAT. NOISE. ETC. suspIKib Further con - SIDERATION OF AN ISSUE END DEBATE AND AMENDMENTS POSTPONE DISCUSSION FOR A CERTAIN TIME GIVE CLOSER STUDY OF SOMETHING INTRODUCE BUSINESS the lAcmofPS usYEP PROTEST BREACH OF RULES OR CONDUCT TOO SIW this : *1 rtNCF^e. ■'Vval- vJC. 3Jjo*>rn'^ "I move we recess -for...*' I rise +0 a qwee+ion of privilege‘s VO VOVpCtt •its ved *1 wove 4able rr»ofior*‘ "| rnove "tbe prCviovS l^ueSt ’ion'^ "I move *te poStp»»'e ^be J>*>c»aion vr»til.. "I wove To refer*'-tbe rr^aHer -to cowmifbee" '^1 irove amCrvI 'ibe moHon by... rr IT M*#^e#«pcp? ves ipMpr vdft, IS i«ewcpr AVOoRrry MO vote ^AAJoMY MKJoIUTV fiOTCS:(|) Unlatt volt on quoition it not v«t Uken. Q) Unleti ibt commitiM hat •Iraady takin up tha fubiact. Only II tha mption to ba aniandad it dabatabla. (4) Except in doubtful A maiority vote In neoativa naadad to ravcria ruling of chair. (4) A 2/3 vote in neo ativa naadad to prevent consideration of main motion. Q Only if tha main question or motion was not. in fact, considtrad. ® Only if motion to ba raconsidarad Is dabatabla. 8 How do I preseni* vnoHon Mere's 4b Jo wKeii if's '^our 4urn +o ^peak... 0 Q f O o0fi%iH tne ftoop- i« Wait until the last speaker is finished. b. Rise and address the chairman. Say, "Mr. (or Madam) Chairman** or **Mr. (or Madam) President.** c. Give your name. The chairman will recognize you by repeating it. if O YOUfL MOTiOH a. Speak clearly and concisely. b. Slate your motion affirmatively. Say, **l move that we ...‘e« # instead of "I move that we do not..." c. Avoid personalities and stay on the subject. ■!> . I O WAIT FOR. A secopie 8. Another member will say, *'l second the motion.*' b. Or the chairman will call for a second. c. If there it no second, your motion is lost. vO > 0 OH youH* fMOTlOfJ a. Mover it allowed to speak first b. Direct all comments to the chairman. c. Keep to the time limit for speaking (stated in by laws). d. You may speak again after all. other speakers are finished. e. You may speak a third time by a motion to suspend the rules with a 2/3 vote. O CHAtftAVW SftKtiS youp. Metnott The chairman must say, *'lt is moved arKl seconded that we... .** After this happens, debate or voting can occur. Your motion it now ‘‘assembly property" and yPu can't change It without coruent of the members. O ptimHOTHC QtfC&riofi a. The chairman asks, "Are you ready for the question?" b. If there is no more discuuion, a vote is taken. c. Or motion for previous question may te adopted. meA\oi of VOfC Of* A MoTiOH on *4te 5*tbAt’l0^l 3nJ or« 4«e I'awS of your or^ni^dfion. sy voiee Tht chairman asks thosa in favor to uy “aya" f ^ and fhosa opposed^^v.- > to say “no." ^ (Formalority ^ votas only.) J MAmh«r mav movA /Mambar may move for aaact count. By fiou> CAu^ Each member answers "yes” or "no" as his name is called - whan a record of each parson's M) vote is needed. ^ (gl0 BV SHoWofF Members raisa their hands as sight verification of or alternative to a voice vote. It does not require a count Member may move fo(..^ ^ * (TA exact count V BY BAVLOr .•embers write their vote on a slip of paper. Dona when seaecy is desired. BY GCfiCMt^ eoHB€pr ^ r\ r>. ^ ^ When a motion isn't likely to be opposed, the chairman says, "If O ' A there is no obfectioa..^~J •'*' Members show agreement by Air'^ f f.-r If someone says, "I object " matter must be put to a vote \ j 4^) /I. I) t'*'«he ( N U'J ete. In IJ^^Y Y • • •rv%or& Ifcrtifift ...are we rea Jy *fi»r -fl»e question'^ f--pQ A qweSr^ion PEfiPifJd H* l>as Uen dfaf’erl by -flie cbair* buh not* ye+ voieJ on. 1W lash »wo+ion $fafeJ by -ibe c-Vtair ie -fbe ■fire!’ pe/'dir»j. lUe AA»H AoTtoti ie a\waye 4be last' vot-erl On, A mo+iors *♦» iABue ( lay on 4^e 4able) This motion is often used in an attempt to "kill" a motion. There is always the option to "take from the table" any motion for reconsideration by the assembly. A nnotiprs -hp pednpor>e if*PCfi|iitEt.y This It parliamentary strategy ** allows members to dispose of a motion without makittg a dedtion for or against. It it useful in case of badly chosen main motion for which either "yes" or "no" vote would have undesirable consequences. GlOSSAIt:# Q*HP6X J Page To end the meeting W*yi to adjourn.................... How to move to adjourn... 8-9 To change a motion Wayi to amend...................... How to move to amend.... 8-9 A group of members chosen for a certain task .........4 Discussion about a motion Member's right....................... When debate................*** gpn Rules on debate___...... 11 eofuscftr Accepting a motion without a vote. Ravelant to the business at hand WJOlUtY Mme than one half of the members In voting............................... When required g.g Hotkoff A proposal that the assembly Hkea sundor take action on some issue Types of motions........ 0.7 Procedures affecting........ motions.................. 7 Typical motions..... * * [ g.g How to make a motioii. 10-11 OfkpeiL of Business to be considered during a meeting................. ^ quoAuM Number of members that must h« present to conduct business legaily ........ KVISCO Manual of procedure for non-legislative assemblies... 2 SBeofto A verbal signal from a member *n«l he wishes to consider a motion Just made Members* right..................... When required............... g How to give a second ..!! n VOTfflO Means by which motions are accepted or rejected by the assembly Members' right............... g . What vote is needed .. . .* 7 ^.g Method of voting...........* |j f • PAPUAMef»TAPy ppoeeouee is -rfie BCST imysy &CT TfItMGS f>oH& •+ only wor|c4 use St ure oriler 1/ OSTAIM -iHe f?W>OP- properly I^SPCAK- clearly ■antJ covseisely OBEY rules oT nAost* 0F9II7 ‘ 6€> 6ouftr£ouS I. 7^ ■■ ■y-' •■ ■ ■■ ^ V "v . •>- >■ . If.' I nuKELi. (mttt-in-unttn) TM pwt of «• WM f«.7 «M( of «• Cm< 5M «M( of Oo /vo^~- ------------/447I. 9mmnrn Dammtv thi ;■ ■ ..-y " . . fi: .>w.5M J' ■ ' .■,•.■ ■"' - -■.. *^ ■ mipitofWWOotWffwtofWogootaWfoofof Ornmn^ U« f, Syrttoi Paftt ro»: jMIp Ooo MaiAotf SovoofWd f»l7). Mango ?!y** *!” "-T?.if f^glM angllaa 10 «(» oaal «na of aa« aa^ al a go*il rt«a «a^ atgtaaaatgnaofaawaacflooliigafnariiiwianaaaaiiiai iffcffoadpinpoaaaovarinafpawofaaw and Wortft of Mo coiin4"B0^' Lot 1. Saelton f, TownafUi »t " dmerUMt aa a a ina *00*1 gaiagof of* and diafani •!» fcollWaaf tto .:r», ALSO, a« fftal part of Oovantnianf tot i. aacdon a, lo^j^MkMva; Conai»an cltigrtapoM lirtwrtaiw *aawpaiada»i ^^^d(a anl ^fcrt^l^jO(^ LagaMtanalanta; dtaneo aoodiwaalarty atong d»a afioia of aafd «a*a fitTi foot foapo^lJi mt fiaf IWMl of aa« aoelten *na and afpo drt oortgoaa*rt*> eomor of W eonvo^ lijr^adsr;Etss^r«'Jsrj=T,sssJ^^E.rsrsassa'srr.^Kst'^;^^ £XCC^r Mff of tho ootko Abov* i^Mc/NMd ptotniooo fyiog Soirtti of o mto orowo m ngn“ ano<aafotfiooaaf«noofaaWaacdonatapo<n>Wf.»faafSoMttof»omoa ^eo^ofl»a aaaf «do of aa*f aaedon, fogodtof irtdi an oaaonianf fcf n»d p«o»»do o*of ^ Waal M ^ aoedton, aeeonftog » »o laeoadad ptof fhawof on *t and of laeoid *i Ida ofBco of d»a Hannopfn County Ma cenfaf. ............. . PAMCEL *. f«D gg-ff7-»J 41 OOtOJ Tim ftaottSflOof of IdoeaaHigfwf of Idal part of Oovan»nionfLoft»fngWortd<da>w 4 ALL MS *>--•*— a Td^Afdfjfcifci «f7 Amm 23. Mrf«i tfiMCMft of Lot fa SocftOA f, Toootskip Iff, Mooffo ♦*. . . .. .-'ii “ . I ■ V. -I,V I V V, •^'vv-* igg.fg laol lo a point wnien la tio. j laa. ^comor of laid eonva>«f ifcod laeontid In Soo» ggg of Oaatfc, p. diooea ao*rtfio«»af^ d»a aaafarfK «na of fdHfao ddadad fOO laaf lo dianoi^ dna of aald eoonir mad, a^^^ SOMS^K Mt ligwg MWa»A MS mmniM5n*iw«^ SL ^SiSe Laft —--------^ iMt OMMA fbo OMlirty HomoffoMOO aticltd 400 wof to wo /Kwioony «»• or m» cwfsij r«Mw, mw datognllLWlwfofdrtaaedondna, dianeaaooldaarti^irid^ QfiMiwntane aniantBreEPridoMidafrailwfl»o«aof,BtCEPridafpartofdiortrtlr«aSo»d iiaiiigilifiiftrnfurao —gnndinfaAaaOlraiiinafrtodlangfaafodiaoaatdnaofaald aotdiwaf Soudl of Ido maandar eomar of Ida aaaf Kno of aald aacdon. Latf r - IT SM • MT. :2Ss. MBIfK .<■ m mt^. PL PAACELS. (P1Dm4-11T-i»44 0Kt) Commanclng at a podil dMtnt 447.S faof Wdaf of a polnl *i Ida aaaf Hna of Oovamnianl Lol 1 dhaantjTg^fcaf Soudldontdioniaandaf comafaffdanortdaaa lcomofofLol f; diaiKO Sould CrtOMwAiaaTr-Mr - If^SSS^PL PateanfofWatdoaoar ■ Sf-TtSf aiaaanutajaiaacaiouninontnton iaanoaf comafataaa nnfDtaa a icomofOTUi T/tnanuosi SIAt M; dtonca Soudl 11 da graaa 47 ndnufaa Mtaf f fS.3f lOaf lo dwaclual podif of dtglnnlnp; Manas cnnKnuIngSaiitd ff dagrssa 47mlnufas WmI fU.f7fML' fdancaSould 17 dagraaa 47 'f Maf ki Ida nordtony Mna of CowiftrAaad Mo. f f; dwoca waalariy along aald road CxMngAirnmP-m • PWoanfof Waadiiaar « Mh adnida a Eaat7f watwinanofmaiyiinaof coinwriaoadMn. OT/waocaaraaianyaiongMWgfoao Mna47.1Maf loapolntdlalanlS2J.3faaf MMafdonildaaaafllnoofLaf f; diancoMprtnparalM ' add aafdaa al ShaloapoInldlialildal dost polnl of taglw nlngildancaEaaHo daginning, Sacdon g, rotanad^ f f7, Rangs U. PAMCEL4. (PK>gog-ff7-2>44 0SfS| Lol 1, Sloe* f, Moallaia AddWen, aeeenfing lo Ida la cordad plal dMmaf, ffannapdi CounlK, Loft Soufd of TMaaftacd Ikia Mag HHtaoEEgr PtagaaadTMaMonw ■ M7»Sg.n.?sr- rogafdar add ad daraddamanla and appurtanancaa dafonglng Idaralo, Mub/ueltoUn folloalng aarcopdona; MMMyaaaannnla, roadoasanranla, zoning ordMancaa, and nWnaralraaarvadon of g^dajdrf &lad.gA»aSo«d.of2gS'fc^ PdcIngdtaaadMar • POrcanfMaideovor ■ 4« Soold of fSB-Saldaed Eoedig CnM •ag Twin Homo Briadng Aiaa Soodi of 2S8-Sofdaod dno FtKlngCtyoMBoy ■ f2,SfaSg.Pt PaicanlManfeovai' ■ DPiAitni—1 ■ MDtoa e»r<>s« iMM c»»4 If g «w« toi'Sei fSpstMTitMiDn ef • tuiafv ol M*»atsar«d sr m« dtoot •ttra«D« >am •< th« locMion ei •« bM>idif>f». • grta l*«r«*P Dpa ail 4iMi« •MDatflfWntk. >* lf«4n »f on lOrtf I*n0 FiltNo 97^/PREPARED FOR LAND MBVirOM, me.aooh Par M«M. {IlftlIMM Sal.ROBERT WAADE mm;x Taw.<tio«. T.;- ,..■' •■^■•» . 'v. ■•>:' : ■'>■•'■;' ■'•■.• ■ j - ‘'5';;^ -- ,■■ V‘ -■ ■'';■ ■■ v 'i.'-:f^E PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN i i.' • . . .'. V.—• ti—.T .i-rw;.W MAXWELL LANDtNG /nATC^ e«. oiAuy. PAKCEL1. (PIDtM-11T-2i410011) »5.T ()*»B foutterty of mM «»• ««< «fort»> of tin county rood. ALSO. Ill tmi port of Gowmmont Lof 1. Soctfoo », tofloM.- cooiowocfns of • pofnf wlrni • Uno dfiwn puM ^ ^ S^nft., (fw«co^lf.«.ftrty otoO0 fhe ****a 7f8.f wof W«(of »Wcf BrwwTdWio tf»m>rtfNW»l»>»com«fof l^con;^^ Ilm: thinci louthoMBtiriy itong iildcountyr^to .ftopo(nlo>com^f.c^f.rci?rr.rx-~rr:r=;'.r;sr,rr«7:^^^^ J^nitotln M.I«« of S.;<f .«Uoo .«. pofol J94.S fMC^th of tin o* •ul of Hid soctfon at a poail 3*4.* (*af Soulfi of Ida moaoefef comof on ffia aaat Hinol »•“ tUlion, accon«ng to tin neotdod pin dniool onmmdot ncord In tin olfici of tin Honmptn County Itocoidor. PARCEL 2. (PIDM-117-23 41 0010) ' rs='rrr.^%r4S.”»trr^ ?m7i f«^TT~ "*d)cf. (a 710.1 faaf Ufal of aaM aaetfon Hna antf afao tfia oo^in^ ^nOad prantfaaa lying Soutfr of a «na <f«wn at right angtaa to tda ft^^tffi ofa^ «fra«i at ffB/il anafai to tda oaif «i» of aa« aaetfon at a pomt 3*1.5 faa« Sooth of tha moanifar eomar of tha oast ffna of nfd action. PARCELS. fPfO *05-f f 7-23 44 0M2J Cofflfflancfnp at a pofnt iffalant 447.5 foot Hfait of a point In tin aaat ffna of Ootnmnnnl Lot 1 pfatant 375.35 faot South from tha nnmndn comer at tha nofthaaat connr of Lot 1; thanea South 52.05 Wat; thanea Sooth ft tWgraaa 47 mfnotaa M<aat tf535 faaf »tha acloaf pofnt of boglnning; thonci continuing South 11 dapraas 47 mfnotaa MWat f03. f 7 fiat; thanea South 12 cfagraas 37 mlnutoi Eat 71 fat to tm norUntly Urn of County POaP fto. SI; thanea wnnriy Hong aid rood Ilm 47.2 fat to I point dlltint 523.3 fOal What from tha aaat Mna of Lot 1; tinnem North paraffef lafth aaM aaat (fna to a pofnt <foa M*aat from point of beginning: ttnnci Eat to hagfnnfOB, Saelfon 5, Townihli. 117, Panga 23. PARCEL 4. fPf0 505-1f7-23 44 00f5> Lot 1, Block 1, fMOaffara Addition, iccording to tha raeonfap pfat tharaof, Hannapfn Coonfy, Mfnnaaola. TogHInr with aff haraPflamanla and apportananeaa bHonglng tharato. aohyiet to tha following aaeaplfona; (/tftfty aaaamanta, road aaiamanla. aonfng onffnaneoi. and rofnaraf rairvition of 5 vr .■ ■ ■•>'■ .■ . ' '•>' ’ A , .A, ,• . 3 ... PMpMsdLotAfW* Loti Lot 2 Ooffot A OidMS OmfotC ToMAra 34.S00Sq.pt 0.7$ Aeia 21.700Sq.FL 0.50 Aeroa 570tS<|.R. 0.154 Aeroa 1,000 Sq. Ft. 0.025 Aeroa 1.3»4Sa.Ft 0.032 Aero# ■>v.. 55,471 Sp.«. 1.503 Aeroa PnpoadHndcovor Loll 0- - 7T 70' - 250- tor - tor OK PtopoadHoua Orfyannp OarofinAroa rotaf Drhnwmy 21.045 Sq. Ft 2A71K 2,024 so.n. 2,000 Sq. Ft 1.400Sa.Ft 5,424 So. n. •30 So. Ft BrfiUtgAroa75--25r Parcantofffifdcovor EafatingAroa25r-50r ■ i47SSo.Ft Parcantoffftfdcarar • 25K 3,570 So-Ft VlfLUfM5KIW3BJ«aP0Tf>58OClairtSWC. Lof2 South of 240' aafhacft (fna fttcfng MawHI Biy Propoaad 7«rfn ffoma Drtvowiy Totil Exiating Ara South of 250’ Sottneh ■ Facfng MaxwaH Bay « 5,545 Sp. Ft Porcini Hoidcovor = 45K SouthofOSO-SnbahFa^Ci^Boy _ Existing Ara South of 250’ Satbae* ffna Facfng Cjyataf Bay » 12,915 So-Ft Pereenl Hardcover « 14K ...,., . 2(rrh u. • mW ...... F.to Nc PREPARED FOR ROBERT WAADE ■'Pi II It*