Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-1998 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 20,1998—6:30 p.m. 2780 Kelley Parlovay—Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Richard Flint AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answ er 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 MAY 11,1998, City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Review' of these items W'ill commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 1.#2325 2.#2340 Lake Country Builders on behalf of John & Cindy Olson, 950 North Arm Drive. Variances. Tabled at the request of the applicant on 3/16/98. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) Robert Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive, Preliminary Subdivision with Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Mike Gaffron) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS 7:00 p.m. 3.#2355 Susan and Douglas Van Moorlehem, 4490 Watertown Road. Class III Preliminary Subdivision. (Staff: Mike Gaffron) NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.#2352 Rick Fredericksen representing Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Road. Conditional Use Pemiit. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) 5.#2353 6.#2354 7.#2356 8.#2357 9.#2358 10.#2359 11.#2360 12.#2362 13.#2363 Len Busch, 1265 Shorrlin;; Drive. Variance. (Staff: Liz Van Zomerer.) Konrad Kruger, 520 Hanlon Avenue. Variances. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) Jon and Diann Rappaport, 3067 Far\ iew Lane. Vacation. (Staff: Mike Gaffron) Susan and Kent Whitworth, 1425 Bay Ridge Road. Conditional Use PermitA^ariance. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) Randy and Marie Staffanson, 1422 Park Drive. Variances. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) Hestia Homes Inc. on behalf of Matt and Karen Parks, 825 Forest Arms Lane. Variances. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) Anthony Kmetz, 640 Orchard Park Road. Variance Renewal. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) Bob Howard, 1300 Shoreline Drive. Varainces. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) Bill Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue. Variances (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 14. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Coimcil meetings on March 23, 1998 and April 13, 1998 15. Other issues for discussion. 16. Planning Commission approval of minutes for March 16, 1998. 17. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on April 27,1998 and May 11, 1998. ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance 4- 20Meeting D ate □□ C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other ^ ' ■ •; .V . ■*'. '■ * * >..jPlease ^ fex information lll^QUEOTD BEWW^^^F^ CITY RECORDS. ............. :■ ...................V’ ‘i; •' NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1. N Pt'Wl . 0'7\qn J6 .V \A fv\HM^Z) 1 'RX 0.^.r-D .P c I • c V 1 s.Lc^n 6, Q:k Va ^ A M / J G ^ I• ‘v> D./- Xc f) “J / ::^ro lOocfiV;m 7. ^ tM I'Z^ ^C> ^\<^-"^ ■^; I VvP f , (I'/ro.- *.. •SS'3fi(3 8.____/ */?rS~ A/y /C W 0, //<7T' >________________5^Zs < Cl> T-rjxJc3 09(h//(pc<) ^// 11. hc> IfttA ^'f'l1______^ fj Urc hx'^t- A (/'/\__^_si/—-S-S ^ G-G 12. 13. 14.. 09U914 S5S8 ee e* r City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE:April 16, 1998 TO:Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator y ‘ SUBJECT: #2290, Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit Mr. and Mrs. Steve Silus have formally requested that their conditional use permit application for grading within 5' of the property line be withdrawn per their letter dated April 10, 1998. VJ ■'Z.J APR I 4 1>93 Cil Y Vjr ’Ji iCr.'O April 10, 1998 Liz Van Zomeren City o£ Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Liz, I am requesting that the City of Orono withdraw our application for a Conditional Use Permit, #2290. Please regard this letter as notification of this request. Thank You, Steve and Elaine Sllus 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone# 471-9781 II Cy TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:April 14,1998 SUBJECT: #2325 Lake Country Builders, on behalf of John & Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Variance(s)"Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:45,743 square feet (1.05 acres) Application:This application has been revised since it was first reviewed at the January Planning Commission meeting. The application was filed more than 60 days ago and the applicant has agreed to an extension in order to revise the plan. The revised proposed plan is to replace a deck with a lakeside upper level deck extending 8' from the existing residence and 27' in length with a stairway to the ground. The area underneath the deck would be enclosed for a screen porch. A bluff setback variance is required because the house is located on top of the bluff. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.56, Subd. 3, (2) Definition of Bluff Section 10.56, Subd. 16, (2) and (3) B'uff Setback U2325 Lake Country Builders for John and Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive April 20. 1998 page-1 I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear 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 1.05 acres 215'49.8'38.7' (east)105' The subject property meets the lot area and lot width requirements of the zoning district. It also meets street yard, side yard and lakeshore setback requirements. The existing residence was constructed before the shoreland management regulations and is located between the 75' lakeshore setback and the top of the bluff. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'12,674 sq. ft.279 sq. ft.none 279 sq. ft.None 75'-250'33,069 sq. ft.3,296 sq. ft. (9.97%) 8,276.25 sq. ft. (25%) Staff has asked the applicant to have the proposed hardcover amounts revised because previous worksheets did not include the plastic under the rock. However, staff does not anticipate that the hardcover exceeds the 25% allowance in this setback. U2325 Lake Country Builders for John and Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive April 20, 1998 page--2 Tt 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 property in question can continue to be used as a residence, however, the applicants have indicated that they wish to replace the deck and have a screened porch area. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The residence was constructed before the bluff setback regulation was adopted. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for bluff setback will not impact views of the lake. The deck will replace a previous deck in the same location. The lakeside elevation plan shows the proposed location of footings in the required bluff setback area. 4. 5. 6. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property e.xists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. This residence was constructed on top of the bluff prior to the current regulations. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 7. Lakeshore lots that have bluffs are subject to bluff setback requirements. The granting of the application is necessary' for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. U2325 Lake Country Builders for John and Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive April 20. 1998 page--3 A variance is required in order to replace the deck. 8. 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 deck design follows accepted practices for construction in and around bluffs. It can be constructed in a manenr that will not be unsafe. 9.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Nearly the entire house is located in the required bluff setback area. The allowed building pad is severely restricted by the street yard setback requirement and the required 30' setback. Under today's regulations, this lot would not have a usable building pad even though it meets all other setback requirements. Issues 1.The lot meets all of the minimum zoning requirements for the district, except bluff setback. 2.The zoning lot has been determined to have both a toe and top of the bluff. The residence was constructed over the top of the bluff before the current regulations were adopted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To approve the construction of an 8' x 27 deck as shown in the exhibits with a screened porch area underneath. Further, a condition shall be included in the resolution that prevents the deck and screened porch from being converted in the future into enclosed living areas. Attachments A Revised Survey B Revised Deck Plan C Revised elevation H2325 Lake Country Builders for John and Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive April 20. 1998 page-4 ocn CD -4 O SWP --113.26-- S49®59*55"W h X hPP-13-1993 if:23 Li^ E COUtITP'.' BLDPS ---------------------1' ■ 612 474 7957 P.02 rt 4 I : I fF t Ck T 0 :* -O, 6 5 ^ r ti?p dfVASCh PC^K) 4 ESIlOUS 5TNT ANALYSIS 1 5 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, side 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 U2325 Lake Country Builders, John & Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Date of PC. February 1 7. 1998 page-~2 Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 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. 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 betw een 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 3.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. 5.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. 6.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. 7.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. #2325 Lake Country Builders, John <& Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Date of PC, February 17,1 998 page—3 i 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. 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 U2325 Lake Country Builders, John & Cindy Olson 950 North Arm Drive Date of PC. February 17, 1 998 page—4 CITY OF ORONO - VAIUANCE 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 S22ol Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY ESTORNLATION SiteAddress, ^ 6R... , Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) , ,r Attach IcSsJ de^crinfinn fn :r:_i. ^ AppUcation it Z3>Z^ Date Received -2.2 -97 Amount Paid ^ ^ Q) O OV^.•::>o oivru >►. c? cn I (do) ^^^pno^ also own the adjacent parcels of land..(month/year) Present use of property: X residential Zoning District:, f gs. n-. - J other (specify) APPLICANT Address:q ^_________ City:, OWNER (if different than applicant) Name:r;,kK/^r^.^ J . Phone (home) C "7 Phone (work) _____ ol______Zip: f Address: Phone (home) i . —i> . ..-It________ Phone (work) 3 3 / 9 *7 V —0>=> City:, ^ . Zip: DESCRffTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost ese, L f t ^ * -------------------^ VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area ___Lot Width (attach additional sheets if necessary) _ Setback:Front Side X. Other (specify) Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage a-ai Average Lakeshore &o-cr 'ThP csF HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing cornphMce vn± Zo^g Code requirements:.^^ nd Z). ^ ^ 1.4 .^11 trr la J _____ ____Tt> C./I il^rVk 72>P. i tji ^ G,LKyf¥^ —22^tcA't A ^ ly.^L /X, ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ CoO^.^ j k /2«wt»/-cO s. *-» c-< “TX* "Pd -** Cjf^»f-T*s /•'1^ ey^ e>^T’A< REQUIRED SUB\UTTALS 1 2 AU of the fQU9wing..infQrmation must be submitted bv the application deadline date In order.. fQ.ii.vour application to be considered complete: Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Countv 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 ZVz* x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/j" x 11" for reproduction. ^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of 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. 5 6 7 8 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 pajonent) and/or consultant expenses^ InccKi^ in /eview of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is/mie andj^o^ct to the be^of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the propertj^y City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposp 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 LAKE COUNTRY B U I I D E I S' lAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS, INC 339 SECOND STREET O 6 I 2. 4 7 4. 7 I 2 t EXCELSIOR, MN SS331 O 6 I 2. 4 7 4. 7 9 S 7 THE THRILL IS BUILDING O lak«c«iitrybilldtrt.tom 6 February 1998 CITY OF ORONOV V______wnutNC’ iClEElOv j Ms. Liz Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Oron f£6 S 1398 fS ^ ^ ^ Re: SUBJECT #2325 John and Cindy Olson Residence / Bluff Setback Variance Application 950 North Arm Drive 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, along 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 alternative at the next planning commission reviewal meeting. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS, INC. Peter W. Jaltobson, President Enclosures (I) \ \ \ f — /»n I /W' > '\X 'i-/ \X r . y'X'S''' \ (TO ^ . X?-<''’ \' I ^\rr.<. 1 "iX ,,V s-^W' >"\(AtV;J. ^ f'*’ <■.' '4p X \ (;-o": , % f;, '\^^-i-?}'r.it ■n^ '» ________^ S^..a >■ nq^ \ V - ^w_JS8_^Vl \.:-«a’...„............ X f\ 5M.5 ('S)n T\ C_____!JlX ~ '•■■l^-X\^-V ‘“ \ P i^v5B)a *f...* «o*» (K<) ... - \ ( \ ’’JT *. « \ 'T-^'Xi.ia* 101 “!-<»> \ ^ LINDEN LA‘’XX*5C'^ 94 \--------f— 1 • 1 '’• 5M’40'4C*e=? (70) Parcel Information Parctf K> 0711723110015 HoMMNuifibtf 00060 StTMl Nam« NORTH ARM DR » 1^ 1 »_______I':.?: JltOMA 407. r.^LlN^ A I-toot stw:p POINT AVF MiC) ^5 f 155 26 .\;3 >1 <5i‘a 8 L >4 • \>a 1 December 19,1997 Planning Commissioners City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono, MN. 55356 Re: Variance Application Dear Planning Commissioners, ^ ^ '¥ From the information we have presented you can see that our desire is to add a screened porch and small 8’x8 ’ deck onto our existing residence. Additionally, we want to replace our existing old rotted deck with a new one of approximately the same dimensions, although we have added a stairway on either end. This letter is to expand on our intent and address what we feel is our hardship. Our desire is create additional exterior space to enjoy our beautiful lot and view of Lake Minnetonka. We have minimized the size and scope of our project in order to respect our natiu'al environment which we sincerely value. Additionally we imderstand that tlie 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 “ bluff “ area that exists that approximately 80% of our whole house lies within. Please understand that we certainly understand the cities desire to minimize lake shore construction as well as being responsible for the environment which we all share. However it seems like the “ bluff “ code, as it relates to our property, creates a severe hardship for us in that virtually no exterior construction or additions can be added unless they are created in the front of oiu* home which fronts HWY 151. It is important to realize that the front of our home houses all the bedroom areas, and the living spaces are all on the lakeside , which 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 ofHWY 151. y 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 surroimding 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 lakcshore, 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 respectfiilly ask for your approval on our variance request. Most/sin^r,ely3ifours, John & Cindy Olson CITY OF ORONO 612A730510 096 / 11/06/97 11:0A 9:02/03 N0:629 ^ y r JO< /fN(^ Am/,^,5<^U(MT70^ ar*-! ■2 P€r^, fji(^ >-•* <.T»^.>•-., k / -r V 0% ^ / v:^ - '’- /• j\ '-- J\ f/r. fU: ' J 1 PfO —226,^6----- N 40'’00'00“W COUNTY BOAD NO. 151 JOB u S 10.56 2. "Bluff" - A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or eribankment 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); A. shoreland area; Part or all of the feature is located in 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 body. D. The slope must drain toward the water "Toe of the bluff" means the lower point of a 50' segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. "Top of the bluff" means the higher point of a 50' segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. 3. "Bluff Impact Zone" - A bluff and land located within 20' from the top of a bluff. 4. "Commercial Use" — The principal use 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 ;.eet 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-or:.ented 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 (FJ or this section. Retaining walls shall not be placed within the shore setback zone. ORONO CC 376-11 (2-24-92) REE — 13 — -9S RRI 12 : 2 -S' HARDCOVER C.VLCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^0-7^75-:;0'250-500’500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ________________ 5C Lenjilt WldA X X X B. Oaras« C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X =5 E. Patio/Dcck X X _____M. F. Landscape L’ndtrlain By Plastic X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total proper r/ area in 20ne ■^-74 ^ B tl± X 100 rPOPO'^FP H^AHi-troVER IN ZOVE A. House Lerifciih WicLh X X X s a B. Garage C Drivc\vay X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plasric X X X G. Oihcr total HAFIDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone B___X 100 - I*b.r S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F S F. S.F % S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. « » F- . e» 2 A B SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. ■ S.F. A B «/» r TO: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator H April 17, 1998 SUBJECT: #2340 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminar>' Plat Review - Continuation of 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 duple.x lot near the road. The lakeshore lot is a back lot and subject to the pertinent standards. List of Exhibits A - Revised preliminary plat drawing (?) NOT RECEIVED AS OF 4-17 2:00 PM B - Preliminar}' grading and drainage plan (?) NOT RECEIVED AS OF 4-17 2:00 PM C - City Engineer Comments 3-19-98 D - Resident Petition Submitted 3-16-98 E - Notice of Planning Commission Action 3-17-98 F - Staff concept sketch of PRD incorporating adjacent Dunn lot G - Memo and Exhibits of 3-13-98 New Information Since March 16 Meeting Applicant submitted grading plans on March 12, too late for the City Engineer to review them prior to the March 16 meeting. The City Engineer reviewed those plans on March 19 (See Exhibit C) and his comments were forwarded to the applicant on April 2. Staff met with the applicant on April 2 and discussed options including the possibility of doing a PRD rather than the proposed standard plat; and how the plan might be revised if additional properties w ere added to the mix. Applicant also noted he may choose to combine the lots and begin constructing a single residence on the site this spring (if all 4 lots are combined the result will be a conforming building site) and take his chances with a subdivision in the future. Revised plans were e.xpected to be submitted today, Friday, April 17, but arc not in hand as of this writing, and neither staff nor the City Engineer have had sufficient opportunity to react to them if they are included in the packet. #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade April 17, 1998 Page 2 March 16 Meeting Recap At the March 16 Planning Commission meeting, the following occurred: A neighborhood group submitted a petition opposing the duplex use (Exhibit D) Planning Commission noted that the lot coverage for the duplex lot is at 22% but cannot exceed 15%. Applicant noted he could reduce it to meet 15%. Planning Commission agreed to the concept of allowing the storm pond to be credited toward the extra 50% acreage requirement for the back lot Planning Commission agreed that the proposal meets the intent of the hardcover ordinance with no variance needed Planning Commission expressed support for the site variances necessary to develop two single family homes, but not necessarily those for a single plus a duplex New issues identified for applicant to address include proximity of road to neighboring homes; impacts on neighborhood drainage; and lack of time for review by City Engineer. Applicant requested tabling rather than a recommendation of denial. Analysis of PRD Option - Benefits, Issues The option of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) w as briefly discussed at the sketch plan stage but applicant chose to go the standard plat route. However, the need for variances and the neighborhood opposition to a rental situation have resulted in new discussions about doing this as a PRD. Developing the site as a PRD subjects it to restrictive Shoreland requirements, but may also result in some benefits. Possible Benefits of PRD Zoning performance standards are 'thrown out’ in favor of a negotiation process; i.e. things that don't meet code are not considered as variances, but City has total ability to accept or reject all facets of the development, including aesthetic issues. Some flexibility in unit placement. #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade April 17, 1998 Page 3 Adding Dunn lot could yield a 4-unit townliome complex, with individual ownership of units and common open space; this makes rental units less likely than if a duplex was built. Layout could potentially be expanded in future if additional adjacent lots acquired. Road location flexibility gained since entire area can be used as density credit, hence road can i.void impacting Norum's house without causing lot area problem for subdivision. No need to re-route existing sewer. Possible Issues Shoreland "tiering" requirements likely result in a maximum of 4 units located at a setback of 200' from the shoreline, if Dunn lot is added, and if Council and Planning Commission conclude that "the residential lot size standard of the underlying (LR-lC-1) zoning district" (Section 10.56 Subd. 19F) is 3 units per acre. If it's concluded to be 2 units per acre, then adding Dunn's lot still results in only 3 total units allowed. Stormwater management is still an issue to be resolved All units will need to be attached, hence a separate single family home next to the lake will not be allowed No change in status of riparian access; code still only allows 1 unit to have lake rights Staff Recommendation Given the (again) lateness of submittals, staff is as of this writing unable to recommend anything concrete, other than: - Applicant needs to address all issues raised by City Engineer as well as issues raised at the March 16 meeting. - If new plans are submitted for a PRD concept, we should treat this as an extended Sketch Plan review - Since this subdivision was initially submitted on January 23, the City has until May 23 to act on the preliminary subdivision application. If the item is tabled by Planning Commission, applicant should be advised that he must agree in writing to extend the review period; without such extension, the application w'ould have to be for\varded to the Council's May 11 meeting for denial. Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects March Ij, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: VVaade Subdivision File No. 139-2340 Bonesttoo. Rosene. Andefhk <tnd Associates, tnc ts Aftirm.^ti^e Action €cjui*i Opportunity Bmptcycf Principalis Otto G B'*»ne5!roo. PF • Joieph C Anderlik. PE • \^»vvin L Sorval.r PE • Richiird E Turner, Pi • Glenn I? Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • ^ Robert W Rosene. PE ^nd Susan M Ebenm. C PA Senior Consultants . . Associate Pnncipt^fs Howard A. Sanford. PF • Keith a Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • Dav.d O LosVota PE • Robert C RusseK A IA • Vark A Hanson. P.E. • 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 Sr ®aui Rochester. Wiiimar and St Cloud MN • Milwaukee Wl . ^ • :t\o 0 0 ^1, ' • ^ * J.t » We have reviewed the preliminary grading plan and revised plat for the proposed two 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: Tlie width of Outlet A is shown at 40 feet where City code requires a minimum width of 50 feet. The driveway shown north of Outlet B should be paved to a minimum of 12 feet in width; the driveway is currently shown at 10 feet in width. ITie pavement south of the proposed house should be enlarged to allow for turning movements. The flic dcparlinetu should review the plans and provide comments. 2. Utilities: Ple:ise .see our January 30, 1998 comments as they still apply. 3. GraJin.q: The proposed grading and erosion control plan sitows a ponding area located south of the proposed ivvinliome. 1 he gi uling pl.vi also shows an emergency overflow elevation of 933.20. If the pond outlet becomes plugged and the water rises to this overflow elevation, the existing homes east of the site will experience some flooding. We recommend revising the gtading plan so that in the event of a plugged pond outlet the water will be directed away from homes and toward the lake. The proposed grading in the southeast corner of the site is within 3 feet of an existing home with slopes exceeding 3:1. We recommend that the grading plan be revised so that slopes do not exceed 3:1 and grading is minimi/.ed near any existing structure*:. 4. Drainage: We recommend that storm sewer be no smaller than 12-inches in diameter. A drainage area map, storm .sewer and ponding calculations showing pre and post development conditions should be submitted for review. 3. L ;'.ppca: j ;!;r.t :h? proposed utility easement shown along the west lot line does not cover the existing sanitary sewer. An easement 20 feet wide centered on the existing sewer should be shown on the plat. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plai:s have been ''ompleted 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. l oi'.’ .Kellogg Cc: Greg Gapp.a, City uf Orono 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax; 612-636-1311 PETITION TO THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION D MARCH 16, 1998 WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF ORONO, REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT GRANT ANY VARIANCES WITH REFERENCE TO A MULTI-FAMILY (DUPLEX) DWELLING PROPOSED FOR 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE. (APP #2340) WE WOULD LIKE TO REAFFIRM THE COMMITMENT MADE BY DALE LjNDQUIST THAT "IF ANY VARIANCES WERE REQUIRED, THE PROPOSED APPLICATION WOULD BE DENIED", LAST MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 17, 1998. p£rTrnoM TO ----- I6j |<?^S — Rpao=s.T “ T^T^WS. COMHlSS-jo^J. PP5 Any lo4TH REF^smcp to No; A /MoipTfscHi;^ b\jj SU^ /^DE e>^ -E>4Up ^3^0/IF A ny UJS/^E PF/d. i|Ff^ F¥0ftos5D AFPMpmM uooLp 0i£. 3. LASI 1?'. N-^H;'•.............AcxbfissS * r ^ D, •H'5 ^7Vi D LLC-/'J 3 ^ 6^^// . /^6C, I JSV..JC3.VS.; <. on J- - ■‘^-O^0. Ml-5A-r_p~____ .. O H S"> ^ Sj(^ A.e_____ ocii-Jx,. /sOP.hi^^.. A / - ...LAJ- - '■ .'. Y /i-- ------------------- CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2340 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; March 17, 1998 TO:Robert Waade 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO:James McKinnon 1055 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wavzata. MN 55391 DeMars-Gabriel Surveyors ATTN: Russ 3030 Harbor Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 TYPE OF APPLICATION;PreL.ninary Subdivision/Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 3/16/98 VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Petition submitted by resident group (copy attached). Planning Commission identified as an additional issue not identified in staff report that the proposed duplex structure constitutes a lot coverage excess (22% proposed, 15% allowed). Applicant indicated a willingness to reduce the size of the duplex building to be in conformity. Planning Commission members indicated support for crediting the area of stormwater pond toward the "extra 50% area requirement" for the back (lakeshore) lot. Planning Commis:>,on concluded that the intent of the hardcover ordinance is met by the current plan with no variance needed. Planning Commission members generally expressed support for the site variances necessary if the south lot was to be a single family dwelling, but not if it is to be a duplex. Given the choice of a denial recommendation for the current proposal with duplex tabling so he could consider his options, applicant requested tabling. Additional new issues identified related to the grading and drainage plan received 3/12/98 include: Proximity of proposed road to neighbor's home, impact of grade changes. Impact on neighborhood drainage pattern. Note that City Engineer has not had time to review the plan. •I Planning Commission Action Notice March 17,1998 Page 2 Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, April 20, 1998; meeting starts 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. Applicant is advised that due to the request to table, the 60-day period mandated by State statute for review of zoning applications is hereby extended an additional 60 days to May 23, 1998. X;\APPS\WP\VIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE'PCACTION\2340 -TC* /Uo/ztwvt^ fH>tAs.e _ ^7^ rA-t. iivrrhr- C\t->HT 1>lST7>J^CAi^ ^ l^j (a-/v pUij ft-' yzo' oc-'cf^ . jtC f fr-* A !o' - * ^ ..<-1 • /l< /uo /oirvc rf ■$CiVorv2_ . -D-ioA-if sxfiAAiCS TO Sf«i'o ^.-"7 o»-.7; ''^T» ^ fS^/3. jr>«^rHA.e I >-? V* • *#• s^o' / / / / ^ ^ ***V*^OM.'? y MAXWELi.' Vo2^^\ /c :\ \ fyx;#"\ COl/Oc, AJ (d-'PC ' ^y^-Z^O /o '01'- lo'VuC, eo-iin, - /i GARD^ AREA 1 •i5i<; -• /-^ \ r.. il^ vij * ji-u-L ^ ■' Xl'^-y^:/'' '•'■■A -^yKi!rr"k' r ■ - y V f?,t-r V A ,>■ %*V' "IM pnofoieo CfiuXOU(UT<t)-^ 7\ w.[/■'. ,v IroPo'.EO )TT0M3‘Alt. \ y" \^ OftAWAG€ ^ A — - . * A A .^k^•Aitftoucrif) y hs?v V,illll r^vi «. ..w 50.U JV<^ «► O' ai»-©i2 •r I 50.0 TT ' J.i- (,« jt. to> LtVP) b'2' v»* • I 7 ^V* I** f •/nATCM Et. 0VLT{. 5)kl. .- X \-X' / Mi '/.^<esT: 7.94 \\m Y f >' ;y /i Vi: •Ilf] /,fj , c) f bTD t ^ • 4 ^PAOP.SPOT l.v ■/ EL. ITIP) n.-I N V ■ •••.^ \ J- ( CO TO: FROM: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, 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 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 lakeshore lot is a back lot and subject to the pertinent standards. List of Exhibits A - Revised preliminary plat drawing B - Preliminaiy' 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. 4. 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 adjiicent residence structure to the east w hich is only 3' off the lot line. 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 tw o variances to the back lot ordinance). File #2340 March 13,1998 Page 2 5.Provided revised hardcover calculations rellecting twinhome moved further south, slightly nearer the County Road, and reflecting revised lot areas due to lot line revisions. 6. 7. Showed a proposed berm along the west lot line as a bulTer to Lakeside Marina. This berm is over the e.xisting City sewer lines/easement and reflects grade changes within 5' of a lot line which requires a conditional use permit. The 55' X 35' stomiwater pond has not been excluded from the area of the lakeshore lot. Ulien 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 1 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' w idth 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 Outlet 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 he considered as conforming in width for a duplex lot. The intrusion of the MJVCC 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 1 O' side and 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 w'here 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 zone further from the lake while still meeting the intent of the code. This is demonstrated below: 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' w idth requirement and requires a variance, and use of Outlet 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 necessar)'. 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 seizing 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 w ould 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. Outlot C is being provided at the request of 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 down to provide adequate sight distance. This excavation would be the responsibility of the developer. General Comments and Issues 1.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. 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 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 Februar>' 12 memo) Only the lakeshore lot will have legal riparian access under City ordinances. Stormwater Ponding The preliminary drainage and grading plan was received late on March 12 and has yet to be reviewed by the City engineer. The City normally e.xcludes 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 ver>' 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 Cr>'stal Bay Road Addition. Does Planning Commission feel that the goals of the back lot ordinance are met by crediting stomi pond acreage toward the excess 50% area? Issues for Discussion 1.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? 2.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? ^ 3.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 propertj’ owners that will make use of it? Does Planning Commission agree that this should be a private road, and not public? OK- 4.Will Planning Commission recon.mend approval of the width and length variances associated with Outlets A and B? i File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 6 5. 7. Will Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to allow the driveway outlot to ser\e three total dwellings?^^<Io^:^C^i_jy 6. Does Planning Commission have any other corurems regarding access to this property or to adjacent properties? npems re NO- 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. 8 Does Planning Commission find any Justification to grant special approval for lake access for the proposed duplex units? ^ q 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? QU- 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 0^^ II. OF 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. J. 4. 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 owmers who will make use of that road. Applicant shall be responsible for making whatever changes are necessary to the grades adjacent to North Shore Drive to improve sight distance. 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. File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 7 6- Subject to the standard Developers Agreement requirements. 7.Subject to the granting of the standard drainage and utility easements. Applicant must confirm and show all easements over c.xisting sewer lines, and if no easements exist, grant them with this plat. Applicant will be advised that the 60-day lirnit 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. J i 2oT- JO-/WC eo.ai^ (T CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Robert Waade 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound MN 55364 ZONING FILE #2329 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: COPIES: James McKinnon 1055 E Wayzata Blvd VVayzata 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 TO; FROM; DATE; la. Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaf&on, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12,1998 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 lakeshore 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 ^ D - Survey/Proposed Site Plan ^putU —S 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-lC-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 uq ! 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 Commercial 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 Uie sketch plan review, and results in a proposal with few if any variances required. Conformity to Lot Standards Lot 1 is a lakeshore lot diat 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 the 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, Subd 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 a:id 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. 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, S'^ciion 10.20, Subd. 3 (I), does noi require additional lot area for a duplex: and Shorelc^d 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 tor a duplex (shoreland ordinance requirements) as 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 fimetion 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 MWee 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), 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 on the drawings (also see staff sketch. Exhibit E). Section 10.03, Subd. 27 (C) (4) states that no more than two residences may be serv ed 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 zone further 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 available 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 scrv'e 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 Cit\’ 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. Hennepin 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. 2. No grading or drainage plans for the site has been submitted, but is required. The City' Engineer has asked for stormwater ponding for th«s site, although MC WD has considered it to be exempt due to the size of the site 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 shown on the current preliminary plat drawing. File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 5 4. 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. The Orono Trail System Plan includes a corridor along North Shore Drive. The Park Commission reviewed this plat on Februar>' 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 non-lakeshore lot would not have lake access, and then the property owner a few years later created an easement 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' while 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. NoUvithstanding 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 owner/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 pondir.g 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 ciurently. File #2340 Februar>’ 3, 1998 Page 7 Issues for Dbcussion 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, therefore, 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/stormw-ater plan on February 3. Pending receipt of such a plan, staff recommends as follows: 1. Approval of the conceptual front lot, back lot layout. 2. 3. 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 tw'o 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. - , - ' rA t*^-. j ..-y Application # 2-3>^(0 PT~' ^ Date Received A23-^g> Amount Paid ^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 4 I PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress Property Identification Number (PID) ^c^kiCy Please check one - Property____abstract or _____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT ^ Name / Address A Phone (home) ^ 7^ City ZvD^f£ Phone (work)i<#^ ^5^^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address City__Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) /. y Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels n. Residential; no. of units /^t/kCA^Ty Other (specify)_________ Present Zoning District ( PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) X Subdivision for New Building Sites _________Existing Units _________New Units ^ Total Units Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential 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 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 MINIiMUM 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 1,11 & 111) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 X' Subdivision Application (Class I &. II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + S25.00/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 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/lineal 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 Wateimain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 _____ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $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 $30.00/Dwelling Unit Totals .55^0 — The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings arc held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. u it -1 M , V K.* V; Application # <^3^0 pTT 2 > Date Received 9g> T Amount Paid 2^0*^ * 2- CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ Site Address 3^^/■/ Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT, Phone (home) ^7^ Name Phone (work) ^ ^ Address/^/:?^ City Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (vvork)_ Address City Zip Date Property Acquired ______ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 CommercialAndustrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or xioodplain _____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation ____$200.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY . Present Zoning District ^ ~ ' Present Use of Property ^ Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. ^ Completed Application Form. 2. ^ Describe request in detail. 3. 4. 5. 6. y 8. 9. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hermepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur\eyor) - refer to handout for survey information. 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 owTier(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 (il" 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 oy the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual e.xpenses 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 signat OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. FROM • Robert UJaade Z Assoc.PHONE NO. : 6124727b52 Jan. 23 1993 04 :49PM POl ’ TT^Y^jO G~ • 0/Wnd OU>nMv ikpTi idhrn oajl^ DuAChM^^ -ijyim-ieXta ,’ /C>15S k)aym ^^' Ph: ‘P^sr-isi^ RUN DATE 10/2^/97 BATCH 507 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST PROP ADOR 0Nt4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44 0009 03265 BOHNS POINT LA E J MC DONALO/C J MC DONALD EDGAR t CONSTANCE MC DONALD 3265 BOHNS POINT LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44 0018 03280 NORTH SHORE OR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL HN 55155-4050 p/• . h •iii REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 24 38 08-117-23 44 0010 03225 BOW4S POINT LA H « V SWEATT HENRY L SWEATT 3225 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0011 00038 AODRESS UNASSIGNEO JOSEPH J A MARY K DOOLING RICHARD D ALLEN 3220 BOHNS POINT LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0019 03270 NORTH SHORE DR METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM METRO HASTE CONTROL COMM MEARS PARK CENTRE 230 E 5TH ST ST PAUL MN- 55101 TOTAL BATCH 507 00023 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 /0/27/»7.v RUN DATE 10/2V97 BATCH S07 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 ^1 000^ 03224 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZ'aTA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0007 03260 NORTH SHORE OR DANIEL J TORBERG DANIEL J TORBERG 3260 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 41 0005 03240 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA IfK NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0008 03262 NORTH SHORE OR LAURA ZAUNER LAURA ZAUT4ER 3262 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 23 38 08-117-23 41 0006 03250 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC ^JORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0009 03268 NORTH SHORE DR ROtMLD 0 STAUFFER JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 41 0010 03290 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 41 0011 03286 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA • DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 41 0012 03324 NORTH SHORE DR MINNETaNKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR 0R0r40 MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 41 0013 03332 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MN DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 41 0020 03342 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF Mir^ESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 41 0021 03324 NORTH SHORE DR MimETONKA PROPERTIES IW JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR OROIK) MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44 0001 03264 NORTH SHORE DR RUSSELL A NORUM RUSSELL A NORUM 3264 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGtiED STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0005 03300 NORTH SHORE DR MINNETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNT4 3324 NORTH SHORE OR ORONO MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44 0006 03220 BOHNS POINT LA R S S ALLEN RICHARD 0 ALLEN 3220 BOHNS POINT LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0007 03230 BOHNS POINT LA D F « J A DALVEY DAVID F DALVEY 3230 BOHNS POINT LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0008 03260 BOHNS POINT LA F E CHURCHILL A L CHURCHILL F E CHURCHILL A L CHURCHILL 3260 BOHN’S POINT LA WAYZATA MN 55391 PRELIM^^ ROAD NO bl ABft . AAIUCL • »•>••• • tmt PREL^MI^ ^ A < / / ', A ^mrl MAXWELL / > ,— ^iWl 'JUi^ /'^ROPOSCg HOUSEU “ — ** “V y ~—k-1 N \ »‘?«4 s < » ♦ltx» ^ J •s. »V .;</ // / / >i» ‘•/4i' .♦f»> r .V A/? ('i ^/ e.4 n ^|/ / ROAD NO bf { I 4 IMt|IAU-OAtBtl^_ rliiilinirtlMirfliti Mill Ii FROM :• Robert Z H-i-ioc.PHOtE tIO. : 6124727t.?2 Feb. 0? 19?S 02:49PM POl Minnehaha Creek Watershed Ilistrict 3ray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19. Navarre J , , Jm}ywvwgQual{tyof\\\iter,Qiiii!ityofLife CfWiA', ^ io4t l*ebruar>'4, 1998 P Mall: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MM 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax; (612) 471-0682 Email; admlnStninnehahacroek.ero Web Sits: wwv/.m’nnehahacreelt org Board ol Mananm; John E. Thontas President C. Woodrow Love Vice President Pamela G. Blixt Treasurer Monica Gross Secroiaty Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maplft. Jr. Malcolm Held DIsIrIct Ollica; Dlano P Lynch District Administrator 0 rrtni«4 tm tu*44*Wta «i tout 30S pott cOAMimr Mr. Robcti Waadc R&l Coiistruclion, Inc. 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 RE: Plat Proposal, County Road 51, Ma,xwell Bay. Gly of OFO»f>^ Dear Mr. Waude: We bavc reviewed Ihe plat for Ihc above mentioned properly and have the following cominciils. 1. The site is le.ss than two acres in s-izc and will have fewer than four living units. MCWD Rule 13 (stornuv.ater managemenl) allows an e,\emplion for sites which fit this criteria, rhetefore a MCWD permit will not be retiuired for treatment of stormwater runoff. 2. The MCWD docs hove a concern that erosion control measures be properly installed and niaintaitied until the .site is restabilizcd. We urge you to follow the City of Orono ordinances which govern erosion control. 3. If the topographic study of this site indicates an impact to any area below elevation 931.5 (the 100 year flood elevation) the MCWD would consider this to l^e floodiilnin alteration and require a permit for that activity. The plat submitted luvd no elevation contours. TMease .submit a plat with said contours when llml information is available. 4 Ihe MCWD is the local government unit (l.GU) for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City of Orono. If the site contains any wcilands, a jilat should be submitted indicating their location with respect to the proposed activity on the site. If wetlands are present a permit may be required. Please call me at 471-0590. e.Ktcnsion 282. with any questions. Sincerely, 1m Hafncr District Technician 1 ‘'W 0 *•>I I I I ^ 5 # O'^ ,'^P^ "tr. ROAD NO I 51 «xrr>' I I /' - HO / f^POtl :• Robert Uaade 2 H=.roc.PHOHE MO. : 0124727652 Feb. 05 1993 02:49PM POl Niiinelialia Orcck Watershed District 3ray Freshwater Center Hvvys. 15 4 19. Navarre Mall: 2500 Shad/wood Road Excelsior. MN 55331*9578 Phone:(612)471-0590 Fax; (612) 471-0682 Email: acimln®minnehahacroak.org Web Site; wwv/.mlnneliahacreek org J \ Jmprovin^Qualityof Water, Quality of Life f l'ebruar>' 4, 1998 Board 0l Managers; John E. Thontas Presidei'l C Woodrow Love Vice President Pamela G. Blixt Treasurer Monica Gross Secroiaiy Thomas W. LaBoun'y Thomas Maple, Jt. Malcolm Held District Olilce; DIaiio P. Lynch District Administrator 0rrlAMd RW P>f fW C4iidd*ni|ig »i tout 30% fK>Ei CdAWmr WM19. Mr. Robeil Waadc R&l Construction, Inc. 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 RE; Plat Proposal, County Road 51, Maxwell Bay, City of Orono Dear Mr. Waadc: We bavc reviewed Ihe plat for the above ineniioncd piopei ly and have the following comments. 1. The site is less than two acres in size and will have fewer than four living units. MCWD Rule 13 (stormwater managcmenl) allows an exemption for sites which fit this criteria. Therefore a MCWD permit will not be retiiiired for treatment of stormwater runolT. 2. The MCWD doc.s hove o concern that ero.sion control measures be properly installed and maintained until the .site is reslabilizcd. We urge you to follow the City of Orono ordinance.s which govern erosion control. 3. If the topographic study of this site indicates an impact to any area below elevation 931.5 (the 100 year flood elevationl the MCWD would consider this to be floodplain alteration and require a permit for that aclivily. The plat submitted had no elevation contours. Please .submit a plat with said contours when thut information is nvnilable. 4. Ihe MCWD is the local government unit (I.GU) for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City of Orono. If the site contains any wetlands, a plat should be submitted indicating their location with respect to Die proposed activity on the site. If wetlands arc present a permit may be required. Please call me at 471-0590. extension 282, with any questions. 1m Hafncr District Technician ^ ff / CITYof 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 1^ t>r h Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 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;LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre minimum lot size subdistrict Total Site Area;1.503 acres. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat and Topography Maps C - Survey/Proposed Site Plan D - LR-lC-1 Code Standards E - Duplex Credit CUP Code Requirements F - Staff Sketches Indicating Various Development Possibilities/Pitfalls G - Staff Concept Plans of Area Between the Marinas H - Comments from City Engineer Tom Kellogg 1 - Excerpts from Zoning History of Site Overview This is a sketch plan for development of the property directly east of Lakeside Marina, also known as 'the Straley property', which was owned for a time by the DNR as a possible site for an access, then sold by the DNR when the Maxwell Bay access was built on the Gayle's Marina site. Applicant proposes to divide the property into two lots, each to contain a duplex. The property currently consists of 4 tax parcels, three of which formerly contained residence structures. Context of Site in Relation to Surrounding Uses The property in question has a unique history which may provide some context for the current proposal. Historically, the property and the four adjacent residential properties to the east of it, have been located between two commercial marinas. The entire stretch of land between Tonkawa Road and the east side of North Shore Marina (See Exhibit I) was first zoned in 1957, designated as a Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 2'commercial district'. In 1966, all property east of Lakeside Marina, including the easterly approximately 60' of Lakeside, was rezoned residential. Shortly thereafter in 1967, the entire stretch was again rezoned commercial. With the 1975 City-wide rezoning, all property east of Lakeside Marina, including North Shore Marina, was rezoned to LR-lC-1, with the Gayle's Marina and Lakeside Marina properties to the west remaining as 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 Uvo marinas. City discussions that led to the 1984 rezoning of North Shore Marina from residential to commercial, included consideration whether the remaining residential properties between Lakeside and North Shore should be similarly rezoned commercial. The Planning Commission at that time recommended that future rezoning of the area be proved only when a future applicant controls or owns a 2 acre parcel consistent with the minimum required acreage for a lot in the B-2 zone, and proposes a use consistent with the B-2 standards. City Council minutes subsequent to that recommendation indicate no formal action was taken by the Council to adopt such a policy. However, Council discussions prior to the Planning Commission recommendation had indicated a concern that the City risks claims of spot zoning if merely North Shore Drive Marina is 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 manner are the twin homes in Navarre and the Brook Park/Sohns/Larson properties directly to the west of them; and a small tract just east of Carman Street near the Navarre business district. Shoreland Regulation Implications The Shoreland District standards adopted in 1992 place significant limitations on any PUD/PRD located in the shoreland, requiring the establishment of 'tiers' in order to determine acceptable development density in a PRD. An additional implication of the Shoreland Regulations is that any duplex parcel on the lakeshore must be no less than 135' in defined width, which has an impact on applicant's site because it is only 123' in width at the shoreline and at the 75' setback. Please review Exhibits F which define various subdivision schemes for developing the site and the various concerns or issues presented with each plan. These sketches were developed by staff at the time DNR was auctioning the site. Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 3Duplex Credit Implications Zoning Code Sec. 10.20, Subd. 3 (I) allows one duple.x 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 duple.x 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 niit require a duple.x lot to meet double the area standards. The Shoreland District requirements specify that any lot approved for duplex use shall be at least 135' in width and at least 26,000 s.f. in area if riparian, and at least 17,500 s.f. in area if non-riparian. Both proposed lots meet the minimum area as established in the zoning district and Shoreland standards. However, lot width and the 'back lot' status of the riparian lot stand out as potential additional issues. Back Lot Considerations Applicant's sketch plan proposes a 30' wide outlet over the existing shared driveway serving the four existing neighboring residences and the four proposed new dwelling units. This number of homes being served far exceeds the City's three-unit threshold for requiring development of a full-fledged roadway. Likewise, applicant's plan proposes a 12'-20' easement driveway providing access to the proposed lakeshore duplex, which 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(lc) disallow's a front/back lot division w'hen 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 p.oposed outlot, rather than the 30' required. Subd. 5C(2b) requires the lot width of a back lot to meet the zoning district standard mrnwcfi]SKm Mira »HTORM« raMira niCiliiMi] MHill siimmraiitjraii mm I rt\v/^i I •jratra rannifl rtnrii rtKtjivsititi ^n«t»niriiw^niiTErainiira HMira sim] Riioratit RRlViHcfdflra RT«mi[iintin[iiiiw9ran^j Miiaravsii •Kitts Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 5 How the Proposed Development Relates to the Adjacent Residential Uses Development of duplexes on this site may place it somewhat out of context with the adjacent single family residential development, and from a long term perspective might be considered as ultimately leading to a disjointed rather than comprehensive plan for the area between the marinas, unless the entire area is redeveloped with multiple family units. The total area between the marinas is approximately 3 acres, which if developed comprehensively could result in a 9 unit townhome complex with significant open space areas. The applicant notes that to-date, he is unable to acquire the remaining properties at prices that justify such a development. That is what is forcing the issue of creating two duplex buildings. Exhibit G-1 is a staff concept sketch of how a comprehensive townhome complex might be developed. 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 staffs concept of how the current proposal should be revised to most closely meet all code requirements. Utilities The site is provided with (and limited by the locations of) municipal sewer fines. 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 w'hether charges are due. Applicant proposes to mow an existing trunk sewer line, which the City Engineer has addressed in his comments. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review the proposal and address the following issues so the applicant will have some direction how to proceed; 1.Determine w hether there is any justification to allow the large number of variances involved with development of a duplex on the lakeshore lot. 2.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.Discuss the option of a PRD (See Exhibit F-3) and w hether the 'underlying zoning district' should be considered as having a density of 2 units per acre or 3 units per acre. 4.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. ■ M. OkO ^ J Q z^^^Application #___________ Date Received Amount Paid IZSO ^ ,/4 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SVYect a.dciu^o') PROPERTY LOCATION \ i k Siteaddress^f^8:C> ^ Propert>' Identification Number (PIP) onlO : 0^'' //7A^ ^ Please check one - Property____abstract or_____torrens? ' U~7 VV' ' Attach legal description to application. o Y- 111 OOL^ ^ APPLICANT Name r)hm^ O/yxc I OJCjOAe. Address City __ nnU /x )/L^)^ur^^:.T "HQ. ■AniJ Ki Phone (home) -4'/^ ZipQv^ Phone (workT^fl^Ywit OWNER (if differeiit than applicant) Name 4 aM,yL^ -fP^CT TY W'UJ )( Address /<OS17 cT 3/^'^ City lLJn.,Zarh^f Phone (home) f l V 1 < (attach list ifmore than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Zip tv^l Phone (work) j£Z^£ll^IP -4 Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ________ Other (specify)______ -t( ■! PROPOSAL Number of Building Sites T Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearraiigement Only (no new buildling sites) rHujiL Subdivision for New Building Sites /2>t'dVto lOZ.'• ^ —T-----T'^ \(X^ > Acres CAJUnits per Residential jpiXStUjL ' Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential jfK Other (specify) ^^NI^IUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminaiy plat ]nformadonon_CertificateofSurv’ey.________-___________ ....................................—__ 4., Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance)^-603 Govt. Center 348-3271), 5. As an addendum to this appItcatlonTplease altadras^arate 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 ORlcial'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 S350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class HI & 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 application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) Totals 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 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 ______ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant ’s Signature Date JULT uOv Ul-LXix /■/ 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 Comrnission 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. fj(pu »r ^ /^ Vdo I$9. OOO » \ c I. / .1^' ' / / / A A A -'L-...-- 'v V-75* ’!wiu‘u«lix V ’- .4*4MSq.Ft . ' EibttofAittW-M#’ ... ': PercfitofHirdcovtr . 25% f f D-/ SEC. 10.26. SDBDISTRICTS. 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. 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-lc" 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- SBC. 10.25. LR-IC ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "LR-lC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka, special regulations are necessary to protect that natural resource from the effects of intense development. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Ui:es. Within the "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: District. A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA” . (set' Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-IA" District except that a Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-IC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted' accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-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. 2-1/2 stories or Section 10.75. Height. No structure or building shall exceed thirty feet in height except as provided in be observed: B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet § 10.20 SEC. 10.20. R-lA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ”R-1A" One Family Residpn^-^a^ District is intended to provide a district which will a^Joi a combination of low density residential development and limited jjnniediatie access to highways and public sanitary sewer# » *.• 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. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. C. Municipal buildings. ^ Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any ‘•R-lA" One Family no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: . , . Duplex Credit. One duplex may be locai-*.ri r.r, » that^nuh^^^ ^ .conditional use upon application therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot f. adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and tL^duoll^ is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial building.' IS defined as a two-family unit residential u. A u.3 IS 5: 2 O 0 VI ir- O 4 5“ a: ^9 2 ^ SI ■ u :3 Vl ll fe4 2 I \t I r A 0 O* CYlU. :s . SHoeeu/os COt^C^i PLM^ . _ , LUiX(M) , f? tt?to.\JrtpvM.^ i/lWjT^ - 2^'nO 2-LCVru ^33oOcA ^ (Le’^%-ru.Gt^ ^L.(L-\C~\ _ ^164^ 5HA/2<?<^ PockI o o 935.5 i----------- 933.0 D 93^ 3 913 934.0, 0^ # 9^0 I 950 950.6 X 934.8 / <dop^> —5 9T1 .5 -951 . X 951.2 Co/ocer^r P44.U P^Poset. Boncuroo. ROienc. Anderhk ^nd AisocuUd. Inc 1$ «*n AffttwMiye Action Equ,^! Opportunity Employer Pnncip^H Orto G Boneuroo. PE • Joseph C AnderiiK. PE • Marvin L Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Ro&eri G Schunicnt. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • RoPert W Rosene. PE and Susan M EberJm. C PA , Senior Consultants Associttre Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Kcuh A Gordon. PE • RoDeri R. Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster PE • David O Loskoia. PE • Robert C Russek. A I A. • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rauimann, 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. Wilimar and St Cloud. VN • Miiaraukee. Wi ^ m Bonestroo ffrjj Rosene Anderlik & \ Associates Engineers & Architects January 12, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: VVaade 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 docs 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 ser%'ed 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 e.xisting house locations it would be impossible to meet all of the code requirements. We recommend a minimum pavement width of 24 feet and minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet across Outlot A. The two driveways shown to serve the site should be combined to form a single driveway at least 20 feet in width. The proposed pavement at Unit 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 constaiction. 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 constaiction 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 January 9, I99SMr Michael P. Gaffron City of Orono Page 2 drains northerly to the lake. A water quality pond should be located on the site to provide for storm water treatment. A drainage area map with pre and post development calculations should be submitted for review. 5. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Utility ea.sements will need to be revised ba.sed 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, /07*>1 Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono t g-»Ofe. TD .15 57 - P(eo f!^m Co .1?^..«r^TI ________^>£_T*'!:^!5rfVJW, tMfr^TZ.O/^.SeWP'!^ 4r^Sl S’€C. S_±5^ t/Vae^.. voevr OF TOf>i)cJk\AiK •eAsi^<4ri?i0fr_. _s<^ 14^9^CO‘_ ■?/ , 2«wtt£^_ ------- ------------ .- - 0?V7 tje>X>^ r.l^£20Ne^........ ____________________"7^ .. ytglibt*MTT/kt- /AJ ^ TO _ ______________Cot^y^Kii-M^ '....................... l‘3^\^-y^ itj’J72 - ^\7y^.t,0Mlf^Ca C6Lff^— jCfeT^W^ .. . _ /Sfl.€h . JLAieviit>f Ma/h*^ «44/vi<yvjr €Asr £^ut^Nt^i TO AJ oAjT}4 ^ TVVmmk**]_C**.»**«-«vs/T" tSAiTl J .... TO U!^-JC- \ _ (eeSfUt^TTi^rC .................... 3>//>S 7 0(^ Caet,/n*<i..lCpj^eAc^^ ------------ __________ _____ _____________ (f-li' S*^ Qgl> jt.g. Sjgo*.»t> re^f£_“ A'ovtfT#- . fr)gvr or_A-4./_M6.J/gll(^>-gfL see..^.----------------- __gOUMtaAibV c^iAt*vki*re/»ir. 2-2^B-0»(g /^g5 ^ > l^egoAJg^—Ago^agJ?g_€dg?l^£jl VgM-• MNgj JT^igiglOgy...77mi ----------- /^ /I AiO<eyTf Sot>rr?<_ UtPSJ^f^ .^eSTL. WQKtj> t.#. <4&0UT" /^^A5tr£1 ______________________________________________________________________________________________- ..»««»««'• T**«.,/. I •.-r•* **»*■•■*•■• •" (maxwell BAY)'- * . ••.••'• •• .'.t:.;-A'^. p/ie- |5J7 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE:April 13,1998 SUBJECT: #2355 Susan & Douglas Van Moorlehem and Ken Tumham, 4490 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: RR-1 A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre, not sewered. Proposal: Requesting preliminary Class III Subdivision approval for a 4 lot residential plat of the property located at 4490 Watertown Road. The property consists of a single tax parcel which is separated into 3 distinct portions by existing public roads. The northerly portion is 22 acres in area, of which about 4.8 acres is dry buildable and contains the residence. The central 5 acres south of Co. Rd. 6 and west of McCulley Road is vacant and is proposed as a separate lot. The southeasterly 8 acres between McCulley Road and Tumham Road is proposed to be split into two 4 acre lots. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Wetland Report F -1981 McCulley Road Condemnation Court Documents G - Depiction of Current County Road 6/Watertown Road Condemnation Impacts H - Steve Weckman On-Site Systems Review I - Letter from Hennepin County Public Works or ^ J - 1998 Quit-claim deed to County; 1986 Deeds (Tumham & Van Moorlehem) K - Alan P. Olson Memo 3-13-81 L - Brief History of Property M - City Engineer comments Pertinent Facts Dry Buildable Wetland Total Area Lost To ROW Net Drv Area Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 1, Block 3 Lot 2, Block 3 4.8 ac.± 5.07 ac. 4.07 ac. 4.07 ac. 18.01 ac.+ 17.5 ac. ± 0.15 ac.* 0.0 ac. 0.0 ac. 22.29 ac. 5.22 ac. 4.07 ac. 4.07 ac. 0 ac. 0.13 ac. 2.01 ac. 0.08 ac. 4.8 ac.+ 5.09 ac. 2.06 ac. 3.99 ac. 17.65 ac.+ 35.65 ac.2.22 ac.15,94 ac.± *This wetland is not on City-protected inventory, therefore is creditable toward lot area Zoning File #2355 April 13,1998 Page 2 Brief History of Property Please review Exhibit L for an overview of the historj of this property ’ as regards its zoning, development, and acquisition by public bodies for roadways. In 1980, the City' condemned a diagonal corridor for McCulIey Road through the 16.5 acres south of County Road 6, which could have been subdivided into three 5+ acre lots prior to the condemnation. As a result of the condemnation proceedings, the 16.5 acres was segmented into a 5+ acre portion located west of the intersection, and an 8+ acre portion located between McCulley Road and Tumham Road. The City ultimately agreed to the conditions established by the condemnation commission which required that the 8 acre parcel be allowed to be split into two 4 acre parcels in the future (Exhibit F). Currently, the 8 acre portion of the property is being reduced by 2 acres in order to accommodate a relocated connection between Watertow'n Road and McCulley Road. The County has acquired a road easement over 2 of the 8 acres, functionally leaving a 6 acre parcel. This easement is not reflected in the subdivision proposal submitted by the applicant, since it was only formalized within the last tw'o weeks. Impacts of Current Right-of-Way Acquisition The County Road 6 improvements occurring this year result in the need for Hennepin County to acquire additional right-of-way, which impacts the proposed plat as follows: Lot 1, Block 1 as proposed will not be affected. Lot 1, Block 2 will lose approximately 0.13 acre according to staff calculation, reducing it to about 5.09 acres. The 8 acre parcel proposed to become Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, will lose about 2.09 acres per staff calculation, reducing it to about 6.05 acres. Lot 1, Block 3 as proposed will lose one of the two drainfield sites identified by applicant’s site evaluator. Further, once the 100' street yard and side street yard setbacks as well as septic system setbacks are accommodated, there is virtually no buildable envelope left. This proposed lot is reduced to 2.06 acres in area. Lot 2, Block 3 as proposed will be slightly reduced in area from 4.07 acres to 3.99 acres, and the buildable envelope is slightly reduced due to the 100' required setback firom the new roadway. r » Zoning File #2355 April 13,1998 Page 3 The current County right-of-way acquisition obviously has the greatest impact on the development potential of the southeasterly 8 acres. Reducing it to 6 acres in a 5-acre zone and leaving Lot 1, Block 3 without a second drainfield site, makes it impossible to meet City standards for creation of two conforming lots from this portion of the property. The solution that staff has concluded is most appropriate, is to acknowledge the apparent loss of a building site, and allow the platting of a single 6 acre lot from what remains of the 8 acre parcel. The County reached the same conclusions in determining the value of the 2-acre easement acquisition. Although approximately 0.13 acre will be lost to right-of-way in Lot 1, Block 2, the area of Lot 1, Block 2 will remain at 5.07 acres. The wetland delineated by applicant’s consultant is not protected on the City’s inventory, and would therefore be creditable towards dry buildable acreage per City policy. This wetland would, however, be subject to a covenant warning the property owner of the need for permits from other agencies before impacting that wetland. Septic Systems Please review Steve Weckman's comments (Exhibit H). Each proposed lot has primary and alternate drainfield sites available. The existing residence has a nonconforming system which would have to be replaced by the end of 2007 under current code. The alternate sites for the existing residence are slightly limited and would require either a variance or driveway relocation if the house was expanded beyond its current 3-bcdroom status. As noted above, the northwesterly site for Lot 1, Block 3 will be eliminated by road construction. Dry Buildable Acreage for Lot 1, Block 1 The submitted wetland report does not purport to exactly define the boundary of the wetland for proposed Lot 1, Block 1, but is an estimate of the approximate boundary. Staff has calculated the dry buildable area of Lot 1, Block las 4.77 acres based on the submitted survey ^d approximate boundary. The zoning code requires that building lots in the RR-IA zone contain 5 acres of dry buildable land. Applicant’s wetland consultant must confirm the boundary of the wetland and applicant s surveyor must determine whether Lot 1, Block 1 contains the required 5 acres of dry buildable land. If not. Planning Commission should consider whether any of the following options is appropriate: 1. Can applicant acquire additional land from a neighboring property? 2. Should area within Lot 1, Block 2 be credited toward Lot 1, Block 1 via an outlot with Special Lot Combination across the road? If this results in Lot 1, Block 2, Zoning File #2355 April 13, 1998 Page 4 3. then becoming substandard, does it make any sense to require such crediting? Should a lot area variance be granted due to to extenuating circumstances which may constitute a hardship, such as: No additional land av’ailable, but septic needs met and Lot is 22 acres total - Existing house allowed to be built under current zoning standards - Location of existing roads - 'Ripple effect’ of crediting property from across the road It would be highly unusual for the City to allow the creation of a substandard lot in a new subdivision (staff is aware of only two such occurrences since 1975, one related to City easement acquisition and the other the result of a rezoning). The circumstances surrounding this property are very unique in that few other tax parcels of this size in the City are split by public rights of way. More common is the lakeshore lot with a County road between the house and the lake, where acreage on both sides of the road is credited... Access Hennepin County has agreed to build a new access driveway for Lot 1, Block 2 onto McCulley Road at a location approximately 450-600' from the new intersection. This location will require City approval. The County will also build a new driveway onto Tumham Road for the southeasterly 8 acres. The existing driveway for Lot 1, Block 1 appears acceptable. Subdivision Classification - Relation to Park Dedication Per the curent subdivision code adopted in 1984, a proposal to create 3 or more lots from a single tax parcel is considered by definition as a Class III subdivision, requiring a formal plat, dedication of wetland easements, etc. Also, as a Class III subdivision the plat is subject to Park Dedication requirements (Zoning Code Section 11.62). This subdivision will be presented to the Park Commission for review at their May 4 meeting for a recommendation as to whether land dedication or park fee should be required. Note that the Orono trail plan does indicate a future trail along McCulley Road. Storm Water, Grading and Drainage The City Engineer has commented on this subdivision regarding stormwater, grading and drainage (see Exhibit M). The relatively large acreages in each lot result in only a minimal potential for impacts to nearby surface waters. With the likelyhood that only 2 new homes will be constructed on lots of 5acres and 6 acres respectively, and no new roads being created to ser\'e the subdivision, it is staffs expectation that MCWD would not require a permit nor any ponding, and no fee contribution. The City's goal for this development, as noted by the City Engineer, is that pre- Zoning File #2355 April 13,1998 Page 5 development water quality and quantity parameters be maintained at post-development. This might be accomplished by merely maintaining vegetated buffers along the property ’ perimeters. Applicant must provide the drainage area calculations and information as identified by the City Engineer, as well as a grading plan for the site if any grading other than new driveway entrances is proposed. Note that erosion control using Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will be needed during home construction, especially on steep slopes. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1.Confirmation of dry buildable acreage for Lot 1 , Block 1 ; consideration of basis for area variance if required. 2. Recommendation that Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 should be platted as a single 6-acre lot. 3. Stormwater / drainage calculations required; may confirm no need for ponding. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary’ plat, subject to: 1.Applicant to confirm dry buildable acreage of Lot 1, Block 1 prior to Council preliminary plat review; Planning Commission should address how this should be dealt with if it is confirmed that it's under 5 acres. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 should be platted as a single 6-acre lot, reflecting the County right- of-way acquisition. The preliminary' plat drawing should be revised prior to Council preliminary plat review. New driveway access locations will be subject to Public Services Director approval. Applicant to provide pre- and post-development drainage calculations per City Engineer comments prior to Council preliminary plat review. Park dedication (fee vs. land) to be reviewed by Park Commission on May 4. Standard plat conditions: a. Granting of standard perimeter drainage and utility' easements b. Granting of Conservation and Flowage Easement over City protected wetland in Lot I, Block 1. c. Creation of covenant for protection of non-City protected wetland in Lot 1, Block 2. rv^:-A- O '*•. I ‘ * ‘ *r r*^*?**7^„»* Application # •> ?-*•. .•y Date Received 3 Amount Paid /2y . i/ CITYX)P ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ,4 PROPERTY LOCATION Site address WAi'QZ-rOVJN Property Identification Number (PID) 3l~* 11^-* ^3-* 0>l QOQl Please check one - Property____abstract or _____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT _ \ \t \N\ .>x \ e \ ; \M 1 \ Name V\ vcv<\\ \cr rUW»\ ^ v X'^uq U v ;. \ V Vc?oru.V\S W Address loca^Lv'Toc.^^ ~~^or.V _________________Phone (home) % ___________ZipPhone (work) 3V3~6>ii5 3City «*lcx VVoo.^ r c c ■ ■ <■• \ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name KCfA'vWWv .________ Address ^SC( Citv^::>vi^.'7x^)C ■ Phone (home) V OSy Zip .'hone (work) (attach fist if mbre than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites J____Existing Units O___New Units Total Units Number of Building Sites I Propo.sed Gross Density * Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry' Buildable Land Residential 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 on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this list fi-om Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this aQplication,^lease attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application Zoning Official's Signature 7^WA mXJI c V c ^ ________ Date 3' 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) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 *1» _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 ^ *4{lOo') ^ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.C0/lot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 ^ _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/casements and covenants min. $200.00 __X_ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) — S4af? 4o 4a _____ 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, Preliminaiy Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) Totals B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/Iineal ft.; Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _ lin. ft. X .50 *= $ lin. ft. X .50 “ $ Request for Cit>' 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 3 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 ISO The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. \ 1 fV\ Applicant's Signature “K V Cic? V.V ^___________ Date _______________ Owner’s Signature 'k-gv^vt.Tli ) _______ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Plaiming Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings o^ die 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. W y. 'Vvtv.v^ ^-vcVv>.Ac) V .V.VO.CV:.■\5.vS. O-A \S-V^ ^'^■‘■^'^"' cV C.’=.-»..,fe (j, ^ U '•'OtJJj. \ ^ \ V. " \<^ <V -a;— V \Kx Vv..., 'v^ \i A^cV.-CL\5^ v\(T c\ ^ '“ '— ---- ' V vwvv — ''VSf'jji V>.yw #o‘*^^1 ’■'3 fsss*' 1^ j I t'^-SS^ A RUN DATE 02/0A/98 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR 0M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 36 30-118-23 3<V 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED KIP A NELSON KIP NELSON AS80 WATERTOWN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-116-23 12 0010 0A390 SIXTH AVE N C S WILLIAMS A E R WILLIAMS CRAIG A ELIZABETH WILLIAMS 43<*0 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0022 09300 SIXTH AVE N ROBERT A MARILYN GEHRMAN ROBERT S GEHRMAN 9300 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 13 0013 09300 WATERTOWN RO JAMES JAY JOHNSON A WIFE JAMES JAY JOHNSON 9300 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 21 0003 09560 WATERTOWN RO KIP A NELSON KIP A NELSON 9580 WATERTOWN ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 29 0009 09595 WATERTOWN RD J L A H R BROLL JEFF BROLL 9595 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 38 50-118-23 99 0006 00885 HUNT FARM RO HUNTINGTON FARM HOME OWNERS LARRY MCCARTNEY 755 HUNT FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0011 09360 SIXTH AVE N DAN FLIES JR DONALD A NAWAL FLIES 9360 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 13 0002 00920 TURNHAM RO L E BERG A K M BERG LEONARD A KATHLEEN M BERG 920 TURNHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 21 0001 09990 WATERTOWN RD KENNETH TURNHAM KENNETH TURNHAM 9990 WATERTOWN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 29 0001 09980 WATERTOWN RD TAM SWEE20 TIMOTHY M SWEEZO 9980 WATERTOWN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 29 0006 09605 WATERTOWN RD J F SERENA A J M SERENA JOHN F A JOAN M SERENA 9605 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 REPORT NO. PZ935901 PAGE 1 38 31-118-23 12 0009 09320 SIXTH AVE N F L DETERMAN ETAL FERDINAND L DETERMAN 9320 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0018 09380 SIXTH AVE N J E A J E CARPENTER JAMES E A JANET E CARPENTER 9380 CO RD MO 6 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 13 0003 09395 WATERTOWN RO DONALD K PEARSON A WIFE DONALD K PEARSON 9395 WATERTOWN ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 21 0002 00038 ADDRESS UTMSSIGNED NORBERT JOHNSON NORBERT JOW^ON 2295 PLATWOOD RO MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 31-118-23 29 0003 00925 TURNHAM RD WILLIAM W STEMPEL ETAL TIMOTHY W A ANNA M OTTEN 925 TURNHAM RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 29 0007 00915 DEBORAH DR T A HALLQUIST/W A HAILQUIST TOM A HALLQUIST 915 DEBORAH OR MAPLE PLAIN MN S 55359 o RUN DATE 02/04/98 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST BATCH 501 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 31-118-23 31 0005 04550 WOLVERTON PL J L HARSTAD A J R HARSTAD JAMES L HARSTAD 4550 WOLVERTON PL ORONO MN 55359 38 31-118-23 31 0006 00385 TURNHAM RO C E PHELPS A J C PHELPS CHARLES E/JENf«FER C PHELPS 365 TURNHAM RO ORONO MN 55359 38 31-118-23 42 0008 00380 TURNHAM RO D E A D F MERZ DOUGLAS E A DIANE F HERZ 380 TURNHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 501 00021 c j 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 2S-5S u A 3 oo !:• Pi • «-l H- • iT ^_ •o LU' f .•I 0..o 5 (/) il^ LiJ .«> i I '\ '^N y* ' ‘ \ \ %* •• •^/ ;•’ : -'o .1.V(/) (/) c:ic:>a id•ooi=.H*IS ✓«i C3 L- •• d *•1 L»J-• n.. %i« O 6q (/) >t 00V/ J ul P Lij ;• h- <}P —^ -‘ ■'s•• ^ ^^___L_ V Pa N<^S> ^ . 4?. 1*^Y r. ^> ''</■ 4^ / / \ *^ff9 N *N ..-r' !'=3l^ f^7 ^/W / I'' \ \ X \ f / // / // |»»n jr»»«>W pi*i»?\s f/'/ // )/ \ / /7 //,^74 /,7 7 '■: ■■ /. 'A /-•• .• / i ' m \\ i / n p'C^\\\ I .■> \A\\V- 1 TV • I » \ • * •\ \>A ;\\\ . V^v\\ v'A^'V'-^^l7\' '., \'V i ^ \ \ \\H • r-^CTT'-^-i, !\^5- / S.. ^ -_____^JS $ :-r:-r-rr*.. • 1 \ \ • ^-^•A:->;:X X '•cN.; % 03/23/1998 15:5S 612-472-1040 KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENT PAGE 02 e I Kjolhaug ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY Frai’i'dirg Sound, Betcnctd, Comprthtnmi Sa!ura! Rtsourct Solutions March 23, 1998 Me Douglas VatiMoorlehem c/o David Crook Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Tnc. 3030 Harbor Lane, No. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. VanMoorlehem; As you requested, I have completed a preliminaiy wetland determination on your property, with boundaries as shown on the preliminary plan provided to me by Mr. Crook. Wetlands are located on the property as follows: Block 1 The majority of this block is wetland, located within the approximate northern 2/3 of the area Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by reed canary grass near the wetland border and cattails in the wetter and lower portions to the north. The wetland edge is located near the toe of the abrupt east-west bank. Block 2 The majority of this block is high and moderately sloped towards the west and north, with vegetation dominated by a mowed hayfield. A wetland Is located near the north-central portion. Water collects in the depression adjacent to Highway 6 and slowly flows under the road via a culvert. Vegetation witliin the wetland is dominated by reed canary grass. An additional wetland swale is located adjacent to and west of the northwest comer of the parcel. This wetland appears to be off of the subject property. Block 3 This entire block is moderately sloped hajdield lacking wetland conditions. Wetland is located immediately south of the area but it does not extend onto the property. I am enclosing topography with the approximate wetland boundaries indicated. Please note that these boundaries do not repre.sent an official wetland delineation, rather an official determination of the presence, of wetlands and an estimate of their approximate boundaries. ••, . V* • - ^ 'ir^. 4767 RlehmOAd Ro*il. Mound. Minnttott 533S4 * Fkom: ^12-473-487$ * Fmi 6t2-47v-io4o 03/23/1990 15:56 612-472-1040 KJOLHAUG EbWIRONMENT •I Sincerely, Kjolhaug Envirof^ental Services Company, Inc, Mark S. Kj^ai ProfiMsionAjVetl^d s/ientiit enclosure PAGE 03 A • .• %•• 0 * *. * ( -I t * 1 //I / / / * J 1 \ '--Oj27P. \\ \ \ 1 \ \ \// j\ L . ^ i -.• '/ *. \ r .'' / \ . • . . SSTTW^"* \'■'/ /2v*' I 'i f ^ \ \ \ V \ K3T^ ) vX / I I V \ y X V [33 V \ \ A \ \ \ \ V \ \ \ \ \ fl69.28 \ j / _____ir«5i line ef the Baul 5/8 of the Seel J/S of the / /. 0M^ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT City of Oronor a municipal corporation# Petitioner vs. Kenneth Turnham and Katherine Turnham and County of Hennepin, Respondents REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS TO THE COURT ABOVE-NAMED: The unaersigned commissioners, appointed by the above- named Court, having qualified according to law, met as directed by the Order of Appointment, heard the allegations and proofs of all persons interested touching the matters to them committed, heard testimony publicly under oath in their presence, viewed the lands hereinafter described, completed hearing and consideration with respect to said lands; hereby make the following assessments and awards of damages, which in their judgment will result to each of the owners of said land by reason of the taking of said lands by the Petitioner, the assessment and award in each case and the names of all persons or parties interested in each parcel of said lands, according to the best information and belief of the under- 'signed, being as set forth herein: ;v. Description of Property to be Taken 1) A fee simple interest in that jart of described peurcel located in Hennepin County, Stawe of Minnesota: The North 44 acres of the East 5/8 of the East half of the Northwest quarter of Section 31, ^ It, l?iSg soutLrly of the centerline of County Road J It • • No. 0, hereinafter Tract A, being southeasterly, easterly and northeasterly of a line hereinafter referred to as Line 1 and which lies northwesterly and northerly of a line hereinafter referred to as Line 2. Line 1: Commencing at the southwest corner of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 40 minutes 43 seconds West along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 31 a distance of 777.96 feet; thehoe north­ easterly 1313.29 feet along a tangential curve, con­ cave to the southeast, having a radius of 1532.80 feet and a central angle of 49 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds; thence North 48 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds East, tangent to the last described curve, 1500.00 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A; thence North 41 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds West, 50.00 feet to the point of beginni.ig f the aforementioned Line 1; thence North 40 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds East 880.20 feet; thence north­ westerly 112.17 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of 59.71 feet and a central angle of 107 degrees 38 minutes 14 seconds; thence North 59 degrees 13 minutes 31 seconds V7est, tangent to the last described curve, 409.23 feet; thence North 30 degrees 46 minutes 29 seconds East, 50.00 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 6 and said line there terminating. Line 2: Commencing a*- aforementioned Point A; thence South 41 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds East 50.00 feet to the point of beginning of the aforementioned Line 2; thence North 48 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds East, 975.21 feet; thence South 76 degrees 35 minutes 18 seconds East, 200 feet, more or less, to the east line of the East half of the Northwest quarter o: said Section 31, and said line there terminating, 2.5 acres, more or less, hereinafter Tract B. 2) And in addition a temporary construction easement being 40.0 feet in width and lying northwesterly and southwesterly of and adjacent to the aforementioned Line 1 and also being 70.0 feet in width and lying southeasterly and southerly of and adjacent to the aforementioned Line 2, 2.59 acres, more or less. Said temporary construction easement expires May 15, 1980. 3) And in addition the fee simple interest in that part of the North 44 acres of the East five eights of the East hal^ of the Northwest quarter Section 31, Townshi Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South .. the centerline of County Road Number G described as lollows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 31; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0* 40* 43" West along the West line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 31 a distance of 777.96 feet; thence North- .*• • • easterly 1313.29 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the Southeast, having a radius of 1532.80 feet and a central angle of 49® 05* 26"; thence North 48® 24’ 43" East, tangent to the last described curve, 1500.00 feet; thence North 41® 35* 17" West, 50.00 feet; thence North 48® 24’ 43" East 880.20 feet; thence Northwesterly 112.17 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the West, having a radius of 59.7T feet and a central angle of 107® 38’ 14"; thence North 59 13’ 31" West, tangent to the last described curve, 220 feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence South 30® 46* 29" West 15 feet; thence North 59® 13’ 31" West 20 feet; thence North 30® 46* 29" East 15 feet; thence South 59® 13’ 31" East 20 feet to the point of beginning. B. Description of Property Right to be Taken Fee sjjnple and construction Easement. Name of Party Nature of Interest Award Kenneth and Katherine Turnham Fee and Construction Easement The above award is based upon the agreement of City of Orono to grant a variance to the now existing minimum lot size zoning requirement of five acres to allow the owner to subdivide the property remaining southeast of the property condemned into two of approximately four acres each. In addition to thV'above assessment and awc\r;^^^he respondents are allowed reasonable appraisal fees of $ ^ 0» * 0 ^ \ The said award and payment thereof are conditioned upon the following: First payment therefrom of the taxes levied and assessed for the year 1978 and payable in the year 1979 and prior years, with penalties, if any; Also payment therefrom of all unpaid special assessments imposed upon the property prior to the date of the filing of the petition herein, including future installments thereof; and Payment therefrom of all annual maintenance charges levied prior to the filing of this report or to deposits under M.S.A. 462.445 (Quick Taking) or to payments under stipu­ lation in lieu thereof, which ever is earliest. We further report that all of the undersigned were present at each of the meetings of the commissioners and hearings and that \\Ct ‘"East line of the KW 1/4 of Sec. 31, T. 118, E. 23. £ 624.7Q } • Trx -vsa- 7 /7 k / /r.i rSsS^ 7/ / llsLdjt^asd -Sithm ct^UH# w//M lr> i\ 7 /7 \ ^ ! A \ i * *L !.'Cj' •\l /y" / f / 7II f Ni •r k\ \ I,V\ '\ \ V N N »I \ KS<i c '/ 7 7 \ V\<. %:n \r. v.v \ •*/. / n\N C-X \'■■r r7 /X. TV \ •] \ S •vW»X\'x'v: w ^ *• %.'•X /, \ y 2 7 T”' \V \ ‘ •.\ V, V V C C* V . C 1Ci. • X X "J <p\ 'V \ O \ ^ 7 it V \ * % CD’ .\ o X \ \ \ IJO 7 T^\ A \X a-V.;-\ r\ // 7 7f 7 7\ A ^ N- 7/7 ^ i \ ' 7 V ^ \' •' f{^ y '1 ' '' X 17. / \y ' V V \H''7 Vi*. \ \ \ N \\ \\^4 tlxf \ ti V \ VXV xX \. \ l/\\ \'•>:f... V > ■K X CD :\ •\ »N \X Wi X X‘? » N* • • •\ V \A X:' N- X X \x X.'w X X I \ \ X X X Iflw-_________ X .7^ kX *.»V N N \ N V \ -------------X \ X v'\;4: <M ' \ X'' \ N / \ A \X X l*l«----------- ■> ----lOM----- >. 'x \-Xv V \ 'X-,___*=;. V -------------- \\N X I vVX\\ V' X. X XX.X \ A>\ V \ '• I \v7.X \ \ %N \ \ \ \ x^-------j#o«—— .::i X \ \ \ SUtj^ 4 S4tAsek Li:>0 \ • A \ >\ >P., \C7\V X » ?• d:x"cf c \ A ■Cl^r \X X A" \ \ \ D \ V v\ \\ \:/•P t/7 •X 7 \\\ Vx 00 'l COx^\ \ \ 127,3 N 0*^6*36" ) \ >5t7fnc ofJ^ East 5/B of the >.usr£ 1/2 of the A'lf ;// of Sec. 31. CD —^ O __I X \ N7 \ X \ . \ \ /I I J 1 aV :,)r^^>r 3; \l LgSj ,/7j / t-'Q fL09^^ 0,\^ "ssC ' -A ^ t! T 0 U ^1 \ (_ \J ',A/:r / r 0 (^ f •: >/ \ *% 1^' tOS'TtA"' k / /< tS M^D WiSLAND ^ r * 1^' » \ S> jiZ'^.jy/- m K y r * 5 \ •■ A. #■* ■*0^'"' ' ‘°^aj-'' ■\# • !V / o o / / \ /\\) \ \ •' / N H ^t\ XT* ^*' /t, V %r: Rk^-- cpj TO: FROM: DATE: Michael P.Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager April 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2355, Susan and Douglas Van Moorlehem Subdivision The proposed four lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Soil borings and percolation tests were performed by S-P Testing, Inc. to identify primary and alternate drainfield sites on each lot. The existing three bedroom residence on lot 1, block 1 requires two future drainfield sites for the subdivision as the existing system is non-compliant. The existing system must be repaired by December 31, 2007 or within 90 days of failure, whichever comes first. The proposed primary site is located just down slope of the driveway and excavated soils and is designed for the existing three bedroom residence. Additional area is available for a total of five bedrooms, but the system would be seven feet from the driveway and the upslope side of the system would lie over excavated soils. If a five bedroom system is installed in this location the driveway would need to be moved to provide adequate drainage around the s>-stem. The future drainfield site meets aU current codes. Because the proposed primary drainfield site for this lot has some limitations, staff notes that another future site appears to be available just east of the future site, but at slightly sleeper slopes (between 6 and 8 percent). Staff considers this to be a better alternative than using a site across Watertown Rd. The remaining lots have primary and alternate drainfield sites designed for five bedroom residences which meet all current standards. No setback, drainage or other site problems appear to be a concern on these lots. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the subdivision. The City requires the drainfield sites be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration on these lots. /J-l QUIT CLAIM DEED STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ EXEMPT :r Aaf!\ 5Date:, 1998. FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. Kenneth Turnham and Edith L. Turnham. husband and wife, Grantors, hereby convey and quitclaim to the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Grantee, a body politic and corporate under the laws of ;he State of Minnesota, real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, tociiher with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. The real property is described on the reverse side of this document. li Kenneth Turnham STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS Edith L. Turnham COUNTY Qc HENNEPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of April. 1998, by Kenneth Turnham and Edith L. Turnham. husband and wife. Grantors. Notary Pv<6lic NOTARY PUMJO • MMNftOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY NyOsMiMioae19iraiJMt.tt.tOOO Accepted:. Assistant/County Administrator This Instrument was drafted by: Hennepin County Dept, of Public Works Transit & Community Works Division 417 N. St., Suite 320 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1362 Date Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should be sent to: Kenneth Turnham 4501 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Page 1 of 4 HC •>; lesa iSMi CERTIFICATE OF TITLE Ttiajftr trea Fa.(f) 613374 A. 0. I3SS No. SiSaJl CiSr»CTCC«*Tn,iw 19162 Orisiaally rtsis:crtd tht 25:h diy of July ValurtCs) 2295 ?«2t(s) 683974 REGISTRATION rr N9 849094 State oi Minnesota , C ounty oi H ennepin . This Is to certify tlldt Susaa VaaXaorlthca and Doujlat T, VanTfcorlthtn, husband and vlft as joins esnanss. 449C Vasarcowa Saad, Kapit Fliia, Klaceioca 35339 art 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: Tha: pare of cht Eas: Half of th« Horrhuts; Quiritr, Scctloa 3U lovashl? Ill* Hangt 23, dtacrlbtd as follovtt d.slinastd aurtray llna on th. plac of Hsn.n.pla County Stas. Aid Highway Ncbdf. rl'?Ut'1; ItWae/jiorchv.tt.tly along .aid suTv.y llna to tha Vast 11ns of tht East rivs-slght-j o.* gald Last Half of chd ilarihwtsirOMrtar: 'ehtnit North alooi .aid Was: Hat to tht North lint of aald Norchvts: QuarttfJ "thtatt laac’alo'*'; aald/5*rth lint to tht point of btginnlng. Subjtc: to a powar line eatesen: la favor of Ualred Powar Assoclatloh/fiorserly^ Rural Cooperative Power Aasoclacloas over North 35 feet of above lend as coataiaed la Cl Ooc Ho. 3725616; T' <^V‘‘nr-' L ^•) .u Subject to aa eastaeat for Eeaaepln County State Aid Highway i»o. 6. Plac 5, over perc of above land filed In CR Doe No. 39«^132; Subject to the tncumbrancf s. liena inH ini-iraet(s) no»*d hy the m«morlal(s) underwritten or endorsed hereon; and subject to the following rights or encumbrances subsisting, as provided In the twenby-fourlh section of “An act concerning the registration of land and the title thereto** of the General laws of the State of Minnesota for the year 1905, and the amendments tharcof, namely: t Utns, cUims. or rigins ariaiog undtr taws or tht ConsUtuUon of tht Unittd Sutas. which tht ttatutts of this statt cinnol rtouirt to apptar of rtcorO; 2. Any rtil proptrty Us or sptdal tsstssmtnl for which a salt of tht land has not bttn had a* tht data of tht ctrtificatt of titlt; a. Any Itaat for a partod not tiettding th/tt ytars. whan thart Is actual occupation of tht pranists undtr tha Itttt: 4. All rights In public highways upon tht land; 5. Such right of apptal or right to ap.itar and conttst tha application at is aiiowtd by taw; S. Tht rights of any parson In possttslon undtr dttd or contract for dttd from tht owntr of tra ctrUficatt of tiUt; 7. Any outstanding mtchanics Qtn rijhu which may ti«st undtr stcltcnt 514.01 to 514.17. That cha aald Susaa K. VaaiUorlrhta and Douglas P. VarJ*oorlthes art taeh of tht agt of 18 ytars or older, art BArritd to tach othar asd art undtr no Xtgal Incapacity. 71 Ac-J Vi IN WITNESS V/HEREOF, I hiive hereunto Subscribed my name end efflxed the teat of my office this Thlrclach day of Dtttnbor 1996 R. Dan Carlaon MEMORIAL OF eSTVTtS. EASEMENTS OR CHARGES ON THE LAND OESCR BED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TTTLI HERETO ATTACHED. Registrar of Titles, In and for tht County^ Htnntpin and State of Minnesota. ooeuMiHr! NUMiSt 1 ] KINO or 1 iNsrnuMCNT Oa TC O' itetrauusMT 1 DATE or AIQISTNATION 1 AMOUNT I I ! running in rAvoR or aiGNATURC or W,*!* lO,«| V,t*|tt,«l»iOtpi V,,#OCruTV RIOIATRAR 2773652 Kcrecift Dtc 6 1996 Dtc 30 1996 12 j Ktnntth lumhaa \ 4490 Wattrtovn Rd. S235000.00 yuolt Plain. “N • • t t • t 1 1 t• lea fiLp HC t03t CERTIFICATE OF TITLE Tratuftr froa Ko.(fl) 681974 A. D. 1986 No. 849093 OUTWICT cou^T 19162 Orlglnilly rtflsctrcd cht 25th diy of July Volu=«(f) 2293 REGISTRATION P«2*(s) 68]974 Sun MXGDTi Conn Rotox This b to certify that tissftb Turnhia, *490 Vac«rceua Ro»*. Kiylt PUIb. Kl=n«toS« 55359 No. siaos.'j J- now tho owneKs) of in estatt In fet timplt of and in \ht following described land iltualed in the Counfy of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, lo wlh far 1: Thac pact of Cha desccibti as follows: Case rivt-tlfh«hs of cht Ease Ral! of cht Korthwtsc Quarctr of SteeUn..Jl. Township 118, Langt 23 aa aaiuSad-heaeihi-or !i<Coaataclas ac tht Souchwtse coratr of said Stccloa 31; chtacVoa aa'aa4u5ad.^aeihf"of North 0 dagrtts 40 ainueai 43 saeaais Vast along cha Wase Uaa of Cha SouchwafpiQuarcfr of said'Saceibn'^la Viscanea of 777.96 fate; ehaaca Norchaascarly 1313.29 fate aloog a taogaacial eurva. coacava co cha Southaasc.^ havleg a radius o/ct53^:80 fate, and a caneral aagla of 49 dagraas 03 minucas 26 aacoods; ehaaca North 48 Bagrats 24 ainu^as.43 sacoadsVCatcA\cangaoc eo said curva, 1300.00 fate; ehaaca North 41 dagraas 33 aiaucas 17 tacoads Wast, 30.00 faaeV ehaaca North iO ^ag*aas-T4 eiautas 43 saeoads East. 880.20 fate eo eha point of bagiaaiag of eha tract of land eo ba dascriba'd^chance Kofdhaastarly, Norcharly and Norchvascarly 112.17 fate along a tanganeial eurva. coneavt to cha Vase, having a radlUlVf 39.71 fate and a eaaeral aagla of 107 dagraas 38 ninutas 14 saeonds; ehaaca North 39 dagraas 13 ninutas 31 saeoads Vts:, eaegaae eo eha lasc-dascribad eurva. 220.00 fate; ehaaca South 30 dagraas 46 aanutas 29 saeoads Vast. 13.00 fate; ehaaca North 39 dagraas 13 minucas 31 saeoads Vase, 20.00 fast; ehaaca North 30 dagraas 46 miautts 29 saeonds Esse, 13.00 fast; ehaaca North 39 dagraas 13 minutts 31 saeoads Vast, 169.23 fast; ehaaca North 30 dagraas 46 miautas 29 saeoads Esse to cha lina daslgnatad **survay Uaa** oa cha plst of Ranntpia County Scsea* Aid Highway Numbar 6. Plat 3, ehaaca Northwascarly along said **survay line" co cha Vtit liaa of cha Eatt rtva-aighchs of said East Hal! of eha N&rehvasc Quarear; ehaaca Soueharly along said Vast Una to ita intarsaceloa with a liaa cha: baars South 48 dagraas 24 minucas 43 saeoads Vast from eha point of baginning; chanca North 48 dagraas 24 miautas 43 saeoads East, 649.49 faat to tha point of baglanlag. Far_2s That of tha Use Eiva-alghchs of cha East Half of tha Horthuast Quartar of Saetion 31. Township 118, lUaga 23, •ying terch of eha South 4 acras of said East Fiva-alghtha of eha Ease Half of cha Norehvatt Quarear. which lias Soueharly of eha following dsscribad lina: * CoM.selo, «t th. Southw.it eocn.t of lald Soctloa 31; ch.nc. oa la iiiua.d btirio. of Worth 0 dt.ct.i *0 elnut.. 43 .ocoads W.it .loa. cbo U«,i lln. of cb. Sovthw.it Quirttr of laid Stctlea 31. t dlitiact of *77.9S ftit; thiaco Wotfhtiitirly 1313.29 Soot •loB| 1 tinfinclil eurvt, coocivo to tht Soothtiit. hivlag « ridlui of 1532.80 f.t: lad a eintt.l .n.li of *9 d.grooi 03 Bioutoi 26 iicoodi; thioeo Worth *8 di|riti 2t alautii *3 ittondl lilt, tingtat to i.ld eur-i. 1300.00 flit; thiaeo South 41 digrooi 35 ■Inutoi 17 tieondi Uit. 50.00 ftit to tht biglnnlag of tht lint f> bt dtietlbti: thtaet Worth *8 dogtoti 2* Bloutii *3 loeeadi EMt 975.21 foot; thtnet South 76 dtgrttt 35 olnutti 18 ttter.dt Itic to tht Ui: liat of tho Worthwtit Ouictor of laid Stetloo 3l sad Chars esrainscing. 3844132; Subjaee eo sa aasaatae for Haanapln County S:a:a Aid Highway 6. Pise 3. ovar part of abova Par I filtd In CR Doc No. #3‘ II• *i’-u%K»¥II% I1^-I •^i .-d i « • < •V•a V’ 5a •*. >; -t •>jr k rOt Bruco O, Mdlkcrion, City AttorneyFROM: Alan P. Olson, City Planner*DATE: March 13, 1981SUBJECTt Kenneth Turnhan PropertyRing Route Condemnation 1J78. The northern section is moetly deeljnated wetlands. XU of the various pun. for^h. .^the« p.rt^ ‘hi%^U SSI?:!‘Vu tSa%*?hnStu!:i‘h^:i«. .r. .po?tcd m ldentic.rioc.tlon. roeardless of plan. plan 1 The southern portion i^n/^Mp. prior to the right of vay oocausc this part of the parcel Is »cp- ar.te tax parcel must ^ by roads, no aubdivision .ppllca- constitutes one building site. PLAK 2 Prior to the new rwd, ^*^.2’pi!!“t!2i"would%«vrboen**** created, a formal subdivision appliestlo utilisation %#ould have r^ulred. Under the RR-IA «"i?? 5 a«ercich? Minimum lot width been 3 lot. at •" jvoraqe °[J;®3t«"hU maxlnum density. Per rtS^cu«cnt f*r Mhcduic. platting would have cost: Application Fee Park dedication Engineer s Legal fee Recording (co Surveying costs Platting costs S230 for 3 lots ($220 for 2 lots) $300 for 3 lots ($200 for 2 lots) $ 50. mininun7 $580 to City for 3 lot? ($470 for 2 lots) PLAN_3 This plan Hr^rM^ntc right of way Is in place. Thn Pto?^ ' * ^ pi« co? wrr.' tu pieces. Ar. per nl*»n No. I, but nn r-iN!;vlnin-i .ipp! icali»*fi built upon, nr'w ta.'< W' fully •••'n: »m r^inn to all or review is neccr.u..ry J’:' ‘ , .a-/. . .. . .. . .-.v. ronine reqvlrcoentn a id rar !-• scl«l in!.* review. ii ?•• t •. t li PLAN_4, 5 t € Those plans Illustrate possible ways to subdivida the eastern parcel created by the new road. Since this parcel is less than 10.0 acres net, an area variance is necessary in order to subdivide. Plan $ also requires a width variance for the south lot. All lots exceed the minimum 2.0 acres of dry land necessary for on-site sewage treetsient.Note that there are still 3 units possible just like shown on Plan 2. Xn fact, the house locations shown on Plans 2, 4, S a 6 are all identical. Also, only the eastern portion must be subdivided. The %iestem portion can be sold and used as a building site without awaiting completion of the formal platting procedure. 7^ a i} fl I TOi FROM: Bruco 0. Kalkorson, City Attorney Alan P. Olson, City Planner* DATEt Karch 13# 1981 SUBJECT! Kenneth Turnham Property Ring Route Condemnation The etfched pX.n. lllu.tret.Ceaprehenslva Plan and Zonine Codes in effect today. ?9tS? r!irno??h2rn section lo mostly designated wetlands. All of the P}*[JJi*®ubdivislons*Ssn'u4n the*R^irLning requlre- i:;t:!“Sot2"iha%‘’?Se «:%po??cd m identical locations roqardlesa of plan PLAN 1 The T- to be built upon, a sep- ^rToTto the right of way this part of the parcel is sep­ arate tax parcel must ^® ? by roads, no aubdivision appllca ................... constitutes one building site. PLAN 2 Prior to the new r^d, have been creatT^p a rwximun Utilization would have required. Under the RR-IA 5 ^cres each. Minimum lot width bHn 3 lots at overage maximum density. Per ;l^?tJnJ -;td have cost: Application Fee Pari; dedication Enaincer s Leg*‘'l Recording fee Surveying costs Platting costs $230 for 3 lots ($220 for $300 for 3 lots ($200 for $ 50. mininun ? $580 to City for 3 lots ($470 for 2 lots) lots) lots) PLAN 3 This plan “ roppJ*y^hn,'b^cn'»pUs..n.ir.itcright of w.iy is in pl.icc. The pi*-cvs wrr.' to h'' pieces. AS per nl^n ^o. U cnMt'*tl but no r iWUvinioo npn! ic.it l»-n built upon, nnw t.^.x p»ircc)r. miut I fully mmi to .ill “'ievic^ is . . . .. -zoning rcquircncntr. aod r.i. review. 1•i s-r *. *. IhA X PLAN 4, S t 6 ThQie plans illustrate possible ways to subdivide the eastern parcel created by the new road. Since this parcel is less than 10.0 acres net, an area variance is necessary in order to subdivide. Plan 5 also requires a width variance for the south lot. All lots exceed the mlniinum 2.0 acres of dry land necessary for on-site sewage tredtinent. Note that there are still 3 units possible just like shown on Plan 2. 2n fact, the house locations shown on Plans 2, 4, 5 4 6 are all identical. Also, only the eastern portion must be subdivided. The western portion can bo sold and used as a building site without awaiting completion of the formal platting procedure. LEgfe.KJO SOOTHERAJ ^RTIOIOOP RttC£L-• bAse. Mai * Cory cr H^oucpiAj C oua/tv Puat A\4 v .p Zok^tUG 1^ RR-IA PO-^t>^UTIAL. MiKi* S#0 A co £S • sr- F«i L^ A\liU. *3^0 rT Wit>TM PaoKnr iC RcAi( Scrr^ACtc - ^oo rr ^loe ^f-TBA.cic - 5-0 FT L E<Sfe-MD Possible Sowui^itfO of ScAue. r^zoofT Piz^r>ETvry utEje. ^ocTf»^ACK u-tioe P^^^P5>LE. ^L^ILOIAJCV bAse. Mai * Cofy or He>oUApi\; CoxjfJXV Puat A\ap *^ul^Ja. PMl^^V/TIAL. Mim. S#o Acaes • Z\7jBOO ST Pmo, Lor Mi#J. 3^0 FT Lor WI^TH pRoAH" ^ RcAii Scrr^ACK* - loo rr -SiOfi ^«.T3AC< - sa FT* " ■■ ■'■■ ■ Pf^OPETVTy UlOG. ------------------------------ <51ETf*>ACIC UlAJC PO^IISLt. I^UfLMAJO UOOATrcnJ SCALt |••r2L^O^T REQUIRES, A Sm»d. ArrkKAJww ♦ FtATTIMfi! * 3uns AR£ 20Olt.VS MAXIMUM LEgfe.NJO SotyrHERU P^RTIOIO OP RttC£L» bA«e. M-w I* CoTY ov Coumv "Puat A\^p Zomia ;^ RR-IA €»nj<5t» "^uR al 'Ec.<iit>c-*JTiAi_ M»w. ff.o ActLES • 2l7^aot? sr- Foa \-m A\|U. PT Un WI&TW PiwArr j: Kcwt ScTRACK - \ooer ^xcrtt ^*-TOA.cif - 5W FT - .i___ paoPSMstY uloe. ~ ^CCTI^XCK. U.IUC L-OCATfOM-4^ Possible Sogi^w»^»g»o of SCAi-e TiZoofT bAsc. Map i% Cory Htoutpiw Gjoarv P’i^t RR-IA "^wRAL ^«A*^®ArriAt- m«k >. 5.0 Acaes • z\7,aoo sr- F«i Lor a \ia ;. -5«3orT «-or wirth PreoATT X fZeMt SeTRACitf - looFT ■S«e»t ^«-Ti3A.c< - SO ft' przoPCTvrv uiog. —_______________- ^OtTt*,AChi u-toc F055llbUE. ^WILPIAJC. i.OC4!X{CK)V/TA ScaLt l“r2t?orr REgUIRE^ * Sofco. ArruicAJlow * R.atti *J<S j|f 3 tors ABe 200106 AVMrtMU» LEistMO E.yi^Ti>JG <5^TL>Amo^J - *Roa &- E^*t M^ .» COTY Of H6O0t.p»^i C>oAm/ T>uat /^p .<■<>- €.ie»a ^•-To^cie - s'o nr p(2flf»rn.TV uioe. ___________________ ^tcrtt^^CK. »-»»oG P<7««|1&l.t- L.<9<:<1T(0'^ <^^PPTI.3»JA>L. ^Qga'PlUl^lQ^J. REQUIRES >i- lOO So^X>\M\^0O ^ fJo PL/WTT/AJ6 Fuu-y CoVFOff^^- L EgE-MO I ___________ bASt Mai . I* COTY Of Heout-piM Ojowrv Puat A\ap ZOMlOii H. R.R-IA &IM6V* *EtlRAI. T?«->«t>«i»^IAt. M.m. S.o A coes • 2I7,S(» sr - F«t LiTf A\i»J. -scorr i-»T w«t>TW ___ pRofsrr & ReAH Sct »a .c K - lOoPT ^lOfc ^t.Tf3A.ciC - 5<0 FT — pf^c>pE.X*TV UlOC. ___________________ S«:tt^a ^ck . v-»fcjx FC>-e>einE>LE. l^OC4SXtO\J ^e,u.^ l-racfr^rT Scale . |••ri^t^c5rT gEQUIR£^ >k su»o> ArpJ.ifi*>XK Hi Rattws j!j A k £A Vab U Ve*»ny i5 SA«t. SS^c/oA As PkAU W».A- f4.4f AC./ttAjCC wl &Ase. Mai* Cory ov HtuOtpiAj CouMXV "P uat ZOKHtJ& Rt^^lA ni^lLy^ ”^u«?AL T?e<5Jt>«i*JTIAU Mim. S#0 Acccjes • sr- Pa«. Lor A\IU. PT Vt/IOTM raoNT X fZ£jJ^ ScTl^Ax:K - SiOR -s«-T3A.cic - 5"a rr mmim^m mm mm ................. PR<?PtKTy UlOIL. —------------ ^ocTf^Acic t-tkie: ^uiLt>iAj(i \^ac^:X{OKfy///// SCALB. l"r2tfOrr ^S>P7ig?i0Au $OS»1>IUI6IOO _• c ^ i¥ Suw>. ApPLiajio^. * PuATTlAJii At Lot AttiK i U<r[ u/i»TU ViaiAfA 4i Avt. t>eoinv S ame - Ac/(/(s/ir •••A «• • I 4 bAse. Map i* Oy of He.O'J«-p''^ CoOUlV PuAT ZouttJ& RR-IA fAMi'.y' Miw. 5.0 Acms • £\7,800 sr- P«t Lor /\nj. •soorr turf wioTM PIWWT i Rtrit scTftAtfitf - ioo rr Sip« ^«-TO*-C< - 5V3FT PRoPCtcry i-»oe- ^ctivack. v-we P^^|1C,LE. rjtMLPlAJO L.OC4?TIOA.> 5C4L6 FT T?eQUtR6£ ;|r^i;9Tr. AtwcAl ik "RlATnioo •4# Lot A»kaV^< Jk Ave 'DeMjrry' S am*. 5.?-s ^' A« PUA> N».i A»«" L EXfflBIT L Brief Histor>' of Property A. Was initially one 44+ acre tax parcel, ’j 'ng on both sides of Watertown Road B. Zoning pre-1967 was "Residual District" with no lot area standards in effect C. Zoning from 1967-1974 was R-IC, Single Family, 1 acre minimum D. +5-acre parcel with old farmhouse (4480 Watertown) sold c^f prior to 1975 E. Zoning from 1975 to present is RR-1 A, Single Family, 5-acre minimum F. G. 1978 - Ken Tumham constructed new residence on portion of property north of Watertown Road; must have been credited for frontage along south side of Watertown Road, since north side of Watertown frontage was/is only 277' where 300' is required; it's not as obvious whether any credit was granted for dry buildable acreage across Watertown, and building permit file has no indication on this 1980 City condemnation for McCulley Road reduced property to 35.6 acres; as part of condemnation settlement. City agreed to allow the 8-acre parcel to be split into two 4-acre lots in the future I. J. L. M. H. Subdivision regulations in effect in 1980 would have allowed creation of 3 separate tax parcels per road boundaries, without subdivision process 1984 - new subdivision code adopted (still in effect) which made such a division a Class III subdivision because it results in three or more lots 1986 - Tumham created two separate deeds for (a) property with house north of Watertown Road and (b) Uvo property remnants south of Watertown Road; but did not do a subdivision to create 3 separate tax parcels K. Tumham quit-claim deeded house and land north of Watertown Road to Van Moorlehem Febmary 1997 - City staff rejected County request for approval of division and advised Tumham family members of need to complete a formal subdivision process in order that the parcels be separated for tax purposes (and zoning purposes) 1997-98 - Hennepin County finalizing plans for Co. Rd. 6 improvements results in need for 2 acres of the 8 acre remnant between McCulley Road and Tumham Road to be acquired for right-of-way; Tumham being paid for this 2 acres based on losing one of the two buildable lots that could have been created from the 8-acre parcel. 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects April 13.1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: VanMoorlehem Subdivision File No. 139-2355 Dear Mike: jMPone%:rco Potent Andtf'fik ^nd AisoctMcs. tnc n Affirr*^tti>^x* Ac: on Equt*i C»30cr:untty €rrpt<*'e^ Pnncip€*ls Otto G Bonestroo. PF • Joseph C. Ander'iV. P£ • Ma.'vfii I SorvaM. P£ • Richard E Turner. P». • G»enn f? Cook, P£ • ::>oe.'i G Scnu»’ichi. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • RoOert W Posene PE and Susan M EOeritn. C PA Senior Consultants Assoc/are Howard A Sar.fcrd PE • Ke :n A Gordon. P£ • RoOer: R Pfe^^erle. PE • Richard W Poster. PE. • David O LosVoia PE • Robert C ^..:s*.<. n i A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T. Rautmann. PE. • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P. Ancerson. P£ • Mark R Roi»s. PE. • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • RoOert F Ko •• hith Cf/.cer St '*aui. Rochester Wiiimar and St Cloud VN • V !wau>ee Wl We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed four lot VanMoorlehem subdivision. The site is located at 4490 Watertown Road near the intersection of County Road 6, McCulley Road and Watertown Road in Section 31. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: The existing intersection of County Road 6 / Watertown Road and McCulley Road / b*** Avenue is controlled by stop signs in the easterly direction of County Road 6 and in the westerly direction of Watertown Road. McCulley Road / 6“' Avenue is a through street with a high point k»c;ited approAirnatel> 150 feet southwest of this intersection. The configuration and control of the intersection may change based on this summer’s proposed intersection improvements by Hennepin County. Lx)t I. Block 2 fronts both McCulley Road and County Road 6. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 abut McCulley Road, Watertown Road and Tumham Road. Steep slopes exist on McCulley Road along all three lots. The existing access to Lot 1, Block 1 appears acceptable. Access to Lot I, Block 2 could be off of County Road 6 or McCulley Road provided the access is located at least 600 feet from the intersection. If the access is off of County Road 6, the location should be reviewed by Hennepin County. Access to Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 should be from Tumham Road. The plat may reed, to be revised to provide access to Lot 2 from Tumham Road. 2. Htiiii:es: Existing and proposed well locations should be shown on the plan set. Utility oon->tra('tion 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 measure.^ should be in place prior to any grading. Additional erosion control will be needed during constmetion of the homes. 4. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the drainage districts PC-29 and PC-37. Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 drain northerly to an existing ponding area identified as PC-P99 in the SWMP. Lots I and 2, Block 3 drain southwesterly to pond PC-P40. Water quality and quantity issues should be addressed as part of the design in accordance with City standards. The post development runoff leaving the site should be maintained at predevelopment levels. Ponds PC-P99 and PC-P40 have Iiotl; been classified as moderately susceptible w'etlands. These wetlands will require that 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax; 612-636-1311 r phosphorus loadings entering the ponds be reduced to 0.28 Ibs/ac/yr. A drainage area map with pre and post development calculations should be submitted for review. 5. Easements: Utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along all exterior lot lines. 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. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono t G> TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM;Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE;April 1, 1998 SUBJECT; Rick Fredericksen, representing Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing P I* Zoning District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area:3,049,200 square feet (70 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 14' by 22' (308 s.f.) pump house over a well currently being installed. Because the country club is a conditional use, any additional structures erected upon the property are subject to conditional use permit review. Pertinent Ordinances:I. Section 10.20, Subd. 3(C): Conditional Use Permits, Country Clubs U2352 Rick Fredericksen. representing Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Read Conditional Use Permit April 20. 1993 Page I *1 Findings: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The proposed pump house is subject to the performance standard of meeting a 50' setback from any property line on a property that is already a conditional use. The shed will be located approximately 185’from the nearest lot line, which exceeds the code requirement. Furthermore, a dense stand of mature trees will screen the shed from the view of the adjacent residential neighborhood. » 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed accessory structure will not negatively affect the public health, safety or welfare. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The 50' setback required for accessory structures on properties that are a conditional use is the only applicable performance standard for this proposal. This proposal exceeds the requirement. The structure will meet other applicable zoning requirements for height and footprint. Staff Recommendation: To approve the conditional use permit for a pump house as submitted. U2352 Rick Frederickscn, representing Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road Conditional Use Permit April 20. 1998 Page 2 1 Attachments: A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Property Owners List Survey Pump House Elevation Drawings U2352 Rick Fredericksen. representing Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road Conditional Use Permit April 20. 1998 Page 3 ■4 ■4 i Application if d Z- Date Received /> Amount Paid SZOO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 200 Woodhill Road, tVayzata MN 55591 Type of Application to be Filed Conditional Use Pormit Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 02-117-25-42 0012 APPLICANT Name Woodliill Country' Club Phone (home) 475-5811 Phone (work)__________ o* • •! Address 7qq Ubodhiil Road City Wavzata Zip 5S591 OWNER (if different than applicant) Representitive Phone (home) 4?t;-l7!^1 Name Rick Fredericksen___________________ Phone (work) 475-5811 Address_____________________________City __________________Zip___ Date Property Acquired_______________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ______$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use ______$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$225.00 Guest 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 (month/year) !•■ • . >1 ■ •> PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District______________ Present Use of Property______Residential X Other (specify) Golf Course '^4. ^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. ^ Completed Application Form. 2. X Describe request in detail. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat r'lp (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-327D. _____ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. 5. _____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur\’ey. 6. _____Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 7. _____ 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). 8. _____ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 9. _____ 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 Lise 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 signature Date ^ - 13 - ? ^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The ow'ner 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 -ig.>,o/. u JDate v? ~~/J* “ ? 6^ 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 1 SEE ivlA? <18 OIIRHIURD (D Chtsen Lake •IM AVt A iBjMiai KIliEV «tia cm WATCmOirH RO I eoo coMtmjot MIfl V MEDINA **«vb;?=25=Sf.^l €««« ftv Cl HI H KU* Long Lake •Ira u s ...... .rrv^ n lA . u«;»M aar ©NO Or 000 Country Club' 11 w ' >881 6A- Noerenberg Maxwell \.Park SCO 0 / foia Afi caucaiM = t A SUI fin I LxdiarU hikf iraaat a*! LAAI W 1^ j i N li •®!j| Country Clib / 5ii-,_.£E ............. ....... Wayut a''•»// -*. Country Gub |r| firowns fiav -—s SEE MAP 76 V PLW ttSTSFm la an ■ Pea\f\I^ayzatA Ptttni Wayzara Bav Breezy Point vCri/ar IPotnt V f ^, BV 7 V^^3>VV00DLA ‘i C _____________ c^OO (juoocL^'^-C(J . 7fd. PERMIT RECORD E /V9/ n^L I9,T)7 ¥/.yc) h' ! If ‘^<4Un Qa<4^ //jdLiL 3-3^-'i9 I -76-^0 <?-/.?-9^/ /r. '13 V //'/7-‘?‘y ^ - 9 7 3' ^ (S^_ Permit No. /(o9.^ Date ST“ Type of Permit '^nficE/^ Coaj<i^ /9(^g -pfha.____ /9^9 /o ~ /e ~^X / /d -/9-Z3 EEkiiJUe^ 9!? 3/li-13-73 Tll-^a ig^-n-73 • / OJ/jJn P.^93.a-17-7^Sjlaj E'P )r~ _ 9'0 9l 7- /^'79.. _^7?^ /9 /<» i^nuA-f ------------------/■ ^ ■ f. ----------------------------------------------- V39//r.9-0'^0 ^/jrLLcf , '/^.Qyn oO^-Tf-C. IPMLI_____/!■ /lr-9^P^onc^j P:-nw-/lc P PMj, Vvti ‘:22L£. ySUtH ioyw-e^>-*E _P_ RUN DATE 05/0<^/98 BATCH 50^ PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/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 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 02-117-23 11 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY 0004 RD 38 02-117-23 13 00322 NOODHILL J L CONNER & G J PAULUCCI J L CONNER A 6 J PAULUCCI 201 1ST ST N SANFORD FL 32771 38 02-117-23 13 0007 00038 ADDRESS PENDING NOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB NOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 NOODHILL RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0006 01235 LYMAN AVE C P PESEK A R H PESEK C PAUL A RAE H PESEK 1235 LYMAN AVE S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0010 00180 ORONO ORCHARD RD JOSEPH M ROKKE ETAL JOSEPH M ROKKE 180 ORONO ORCHARD RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0029 00160 SMITH AVE M N A M K NICOLL MATTHEN N A MARY K NICOLL 160 SMITH AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 12 0001 00200 NOODHILL RD klOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB NOODHILL CNTRY CLUB 200 NOODHILL RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 13 00320 NOODHILL J L CONNER A G J J L CONNER A G J 201 1ST ST N SANFORD FL 32771 0005 RD PAULUCCI PAULUCCI 38 02-117-23 14 0001 00965 EDGENOOD HILLS RD T A A C A CUCICK THOMAS CUSICK 965 EDGENOOD HILLS RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0007 01230 NOODHILL AVE MICHAEL D WOOD JUDY 0 A MICHAEL D NOOO 123 NOODHILL AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0027 01275 LYMAN AVE H I A E T MCMILLAN HOWARD A ELIZABETH MCMILLAN 1275 LYMAN AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0030 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MICHAEL D WOOD MICHAEL D WOOD 1230 NOODHILL AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 14 38 02-117-23 13 0003 01050 EDGENOOD HILLS RD VARTKES H EHRAfUIAN VARTKES H EHRAMJIAN 1050 EDGENOOD HILL RD NAYZATA hW 55391 38 02-117-23 13 0006 00315 NOODHILL RD N N MCGUIRE A N M MCGUIRE N M MCGUIRE A N M MCGUIRE 315 NOODHILL RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0005 01235 LYMAN AVE C P PESEK A R H PESEK C PAUL A RAE H PESEK 1235 LYMAN AVE S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0009 00190 ORONO ORCHARD RD S REED LARSON REED LARSON 190 OROm ORCHARD RD S NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0028 00140 SMITH AVE THOMAS C HUNT THOMAS C HUNT 140 SMITH AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 24 0008 01250 NOODHILL AVE J V A V L WELSH JOHN V A VIRGINIA L WELSH 1250 NOODHILL AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 RUN DATE 03/0<^/98 BATCH 50^ PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OKO^ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OKTIERS LIST 38 02-117-23 2^ 0009 01260 WOODHILL AVE CAM MAILE CHARLES W a MARLA C MAILE 1260 WOODHILL AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 ^1 0002 00985 EDGEWOOD HILLS RD MARY JEANNE V BOWEN MARY JEANNE V BOWEN 3301 RUM ROW NAPLES FL 34102 38 02-117-23 42 0002 01055 EDGEWOOD HILLS RD D ELDREDGE JACKSON III ET AL D E a K K JACKSON III 1055 EDGEWOOD HILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 42 00325 WOODHILL J L CONNER a G J J L CONNER a 6 J 201 1ST ST W SANFORD FL 32771 0005 RD PAULUCCI PAULUCCI 38 02-117-23 42 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 35-118-23 34 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED G MARC WHITEHEAD ETAL G MARC WHITEHEAD 1220 LYMAN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 24 0012 U1245 WOODHILL AVE G L STORCH ass STORCH GERLAD L a SHELLY S STORCH 1245 WOODHILL AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 41 0003 01045 EDGEWOOD HILLS RD FREDA C KEITH FREDA C KEITH 1045 EDGEWOOD HILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 42 00450 WOODHILL DAVID A WILSON DAVID A WILSON 450 WOODHILL RD ORONO MN 55391 0003 RD 38 02-117-23 42 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 42 0012 00038 ADDRESS PENDING WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 34 0004 01220 LYMAN AVE G MARC WHITEHEAD ETAL G MARC WHITEHEAD 1220 LYMAN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 15 38 02-117-23 24 0013 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LUCY C MITCHELL ET AL LUCY C MITCHELL 1255 WOODHILL AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 41 0009 00038 ADDRESS Ut4ASSIGNED MCLEOD CNTY REG RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC 25 ADAMS ST N HUTCHINSON MN 55350 38 02-117-23 42 0004 01065 EDGEWOOD HILLS RD A^:^4E L RITZ ANNE LARSEN SIMONSON 1065 EDGEWOOD HILLS RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 42 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 38 02-117-23 43 0026 01165 FERNDALE RD W BRADLEY C BOWMAN II BRADLEY C BOWMAN II 1165 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 43 0024 01200 LYMAN AVE R S a N N CORNWALL RICHARD S CORNWALL 1200 LYMAN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 rj J • I RUN DATE 03/0^/98 BATCH 50^ PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OmERS LIST 38 35-118-23 43 0026 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY BURLINGTON NORTHERN RY 38 35-118-23 43 0030 00038 CITY OF CITY OF P 0 BOX ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ORONO ORONO 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 99 01-117-23 23 0001 00601 CO RD NO 15 WOODHILL CNTRY CLUB WOODHILL CNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 99 01-117-23 24 0004 00401 CO RD NO 15 BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC 99 01-117-23 32 0007 00502 CO RO NO 15 JOHN H A JUDITH C FANSLER JOHN H A JUDITH C FANSLER 162 RIDGEVIEW DR E WAYZATA MN 55391 99 02-117-23 11 0001 00200 WAYZATA BLVD W WOODHILL CNTRY CLUB WOODHILL CNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 43 0028 01170 LYMAN AVE BRUCE A MCFADDEN BRUCE A MCFADDEN 1170 LYMAN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 35-118-23 44 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND FOR SALE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY Ol^ER ONLY 99 01-117-23 23 0002 00501 CO RD NO 15 WOODHIL CNTRY CLUB WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHILL RO WAYZATA MINN 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0001 00601 CO RO NO 15 WOODHILL CNTRY CLUB WOODHILL CNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA MINN 55391 99 01-117-23 32 0008 00699 HILLSIDE DR W JAMES A LOOSEN JAMES A LOOSEN 225 LINDAWOOO LA WAYZATA MN 55391 99 02-117-23 11 0004 00500 WAYZATA BLVD W CITY OF WAYZATA CITY OF WAYZATA 600 RICE ST WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 16 38 35-118-23 43 0029 00038 ADDRESS UtiASSIGNEO D C & E D MOGEN DONALD C a ELEANOR D MOGEN 7450 BELLAIRE AVE DUBLIN OH 43017 99 01-117-23 22 0003 00490 WAYZATA BLVD W CITY OF WAYZATA CITY OF WAYZATA 600 RICE ST WAYZATA MN 55391 99 01-117-23 24 0003 00401 CO RD NO 15 MCLEOD CO REG RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC 25 ADAMS ST N HUTCHINSON MN 55350 99 01-117-23 32 0002 00501 CO RO NO 15 WOODHILL CNTRY CLUB WOODHILL CNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA MINN 55391 •1 ■f, 99 01-117-23 32 0020 00700 HILLSIDE DR W CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH ET AL CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH 700 HILLSIDE DR W WAYZATA MN 55391 99 02-117-23 41 0001 00700 HILLSIDE DR W CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH ET AL CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH 700 HILLSIDE DR W WAYZATA MN 55391 RUN DATE 03/04/98 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY WINERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 17 BATCH 504 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 99 02-117-23 41 0007 00700 CO RD NO 15 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 99 02-117-23 41 0008 00670 HILLSIDE DR N CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH ET AL CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATH 700 HILLSIDE DR H WAYZATA MN 55391 99 35-118-23 44 0008 00549 HARRINGTON RO CITY OF HAYZATA CITY OF WAYZATA 600 RICE ST WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 504 00057 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. •'=-s DATE '■i V,. J c/ I C y Ct-ua /A6A4ATY r, c \A' ^ ^ r,•>' w- z: »^/ V/ N./ J* PROPOSED A 1^^' fi P*"/* 40^—• — •“ •* _ ^ f/^/AZ A r-\ I L ..%.).u \ -/•KJ G 1 -i------1------J___. ^ 1 1 1 TT^1 i 1• • i ‘ ; 1 ' —__L_T rlo- 1 i 1 1 i1i 1 -______1_____i \ i ! i 1—j—r- 1 1 , — • ! f • = iJ L_ 1 • 1 I r , -j-“4 -! 1 1 ' 1 1 ! » j i • » 1 1 ' i ---------------1____ ‘• i 1 —- ?--------- i 1 1 1L....I 1 ! i___-1 1 1 (1 [l’.u 1 1 f 11 4. •* 'f 4 ! t 1 i 1 i t — ■4.M.. . f‘ ——vvl 1 i *• ** i 1 «\i r”J •-'X 1k 1 — 9 y V W~r I 1i »! i.* 1 1 1 — - - f 1 f —I 1 • r—• i' i ! 1 I » • ---------1 1 1 !TT 1* 1 n 1 1 1 1 -i ! 1• i 1 1 1 "T i "T 1 : . i . • i 1 ,—T—!—i—T-------i--------!-------T - • * • f .5S TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:April 13,1998 SUBJECT: #2353 Len Busch 1265 Shoreline Drive Variance--Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area:53,400 sq. ft. (1.22 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback area to build a 750 sq. ft. "hobby room". Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 15, Non-Encroachments Section 10.23, Subd. 2. and Subd. 6. Section 10.22, Subd. 2. # 23 Len Busch 1265 Shoreline Drive 4/20/98 page—l ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IA District Standards Lot Area 2 acres Lot Width 200 ’ Street Yard 50' Side Yard 30 ’ Lakeside Yard minimum of 75’ and average lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 1.22 acres 145’at OH WL 140’ at 75’ setback 245 ’+14.8’ for residence; 10’ proposed for hobby room principal structure and pool encroach into average lakeshore setback The subject lot does not meet the minimum lot width or lot area requirements. The residence currently encroaches into the required 30* side setback along the west property line. The residence also encroaches into the average lakeshore setback. The swimming pool encroaches into the required 75* setback and the average lakeshore setback. The residence was constructed in 1964, prior to adoption of the average lakeshore setback requirements. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 53,400 sq. ft.3,933.6 sq. ft. proposed 0.0736 The proposed hobby room will not e.xceed the maximum structural coverage allowed on the lot. n2i53 UnBuseh 1265 Shoreline Drive mms page~2 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 0'-75 ’ 75'-250' 250 ’-500' Total Area in Setback 10,780 sq. ft. 23,400 sq. ft. 19,220 sq. ft. Existing Hardcover 1,263 sq. ft. (11.72%) 9,220.4 sq. ft. (39.4%) 2,582 sq. ft. (13.44%) Allowed Hardcover None 5,850 sq. ft. (25%) 5,766 sq. ft. (30%) Proposed Hardcover No Change 10,013.4 sq.ft. (42.79%) No Change Variance Requested None 4,163 sq. ft. (17.79%) None The subject property does not currently meet hardcover requirements in the 0'-75' setback because the swimming pool and deck encroaches into the setback. The amount of hardcover in the 75-250' setback also currently exceeds the maximum amount of hardcover allowed by 3,370.4 sq. ft. or 15%. The house, garage, and driveway are located in this setback. The proposed hobby room would also locate in this setback and add 750 sq. ft. of structural hardcover. The applicant has indicated in his statement that he would remove some of his driveway. He has also stated that the runoff from his property goes to the wetland and not the lake. The hardcover requirements, however, have two purposes, to reduce runoff to the lake and elsewhere and massing of structure on a property. In Exhibit F, staff has showm the required setbacks for the principal structure and the 10' side setback lines for accessory' structures. There is a wetland on this property and a 26' setback for structure is required from the wetland. The hobby room could be located 10' from the existing garage or attached to the garage and the circular turnout from the garage could be significantly reduced. The paved area could also be reduced further if the hobby room only had paved area in front of the doors. A minimum of 30' of drivevvay is needed to properly maneuver out of the garage. The existing diameter of the driveway area is 60’. U 2553 Len Busch 1265 Shoreline Dri\e 4/20/98 page--3 •J STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The subject property is substandard for lot area and lot width. The principal structure encroaches into the required side setback from the west property line and also encroaches into the required average lakeshore setback. The swimming pool encroaches into the 75' lakeshore setback. The property exceeds the minimum hardcover requirements in two setback areas. There is a wetland on the property which limits the possible areas for new construction. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question caimot 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. The hobby room would be an additional amenity for the property owners. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The situation is created by the owner's desire to have a 750 sq.ft, hobby room and the substandard characteristics of the lot respective to the zoning district's minimum requirements. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The hardcover variance will locate a new structure 10'from the east property line, 23'from the adjacent residence. The side setbacks for principal structures in this district is 30'. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. The applicant has not indicated that there is any economic reason to locate the structure on the subject property. 5.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located. A hobby room as an accessory structure is allowed in this zoning district. However, it shall be noted that if the structure is built, it cannot be used as another dwelling unit or for # 2353 Len Busch 1265 Shoreline Drive 4/20/98 pags-^ 6. 7. commercial purposes. The structure also cannot be used as a home occupation because it is proposed to be separate from the principal structure. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many of the zoning lots in this area do not meet the minimum lot area or lot width requirements. This lot has excessive hardcover in the 75-250'setback area because of the driveway. New construction is limited by the lot width and wetland setback requirements. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 8. 9. The zoning district standards apply to all other lots in this district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant shall provide the Planning Commission with testimony to the necessity of having a hobby room and protecting his propert}' rights. The granting of such variance will not merely ser\ e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTiculty. The variance would be a convenience to the applicant if approved as proposed. The hobby room could be relocated on the site and the driveway reconfigured to more closely meet the intent of the Zoning Code regarding hardcover. Issues 1. 2. The lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The residence encroaches into the required side setback and the average lakeshore setback. The swimming pool and deck also encroach into the required lakeshore setback. The amount of hardcover in the 0 ’-75' setback and 75‘-250' setback already exceeds the maximum amounts allowed. 3.There is a wetland on the subject property that restricts the location of a hobby room to be located in the 250-500' setback area. However, the driveway could possibly be relocated so that the hobby room could be located further from the residence and U 2353 Len Busch 1265 Shoreline Drive 4/20/98 page--5 within hardcover limits. 4.The permit history indicates that the residence was built in 1964 before current shoreland management regulations were adopted. The swimming pool was constructed in 1971, before the average lakeshore setback requirements were adopted. Three land alteration permits have been issued to this property since 1992 for filling in along the east property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the existing and proposed hardcover limits and direct the applicant to redesign the proposal to reduce hardcover. Staff cannot recommend approval of the hardcover variance as proposed because it greatly exceeds the intent of the Zoning Code. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K Application Applicant's Statement Topo map Plat map Proposed survey Staff alternative Hardcover worksheets Elevations and Floor Plans Permit record Acknowledgment Form Photos i 0 2353 Un Busch 1265 Shoreline Drive 4/20/98 page^6 : 1 .v v »A • J Application it Date Received " 3/ 2jO| Amount Paid Talf. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Applicanon Fee ($50.00 per each addiliond^ariance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress \1 C ^ 5T //!^r>Pr Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_______________________________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ______4—___________) ^ /______________(month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: Y residential other (specify)_____________________ Zoning District:______________L P A ________________________________ APPLICANT Name L-^ r\ Address: j 0 f. ^ C A v;/ ; ^ Phone (home) V ^ 6 / ^ T / Phone (work)_________________ __Zip: _41£12_21/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Citv: y ^ ■/ . Phone (home) _______ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 3 ^ Describe request in detail: Uo \ Ct r< ^ ^ fP'r' r____Hex ^ O u — ")<r‘ ^s> Pro' R..:lri a /-/c^hUf (attach additional sheets if necessary) / VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^__________________ ___________________________________________^-7'V »-■« «___________________ /y (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS s!. •’) All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. ^ Completed Application Form 2. X Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271 ). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcove r calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Wo Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8I/2" x 11" for reproduction. 5. X Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8V2" x 11"). 6. X, of names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ovv’ner(s). 7. ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff 3. 4. 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 infomiation 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 infomiation supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. / / .. Applicant's Signature ,, ^Date OWTVER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, qonsultants^agents. Commission members; and Coun<^ members for purposes of investigation and veri^cation of this request. ,*-/ Ilf, 7 y Owner's Signature • 'Date ^ 4c Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings :re 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. .VA O' ( / / iicciiug. ^ ^ / Ci-yf/ Hii r/ C/ /P/'-jA. i? ^ 8 . Y / ( / ^^7-^ . Ikl B HARDSHIP / DESCRIPTION FOR LEN BUSCH PROPERTY I would like to build a hobby work shop. I will use the same look as the house . Since I am already over the prescribed 25% ground cover and will add a net of 1% , for a total of 31% ground cover. In doing so I will remove some of my driveway area covered for a net increase of 536 square feet. Since all the run off north of my house including the new building , goes into the wetland on my property there will be no increase in run off to the lake . Without this consideration there is no other place on my property I can build my shop .1 respectfully ask your approval of this project Len Busch ^ C1)■>’ , ^ i ‘’•N cu A Vc/ :|^ 9NU: r HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEL1 SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500’ •EVh'bi [ 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVFR IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By PlasiU G. Other X X X X X X X X X X <f3 /zoo TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /ZZ>3 B /o7So /Z43 X 100 =H.7Z PROPOSEH HARnrnVER IN 70NF. A. House _____________ Length Width y% , B. Garage' C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •r B- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % X 100 = S.F. S.F. 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 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75‘ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X (7S-2S0 :^250-500' 500-1000’ S.F. Length Widlh X X X B. Garage ^^/2-Ot / C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/.Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic G. Oiher 3.& 3Z^ X X X X X X X X X Z7 CF^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B Z±±Op_ PUOPOSKl) HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X X B. Garage*IP., C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X A X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B MdZCL X 100 = X 100 = 4^33 2/f.8 30.4^ 7£o 3o>4- ZI.6 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. J2Z0.4 S.F. ? 3400 S.F. 39.40 % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. ____S.F. ^7t0.9 S.F. fOS-O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /Ooj:?- 4^ S.F. 'Z34oq S.F. A B A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEEl SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250* (^0-50Qi> 500-1000* F.XTSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONK A. House ______________ Length WuJih X X X B. Garage C. Dfivxway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X Other ^3 d>.S TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -r B X 100 = LftZG PROmSFn HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House X Lenglh Width X X X B. Garage* C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pauo/Dcck ts 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. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.T. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B HPAP CP.H. pp-o:r\. 6?A?-. maTc^h style . ^?N £><.15T6AP'. aJE6T elev /t'0\ nr 'i ^ /g, II ^ -c? - ■ _;-^ cLEV/rlC?H /ajll: I -C7 c^\XX. P'IP^»5. — V5^T- A|P6»£HA5TEP- asphalt 5H1WGLBS -EVAT ' OV\ \2.T -EVAT OVs vx/ BlC^EPAP- S 5/ft" P,S. SlPlHG I e>ATTBN < mat^ph PH eAS ’ 5/V K6i'' c^epap - ^ E;C?AP06 WHITB SHUTTB UPP&P- ' ENP PA cp\>r 3 MAIH 6 EHP P 1-tP e>£ wall E F <3 t ol \ MINIMUM ^ (>iNTILEVEP> TC? SUPP<:?PT ^A^Ue ENP TP-U55 NPH t csl \—I 1 ^>NT1LEVBI^ &BNM I Z-r/4.xl4LVU ' If tO I raz V ci-i'/^ \FOOF 0VEPHAH6? .|'/i INC?^P Pf HUNCs^ 1/ s«ppeeN^ SEHES 6AEE Er “Ae«c?ve « •y* V v^. c. C'l-f/t o Li^’P- PLA -£? I ' J Permit No. PERMIT RECORD Date ll-STiH ■7HI 3-S-(:>S -=yhibi+ I • * Type of Permit yVd U) ES gKhibil- 3 ('• ' 1 I •- i V^*>:. r - ^ 'V- •\ ,Jf I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form f ^y- ti^ [print address] have review’^ the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 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 Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Date 3h^fh e Property Owner Date I (we) []3rint name(s)][print address] have re^v^d the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at/^^> also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare^-afmroval or disapproval of,th^ property or use but merely to confirm for the City Coui^l that I (we) am projfct oi uso^quires (are) aj^ar^of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s Coiwicil y^proval. Z//‘ Properly Owner # Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your cc.nments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 3/in h% 1^^ ^ ho ire , /AM 3/( n /<5^ % ’ ^V-‘ T^‘, (•A . ^ ^ ,i »\«- V. lljb c /liy(i D.g'/hibi V 6 i'm i >\ . v'^n^ , i S'J.• ; A prapose<^ / ilk Sfc:-;' 1^-' ■; / ‘:m / / '^*. ?.T / '■'^■£?' A.r>-fef'^ *'* .<',A ...la H-N^cov^ <- y.-^*v 0-^ P<^y7^w4 lloblly S ^'Vc/( d/^ S k,x^.vj. Of, ;iV^^ '1= .2^- - .'-• ^ ' r' i'*-'; -: c[Ihu S'lvri ^l’.tf/>Li.\A4 OrCvK 0 iTi/V ^if I (A 11 /IH M" ’" . M w%. ^"1^5 V *' ik--I ' :»ruri'^:'- > i-'/v. s ^ v'^4 i ..'*« jV'■'••■■”5 v.i ‘ •' ;^5 7ror.::i> * • »••*. '. V ij;- ■•■.i..'^-:--^!->S -" --^r' IV )5b3 i -1^ -JC . r •• • *-;*/ ^-\2, -u-"' '■■---: ,o^^■^y•^ . . -' -fv.f '. .•.'■•• •> ' ■'••r vi'. .r, .r- • a. . • .* • ' *'•#•* *" -- • * *.* * » * * *** • •'■'VV'^'-. if..-• . .:* ' ■ '.-.N -^.7 •» S'. . ^** .. . .* ^ A*<: .r^l. • •*.-• ■ ■ :i-,^jr;..»'. -.U- V-T^ « \ A !4L4;i.-Tj- \lI o \r pOjViycJ^ skJ^ i=r>5v ’‘K-r:^C ^ ^ S $ Lort I'V [yCiyi • :'•.••■ - "••• irf -I <•. ^/•J 1^ HA)2DC o>;5)1- <- ResioeMc^ ^ •. » _ ^ ' JS* ptsV--__ ■'r.- •■' r. • js~ ^ v'>r Om,e V^ Ml ^ J iS ■ • ■'. - • . r ■ •• i- -t’ t *. •. •_ , - • - --, \ ^*-.'•. \ - *_ -_ ’ !*>‘*^* Lj| ^ T :. •• -X ■.. >■ V-^ggS^’f^^; j : I I 111^^^ . '• . . •- ■ • :•• ‘ —< ■ m r r* j mm r^>t i' . ■ ^.r.i=-mm ■ ".. -/r' ■'" V:v'J#.^«!&?;^'’^ •' i ^ Uv • l/'^ .' ^ l- ^'•* ‘ ' ‘-< tlu C;' b .'i* TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City AdministratorFROM: Dressier, Planning AssistantDATE: SUBJECT: March 31,1998 #2354 Konrad Krueger 520 Hanlon Avenue Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) 4,853.9 square feet (.11 acre) Annliotioii- The applicant is proposing the construction of a second level addition over the Application. ^ ,„^,hed, one car tuck under garage that will encroach into required yard areas. Variances ate required for front, side and rear setback. Pertinent Ordinances: . Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B) I? ^2354 Konrad Krueger 520 Hanlon Avenue Variances April 20. 1998 Page 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard RR-IB requirement 2 acres 200'50’30’50’ subject property . 11 acre 75.01'28.3’ existing 25.1’ proposed 9.5’ (16.5’for addition) 14.5 ’ (16’ for addition) The subject propcrt>‘ does not meet requirements for lot area, width, or front, side and rear setbacks. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 4,853.9 s.f 695 s.f existing 1,140.44 s.f pioposed 23.5% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application as lots are allowed a minimum of 1,500 s.f of structural coverage. The proposed figure includes the 3.2' of overhang on the front of the house not reflected on the survey. The proposed structural coverage is 1,031 s.f. or 21.2'-l% exclusive of the overhang. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 500’-1,000’1,940 s.f 3.35% (65 s.f) 35% (679 s.f) 406 s.f (20.93%) none Hardcov er is not an issue with this application. H2S54 Konrad Krueger 520 Hanlon Avenue I'ariances April 20, /998 Page! STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant’s statement of hardship is noted on the application form (Attachment A). 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 zoning lot would be unbuildable if held to the zoning district standards. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property riot created by the landowner. The zoning lot u platted and rearranged prior to current zoning district requirements. Many of these substandard lots have been combined to form larger, more conforming parcels, while the subject property has not. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for front, side and rear setback will not change the character of the area. 4.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not pennit 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. An attached garage is allowed in this zoning district. 5.The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Lots in the immediate neighborhood were platted prior to current zoning district reav.irements and do not meet current standards for area or width. Furthermore, the » ' residences are larger, have attached garages and are located closer to the front lot line than the subject property. 1^2354 Konrad Krueger 520 Hanlon Avenue Variances Apr I f 20. 1998 Page 3 6.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 7. 8. The lot depth is 64.72' where 129.48' is existing for most lots in the area. This makes meeting the front and rear setbacks for the subject property impossible. The granting of the application is necessar>’ for the preser\'ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The existing residence could not be improved by expanding it upward or outward without the granting of the necessary yard setback variances. I/ The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessar>' to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The existing one story residence has a footprint of 695 s.f with no garage. By adding a second story and one stall attached garage the livability of the residence will be greatly improved. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The property does not meet lot area or width requirements. The existing residence encroaches into the required front, side and rear yard setbacks. There is currently no garage on the property. The one stall attached garage as proposed has the minimal footprint to be functional as it would not be feasible if its footprint was reduced. The survey shows the garage addition encroaching 3.2' closer into the front setback than the existing residence. The elevation drawings show the front overhang of the garage even with first level overhang of the residence. The applicant should note that all other overhangs extending beyond 1.5' will count as further encroachments on required setbacks. It is unclear how much the awTiing will further encroach on the front setback as the elevation drawings are not scaled. While Hanlon Avenue is platted as 60 ’ wide, the actual maintained street is approximately 18' wide and it will likely not be widened in the future. Therefore, the actual proximity to the street is not as great as is appears based on the survey. U2354 Konrad Krueger 520 Hanlon Avenue Variances April 20. 1998 Page 4 6. It appears that constructing the tuck under garage will require the construction of a retaining wall that will likely exceed 4' in height. The applicant should be advised this will require an engineered grading plan at the time of the building permit application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the necessary variances to allow the construction of a second story over the existing residence and a attached one stall garage. • Staff recommends approval of a front setback variance of 24.9 ’ to allow the nearest portion of the residence to be located 25.1' from the front setback where 50' is required and 28.3' is existing. This approval also includes the front awning. This overhang shall be even with the front overhang of the garage w hich shall not extend more then 1.5' beyond the exterior w all, nor should any other overhang of the residence with the exception of the front awning. • Staff recommends approval of a side setback variance of 20.5' to allow the 9.5' setback to remain where ^0' is required. • Staff recommends approval of a rear setback variance of 35.5' to allow the 14.5' setback to remain where 50' is required. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Elevation Drawing Hardcover Worksheet U235-1 Konrad Krueger 520 Hanhn Avenue Variances April 20. 1998 Page 5 y 5 »- . 5 ».* ’• ■' • "^ Application if ^ ^ Date Received ~y /9f^ Amount Paid ^ Jl? • <^0 CITY OF ORONO - VARLANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) i Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ^___/ ^NV/'- SiteAddress________________S ZQ \WrO U::><7 lAV v0O^8 ____________Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_____________________________ Attach legal description to application if rot included on required survey. Date Property Acquired________M \ ^ ^ \ ________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X'residential ____^other (specify)_______________________ Zoning District:_______) f\___________________________________________________ APPLICANT Name -tssfj e-/g\ 0 ■ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address: i /-^ ^v\ v City: '"Tts M irX Zip: ( OWNER (if different than applicant) Name____ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: Front Other (specify)_____ Side _Hardcover *1^ Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: \ Ox ^Ua ^jCTT 1 /si ^ V Cs. < jk kVW=r ( -VO fT)Z <!\^t (=~ <rHVt-^ \ (attach additional sheets if necessary) , _ _oot»s^. ^crr ftrD'r^«-'*->'r CTvere«Z.~nVK7 RUN DATE 03/19/98 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 02-117-23 31 0013 00500 HANLON AVE P A « M M BENNETT PAUL A & MEGAN M BENNETT 500 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 02-117-23 31 0015 00537 HANLON AVE R V & M E KOEHNEN ROBERT & MICHEL KOEHNEN 537 HANLON AVE WAYZATA M^^ 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 02-117-23 31 0016 00565 HANLON AVE HADASSAH YEHUDIT ZOHARA HADASSAH YEHUDIT ZOHARA 565 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 02-117-23 31 0027 01255 DICKENSON ST MARION J DETTLOFF MARION J DETTLOFF 1255 DICKENSON ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0036 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAI4D HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND 1027-NC 90 DAYS ENOS 3-30-98 38 02-117-23 31 0039 01295 DICKENSON ST R S MILLER/K E STENSO MILLER RICK S MILLER 1295 DICKENSON ST ORONO MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0028 00539 KEENE AVE 0 HARALD ERIKSEN 0 HARALD ERIKSEN 6219 ZEALAND AVE N MPLS MN 55^f28 38 02-117-23 31 0037 00530 HANLON AVE L W THIES ET AL TRUSTEES LUCILLE WOODVILLE THIES 530 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 501 00010 38 02-117-23 31 0035 00038 ADDRESS UT4ASSIGNED HENT4EPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND 1027-NC 90 DAYS ENDS 3-30-98 38 02-117-23 31 0038 00520 HANLON AVE G 0 S C M TANGEN RODIN ARNOLD BODHAINE 520 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 02-117-23-31-0014 521 Hanlon Ave • E S & A J Welch Eric S Welch 521 Hanlon Ave Wayzata MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATIWl AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. . DATE _ '^/ yO BY TMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAT; y c .DLV / i/wi/eSEE -vlAP '•.c MED1?JA oimMU Ro ric". (D Cfassen Lake 1^ 2 \ CHM9U1 •• ri fottifi •IN m M fOO aiifT e«wJt*T auf ■ 4^ —trii. i^.-r4=y vtuc* «tAICiI0«N HO ■•••••‘*»**•«•••••••• •Cttf I I lunwtN 3 IT*’— Lcinj? Lake rb^i 1^»t z> “>!■ . r '"il -rIL- CflMttmti«li fci eSr»V. »im u ............. lAli NO Mia m itr* V*"U.» ■*' / i.xJiarJ Lake XtiiMt at 6-2 / ij^p %Vw$ ... Maxwell u Noerenbcrg Girdea ’ark ^ UfK mil 5 \V> MMtata 0NO ?C0 Orono Country Club J! ..... N^CouniryOub |J ■ _x^ I Wix^il ^ Cfuoirv CItb / Coo JLV) (g'~‘ a ■ ilta M • Ilia M a Ilta «• a ■ZF Itfa M a ::rt 3 msr Browns Ba\ —^ SEE MAP 76 i*«ii ^ayzat A Wayzala Bav Brir*\ Finn! vCeJae Faint I i^daut F< n u / / WOODLASO .1 fAflO tOAOCflAfCV *0«p““ — — “■——0«l«CMAfIBAll fAfCO P*»KllO —UlMCi f««a|B6 CUA«0«Alt -----«—» ♦ —tAlltOAO rafM tIOCVAit I )••I0C< OOCI ••----------« \___/BAii • ••IDCt t11wHi - cui.fcaf < •iMl/aCflO —_____tftfAK -------------DHAisACC liaC «Ittf tin covci IWAi^ fTTTT)rut ouiiiBC riBCC — -------CAtt VAit CD •gUOIaC i__•uiioiBC * UBOca coast!. •CZ3 litucfuaci CD COBCactf UAf (' I twiwiaO ^OOl 1__1 •ccaiAtioiAi. fACiitir t —ttCBS o lAAl 0 roil t siiiir iiCMf M tflliltf Ml ■■AlliOAO tlCBAi M ■AtltOAO SVItCM o C«0UM) COBtlOl •ftti. A CIOOBO COBtaOi C3> fSS.t |■IC•f«OIAll CObKMI OCMCSSIM COatOUi Mtcmico coaiou* t^ot ClCfAflOa m 5’c^O /-/o.n/cn /tcK PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date /c) > ^ -8-^ > Type of Permit u^-uy Li .X* •••I L l J <3 *• • ••MM .^•1 Iz: < •mL. c7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: The North 25 feet of the West half of Lot 17, ond the West half of Lot 18. Block 15. MINNETONKA BLUFFS. •»* 4^ *« ' i HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 1 -n'^2 SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' F.XISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X 75-250' Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER l Y AREA IN ZONE ^5 -5- B / X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X X B. Garage cr-Kfvtirf D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck ^ F. Landscape Underlain \ ^ D G. Other By Plastic X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZOfiE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -r B / 9 X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _____ S.F. €S S.F. /99o S.F. 7 5- % S.F. _______ S.F. _______S.F. S.F. S.F. 3S S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^06 S.F. /? Vo S.F. 2o>^3 % A B A B I a) To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator April 16, 1998 #2356 Jon & Diane Rappaport, 3067 Farview Lane - Vacation of Drainage Easement - Public Hcarinu Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre, Not sewered Summary of Request: Vacate drainage easement, relocate drainageway and redcdicate a new drainage easement to allow construction of a replacement septic system. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Drainage Area Map F - Septic System Inspector's Comments G - Excerpts from Site Evaluation & Design H - 1978 Letter re: Drainfield Site Grading Discussion This property contains a nonconforming septic system which must be replaced by December 31, 2001 per current City ordinances. Applicant's site evaluator has concluded that the only feasible replacement site is located just west of the existing drainfield. A portion of the proposed mound location encroach into a drainage easement that was granted when this subdivision was platted (ca. 1977). However, the actual drainageway is west of the easement, and the new system can be constructed (and the drainageway slightly relocated) so there is no conflict. Tiie proposed easement vacation is the only apparent solution to providing a suitable site for a new septic system on this lot. The lot shape, the location of the pond next to Ma.\well Bay, the steep slopes, and the house, driveway and well location, all add up to a difficult situation for dealing with septic systems. It should be noted that the proposed site is about 60’ from the pond where code would require a 75' setback. This pond is not contiguous with Maxwell Bay, and is considered a wetland for septic system setback purposes. Weekman has advised he will approve an administrative variance for this drainfield location, which he has authority to grant per the septic system ordinances (Municipal Code Section 12.30). #2356 - Rappaport Aril 16, 1998 Page 2 Farview was one of the last plats created without having to do septic testing at the time of subdivision. My letter of August 8, 1978 noted concerns related to soil disturbances prior to the existing trench system's installation, although it has apparently held its own for nearly 20 years. Note that the alternate site tested in 1978 was on the north side of the driveway, which has since encroached into that site. That area was not veiy suitable even then as an alternate site, due to its slope orientation and narrow configuration. This property provides a good example of the difficulty encountered in bringing septic systems into compliance with current codes. In the late 1 970’s when many of the homes on Farview were being built, the state of the art in site evaluation was significantly less sophisticated than it is today in terms of interpretation of soil characteiistics and system design. The difficulties were only compounded when lots were platted without the benefit of site evaluation, so that individual site planning was burdened by inflexible lot lines. As a result, many systems approved in the late 1970's are in locations that would not be approved under todays standards. Municipal Sewer On The Horizon? Up until three weeks ago the City had no plans to bring sewer to the Farview neighborhood. However, the Council on March 23 directed staff to proceed with an amendment of the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Serv ice Aiea) boundary to incorporate the northeast shore of Maxwell Bay, as a first step toward bringing sewer to Orono's remaining few miles of unsewered Lake Minnetonka shoreline. While no specific schedule has been discussed for actual sewer construction, it may be appropriate for this and other property owners in the Fan iew neighborhood to delay system replacements pending further discussion of municipal sewers. Applicant notes he plans on constructing a 'sport court’ in the area of the existing drainfield, and will likely go ahead w ith the system replacement regardless of the potential for sewer. Staff Recommendation The proposed easement relocation w'ill have no negative impacts on this or neighboring properties. Staff recommends approval of vacation of the existing easement, subject to: 1. Dedication of a new easement as proposed; and 2.Relocation of the drainageway to the new easement location at the time the septic system is constructed. A Application if Date Received Amount Paid 7 ? /• . • I ... ■ . ‘ J i'-^ i] l> .-'.V CITY OF ORONO - VARfaflfe APPLICATION ^^itial Application Fee $250.0^r~~~-~>) ^ASCMagkjr V/Ad.ArrtO^ ($50.00 per each additional variance) —------------ —— Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) > Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address !^0fi7 PaTviPu? T.ano _ orono 55356 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) na-i 17-?i--^T-nnn7 __________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Lot 5,Blockl-Fairviev Date Property Acquired October. 1997_________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: x residential ___pother (specify)________________________ Zoning District: R-1______________________________________________________ APPLICANT Name Jon D. & Diane S. Rappaport ______ Address: 3067 Farview Lane ________ City: Orono Phone (home)_476-62^ Phone (work) m- 55356Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost Describe request in detail: New on-site sewage treatment system (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCE? REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify)Change location of drainage easement HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance %vilh Zoning Code reouiremenls:See attached report from S-P Testing, Inc. - The area proposed for the new system is the only area availahi p _ olf^ gy«;l-<am -i c nnn c-r\mp*i.j _________________ I (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2.•X 3. K All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; ^ Completed Application Form Certified Property 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, Govl Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur\eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SW x 11" for reproduction. CHOji: Topographic surv’ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. >( The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is ir\p and co^ect to the best oDRfe^r knowledge. OWNER’S SIGNAT^URE The owner hereby ackiiovyledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council Applicant's Signature Date members for purposes of i;^estigati(^ and verificatior^f this request. Owner ’s Signature ( ^ - Applicant must have \ all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Wanning 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 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR JOHN RAPPAPORT IN LOT 5, BLOCK 1, FARVIEW HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PORTION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED That part of the drainage easement in Lot 5, Block 1, FARVIEW dedicated to the public in said plat shich lies easterly of the west 20.00 feet of said Lot 5 and which lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the point of intersection of the southerly segment of the southeasterly line of said Lot 5 with the shoerline of Lake Minnetonka: thence on an assumed bearing of North 36 degrees 33 minutes 47 seconds East along said southerly segment to the angle point in said southeasterly line, and the point of l^inning of the line being described; thence North 68 degrees West to the west line of said Lot 5. and said line there ending. DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE CREATED An easement for drainage purposes over that part of Lot 5, Block 1, FARVIEW which lies northerly of “Line A", said “Line A" being described as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the southerly segment of the southeasterly line of said Lot 5 with the shoerline of Lake Minnetonka: thence on an assumed bearing of North 36 degrees 33 minutes 47 seconds East along said southerly segment to the angle point in said southeasterly line, and the point of beginning of “Line A" being described; thence North 68 degrees West to the west line of said Lot 5. and said line there ending. and which lies within 10.00 feet on each side of the follovwng described line; Commencing at the point of beginning of said"Line A’ described above; thence North 68 degrees West along said “Line A" a distance of 318.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described: thence North 42 degrees East to the northerly line of said Lot 5. and said line there ending. O 13 ,Q I RUN DATE 02/25/98 BATCH 501 PROP AOOR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR 0I«4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 09-117-23 33 0005 03083 FARVIEH LA PHILIP C BYERS A WIFE PHILIP C BYERS 3083 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 .'4-117-23 33 0008 03059 FARVIEH LA KAREN HYDE BAKER KAREN HYDE BAKER 3059 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 09-117-23 33 0011 03125 FOX ST A 6 CARLSON A S J CARLSON ALAN CARLSON A SUSAN CARLSON 3125 FOX ST LONG UKE MN 55356 38 09-117-23 39 0012 03080 FARVIEH LA J H PARKER ABC PARKER JOHN H A BOTMIE C PARKER 3080 FARVIEH LA S LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH SOI 00072 38 09-117-23 33 0006 03075 FARVIEH LA P A A L J TAYLOR PAUL A A LUCIETtJE J TAYLOR 3075 FARVIEH LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 09-117-23 33 0009 03051 FARVIEH LA . R J BURGER ASA BURGER ^ RONALD J BURGER 3051 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 09-117-23 33 0012 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED A G CARLSON A S J CARLSON ALAN CARLSON A SUSAN CARLSON 3125 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 09-117-23 39 0013 03070 FARVIEH LA DAB SILUS DAVID A BARBARA SILUS 3070 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI935401 PAGE 3 38 09-117-23 33 0007 03067 FARVIEH LA JON 0 RAPPAPORT ET AL J RAPPAPORT A 0 RAPPAPORT 3067 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE 55356 38 09-117-23 33 0010 03175 FOX ST DAVIO A MAASS DAVID A MAASS P 0 BOX 392 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 09-117-23 39 0008 02993 FARVIEH LA J T A K C OECKMAN JOSEPH T OECKMAN A KAY COULTER OECKMAN 2993 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 r 38 09-117-23 39 0019 03060 FARVIEH LA B P FLYGENRING A V B P FLYGENRING A V 3063 FARVIEH LA ORONO rt4 55356 P P HAFSTAD HAFSTAO _-_ \ / / / I » » # / # ^ ' *; i .•' htq! i ,•/ / / • • • • / / /d / ✓ lit*' f I X * ! /tm S \\s ' / / /■' / ! i'" '' / / / / / /■/ />^ •' •' ' / /' '' v' / ' * * ! fife? ...............^ / / / / /- V ,/ i/ // ^ ____________i----------9H'' '» i / t / ^ » // 81 — .-'//// :// ^ »• I '' /'* / /*' /' y y/' / --'1/ >■■^/>-* r-h y /3 / /4 «fe? ?/ * / / * i/" / / / ^osi 'y^ /''•y/ /> P§iIjili \/ / v/ ^ Kr V s''\;^ / /: ylV' / / / ji I!' III; ok I I s|.s lul ^2|5 f 2^-5 8- !N!nmiiii; r TO:Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator FROM:Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:AprU7, 1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2356, Jon & Diane Rappaport - Drainage Easement Relocation The property owners must relocate a portion of the drainage easement at 3067 Farview Lane to provide a suitable future drainficld site. The current on-site sewage treatment system is non- compliant and must be repaired or replaced by December 31,2001 . Soil borings and percolation tests submitted by S-P Testing, Inc. dated February 21, 1998 indicate that the best available drainficld site on the property is located across a drainage swale. The system design was approved provided that drainage be directed around the drainfield site and the drainage easement reflect the new drainage pattern. The survey submitted by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated March 20, 1998 identifies the proposed drainage easement located ten feet from the future drainfield site identified by S-P Testing. The proposed drainage pattern appears to be feasible and the drainage easement is ten feet from the nearest edge of the proposed drainficld site. Based on the information provided, staff recommends approval of the proposed drainage easement relocation. CITY OF ORONO SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVAL CITY of ORONO Municipal Ofikes PostOfnct6ox66 Co stal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 LOCATION: 3067 Farview Ln. OWNER: Jon Rappaport GENERAL CONTRACTOR:SEPTIC CONTRACTOR: SITE EVALUATOR: S~P Testing The City of Orono has Approved REPORT DATE; February 21, 1998 your on-site system design as of March 24, 1998 (date)(approved-disapproved) with the following comments: The design Is conditionally approved If the drainage is linage ie diverted around the drainfield site and the drainage easement is revised to reflect the new drainageway. Also, a staff variance is granted for the location of the drainfield site on slopes greater than 6% due site limitations (site on 8%). THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a design approval form which must accompany the site plan. A permit must be issued to a licensed septic contractor prior to installation. A list of currently licensed septic contractors is enclosed. NOTICE TO INSTALLERS: Any changes to the approved plans and specs must have prior approval of the Inspector (473-7357). Call for inspections 24 hours in advance. ALL DRAINFIELD AREAS MUST BE FENCED OFF prior to building site excavation and fencing must remain in place until final site grading. Approval to pour footings will not be granted until the Inspection Department has verified that primary and alternate sites are adequately protected. NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF ANY KIND (cars, trucks, earth moving equipment, etc.) is allowed within20’ of tested drainfield sites either before or after system construction. Compaction of these areas could render them unusable prohibiting the timely completion and or limiting the long term use of the property. A site copy will be available at the City Offices for the septic contractor. CITY OF ORONO Stephen Wq^an, On-site Systems Manager TELEPHONE-473-7357 • FAX-4734)510 S-P TESTING, INC.Steven B. Schirmers • MPCA Cert.No. 627 951 Katydid Lane NE • St. Michael, MN 55376 • (612) 497-3566 FAX (612)^97-5011 State License #394 February 21, 1998 John Rappaport 3067 Farview Lane Orono, Henn. Co., MN This site has an existing on-site sewage treatment system classified as failed due to not meeting a 3' separation from the bottom of the system and the saturated soil according to city records. The tanks are a block type with the first tank being a cesspool which is classified as an imminent health hazard and must be repaired or disconnected within 10 months. This site has very limited space available for a new on-site sewage treatment system. The area proposed for the new system is the only area available. To use this area, the old survey shows a drainage easement at the west end of the proposed site which is not accurate. The new proposed easement is the actual drainage pattern. The change in the drainage easement will require approval from the City of Orono. Approval will also be needed for a 53' setback from a pond (possible wetland) which is connected to Lake Minnetonka. Wetlands have a 75* setback and Lake Minnetonka has a 50' setback for the on-site sewage treatment system. This on-site sewage treatment system is designed for a Type 1, five bedroom home, in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. The soils on this site are SCS soils mapped - HbC - Hayden loam. The seasonally saturated soils were located at 26" to 32" (mottled soil). Due to the seasonally saturated soils, a Pressurized Mound System will need to be installed to treat septic effluent. The bottom of the treatment area must be located at least 3' above the saturated soils. J f ; r. to • 1 A small washout approximately V deep is located near the center of the system. At the time of turnover, this area will be filled v/ith original topsoil by turning the soil over into the washout. The so'is at a depth of 12" have a percolation rate averaging 4.2 mpi. A pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the effluent to the treatment area. The power supply and switches must be located outside the manhole and pumping chamber in a weather proof enclosure. A warning device must be installed with a light and sound device, this is in case of a pump failure. The existing supply line exits the house above the basement floor with a pump in the lower level. The proposal is to abandon the pump and flow gravity from the lower level, The manifold and supply line pipe must have back drainage to the pumping chamber. The distribution pipes shall have their ends capped. Be sure the rock and sand fill material are clean. The sod layer below the entire mounded area must be turned over, just break up the sod, be sure not to over work. The existing tanks will need to be abandoned, pumped and filled with soil. All neighboring wells are located greater than 100' away from the proposed treatment area. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment area before and after construction. The treatment area should be marked off before construction. This Design is not valid & the system will need to be relocated If failure to protect the areas proposed for On-Site Sewage Treatment occurs. With proper installation and maintenance, this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively. n iT. Nothing other than human waste, toilet tissue, laundry, showers, water softener etc. should be disposed of into the septic tanks. Iron filters must be diverted out of the system. Garbage disposals are not recommended, due to adding more solids & fine solids passing through to the system. Excessive amounts of soaps, cleaning agents & chlorine agents may kill the bacteria needed to treat septic effluent. Additives are not recommended. Recommend to pump & clean your tanks through the manhole by a certified pumper every 2 years. Check with your pumper to set up a schedule. Steven B. Schirmers =i^,CITY,iJ l^OF,:<^; ItORONO ^ 1 *v- r ^ Telephone 473-7357 CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 8, 1978 Ms. Betty J. Buesgens B. J. Builders 16546 West 78th Street Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 THIS ITEM m BEE'rl MiCROFilMED Re: Drainfield - Lot 5, Block 2, Farview Addition Dear Ms. Buesgens: My recent site inspection of your house at 3067 Farview Lane in Orono revealed that the proposed drainfield site has been filled and regraded to a state where it in no way resembles the original soil surface. Since proper functioning of a drainfield relies on percolation through the natural upper soil structure, any drainfield installed in the present soil conditions has a high risk of failure. We will require that complete soil testing (three (3) borings and six (6) perc tests) be redone and approved prior to issuance of a permit for drainfield construction. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me during the day at 473-7357. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Septic System Inspector MPGrkh r. •• . •• • % TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Plarmer/Zoning Administrator DATE:April 16.1998 SUBJECT: #2357 Susan and Kent Wliitworth 1425 Bay Ridge Road Conditional Use Permit and Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area:53,400 sq. ft. (1.22 acres) Application:The applicants are requested a hardcov er variance to allow construction of a retaining wall along County Rd. 15. Staff has determined that a conditional use permit would also be required for grading within 5' of the property line. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.23.6(B) LR-1 A Setback Requirements Section 10.02, (35) Definitions, Comer Lot Section 10.03, Subd. 19-21, Grading and Land Alteration Section 10.22, Subd. 1-3, Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations and Tree Remc val Section 10.56, Subd. C. (5), Subd. G. 1, L, Shoreland Management, Steep Slopes and Hardcover U 2357 Kent and Susan lyhinvorth J425 Bay* Ridge Road 4/20/98 page—I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IA District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 2 acres 200'50'30'minimum of 75' and average lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 2.13 acres contingent; .02 acres in TractU 215'250' from house to Bayside Road 15.4'120'-140'from Cty. Rd. 15 The subject lot meets the lot area and lot width requirements. The residence encroaches into the required side yard. This lot is a comer lot, surrounded by Bayside Road, County Rd. 51, and Coimty Rd. 15. The setbacks for front/rear yards are 50'. Side yards adjacent to streets also have a greater setback requirement. The proposed retaining wall may encroach into the required 75' setback from the lakeshore. # 2151 Kent and Susan Whitworth 1425 Bay Ridge Road 4/20/98 page-2 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'1,480 sq. ft. (note Tract U is across Cty. Rd. 15) no calculations provided NONE no calculations provided unknown 75’-250 ’38,384 sq. ft.5,616 sq. ft. (14.6%) 9,708.5 sq. ft. (25%) No change None The applicant has provided a survey which inventories the existing hardcover in the 75'-250' setback. There is existing hardcover (stairway and partial walls)in the 0’-75' setback, however, no information was provided. The proposed retaining wall may encroach into the 0'-75' setback. A more detailed drawing is needed to determine the amount of hardcover and the extent of any encroachment. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has noted on the application that the topography and county road is a hardship. He has also informed staff that he is concerned about his children playing in the backyard near the steep slope. The adjacent properties have retaining walls that were rebuilt after erosion damage from 1987 storms. The applicant wants to build a wall similar to the adjacent walls. (SEE EXHIBITS). This property is a comer lot that meets lot area and lot width requirements. The area where the retaining wall is proposed is partially located within the lakeshore setback and possibly on Hennepin County right-of-way. 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 for a residence. The applicant has stated his concern about safety for his children and the desire to have a wall similar to the adjacent properties. H 2357 Kent and Susan miitnorih 1425 Bay Ridge Road 4/20/98 page—3 2. 6. 7. 8. 9. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The need for a variance is created by the location of the steep slope and the roadway 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The hardcover variance will allow the construction of a retaining wall that is aesthetically compatible with the adjacent property's walls. However, the purpose of the shoreland ordinance is to encourage natural vegetation and ground cover instead of retaining walls along the shoreland and in the lakeshore setback. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The properties in this area have lakeshore yards that are separated by County Rd. 15. Stairways are needed to access the lakeshore. The question of a retaining wall vs. a natural steep slope with vegetation needs to be discussed. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The standards apply to all other lots in this zoning district that have lakeshore yards with steep slopes that are separated by roads. The granting of the application is nccessar>’ for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant shall provide the Planning Commission with testimony to the necessity of having a retaining wall to protect his property rights. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variance would be a convenience to the applicant if approved as proposed. No hardship exists due to the lot configuration or setback requirements. ISSUES The survey does not precisely indicate where the wall will be located, its overall height, or total amount of hardcover. The encroachment, if any, into the 0'-75' setback also is not clear. Grading ff 2357 Kent and Susan WhitM crth J 425 Bay Ridge Road 4/20/98 page —4 within 5' of the property line requires a conditional use permit which has not been applied for or properly noticed to adjacent property owners. If the wall is located on the County right-of-way or if the wall needs will be constructed from the County Rd. 15 side, Hennepin County must review and approve it. No information has been submitted by the applicant from the County. Staff has been unsuccessful in securing the County's comments prior to printing of the staff report. The Zoning Code is clear in its purpose and intent in dissuading vegetative cover and tree removal in the shoreland setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tliat the Planning Commission review the information submitted and provide the applicant with direction regarding whether they would favor encroachment into the 0’-75' setback. If so, then the Commission should direct the applicant to prepare a survey and engineered drawing of a retaining wall with a landscaping plan. Applicant should also contact Hennepin County and provide staff with the County' recommendation. The Planning Commission should then table this application until the applicant is able to provide the required information. The applicant shall also provide a written statement that he agrees to a 60 day extension. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Topo map D Survey Dl-2 Hardcover Worksheets E Sketch of Retaining Wall F Photos G Permit Record H Notice of Incomplete Application # 2151 Kent and Susan Whitworth 1425 Bay Ridge Road 4/20/9S page—5 llT if A Application ft e^3^'7 Date Received . Amount Paid c>^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewed Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address j ^ ZS" “Ba V Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) !c /77 O0/"7________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required dun^e^ DatePropertyAcquired _____MP^V ____________________________(month/year) I (do) ^don^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V. residential Zoning District: LC- I ftc__________ other (specify). 57WAPPLICANT Name ^ )<g>uT VVi4 yfyN/o H Address: |42‘o 'Ba W Po Phone (home) H "7 3 ^ ^ ^ Phone(wodc) S?? ^ n57 City: \f\A'iZfvrf\ , a A M Zip: 1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip- Estimated Constmction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: X (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^ Cg>uA/TV (attach additional sheets if necessary) I I 'f REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. (rs 2. VCJ4V ^ 3. t/ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Sur\ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed In addition, provide one (1) copy SYi" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SYz" 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 CUy 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 true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature 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 CRYSTAL ^ 33^ 140^1 1“ lie. 9 ‘■’^1 AVE INI* M 90 »£» 9 4 ) (17) P( 16)^ oJ ' ' C4 V ” to (100) ‘i tn ■2— .90 93 !S.5 Or / ROSPEC AVl f? 1):/(8^)/Vs ^ v/ Vs Ji '75 I ( x2 ’• ^5^^? V • I ^^L^Vrousli^^/ otiK' 1/ I jip /^s 31^ (55) s I7I5 37.5 87.5 (4)S 60 ^(49)-’(43)^ / Q a!( /. /^/ (7!/V-/fe '« , ^(6) y j?' (5) £ ->■'>-'3'V i-V :Wc '/V \ <0/ /.Tr o>V (3). (4)(2) *'V- 'A / / i .<‘7 x' '^Nf CCPI CP vAO KOSWl -7 $£ CORtftS Cf VACA' ROSJri?FS5 lANDlr-G V. • :c-'cc;:-/:;c-;;;x;--:>x--:-:::-;-;-: / , / ^/i.2. / . /. / yI .^4- / / .9/ -fr ' V C f* /v •■ ■•. -Z /r/ ' Y^'/7 / • Of • •* 13.55 V ./'Ayy /s:. 24 % (7) •V' "W // -7 ^ f*^ ^ <V ^ ^ A 47.05;. r, 1;-* ^ i « i* 4 • •4 »• ^ . 1 •pi SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE OME) 75-250' E xisting Hardcover in Zone 250-500'500-1000' A. House X =• LENGTH WIDTH $ X =. ^ . P • X =^ * P X c , c X c p B.Garage X =.S - P c.Driveway X W S. P - m X =S. P. • D.Sidewalk X S . P . X S. P E. X S - P.,AT10/ Deck X _S . P. F.Landscape • X . =S . P.areas underlain BY X =5? . P.PLASTIC SHEETING X S . F. X S.F. G. Other X S.F. s • Total Hardcover in Zone • S.F. Total P roperty A rea in Zone 14-80 . S.F.B J B X 100 oy.Xo • D2. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'(^-2 50j) E xist IMG Hardcover in Zone A. House x = • 250-500' 500-1000' 3,069 LENGTH WIDTH $ X S. P . X ^. p . X a S. P* X 3 S . P. B. Garage x 3 S - F. c. Driveway x s /7I9 S.F. • X S. P. D. Sidewalk x 3 3SS S . F. X s S . F. nr >>44^S. P.E. ^AT 0/ JECK X S. F . F.Landscape x F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X s S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X m S.P. X _s S.Ff G. Other x S.P. • Total Hardcover in Zone 66/6> • S.F. Total Property Area in Zone S.F. A 56/^ ^ B X 100 =• B I. I LU K\ir ui<? ‘devs. c€- 1 . a) 10.5' %• ^ ;•. > V •• ' t' vi'v- • 'Ah)'; \ ' '. t! * ; 4 , I J <jn m MZ3 1 (7(, 'O’.Ooi\T-' ^ . "" ^.5lS.l-ih f \f\l X.. m \Ji(^) 0 ^ I ^(UsT^y hM,>d'>!< f 1/ A -~.r .*■- • - r •' '-’*- ''t - "->- “V *■ ; j-'<v-Vi:•-=."-■:••■ ",■■ ^•--' L/v M WF^'-■ ^ r i WA/;-)MF /i mW lU '4^>.-i-cAV Wm m - y > .-■ . 'MSr i5v^'>-i - *Cr< “ " .' -• r^.». 1-W-- ^ :> r’]fr' *'‘ * ■• ■ .•bTl^ . ■-'-*. •• ^ir— •»r*i ^,^^^>v*:v-';.---.- r .- • ... ..A.U ^i^7i^f■-;v.•1^V-.•-L .... ^ « c •7 L 1 n /, V 'i* ■ SmS9k vr* * ' I *• .• % frj^y^ of (fi^hj\ ^ • s ' I * \ N / • •'• V. •• • • •> • *« »• ,• ^ > • « 4^ * ' V .'*r . • li- Permit No. 7g2-Y '7^/ '^iSa^n __ ^ S3 <■/ (t PERMIT RECORD Date v5-/0 -c'/>5' -76s» 5-/S- ^6 /Ar .'?/ Type of Permit _ ♦ l?0JMr\cvv> __ Tv f fC:tcy/^. At’ D . __'O'I ls 'i^/^ c/^d.-. March 27,1998 Susan and Kent Whitworth 1425 Bay Ridge Road Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Land use application #2357 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Whitworth: Staff has reviewed your variance application #2357 and it has been determined that to insure accuracy, an updated survey completed by your sur> eyor must be provided showing: • the entire lot • the 75' and 250' setbacks from the 929.4' ordinarj ’ high water level • all hardcover as existing and proposed • existing and proposed topography Hardcover worksheets for each lakeshore setback zone must also be completed by your surveyor on the enclosed hardcover worksheets reflecting all hardcover as existing and proposed. An engineered grading plan and retaining wall elevations must also be provided. These submittals must be received by City staff no later than April 6, 1998 to remain on the April 20, 1998 Planning Commission agenda. Staff notes that if the following criteria are met, a variance and conditional use permit are not necessary. These are: • no land alteration or hardcover within 75' of the ordinarj ’ high water level • no land alteration within 5' of any lot line • land alteration in an amount less than 500 cubic yards • no intensive vegetation clearing within 75' of the ordinary high water level While the requested information noted is required for a permit whether or not a conditional use permit and variance are required, by designing your plan to meet the above criteria, the process can be expedited and would not be subject to Planning Commission and City Council review. If you have any questions, please call me at 473-7357. Sincerely, Liz Van Zomeren Planner/Zoning Administrator enc. 1 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:April 15, 1998 SUBJECT: #2358 Randy and Marie Staffanson 1422 Park Drive Variance(s)--Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:14,383 square feet (.3302 acres) Application:The applicants garage recently had a fire and has been demolished. The applicants want to replace the 24' x 26' garage by moving it forward of the previous footprint approximately 5'-7' and attaching it to the residence at the porch. A side yard variance is required to encroach into the 10' required side yard. The previous garage was located 6.16' from the property line. The property is located in the 250'-500' setback area. The existing hardcover exceeds the 30% limit. The applicant is proposing slightly less hardcover because the proposed addition would move forward and be located over a portion of the existing driveway. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24 5(B) LR-1B, Setback Requirements. Section 10.03, 5(D) Non-Conforming Structures Randy and Sfarie Staffanson !422 Park Drive 4/20/9S page-i i ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lol Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140’35'10’30' Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard .3302 acres 128 ’25.45 ’proposed 5.72' at nearest comer of garage The existing residence does not meet the minimum lot size, lot width or front yard setback. The previous garage was located 6.16' from the property line. Because of the triangular shape of this lot and the relationship of the residence to the lot line, moving the garage forward will reduce the distance from the property line fro 6.16' to 5.72'. There is a shed on the property that is partially located in the 10' side setback area. The height of the residence is approximately 19' to peak and the proposed attached garage addition is proposed at 24'. If the garage was rebuilt on the old foundation, it would be restricted in height to no more than 19' to peak. Structural Co\ erage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 14.383 sq. ft.1,857 sq. ft. proposed 12.90% The proposed garage addition will be within the zoning restrictions for structural coverage. M2358 Rand^' and Marie Staffanson 1422 Park Drive 4/20/98 page-: 1 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 250'-500'14,383 sq. ft.4,566.78 sq. ft. (31.75%) 4,314.9 sq. ft. (30%) 4,484.94 sq. ft. (31.18%) 170.04 sq. ft. (1.18%) The subject lot is located in the 250'-500’ setback area from the lake. The existing amount of hardcover exceeds the allowed amount of hardcover by 251.88 sq. ft. or 1.75%. The applicant is proposing less hardcover due to the garage moving forward and loeating over existing driveway. Much of the existing hardcover is due to structure and driveway, walkways, and retaining walls. 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 property can be used as a residence, however, it does not have a garage and it is reasonable to want to replace the garage. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The situation is created by zoning requirements for setbacks and the fire which destroyed the garage. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will replace a garage that previously existed on the site. The proposal is to locate the garage forward of the previous location and attach it to the house. The proposed amount of massing is greater because the proposed height is higher than the previous garage. 4.The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. ^2353 Randy and Marie Staffanson 1422 Park Drive 4/20/93 pages This is a special situation because the former garage did not meet the side yard setback requirements. The fire destroyed the garage and the applicant is required to make the new garage meet setback requirements. Given triangular lot, the lot area, required setback and standard 2-car garage size, it is not possible to locate a new garage in an area that conforms to setbacks. 5.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The zoning setbacks apply to all other properties in this zoning district, however, most lots are not triangular. 6.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A variance is needed to construct a new garage. It is not possible to locate a garage on the property that doesn't increase hardcover and use the backyard. 7.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. 8.The granting of such variance w ill not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary' to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. This property does have a demonstrable hardship given the zoning district setbacks and the triangular shape of the lot. The location of the residence relative to the side property lines limits the replacement of the garage on the site. ISSUES 1. The subject property does not meet lot area, lot width or "■-..••t yard setback requirements. 2.The previous garage was destroyed by fire and variances are required to replace it in the previous location. The applicant proposes to move it forward appro.ximately 5'-7'. 3. Hardcover will be reauced on site, however, it will exceed the 30% limit, as proposed. 4.The shape of the lot and the location of the existing residence and driveway limits the allowed building pad for a new garage. U2358 Randy and Starie Staffanson 1422 Park Drive 4/20/98 page-4 5.The proposal indicates that the garage will be attached. The Building Official has indicated that frost footings down to 42" will be required and a fire wall between the residence and the garage will be required. 6. The permit record indicates that the garage was built in 1963. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends a side yard variance to construct the garage as proposed, subject to meeting all Building Code requirements for an attached garage. Staff and the Planning Commission need to review the hardcover and determine if any hardcover should or can be removed to comply with the 30% requirement given that this is a replacement due to fire and a reduction over the amount of hardcover that previously existed. Attachments A Application B Applicant's letter C Plat map D Topo map E Proposed survey F Reduced survey copy G Hardcover H-J Photos K Elevation Sketch L Acknowledgement form M Permit Record f^2358 Randy and 3 farte Stajffanson !422 Park Drive 4/20/98 pages l! I I 1 ' M f i- A "t Application # ______ Date Received /^s Amount Paid . CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After%e-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 1 IV TflT 1C T>ri V6 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0*1 — [n"~2^ OO 1"^____________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired /Vpril _____________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X_presidential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: LfZ I - S___________________________ APPLICAIV Name Address: NtZ rjrlCm Phone (home ) bllHlZ’ V/</7 _____ Phone (work ) City: 0ro*^o___________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 'UlM Describe request in detail: 0^(irJAf.d —_______________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover ___^Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: <eg. dM'A.cJntiL __________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 4 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3./ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi" 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'/i' x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11"). 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date 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. Z Date 'rvWui 3 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 of ^ Legal names of all persons with an interest in the property; Randall Gary Staffanson Marie Lorene Staffanson marital status: married Joint owners of the property: 1422 Park Drive Orono, Minnesota 55364 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost: $25,000 We seek a variance to build our garage 6.0 feet away from our neighbor's property. Our 24-foot-wide garage burned down January 16,1998 and had been 6.2 feet away from our neighbor's property since 1963 when it was originally constructed. Building the garage by city zoning codes (buildings must be 10 feet away from a neighbor ’s property) would cause an undue hardship as we would not be able to rebuild our 24-foot-widc garage. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Due to our existing deck and house, we are not able to move the garage further north east four feet. In order to replace the 24-foot-wide garage we had before it burned down (that was 6.2 feet away from our neighbor's property) a variance is needed. Due to the nature of our lot, we are not able to reconstruct our 24-foot-wide garage in compliance with Zoning Code requirements. T-~>. (t'6) ^5 s ''5 \ ''X ^ s X V<r»V /D ^'•s5x:./xx!\VX4>^ . 3 is? i' f \/;xf \, ^^\(36)'y AX' ' z \ ■"* X \ /iV V., V« X x> '/\' ''•^s V s* - \?- '^\. “ X A %X (30) X ' , */ :> X/ / /. I4<^..\ i V^ X''H'^4 '43^vlr l^\ >X\ A''\ '<<' % X<,cer) >y ty "X ,..y / P y FARp; \W vX 5% > V2')\ ' Y'm \ ■ n »-, Vi 00c * PART OF SAGA HILL PARK X.^(27) \x -VX' ^ ^— , '5 W<' V* /•^'-i v ''■/«yr »,CX,X>. , 17 yg' \\p/s,'yc>>-r -X’,y x'Xvt, y«o>/ '^..••1 I9^v cJ>/X$? / • // 5<y O. /qt >'Nj? ■^-- '■■^f/"I jf, X -- , / V 15 . IS le X-g X %Xol O , C (25)|?X^ R ^ ' f/ / <yxN 'Xvo\yl J6)/ R XX /8"^ ^ '' \ ;(15.) (3) # / V - X - V o y / / / #1 L 5^: /v>X 94 C^H) 01- in-Z'5-^H"- '17 nmj / / ^>0( / -vy ‘//y '. / (6). / <y«- y-^-J' %/(/)/ / ■^ • / leV .0/60 (49 A’ /(50 //> '\69 / c, / MONUMENT FOUND DENOTES BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT DENOTES CONCRETE DENOTES GRAVEL UNDERLAIN WITH PLASTIC OR FABRIC DENOTES EXISTING BUILDING DENOTES PROPOSED GARAGE RENOVATION 1 /.CRE 140 FEET 35 FEET 30 FEET 10 FEET 35 FEET PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE 1,017.00 S.F.A. HOUSE 630.00 S.F.B. GARAGE 1,378.99 S.F.C. DRIVEWAY 375.79 S.F.D. SIDEWALK 176.95 S.F.E. PATIO / 348.30 S.F.01 LEGEND El oom «A>«L «««pumc CM n w««i Mniie tuuMo ootcno JlWfW MUU« LOT MCA i«#iir JiflET io»irrmm CMOAAHON (*MT CMiUA^ tr MHO-CM) ) ^ ‘I***- II; *v-r r-‘. ?.;w;v V y»-V>c^:r: ^'.***‘ A. Mom xsnm %i. maASve Ml n * 0*0 (»o 0 ooic m/i) (Puonc ooio) («a» sot) 1DM lUiAnmifi M mu MOPOIY MCA M OC tjO<7A u A *Mr or apo € 0»O C*CD OOOMC. m/f) |*U» CO^ ) / t^moo I m • jLn s 10TM. 10T4L <«OAH ftp. A lAJftlQO ftp. i IMAi fTMTl t«0PMH LPI/U oc moc Mm ar omm •m OmCA» M------------ 9 1I4A* ftp. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY MOTAMM A ^TTirt^ KEMPER k ASSOCIATES INC. /' two SUR>€YMC • CNQNCOQNG ^ - jm MOV. OK ft, SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’ FYTSITS’G RARDCQ\TR IN ZONE A. Houss _____________ X Ler.ju 75-250’ B. Garags C. DrivcA-ay D. Sidswali: E. Pa::o/T)tck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic; Or Fabric G. Oier A A 'W•\ A X 4- } p' yji'^ yV"! 250-500’ 500-1000 ’ G > ~ c c S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOT.AL H.ARDCOVER IN ZCNi TOTAL PROPERTY ARIA IN ZONE A ^ ,=«i»fc 78 B ia.3 a cc X 100 PROPOSED H.ARDCO\'ER IN ZONE A. Konse _____________ x _____________ L:=gi V.i± B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck X X X rX \ 0 ^. .A' r X w X X / Hx fr- i F. Landscaoe Underlain — \ Bv Plastic ]l ^ Or Fabric %::: G. Odier X^ TOTAX H.\RDCOVER LN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE \ H- B N. 3&3 go X 100 (c'^C cc S.F. S.F. S.F. 2|Q-^1 S.F. S.F. tie '-1 _S.F. I.C. S.F, 87 U _S.F. _S.F. \5t. S.F. l<i-4>c i<i:£ ijc oe__________S.F. 4-3 >e 5fcCg.l5 S.F. 1^1 353 cO S.F. •95v."\=>fc (,cn.c5 S.F. 120 .CO S 7. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. atQ.T>T S.F. S.F. c“tCe. 45 _S.F. 3AS .3C S.F. B~l 'V_________S.F. ___S.F. . fcft S.F. 1C 1&6.4C 54 .78 __S.F. h3- '£ S.F. ■ t^4g5.oC S.F. __3±j8_2e_Jo % A B not i*— 1*- ^v.^^55 Q ^1 V r»»- •. :r/;' »'ite^'E. ,^r -♦> VT-‘’ U>»J •,. :ja • . .»A e<o(- -ifOi^ ■fox.v./•.ve/- nor <l)c '^k.. yif^u m2 Park Oo ^ ,-"0/Av* 'j.—I '">• iVTAiv .. jf . *^^iSS52S5S5S55555SSSS SSIRI UfJ'i r ^V>*i! K# i S^iirU^5£’-i ?rr'V.*:. •• • %»•. . ,-wr • -.w . .V.v% »•«. V !.' r. tlT’-^--^! V* • V • - ^'vV' c •U^ ' • <r.l •** \Jl o(- 4cOv^ ■ft;/we/- R/rk Dc'Oc afeci ^ y fc f V-r,. i- ; J J v/\\* «0. *u. r—^- .-S-. "■‘ . ‘ »i^' .1'•' '.. '/ .‘-^- v;# • i . •» - . Ir - — J *• ••♦• • • ^ ••#• «•...,^ ‘ rr ,f,IPs' jJK: w '•^jb-.- •,-V^-''y- r 7 •• H * • • A ' ;. I A j.' A ■ \iC tiff f-r Vi *• ‘*'9 \ I— !k. > S i?•J 'M. •Y V'^ -V C% (T% >>..* - ■>• • V "ns >* 0 .P) r-is ..QL.^ O 32 feat Vr sH / t Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form •Auch^^ ^SlAUcH'^ of 2) t ■ \ * r * v:— .) , ,-• K)H ■)QI (we) (-> rr^ <g [print name A^/Vip [s)][print address] have reviewed the pl^s for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at y 4^^ ^ Z^hio referred to as Land Use Application No.________. 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. f, merProperty Owtaer Date Date I (we)A/c of [print name(s)][print address] have review'ed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /4j/77 PdirIC 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 Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Date Property Owner Date If you ha' e any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Permit No. I3S0 J3AZ. __3Q^L_____ __3fc53 ______ ________________ /^77_____ PERMIT RECORD M Date fc'? Type of Permit / O' (* ~ (oio Hil-lO Hook lO-XS-nH pfc^OO^ iJ-/907 _____________ /O-V- \c-h-^;o TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator April 8, 1998 #2359 Hestia Homes, Inc. for Matt and Karen Parks 825 Forest Arms Lane Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: Application: 55,025 sq. ft. (1.26 acres) This application has two parts. First, the applican*s are requesting approval to allow a garage addition that was constructed in March 1998 to remain by granting a bluff setback variance and an average lakeshore setback variance. Tlie second part of their request is to allow' for construction of a new 526 sq. ft. lakeside deck where a smaller deck was previously located. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24.5 (B) LR-IB Setbacks Section 10.22, Subd. 1. B., Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.56, Subd 16.,(C) 2 and 6 Bluff Setback and Average Lakeshore Setback #2359 Hestia Homes, Inc. for Matt and Karen Parks 825 Forest Arms Lone April 20. 1998 page—I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area lot Width Street or Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140’35’10’75’ minimum and average lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 1.26 acres 210’at 75’ setback 230’ at OHWL 75’43’ before garage addition, 25’ after garage addition 180’+to OHWL The subject property conforms to the minimum lot area and yard requirements. The garage addition meets all setback requirements except the average lakeshore setback and bluff setback requirements. Staff has determined that the entire house is located forward of the average lakeshore setback and straddles the top of the bluff setback line based on the topographic information prepared by the surveyor. Staffhas calculated that the new garage addition is located between the top of the bluff and the 30’ bluff setback. The new deck would also be located between the top of the bluff and the bluff setback. New footings are required for the deck. Variances for average lakeshore setback and bluff setback are required for the built garage and the proposed lakeside deck. # 2359 Hestia Homes. Inc. for Matt and Karen Parks 825 Forest Arms Lane April 20. 1998 page—2 Structural Coverage and Hardcover The existing garage and proposed deck do not exceed structural coverage or hardcover limitations. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The builder came in for a building permit for a garage when the Building Official was out of the office for several days for surgery. The Building Inspector was told that the Building Official had approved the plan. A building permit for the garage was issued. After the Building Official returned to work, it was discovered that there were issues w ith bluff setback and average lakeshore setback. The builder was asked to provide topographic information and a survey showing the location of existing adjacent residences. Staff has determined that both an average lakeshore setback and bluff setback variances are required for both the garage and the new deck. 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. In order for the garage to remain, a bluff setback variance and average lakeshore setback variance is required. The previous deck has been removed. There are existing doors on the lakeside of the residence that provided access to the previous deck. The proposed deck, however, requires new footings and is larger than the previous deck. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The house was constructed in 1984. prior to the bluff setback regulations. Tlie shoreland management regulations were adopted in 1992. The adjacent houses were constructed after this residence. 815 Forest Arms Lane was built in 198^ and 835 Forest Arms Lane was built in 1986. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for an average lakeshore setback for the garage will not change the views or the character of the area. The bluff setback variance for the garage and the U 2359 Hestia Homes. Inc. for Malt end Karen Parks 825 Forest Anns Lane April 20. 1998 page—3 4. new deck should be discussed by the Planning Commission. Generally, staff does not recommend new construction over or near bluffs. This lot, however, already has the new garage in place and a previous deck did exist near the top of the bluff. The issue to discuss is the allowed size of the deck given that the proposal complies with hardcover and structural coverage requirements. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 5. 6. The adjacent residences may also be constructed on or near the bluff. The adjacent homes were built after the subject residence so average lakeshore setback variances were not required. The adjacent homes were built prior to the bluff setback variances, so they may or may not be located with the required 30 ’ bluff setback. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 7. 8. 12. This application is unusual because the garage addition has already been constructed. The deck has also been removed and staff has had to estimate the location of the previous deck based on historical files. The grading for the new garage is done and does not appear to have had a negative impact on the deck. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a sub-^^antial property right of the applicant. The variances are needed to retain the garage and rebuild a deck. A deck cannot be rebuilt without both variances. 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 design of the garage and deck are designed to building code standards. The Zoning Code, however, discourages building within 30' of the top of a bluff. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alieviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The house wa- : jilt before the adjacent residences which now create an average lakeshore setback issu t. ' (. *use was also built before the shoreland management bluff setback U 2359 Hestia Homes, Inc. for Mall and Karen Parks 825 Forest Arms Lane April 20, 1998 page —4 requirements went into effect. The zoning lot does not have a reasonable building pad when the zoning district setbacks and shoreland management requirements are applied. The garage addition is driven by the location of the double garage. The deck design follows the previous deck but adds more square footage towards the lake and the top of the bluff. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. The zoning lot conforms to lot area, lot width, front, side, and lakeshore setbacks. It uoes not conform to average lakeshore setbacks or bluff setbacks. The residence was built before the adjacent residences and prior to the shoreland management regulations. Any additions to this property will require an average lakeshore setback and bluff variance, The garage addition has already been built. The proposed deck is larger than the previous deck, based on historical files. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends an after-the-fact variance for bluff setback and average lakeshore setback for the garage addition. Staff requests that the Planning Commission discuss the intent and purpose of the bluff setback and the proposed deck that is designed to be built within the required bluff setback. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the deck as proposed, a condition should be placed in the resolution that prohibits the deck from being enclosed underneath or above to further intensify encroachment on the bluff. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Topo Map Hardcover Calculations Survey Deck Comparison-New Plans and Historical Records Elevation of Garage Addition Deck Plan Deck and Garage Plan Permit Record # 2359 Hestia Homes, Inc. for Matt and Karen Parks S25 Forest Arms Lane April 20. 1998 pages Ji c% (n)•‘C-irr-J^i' 11vL^' ‘ A - .I*Application tf ^ ^9 Date Received 3 /^S/9S Amount Paid dl>J2f^O ___ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANrF. APPLICATION k^mtial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per eaclTadditional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) i Variance for non-conforming structiues $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Dv^(ryiO . 5^3^ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) /^*7- //*7~^3 IS. QOH Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Projaeity. Acquired ____________________ I (do) (mo no^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Presentuse oTprope^: residential ___^other (specify) Zoning District: LI ^ _____________________________ (month/year) APPLICANT , / , Name J'^'i ^i)/, '/i^t i Phone (home) Phone (work) ^ / Address: C* (X C-City: f'l'ih \ I OWNER (if different than applicant) Name fY)atf a/iq _______ Address: /h7if\6 Lr)_____ City:_j ___Zip: rr'sr^j Phone (home) V?Z - 0^ Phone (work) 6¥Z - 03^3 ____Zip: 593^^4 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST . Estimated Construction Cost $__________ Describe request in detail: 'M/ir. Af 9 7%*C !(' 6 (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback: /K Other (specify) Front Side Rear )( Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compli^ce with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. A A 4. A 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Ovvmers List of ovvners 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 8 ‘/2" x H" for reproduction. Topographic surv’ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/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 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 OWER'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^f investigation and verification of this request, ^ Owner’s Signature LJ», (_________________ Date y/x. _________ 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 B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -f- B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ^ 6-) I •39 l.cngih ^3> X X X WidUl l?>5 X X »s.i vf 2) D. Sidewalk ________X X E. Patio/Decl<^__/^X X 5i^ F. Landscap<<J ^ Underlain By Plastic^ Or Fabric .5 X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . A * B iL-f'TSP d//S X 100 ts X 100 = 63 g ^0/ ^/3 PU 36*/ /3.S <&0 3i*L /V,V S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F S.F S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ____S.F. % A B A B 1 i| • •cro b. (/) LU 01 (/) o < cn LJ 00 I uk<>*. 'I.w* ■'^'^ 4^' ^?/.A i« ki---------U Itf OLD peo= (-(roivN r^\c»of\ch&) •- ■'• ■- V ;2— 'l^'EXisfihg Co^i-Hoi^^. pok. H€nnj biX'y window, deck KismoVicd J«I1UJ M«J oninpuco puncuOitptfi V^toot iitfuj MM neMo 0pur(X0fa- addih'on new deck —^ prt)pc6e«i asx«mcj Kjs^o# os pfeyi'ous elect €d5=. cy **4 Tt pilous Deqc pUHsi . rT N % - — •• * • k ■oBllfc^-. •HfJTrrci i4ior\5 f wiMow, <ie4=^ K*emoV(e<i T > >> -eui N K«» liua IMP MMM ^ I »4» — ibtuc ONIAH •rnrntt^tmwmmmmm \OsaomeJ t^^siatt- AS previous cicct €d5p "L i-- 7 28 2d *ou| ‘saujOH ei;s9H OUOJQ 9UBH SUJJV JS0JOJ 930 90U9pjS9^ S>|jecl =3o CO - II cl) 5 Q ?= p n 'v ^ {*■ * •* * w« / / • j • \ iL 1 ’ >> i. -::>‘ ' ;J V ! :'.*■' .-i- ’ ' '■vV '-. r ? ICS . —-----------—.# - - Mi t:'l • • X • •. -J ’• »* .• K :.•'X-• -: ^y-y«...: ■. iiWiilKSSMrf l‘» •y-.' ■.::^i.:-.' i:m^m «- !i': (.. .!W~ •I 9 i ■ I 4 .*. l- V' V : i* m: . i At > t...4 1^- 1. 1.- tM t-? .<•: Parks Residence 825 Forest Arms Lane Orono Hestia Homes, Inc. 'Wk 1.' '■ ;. ■ ■•% % ■'i.\ *% ■* >• •> » A'' O Q j ®J4 V, , mm // TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zonii.g Administrator April 2,1998 SUBJECT: #2360 Anthony Kmetz 640 Orchard Park Road Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-1A One Family Rural Residential District (5 Acres) 208,652.4 square feet (4.79 acres) Application: The applicant is requesting the renewal of an elapsed variance to allow the construction of an attached three car garage and entiyway addition. A front setback variance is required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.27, Subd. 5(B): RR-1 A Lot Requirements U2360 Anthony Kmetz 640 Orchard Park Road Variance April 20. 1998 Page 1 Lot Area and Yards ANALYSIS Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard RR-IA requirements 5 acres 300'100’50'100' subject property 4.97 acres 333*75.7' existing 71.7’ proposed 34' for tennis court 73.2' 9' for tennis court 298' from stable The subject property does not meet the lot area requirement. The tennis court encroaches into the required side and front yards. It is screened from the street by trees. The existing residence also encroaches into the required front yard. The proposed garage addition would encroach into the required front yard. Structuiai Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Hardcover The subject property is not located within a shoreland overlay district. M2360 A nthony Kmetz 640 Orcfmrd Park Road Variance April 20. 1998 Page! STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. M2360 Anthony Kmetz 640 Orchard Park Road Variance April 20. 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 existing residence cannot he expanded in its current location without a variance. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing residence was constructed prior to current zoning requirements. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for front setback will not 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 net permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. 5. 6. A single family residence 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. Many residences along Orchard Park Road are set back a similar distance from the road. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 7. Some residences along Orchard Park Road are located even closer to the road than the subject property. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The existing residence, that meets all other zoning requirements, cannot be expanded or significantly remodeled without the granting of a front setback variance. The Planning Commission and City Council have previously approved this variance by resolution citing adequate hardship. U2360 Anthony Kmetz 640 Orchard Park Road Variance April 20, J99S Page 4 8.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 current residence cannot be altered without the granting of the variance. Issues 1. 2. The lot does not meet the lot area requirement. The tennis court is non-conforming as it does not meet front and side setbacks and is located nearer to the front lot line than the principal structure. 3. 4. 5. The existing residence could not be added to without a front setback variance. The mature pine trees near the front lot line provide screening from Orchard Park Road. The previous resolution stated that due to the interior layout of the west side of the residence, it is necessar>' for the garage to be located 4' ahead of the front line of the existing residence due to the impact upon internal access to the garage. This further encroachment will also have a negligible visual impact. 6.The previous resolution e.xpressed concerns about the culvert under the driveway. The Public Services Director has inspected the culvert and determined it adequate, although cleaning it out would have a positive impact on drainage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the renewal of a front setback variance to allow an attached three stall garage and entryway addition that would be located 71.7' from the front lot line where 75.7’ is existing and 100' is required. U2360 Anthony* Kmetz 640 Orchard Park Road Variance April 20, 1998 Page 5 Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Elevation Drawing Garage Floor Plan Resolution Approving the Variance from 3/27/95 U2360 Anthony Kmetz 640 Orchard Park Road Variance April 20. 1998 Pages ■ Jo- O Application # (i>0 Date Received - ?S Amount Paid PQ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additiona l variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00’ (no change from original application' Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address trA^/k Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 37 - //^~ 23 22 OOP Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired __________________________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: y/* residential ___^other (specify)______________________ Zoning District:____________S' _____________________________________ APPLICANT Name /(^fpi<r:z Address: (>^0 ni..> Aa fki-K OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) O^/OS _____ Phone (work ) City: Ohoixc __________Zip:_______ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: n'f 71ao.ir Estimated Construction Cost $ /C^,C?cfO - /5"OOO (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area X Setback: ___Lot Width X Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:____________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour aPDlication to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3- ^ 4. 5. 6- X 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners \vithin 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and_jnapL_iiom Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Cente<"^48027iyJ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction, ^ 1 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 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. Date V-9 OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date 3' 2'^-9'S' 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 95.---------"■ u^-2o'l- " - ^ 1P> •56 3'2. ^5----------------7-rr ^3.97TT^lAUrsaf,’T7-'53 ‘W_625. 62C 45 3i'/(g-23-d ry2'llC-^^ - 53C.82 *<*<* • • • 4 • *;•:•:*• P ^.ft .• / ^ ft . % i 4 < * • v.'vi ' • 4 «w • ft • ft.v/y 4 ft .ft >>> • * ft ft*ft*4%*ft*4*ft*ft • ft « ft P 4 •Vy*,% * ' « II ^ V k 1 • « « « « « 1 • »^ • ft •::x •‘t‘. < • • # ft ft ft 1 V.’.-.v**»*<• ft ft X'!* p*ft’ft* • ••«<««••:x-;v ft ftftftftftftft J*/*.*/.*.*.*** *•*•%* ft* ft^%%^p^ft*»\ «« ft<ftC«*«#ft « • S 1 • » • 4 (i>'v GI*/i *>>4; * .ft > •*•*"*(• • » • ««««« Xv »V*i ,s\ X% • *4*» \ ■ ■ V*'.*. ft ft 9 P ft ft ft < ft P ft < • t • 1 •XY''‘Xv'i \*.*.*. •:‘X': ft • ft ft ft ft ft 4 ft c **.*'' ft ft v>*•*»* yy.\ * ft* • •X‘* ft ft ft » • # ft^fl ft yX;l *«"•*• > ft • vXyyy. *•* *• •*•*•* ft ft • yy.-yyyyy. ftftftpftrftftft ftpftftftftftft P jf ft ft ft ft • ft ft ft ft p ft ft ft ft • I'.’.V.*. V'»'4 .Vv*4'.‘. ft ft ft ft • • ftftftftftftft %ft%\%%xft ■ ft V ft P ft ft ft • ftfttfftftftp .’.•.v. • ftftaftft. pftftft %vVX*4*X'Xv a 4 m • a a 4^a •'"•XaTi .• • a^a p^i^ •^1! • •ftcftaftaftpal • aaaaa - aap*] ft*.-p'.\-.*.V.-ft-ft-ft ft ft ft ft « p V ft ft ftj .‘.V •:-X'W/,t U • % *\ .•.V.‘.'r*, • ^ •*p*« ft ■"• 4*ft^ft ft * • *•*•*• ■ ft • ftftftp>ftftft ftftftftpftftftft • » •■ ,» • ft ft p ft ft « ft ft^« ft ft • ftftftftftft* 3/- H&-23-IH (2) RUN DATE 03/2S/98 BATCH 507 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OmERS LIST 38 31-118-23 11 0005 00665 ORCHARD PARK RD JAM PIDGEON JOHN 6 & MAGDALEN M PIDGEON 10912 GLEN WILDING LA BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 38 32-118-23 22 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROBERT T MICKELSEN ETAL JIM WHALEN 14425 38TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55446 38 32-118-23 23 0004 00580 ORCHARD PARK RD CONSUELO L CARRUTHERS CONSUELO CARRUTHERS 580 ORCHARD PARK ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356 o 38 31-118-23 11 0006 00615 ORCHARD PARK RO K A A LANG KEVIN M LANG 615 ORCHARD PARK RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 32-118-23 22 0005 00640 ORCHARD PARK RO LORI E KNETZ ET AL LORI E KMETZ 640 ORCHARD PARK RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 32-118-23 23 0009 00460 ORCHARD PARK RD ROBERT J A LORRAINE E RODEN ROBERT J A LORRAINE E RODEN 460 ORCHARD PARK RD LONG LAKENN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 13 38 31-118-23 14 0001 00585 ORCHARD PARK RD D A H THOMAS DOfMELL D A HENRIETA THOMAS 585 ORCHARD PARK RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 32-118-23 22 0006 00680 ORCHARD PARK RD D E WINTERS A D K LAMB DOUGLAS E WINTERS 680 ORCHARD PARK RD LOf4G LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 507 00008 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 TAXATIDTJ, TO THE BEST OF MY KfKJWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE Permit No. / 3^^/ PERMIT RECORD Date P -6 ~ P) Type of Permit Hors e £c TxrA S' - PS-S^i jvec^- 5~7SO 9-/^0^/yJercf^, CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 54 6 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO \nJNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.27, SUBDFVTSION 5 (B) FILE #2001 WHEREAS. Rhonda E. Wilson. Sec«tar>’ of Powder Packers .,r..inn rh-reinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the propertv' located at 640 Orchard PaS Road tvitwn the Cit>- of Orono (hLeinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 13. Orchard Park. Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a Zonin» Code Section 10.27. Subdivision 5 (B) to pennit the construction of a . ^hrrlsTdenc: ^ bT.o^rd fs ftotnVstreet lot line where a 100’ setback is required. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOL^'ED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2001. The propem' is located in the RR-1 A, Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 5 acres in area. The propert}' consists of 4.79 acres. 3.The Orono Planning Cotrunission reviewed this application on^^^^^^ 20 19^. ^nd re—Td ap^^vai o7 the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings and hardships; Paae 1 of 5 3 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ ^ ^______ A Tne existing residence structure was constructed in 1959 prior to the current 5 acre zoning standards for residential development within this area. B Mature pine trees border the ptopert>’ along the front and side yards so that the view from neighboring homes will not be affected year round. c The setback of the improved residence is consistent with the street ■ setbacks of the majority of older residential strucmres located along Orchard Park Road. D Based on the interior layout of the west side of the residence, the garage cannot be moved 4’ back to remain in line with the street setback of *- principal structure because of the impact upon the internal access from the attached garage to the principal structure. u The Citv Council finds that the conditions existing on this tn ir and do not aoplv oenerallv to other property in this zomng district, that Irantin" the v" not'advetsely affect traffic conditions light, atr nor Se a h^ard or other danger to neighboring propeny; would not merely Ln’e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to »J demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a P™>“ J rSt “f the applicant; and would be in keeping with the sp.m and tntent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Cit>. 5 The Citv Council has considered this application including the findings and " SotTendations of the Planning Commission, repons by C.ty s f, o^ents by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, saten \velfare of ihe comraunitv'. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER .4ND CONDITIONS street setback variance, subject to the following conditions; Page 2 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE Cm' COUNCIL NO 3 5 4 6_____ 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. Applicam and owner shall be responsible for installing a conforming septic system to serve the four bedroom residence by September ^0, 1995. Applicant or applicant's contractor is encouraged to review the need for either a new culvert or the reinstallation of an existing culven to create positive drainage in ditch at public roadway. Notice is herebv given to both applicant and ftiture owners that the tennis court located 9’ from' the west side lot line, 34’ from the street lot line and located in front of the front line of the principal stnicmre is recognized as nonconforming requiring variance approvals for major structural repairs. Authorities granted bv this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are perinissive only and must be exercised by application for a builoing permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 27, 1996). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constimte a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersianed applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of Powder Packers Inc., us heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution tn the chatn of tttle ot the property. Page 3 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 5 4 8_____ Adopted by the Orono Cit>- Council on this 27th day of March. 1995. Edward J. Caliban, Jr., Mayor Powder Packers. Inc. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foresoins insimmem was acknowledged before nre on this 27th day of March S'. SS, Cit>-. CAROLE A HASEMAN N01MYnjeiJC4llNNE501A H8WEPIN COUNTY My Commission &pha Jai 31.2000 Notaiy Public Paae 4 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITi’ COUNCIL NO. 8 5 4 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) on this _ day of____ Public within and for said county, personally appeared fn / V -IZ^ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. CAROLE A HASEMAN NOTAHY PUBUC-MINJjKOtA HaiNEPMCOU^ uy rywmtolon ^NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of ___________, 199___before me a Notary ^bfcwithinandforsaidcounty.p«.o^Uy^^^^^^^ act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:April 1, 1998 SUBJECT: #2362, Robert E. Howard 1300 Shoreline Drive Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area:150 ’ by 129.5=19,425 sq. ft. (.446 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting variances to rebuild a residence on a lot where the existing residence has been damaged by fire. Variances are needed for the front, side, and rear setbacks, lot width, and lot area. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.28., RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 4, D. Whenever a lawful non-conforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if it be reconstructed within twelve (12) months after such calamity, unless the damage to the building or structure is 75% or more of its fair market value as shown on the assessment records at the time of damage, in which case the whole thereof shall be demolished, and any construction thereafter shall be for a use in accordance with the provisions of this Zoning Chapter. #2362 Robett Howard 1300 Shoreline Drive April 20. 1998 page—! ANALYSISLot Area and Yards RR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200'50'30'30'50' Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard Rear Yard .446 aeres 129.5' (Fox Street side) 28.7' (existing) 32' (proposed) 15.r (existing) 25' (proposed) 60' (existing) 54.5' (oroposed) 58' (existing) 49 ’ (proposed) The subject property does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The existing residence which has been more than 75% destroyed is non-conforming as to front and side yards. The proposed structure would improve the front and side yard setback. The proposed stiucture w ould locate closer to the street side yard (Hanlon Avenue) and the rear lot line than the existing structure. Hanlon Avenue is platted at 60' but is not improved. The edge of a Type 3 wetland encroaches into the platted area for Hanlon Avenue, so it is not a traveled roadway and is not likely to ever be developed. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Allowed Structural Coverage 19, 425 sq. ft.1,966.20 sq. ft. (existing) 2,734.4 sq. ft. (proposed) 2,913.75 sq. ft. (15%) Suuctural coverage will increase with the proposed residence because the garage is redesigned to improve access from the main level living area. The proposed design is less than the allowed structuTui coverage. The applicant should be instructed that future sheds or decks that are 6' above U2362 Robert Howard 1300 Shoreline Drive April 20, I99S page--2 riKfrti rallltll] m9sm Ll»iiit] mTsii]ruiKniTi] Ttimmu itwmionramiLtmudii ■: O ' 6. 7. The variances will allow a residence to be reconstructed on site with a similar footprint. The only substantial difference is that the garage is proposed to face south and be connected to the main level rather than a tuck under. This is an improvement for accessibility for the occupants. 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. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A single family home is a permitted use in the RR-IB zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The destruction of the residence by fire creates special conditions for this zoning lot. The wetland, access from Shoreline Drive, and topography impact the rebuilding of this site. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.1 All the zoning lots in the RR-IB district are subject to the same lot area, lot width, and setback requirements. This lot is approximately 1/4 the required lot size for this district. Therefore, the setback requirements are difficult to meet on a smaller parcel. The proposed residence is an improvement from the existing structure in terms of the front and side setback. 8. 9. The gianting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Variances are needed to rebuild a residence on this property. 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. #2362 Robert Howard 1300 Shoreline Drive April 20, 199S page--4 I 10. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessar>’ to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variances are needed to allow the applicant to reestablish a residence on this property that was destroyed by fire. Because of the lot size, topography, wetland, and access, the proposed design is an improvement over the location of the destroyed residence. Issues 1.The existing residence has been destroyed by fire. The subject property docs not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The existing residence did not meet setback requirements from the front or side setbacks. The proposed residence would increase these setbacks. 2.There is a type 3 wetland that encroaches into the northeast comer of the property. The proposed residence is required to be at least 26' from the edge of the wetland. 3.The topography map indicates that the lot changes about 12 feet in grade from east to west. The east side is considerably low’cr than the west side which influences the placement of a new residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot area, lot width, front and side setbacks as proposed. Any future structural additions should not exceed 15% stmctural coverage. Attachments A B C D E Application Plat Map Topography map Wetland map Floor Plan F (1-4) Elevations G Permit History m562 Robert Howmd !300 Shoreline Drive April 20, 1998 pages < A r ? if : .••• ■ ■ *'*. '-, •• •V * &‘••A • •> I, ^•1^ -V / :• r-":i)Application # g^^CoSL Date Received 3/3i.*l/Q^ Amount Paid*3SO CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address __________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ~ ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date PropertN' Acquired nf'T ^_____________(month/year) I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___other (specify)_______________________ Zoning District:____________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT Name /iotOARP Address: i3QCi OWNER (if different than applicant) Name City: Phone (home) Phone (work)___________________ Zip: j 5".T3 ? / TkyriooH, ^ Phone (home). Phone (vvork)_ _ _____ Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ £> O Describe request in detail: /^g// O To /Vcu£J^ j?/57ttyiP ___________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:X 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: Styp /7^^6 ^ loA3 /2/^m^y€C> ^lr/9/jr 77>/PeSujA/;^, . . /J/Si*AMS/^/\^e S/2^ /O^y (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ dncJfc w/UfJc REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. — 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property 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, Govl Center, ^48027^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy S'/’" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) copy SYz" x ll" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy SYz" x ll"). 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 abo .c information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to j.rovide 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 tnlS and correj^l to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entr>' onto the property bv City staffi consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes/of/ investig^on an^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. 'Robc/'-f ^ ■?£U-boirt s. ttwwtvj. Certificate of Survey for (Obert 3. Tschloa of Lots 10, 11. a 12. Block 14. MINN lTOM‘<A Hennepin County, Minnesoia ft O \Ai Mbit UH f: m^nM LUi ■nr« « v.**v» fr:% f^.:2 ^ *• •• »=• • • k/.i? o I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 14, MINNETONKA BLUFFS, and of the location of al! buildings, if any, thereon. It does ret purport to Show any other improven-ents or encroachments, other than an existing fence. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Scale Date c 1 Inch = 40 feet May 25, ISFo Iron marker RR-|3 - 2 f{C.AJS. (jrr Mari; .S. Gronberg Reg. NcT. 12755 Cordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064 Engineers and Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota 7oO ' u**pTH Phone 473-4141 5eT0ACK5- PlZwdT • 5‘mffiT si4» sro 50' UJCILA^O ZjU'1 r - ' • • • ) isf/rr .*t V.'*V -• • y i a > 4- ^ t V .-i ■•N *• — -.3 AW J I / 6 >h. o(n Certificate of Survey for Rjbert G. Tschlda of Lots 10, 11, & 12, Block 14, MINN lTOMKA Hennepin County, Minneso:a I QUitOlHCr //I 9. -2 5 TK»1T • ••••• , ' *: / W N ;o I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 14, MINNETONKA BLUFFS, and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon. It ctoes net purport to Show any other improvements or encroachments, other than an existing fence. COFFIN S GRONBERG, INC. Scale Date c 1 inen = 40 feet May 23, ISEo Iron marker Kari; r». Gronberg Reg. ‘ R(2-l3 'Zotsiiidjj - 2 rtciuE CtoT js-rz-c 2oo ' inA«/vf 5eT6AOc5- PRxWT ftt' 5-man sio» oerg iieg. no. 12755 Cordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064 Engineers and Land Surveyors Long lake, Minne.o^’a Rhone 473-4141 UJcnUWO 50' ZJm'4» a .*•< ;t?t:;7 :) ^r ■VJ S ‘j i-'$ - ?!-k A. 1 I-'-mx'ii8 ^Bi'^m ^!Tjr% ^11 wIm mim.’m. ; r. ■’iTv S - f<fW4^ 'ri "’ ; : 0m-^ ir: **/ r * -. Xi'y -i ■- ;v^. nr.' .- ^{r *c-*t fTji^ ; / -V1 _.v f # 4 .*^.i r - »'^ t f^.r t *?: iS*?, - ' 1 -T’ ^r »•-•. ■ «. »I ■ * « ■ ku •-•#•. #• • ■ -;t .'■.-* •>, -A- : . I j ' : •;. */ ‘ -V..-/ ■•;..• • •’ / : • '• •'• ■» ;• , ’■ •*• .»» t 5oUT^ \j I ©^> 3 ..I >v- -; r^..-> •■■ \* .v.-iv r • rm 1 : \M6St \/^e^^J I F V ' ^ r ~ -v.- * •*. .\ - • ■-.•-•■ •■ "rwJ • - - " . ’ •’ , •• * *. •• . .■-. * * : n '' ‘ ■ /' , '*-/-■■ •. ■••.,. •:/•i.::.*:■ . i •'*■'• * • ’ •, ^iO(^m \/ie>N» Permit No. S^l P70-f 'mM. ^3 4,;a9? PERMIT RECORD Date g-^-un 2iisaJ3. lAz3d-S^ n-^H'gs ’^/o<^ /9 t-f j ~^D Dr.Mt Type of Permit ■'UjatJiA /I ^eu )pr 4 Sf)C 'Thlcl^'i C')>n ^iulA</n.f- \ > April 18, 1998 Members of the Planning Commision And City Staff City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Planning Commission Meeting of April 20, 1998; Item No. 2362, Bob Howard, 1300 Shoreline Drive-Variances Gentlemen; Mr. Bob Howard discussed with me this morning his plans to re­ place his residence destroyed by fire some months age. He left for my signature the City of Orono Form "Adjacent property owner's acknowledge­ ment". Rather than sign that form, I have determined to comment on this matter by this letter. Since I received this form today and since your Notice of the Public Hearing was undated, I see that this letter will not be in your hands "10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date". Nevertheless... I have no comment, pro or con, on Mr. Howard's specific proposals on the size or placement of the new dwelling. I am not aware of the par­ ticular variances that may be required to accomplish his proposals. I am assuming that the Planning Commission and the City Council will address the issues raised by his variance requests in a manner that conforms to the City's established practices, procedures and precedents. I do have definite concerns about some non-variance matters re­ garding the property that I believe need to be addressed at this time and may need to be a part of the variance considerations. Mr. Howard's pro­ perty lies north of the easterly end of our property. Technically the two properties are divided by Fox Street which at this juncture is platted but unopened. Save for unopened Fox Street, Mr. Howard's property also lies just north of the easement v/hich we granted to the City some years ago for a pumping or sewer lift station. Mr. Howard began what I believe was some basement or footing reconstruction on his "old" house some 3-4 years ago. As a part of that reconstruction a considerable amount of earth-moving was done which affected not only Mr. Howard's platted lot, but also ground lying within the platted but unopened Fox Street. Dirt was piled against our existing fence (admittedly old and Yagile) and the fence and gate near the pump station are no longer in existence. Within the pest year^ I would guess, Mr. Howard has removed the mounds of dirt on the fence line, but the pre-existing grade has not been re-established. In a somewhat hilly terrain, I believe surface water drainage has been diverted somewhat south over my property and over the pump station area. Additionally ungraded mounds of dirt and APR ? 0 195A cri Y io.'.'o -2 piles of railroad ties have remained on the unopened Fox street right- of-way for what is now several years. Time constraints do not now allow the taking and developing of photos of the area. I have in­ dicated to Mr. Howard my intent to write the approximate contents of this letter. With respect therefore, I ask: 1.) That in any new construction or re-construction of his residence that Mr. Howard confine his construction activities, including the storage of materials, movement of construction equipment, etc. to the confines of his platted lot. 2.) That the mounds of dirt, railroad ties and like debris be removed from the unopened Fox Street right-of-way and that the specific right-of-way and necessary adjoining areas be returned to the pre-existing grade and drainage conditions and that this area be stabilized with appropriate seeded or sodded grass. 3.) That the City of Orono carry out the maintenance obliga­ tions relating to the pump station, gates, fences and appropriate screen plantings contained in and specified by our grant of easement rights to them. /i TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE:April 1,1998 SUBJECT:William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue VarianceS"Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:19,065 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.44 acre) Application: The applicant is proposing the replacement of an existing residence that would have a three car attached garage on the subject property. Variances are required for lot area, side street setback and hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations • Section 10.25, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements U256i William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Variances April 20. 1998 Page 1 T.ot Area and Yards ANALYSIS Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'8,524 s.f.none none none none 75'-250'10,523 s.f.1,604.66 s.f. (15.2%) 2,630.75 s.f. (25%) 3,143 s.f. (29.87%) 512.3 s.f. (4.87%) While existing hardcover calculations were not given, staff estimates that the property currently meets all hardcover requirements. As proposed, a variance would be needed in tlie 75* to 250' lakeshore setback. 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. A new residence could not be constructed without the granting of a lot area variance. A reasonable residence could be constructed that meets setback and hardcover requirements, however. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The parcel consists of two legally combined substandard lots. Even with both lots combined, the total lot area is substandard. The needfor side street setback and hardcover variances results from the size, layout and location of the proposed residence on the lot. U2363 William Bockmann 1 130 Loma Linda Avenue Variances April 20. 1993 Page 2 3. The Vciriances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. 5. 6. 7. The variance for lot area will not change the character of the area. The variances for side street setback and hardcover may have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Also, the proposed garage would have doors that face the lake. This is not desirable and would have a negative effect on views from the lake. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for 2iny use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Most lots on Loma Linda Drive were platted prior to current zoning requirements and do not meet lot area standards. While several other lakeshore properties in the vicinity have been granted variances for setbacks and hardcover for new residences and improvements to existing residences, most of these lots have been significantly smaller and narrower. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most lakeshore lots in the immediate vicinity are smaller and narrower. Therefore variances are necessary from setback and hardcover requirements. This is not the case with the subject property because the average width nearly conforms to the lot width requirement. The lot area is greater than most lakeshore lots in the immediate vicinity. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A reasonable residence can be built upon the subject property that would require only one variance for lot area. U236I William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue yanances April 20. 1993 Page A 8.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. As proposed, the residence is to have three garage stalls and two decks. While the applicant has Stated a three car garage is needed since three drivers will be living in the residence, the residence itself could be configured to meet hardcover requirement' Beside eliminating a deck and garage stall, another option would be to add living space on top of all the garage stalls and reducing the footprint of the residence. The applicant has also stated this as being undesirable. Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The lot does not meet the lot area requirement. WTiile the lot is served by Loma Linda Avenue, the road platted at 20' wide on the west side of the lot is technically the front yard as this is the shortest side of the lot abutting a platted street. If the hardcover requirement is met, 2,630.75 s.f. of hardcover is allowed in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback. The allowable building pad is approximately 2,900 s.f. This allows for the construction of a reasonable sized residence, albeit with fewer amenities, that could meet al! requirements, except lot area. Staff is concerned about the orientation of the garage doors. The 24' of backing area proposed for what functions as a side loading garage would likely not be sufficient. Furthermore, staff is concerned about the visual impact of having the three stall attached garage oriented toward the lake. Orienting the doors toward Loma Linda Avenue would have a better visual impact on the neighborhood and result in a more functional, straight-in drivewav that would result in less hardcover. Despite the applicant's concerns, the Planning Commission and City Council have not historically viewed a hardship for a second deck or third garage stall on limited lots such as this. By eliminating one deck, a garage stall and reducing he driveway, the hardcover requirement cculd be met. This is just one possible method of meeting the hardcover requirement. U2363 William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Variances April 20, 1998 Page 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a lot area variance to deem the lot buildable for the replacement of an existing residence, but recommends denial for other requested variances. • Staff recommends approval of a lot area variance of .66 acre to allow the lot to be considered buildable at the current .44 acre where 1 acre is required. • Staff recommends denial of a side street setback variance of 25’ to allow the residence to be located 10' from the Loma Linda Avenue street lot line where 35' is required and 2' is existing. • Staff recommends denial of a hardcover variance of 4.97% to allow 29.87% hardcover where 25% is allowed. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant be directed to orient the doors toward Loma Linda Avenue rather than toward the lake as the proposed driveway would not provide the proper turning radius of 30' and garage doors facing the lake are not appropriate. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey-Existing Survey-Proposed Elevation Drawings Hardcover Worksheets M2363 lyUliam Bockmarm 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Variances April 20, J99S Paj^e 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a lot area variance to deem the lot buildable for the replacement of an existing residence, but recommends denial for other requested variances. Staff recommends approval of a lot area variance of .66 acre to allow the lot to be considered buildable at the current .44 acre where 1 acre is required. Staff recommends denial of a side street setback variance of 25' to allow the residence to be located 10 ’ from the Loma Linda Avenue street lot line where 35' is required and 2 ’ is existing. Staff recommends denial of a hardcover variance of 4.97% to allow 29.87% hardcover where 25% is allowed. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant be directed to orient the doors toward Loma Linda Avenue rather than toward the lake as the proposed driveway would not provide the proper turning radius of 30' and garage doors facing the lake are not appropriate. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey-Existing Survey-Proposed Elevation Drawings Hardcover Worksheets H2363 William Bockmann 1 130 Loma Linda Avenue Variances April 20. 199S Paze 6 / r * ’•4.- { -.*-'-'^;>v iu<i' Application # ^ Date Received T/ZT/'fjr Amount Paid s CITY OF ORONO - VARIANC»=' 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) >ro.oo PROPERTY INFORMATION j Site Address ^/3c0 ^u^c-7 ^thcH<X A\JQ Propert>' Identification Number (P.I.D.) -23 OOf'X Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired (9 9X___________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ' * residential ___otlier (specify) Zoning District:________Lf^'! fj_____________________ APPLICANT . Phone (home) ^7^ G Name U)lL C M //. ^ c WA Phone (work) c/7 3 xVWy AddressT/t^^<^2 Cou^a. LniJa JXvc> City: ~Hc,uv\rf _____Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name SAh(^ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Constmction Cost $ / So. Oroo "TgA^ O ou ^aJ ^/5Z/A;^C - diflLO A/C-CJ ^To ^Y (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED y Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback: ^ F ront Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulfy' or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ______ 3 ^TA c C Lot- R/^^A S>fc)£^ ^oT -2ofOfe^C /4gg>Al6- Paciu TY^ Q/J fU&K (attach additional sheets if necessary) //7 a3 oo REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information rwust be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. X Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labelsjin4>-m9p^rom Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Go\l Centef 348-3271) Certificate of Survey (sign^ by 5'Tlccnsed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVz" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11"). 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). 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 vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomiation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurre 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 SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entr>' onto the property by City .st'ff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of irvestigation 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 (n A 36 •••••■ ••. 1 . • • ■ ■• ' •- (FCR!.'£RLY LOTS 1.2.?.32.33; 3^.35 & F4RT Cr VAC STREET) 2')0 , ? LilWr rrHJTT r* vE ^0 y 00 56 50 f/j 30 >1 Xk ■^z\30 (23) ■ * X ID 7PC<- Pv• ‘•7 ^j7 • j•2by \ 40; i-^' 50i . ,\ cr. 50 (22T 50 40 \* f ^ T \ K* (19)1 21 I 1 1 1 1 (20)' '.X r^20 U1 22 ^ I — C**' 1 24^5 (2iT 4. v^',’• (.r 4U 50l 50 1 50 EC j 40 ----------- 4 (5) (5 cn----N•^CT>11 1\ 6 (7) 215 s i'jj •!•"•'r •••7 (8) 2:3 !5 i 5gcr>S j S L ■ ■ - — — 9 (10) 170. 5 1s/ . . y RUN DATE 05/25/98BATCH 502 PROP AnOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR (»MER 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 38 07-117-23 lA 0006 01029 LOMA LINDA AVE R S R KNOX RALPH 8 KNOX 1029 LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND MN 5536A 38 07-117-23 lA 0068 01185 LOMA LINDA AVE D B A M J SAMS DOUG A MARY SAMS 1185 LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND MN 5536A 58 08-117-23 23 0005 01056 LOMA LINDA AVE C D A M J HOLCOMBE C D A M J HOLCOMBE 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 5536A 38 08-117-23 23 0008 0107A LOMA LINDA AVE MARGARET E MATTSON MARGARET E MATTSON 107<» LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND MN 5536A 38 08-117-23 23 0011 01098 LOMA LINDA AVE ROBERT J GOUNTANIS ROBERT J GOUNTANIS 1098 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 5536A HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 23 0014 01160 LOMA LINOA AVE GAG HOLDING CO LTD PTNRSHP G t G HOLDING CO LTD PTNRSHP C/0 LUELLA GOLDBERG 7019 TUPA DR EDINA MN 55439 38 07-117-23 14 001201145 LOMA LINDA AVE JEFFERY D JOHNSON ETAL JEFF D JOHNSON 1145 LOMA LINDA AV MOUND MFJ 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0002 01180 LOMA LINDA AVE MATTHEW M BURNS MATTHEW M BURNS 1180 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0006 01058 LOMA LINOA AVE T M A M L SCHAIBLE TOOO M A MICHELLE L SCHAIBLE 1058 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0009 01082 LOMA LINDA AVE K H A F DAIVARI KHOSROM A FATEHEH DAIVARI 2354 CHERRYWOOD RO MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 08-117-23 23 0012 01130 LOMA LINOA AVE N H BOCKMANN ET AL W/L EST WILLIAM A BOCKMANN 1130 LOMA LINDA AV MOUND M:4 55364 38 00-117-25 23 0015 01170 LOMA LINDA AVE GAG HOLDING CO LTD PTNRSHP GAG HOLDING CO LTD PTNRSHP 7019 TUPA DR EDINA MN 55439 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 238 07-117-23 14 001301155 LOMA LINDA AVE EUGENE GEYEN ETAL EUGENE A GEYEN 1155 LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND MN 55364 30 08-117-23 23 0003 01190 LOMA LINOA AVE M A A E C MITCHELL MARK A/ELIZA3ETH C MITCHELL 1190 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0007 01066 LOMA LINOA AVE CAROL M RAOUNZ CAROL M RADUNZ 5505 RIVER BLUFF CIR • BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 38 08-117-23 23 0010 01090 LOMA LINOA AVE W H BOCKMANN A N L BOCKMANN WILLIAM H BOCKMANN 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0013 01140 LOMA LINOA AVE GAG HOLOI^« CO LTD PTNRSHP GAG H0LDItK3 CO LTD PTNRSHP C/0 LUELLA GOLDBERG 7019 TUPA DR EOKW MN 55439 38 08-117-23 23 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGt4ED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND cm OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CD r RUN DATE 03/25/98 BATCH 502 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^35A01 PAGE 3 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 08-117-23 23 0019 01135 LOMA LINOA AVE M C THURLO 4 D S THURLO MARK THURLO S DEBRA THURLO 1135 LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND MN 5536^ 38 00-117-23 23 0020 01127 LOMA LINDA AVE DALE F ROTH DALE F ROTH 1127 lOtiA LINOA AVE MOUND m 5536^ 38 08-117-23 23 0021 01119 LOMA LINDA AVE W J & C J POLLARD WILLIAM J & CAROL J POLLARD 1119 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUt40 MN 5536^ PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 23 0022 01045 LOMA LINDA AVE T G OSTERBERG/K J OSTERBERG TIMOTHY G/KRISTI J OSTERBERG 1045 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0023 01035 LOMA LINDA AVE R C BROWN & M A BROWN ROSS C A MELINDA A BROt'IN 1035 LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0026 01122 LOMA LINOA AVE ROGER L WILLIAMS ROGER L WILLIAMS 815 SW 16TH ST HILLHAR 56201 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 23 0027 01200 LOMA LINDA AVE EDMUND GRIFFIN ET AL DONALD R UDELL 1210 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 502 00025 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON 711 RECORDS OF THE HEf^EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE '3/z^M v %.¥ C\ i;t t f H*. i M 9 ProPf'■f'7 Si I $ SiI % r PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date loLo 9 6- s8 ■n-/./o- ~7< lp ‘-l5'ip 9-/0-S'! i-’/ighi 1130 LOMA LINDA AVE Type of Permit 3 AC /TtOi' (j &C_J ! ■SMM 8 SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FORWILLIAM BOCKMANN OF LOTS A A AND 12, LOMA LINDA TN NEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LOMA LINDA § AVENUE LAKE IP V i' ^\.J el A>• » !i .3V.-SW MINNETONKA C^. CD 0) •• • • • • • •• V • « •• • « • %HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA (rK § i 4 \ 0 do / bGMA—HNBA—AVENUE 8-SERVIGE oc: WEST / / 12^0 "■ ' 42 "7 i“I Mo^hij(c tur(4 r.3 p d <n o /•.-•V t- v» yOq=J '\ < It: ,2/JLkjc-1 If O) 6"% fy o«v-*^ Vi- /.) B*i? /W ^:l-..^>''W' i (f'' /1 P'^l ► A'. A tvi '31 il:'. Cf jzzll. r ii Y>4 1N s T_TL1 ;.q :r|'^f #23' •is V #1 •- 4?" *j - :rj ]■ - .' — -« . ♦ 1 ___1. L arr j^s rjST^-Tjrr_i-i ‘‘ ! r^.-: . .. -i *«**.h^ r^. j-i i-i f *1' J _ \ V«- ■-** «*»_?• . .1 i *■ /IJ- ^ T^_ V t. ft-4 lint: i 1--^ .V "1 n I e * J i .M. mr-^ tmi, M I •• • ^ "--■r.":. ^,/)^'L- (SA-ir $/o<;--)t—( V a J ^ ^ ^77 -s *■-* *'T • • ->•-- -- , ■«*>—,i>- ■rr-^ JH r- -i , — 17 ll. ■ ' 1 ^■n ^.U' C] w irm ::*j:r~j -■_ri:ri». fl if 1:__ » ~ -1 1 f 1 ^cpU-f/-/ "5/0^ M. •3/-25Z V / SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) CO-75 ’ EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN’ ZONT A. House HARDCOVH'R'CALllLLAilU.N UUKKMUbtl' 75-250 ’250-500 ’500-1000 ’ Lcnzih Widih B. Garage • C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- __ _ _ _ B X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONT A. House _____________ Length Width 1 . S.F. S.F. S.F. .S.F. t I. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. iF. S.F. • S.F. S.F. ?c S.F. S.F. A B ^ / CJ HAB^CofER CALCULATION ' 250-500* 500-1000*SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*^S-2S0j) pyiSTlNC. HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length Width X X X B. Garage X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X •L • 1 •F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ h X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN Z01VE A. House X Length Width X X X B. Garage' C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck £ /9/3 790 ZZ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 3 M3 + B. 106 Z3 y/^3 I0BZ3 X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. __S.F. __S.F. 27.8V % ^ cr% (T% O A B A B Z.i ! ]». ^ •• • • ‘ .1 ZOIV/iMGjV^ MARCH 1998 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION % - 1# I > "Nobody Told Me They Changed the Zoning!" B\ Fay Dolnick s communities grow, zoning ordinances should remain mT^ flexible enough to meet changing land-use needs. As stated in the Standard State Enabling Act of 1926, “provision must be made for changing the regulations as conditions change or new conditions arise, otherwise zoning would be a ‘strait- jacket’ and a detriment to a community instead of an asset.” Neighborhood rezoning and other land-use changes can have a significant, even adverse, impact on the lives and properties of area residents. To lessen the probability of such impacts, public hearings on proposed zoning changes arc normally required by state statute. ik NOTICE OF PROPOSED SH^HiNb land use action Shoreline, Washington, uses bold lettering to catch the attention of passersby and explicit details for those who take a closer look at a proposed Lvid-use action. The purpose of these hearings is to obtain additional information regarding the proposed change for the decision makers and to enable citizens to express concern or ask questions. The most effective hearings happen when residents arc informed well in advance of the hearing ’s date, time, and location. The identification of the affected propern* and the proposed land-use change are important and relevant facts to report to the public. This issue oiZoning News discusses the various methods communities can employ to communicate news of an impending zoning change to the public and examines a varieev* of procedures used in ordinances. Overview The Standard State Enabling Act recommends a 15-day advance notice of a public hearing through a general circulation newspaper, but also notes that this can var>' to suit local needs. he most effective hearings happen when residents are informed well in advance of the hearing's date, time, and location. The identification of the affected property and the proposed land-use change are important and relevant facts to report to the public. Although state statutes typically require public hearing notices, they leave the details to the municipal ordinance. Municipalities invariably use one or more of the following methods to notify ihe public of a proposed land use change: ■ advertisements in a general circulation newspaper; ■ mailings to propern* owners most likely affected by the change; ■ posting a sign on the property site with the proposed change. Charles Reed, editor and publisher of The Zoning Report, has pointed out that based on the number of people who appear and testify at hearings, newspaper notices arc the least effective method of notification. The time allowed for notification of a forthcoming hearing can range from seven to 30 days before the hearing takes place. However, most notifications occur 10 to 15 days before the hearing. The specified radius of an affected propert)', about which a properc)' owner must be notified, ranges from 100 feet to 700 feet, with a median of 300 feet. Mailings of a notification arc usually sent via post using either first class or certified mail. Administrative costs associated with mailing lists and postage arc assumed cither by the municipalit)* or by the applicant for the rezoning. When the number of persons to be notified becomes excessive, communities employ more practical and cost-effective methods of public notification. For example, Santa Cruz. California, opts for a newspaper advertisement rather than a mass mailing when notification numbers exceed 1,000. Regulations for the onsite sign can range from a simple instruction that it be placed prominently on the affected site to ver>' detailed requirements on the size, lettering st)*lc, textual information, and placement of the sign in relation to the street and the adjoining properties. Some ordinances provide detailed drawings of sign requirements. Although the municipal planning and de\*eIopment department may provide the sign, the applicant usually bears the rcsponsibilit)* and costs for placing it. Some municipalities ask the applicant to supply a signed affidavit suting that the sign has been posted and that it conforms to the municipal standards. f*.* i- %' >>-f:!e v^,- V? - *Y* • *f' *• •i :r>..l =Cr, <:'! t^. , 'r*;.. •* •• .■ . - “it A.- y •i.v;..•.»»• \ ]?; ■' ''.■vM >n Ordinance Sampler The following arc examples o{ provisions for public notification of proposed rezonings. Zoning Xeivs chose them for their concise language and simple form. Despite this simplicit)-. the abilit)' to provide sufficient information is not compromised. Scottsdale, Arizona, Arizona’s state statute requires that municipalities notiA' the public of a land-use change through "standard ’ channels, which typically include a notice in the local newspaper, an onsite sign posting, and a first class mailing to all propert)* owners within 300 feet of the site. To ensure that notice of the proposed land-use change is widely circulated, Scottsdale’s standards e.xceed what is often found in local ordinances. Two legal notices are published in the local newspaper 30 and 15 days prior to the hearing. Property* owners within 300 feet of the proposed rezoning site are notified at least 30 days prior to the hearing, and agend.is for the hearings are posted in four public locations prior to its commencement. To guarantee public awareness of these changes. Scottsdale made effective in February 199^ the requirement that an application sign be a four-foot-by-four-foot "cardinal” red plvwood sign containing all pertinent information in language understandable to the public. The laminated sign will be erected at least 15 days prior to the hearing. Scottsdale applicants are Notification is thuaned if the sign is not properly maintained, as with this notice of a proposed land-use action in Seattle. provided with specifications as to its design, including the six- inch size of the lettering, textual requirements such as the date, place, and time of the hearing, and the name and phone number of the applicant. The applicant is responsible for the cost of the sign and for arrangements to have it installed. He or she is also obliged to sign an affidavit verifying that the sign has been posted. The affidavit is returned to the community development department with a photograph of the sign and a copy of the signed contract with a sign vendor approved by the city. Scottsdale’s larger red signs replaced those that were considerably smaller and less weather-resistant. Improved visibilit)' to passing motorists is instrumental in reaching a wider public, a standard that appears to be paying dividends. The signs have resulted in increased attendance at Scottsdale’s public hearings. Scottsdale’s communit)* development department goes one step further to keep the public abreast of local issues by offering a "site posting hot line.” The objective of this telephone serv ice is to keep residents informed about zoning changes. The success of Scottsdale’s hotline and other methods of effectively reporting land- use ch^uiges lies not only in service creativit)', but in the user- friendly nature and simplicity' of the zoning text as well. Complicated language is largely avoided in the Scottsdale code. Mesa, Arizona, Mesa requires the applicant to post the notification of a land-use change at his or her own cost. 14 days before the planning and zoning board meeting. Local standards require that the sign measure four feet by four feet when the land-use change involves parcels of 10 acres or more. The color scheme must be white with one to four-inch black letters and prominent enough to be visible to passing motorists. .Although providing the sign is voluntary for the developer, Mesa planner Gordon Sheffield says that cooperation is never a problem. The developer is also responsible for removing the sign seven days after the city' council meeting. To discourage wastefulness, the planning department recommends that the signs be recycled to other applicants whenever possible. Mesa applicants are responsible for drafting a letter to all property owners within 300 square feet of the site. The first- class mailing should include an 8-by-l I inch photograph of the site plan. The planning and community development department provides a sample letter and sign placement map as well as detailed design guidelines for the sign. These requirements arc not established by ordinance but arc a matter of policy set by the local legislative body, and to deviate from these requirements is grounds for continuation of the case until they arc met. Seattle, Washington, Seattle’s notification procedures differ slightly from usual practices. Notice of a proposed land-use action is issued in the city ’s Land-Use Information Bulletin. Although the publication is not in general circulation, it is widely distributed to community groups and to land-use lawyers in the Seattle region. The information is also posted on a web site visited by businesses, activist groups, and individuals interested in Seattle’s land-use issues. To contain costs, a random mailing of notices is conducted for property owners within 300 feet of the site. Each notice is sent out by the planning department, but the applicant pays for the cost of postage through application fees. Applicants are also responsible for the costs of the onsite sign, which must be eight feet by four feet in size, made of white plastic, and inscribed with black vinyl lettering. The sign contains a drawing of the site map, the site’s address, the name and phone number of the applicant, and a description and project number of the pro ­ posed development. A municipal telephone number is also provided for interested persons to call with questions. Seattle requires that the signs draw the attention of both local motorists and individuals from outside the neighborhood who mav not be familiar with the area. The cit>' contracts with a 0 0 local sign company to produce the signs and charges the applicant a nominal fee of S295. Bellevue, Washington. Bellevue’s notification is posted in a general circulation newspaper 14 days before a hearing. Property- owners within 200 feet of project sites are sent the notification, which contains a complete description of the project and its location. Neighborhood groups, community- clubs, or other citizen groups with a stake in local land-use actions also receive notice of the impending change. Onsite signs are the responsibility of the developer and must also be in place 14 days before a hearing. Subsequent removal of the signs is required within seven days after a decision is reached over the land-use change. Bellevue’s regulations specify a four- foot-by-four-foot sign that is double-sided and visible from the street. The applicant must also file a "certificate of installation” w'ith the city as proof that the sign has been correctly installed. 1 The only information required on Bellevue’s signs is a five- or six-word description of the proposal, the date of the application, and a municipal phone number to call for further information. Letters and numbers must be rwo to four inches in height. The city provides a detailed drawing of the required sign. Redmond, Washington. Like Seattle, Redmond requires onsite signs for land-use actions to be relatively large (usually eight feet by four feet), a requirement of the statute in the King County land-use code. The signs must provide a site map or written description of the site boundaries, the t) pc of pending land-use application, the date of the public hearing, and the Getting Notified i lillbborough County, Morida. niaintaini a rcgistr%‘ of neighborhood orgxni/aiions \Nith an inicrc!>t in land-use changes, all of which are notified when such changes occur. The county requires the applicant to mail these notices 20 da\s before the hearing to all properu owners within one mile of the site. In cases where more than 200 owners require notification, an alternative method may be emplos ed to rclicsc staff of adrninistratise burdens. Santa Cruz, California, also oilers an altcrnatisc plan to notifv the public of an impending I iiid-use change. Procedures in that communir) change when more than I.OOO persons are in need of notifuacion. I he alternate plan typlcall) includes a nevsspaper adveriisment of onc- eighth page minimum. Ann Arbor. Michigan, notifies registered businesses and neighborhood groups with .1 stake in land-use actions. I hesc groups, and all property owners within 300 fed of the sire, are notified of such changes csen thougli Michig.m state l.ws requires onl\ tliat utility and railroad companies .uljaccm u: the properts be notified. .Ann .\rlnir planners sa\ that a wider distribution ol information is the most appropriate and fairest protnwol. name and telephone number of Redmond ’s department of planning and community development. Like other communities in the sample, the applicant is responsible for the cost and administration of the sign (including installation) at least 10 days prior to the hearing and for its removal immediately pending a decision. The cit)* of Redmond provides detailed instructions and a drawing of the information required on the sign. The planning department notifies all property owners within 300 Icet of the site of the hearing by first-class mail and then charges the developer an application fee. A local newspaper also carries a notice of the land-use change at least 10 days before the hearing. Shoreline and Mercer Island, Washington. Shoreline and Mercer Island have foregone the eight-foot-by-four-foot sign seen in other King County municipalities in favor of signs with better aesthetics and lower costs. Neither communic)' feels that visibility or availability of information have been compromised in the process. Shoreline ’s and Mercer Island ’s weather-resistant signs are two feet by four feet in dimension, made of white plasticized material, and inscribed with blue lettering. An 8/4-by-l 1-inch plastic pocket placed on the sign contains flyers that identify* the location of the propcrc)*, the name of the applicant, a description of the proposed new land use, and the telephone number of the cir/ department where additional information can be obtained. The planning department supplies the signs, which the applicants may install themselves or have the maintenance department do for a fee of S50. Notices are mailed co all property owners within 300 feet of the propcrc)' and to citizen groups upon request. Shoreline ’s local newspaper publishes the notices; on Mercer Island, they appear in a weekly bulletin with a smaller circulation. Conclusion Communir)' residents have a right to hear the information about a pending land-use change accurately and in a clear, timely, and informative fashion. Inaccurate information; vagueness of time, date, and place of the public hearing; or inadequate identification of the affected propert)* can lead to costly court cases. User-friendly regulations should be written in ordinaiy language rather than legal jargon, and requirements are most effective when listed consecutively rather than burving them in different sections of the ordinance. Including neighborhood associations, local businesses, condominium and apartment building managers, and local property owners on the list of notification recipients is the most comprehensive way to disseminate information. Onsite signs should be weatherproof and large enough for the information to be visible to passing motorists. They are most effective when able to convey all the details regarding the location of the site and the proposed rezoning. The municipal regulations should state the precise location of the sign to avoid confusion. \'aguc instructions, such as requiring that the sign be placed “prominently ” on the site, are not adequate information. To ensure that requirements and standards have been met, some communities ask the applicant to provide proof of compliance. Others require that the applicant be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the sign. The ordinances chosen by Zoning News represent the qualities that make public notice regulations easy to comprehend and eft'ective in application. Ordinances were consulted from communities around the count)', but Arizona and Washington municipalities appeared to have a disproportionately high concentration of good examples. Such a pattern supports the theor)’ that ideas are often borrowed from neighbors. Chicago Wins Landmarks Case In what may seem like a reversal of tj'pical roles, the city of Chicago has won a case before the U.S. Supreme Court by arguing in favor of federal judicial intcr\’cntion in a local administrative decision concerning historic properties. The case. City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, No. 96-910 (U.S., Dec. 15, 1997), involves rwo buildings owned by the International College of Surgeons (ICS). In 1988, acting under the city ’s landmarks ordinance, the Chicago Landmarks Commission designated a landmark district of seven lakefront properties, including rwo buildings owned by ICS. Before the cit>- council passed an ordinance approving the designation, ICS contracted to sell its property to a developer that intended to demolish the structures, saving only their facades, and build a high-rise condominium building. 5*.: ‘•■'j * Orono enacts moratorium in city’s industrial district By Michelle Wallin Minnesofa Sun Publications The Orono City Council at its March 9 meeting adopted an ordi ­ nance enacting a six-month moratori­ um regarding development in the city’s industrial dist ict. According to a city report, the city’s Zoning Code allows uses in the industrial zone that are “substantial­ ly contrary ” to the general concept plan for land use along Highway 12 that was approved by the council on Feb. 23. Staff recommended that the city conduct a study to determine the types of uses that are compatible with the general concept plan. The purpose of the moratorium, ef­ fective until Sept. 15, is to prevent in­ compatible uses from being introduced into the industrial district during the period of the study. The moratorium suspends the in­ troduction of certain uses that are usu­ ally allowed in the industrial zone, and also suspends uses which require the city to issue a new conditional-use per­ mit. The moratorium affects the follow ­ ing uses: • Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping, sales and storage • Storage repair and wholesaling of boats and marine products • Bus, truck and contractors termi­ nals and maintenance yards • Lumber yards, millworks, ware­ houses • Farm equipment sales, repair and storage • Motor fuel stations, open sales lots, outside storage and railroad switch yards At its March 23 meeting, the Orono City Council amended the moratori­ um to include an exemption policy. Ac­ cording to the policy, the City Council may grant exemptions to the morato­ rium to allow new, permitted uses in situations where the restrictions im­ posed would cause “undue hardship.” Four other conditions also must be rnet by those applying for an exemp- jn. For more information call the city of Orono at 473-7357. AP12IL -i Orono Councfl approves vision for land use By Michelle Wallin Pgbnnesota Sun Publications The Orono City Council is making clTorts to preserve the city’s rural character. The council at its Feb. 23 meeting approved a resolution adopting a gencial concept plan for land use along Highway 12. According to the resolution, this concept plan most closely re- nects the council ’s vision for the Highway 1‘2 area. At a hch. 12 work session, the council had re­ viewed three alternatives for a general ccnccpt plan. The approved general con ­ cept plan calls for “community- scale ” retail development fo ­ cused in a compact area in and near downtown Long Lake, clos­ er to Brown Road than to Willow Drive. This means the council ’s goal is to keep retail development in or near the current retail area ^ which is downtown Long Lake, City Administrator Ron Moorse See story on Orono’s industrial zone moratorium on Page 37A. said in an interview. The concept plan restricts “strip retail" development and prohibits all regional, “big box ” retail development along High­ way 12. Examples of “big box" development, Moorse said, are large supermarkets or discount stores that draw customers from beyond the local community. “We arc stating up front what we think should happen hero, Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour said in an interview. Jabbour said the resolution was passed to provide guidance to city stalf concerning prospective develop­ ers’ requests. . i j "Staff people are bombarded with requests," Jabbour said. “We wanted to be proactive rather than reactive.” He said there arc five super­ market offers for the Highway 12 area, some of which do not fit the council ’s vision. Having a vision from the council will help city staff mem­ bers and prospective developers understand which kinds of de­ velopments would he acceptable in Orono, Jabbour said. Land: City ‘committed to community ’ From Page lA Jabbour said Orono ’s “No. 1 coinmit- monl ” is to provide for the local commu­ nity. According to the resolution, the concept plan has several benefits, including: “fo ­ cuses on downtown Long Lake remaining a strong retail area; focuses on maintain­ ing a viUil downtown and ‘sense of place* for Long Lake and Orono; and a more com ­ pact community scale retail area matches the design of new Highway 1*2 with no in­ terchanges through Long Lake.” Construction is expected to begin in 2001 on the new Highway 12 corridor, which will be built along the Burlington- Northern-Santa Fe Railroad Tracks from Wayzata Boulevard to County Road 6. The only interchanges for the corridor will be at Wayzata Boulevard and Coun­ ty Road 6. Regional retail, if built along the cur­ rent Highway 12, could cause problems with the new Highway 12 design, Moorse said. People likely would want to access downtown Long Lake from the new Highway 12, he said. Moorse and Jab ­ bour also said the local roads are not built to handle increased traffic that re­ gional retail would draw. According to a city report, the focus of the land use concept plan is to preserve the city’s natural rural character and to facilitate “high quality" development and employment opportunities. Moorse said the types of uses envi­ sioned for the city’s industrial area on the south side of Highway 12 and east of Old Crystal Bay Road are “high tech" manu ­ facturing, medical, ofiice and similar uses. The concept plan also outlines desir­ able locations for “medium-density" resi­ dential development and office develop ­ ment. According to the resolution, the up­ date of the city’s land use plan is an im­ portant element of the Comprehensive Plan update process. The update must be completed by the end of the year, Jabbour said. Moorse stressed that the resolution reflects a general vision from the council and that these ideas for land use in the Highway 12 area are not final. The city’s work on the Comprehensive Plan in­ cludes requesting input from the com ­ munity and from affected property own ­ ers, he said. The city will be providing op ­ portunities for public input in the near future. Concerning Highway 12 area land use, Councilmember J. Diann Goetten said, “We really want to have a plan and we want the plan to work with Long Lake." tWN fAUjoa ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 16, 1998 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present. Chair Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, William Stoddard, and Alternate Jeanne Mabusth. Charles Schroeder, Dale Lindquist, Elizabeth Hawn, and Lili McMillan were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Assistant Brad Bressler, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2325 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CINDY OLSON, 950 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2325 at the request of the applicant. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#2) #2340 ROBERT WAADE, 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 6:30-7:49 P.M. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission previously reviewed the application once as a sketch plan and in February as a formal plat request The 1-1/2 acre parcel is divided into four tax parcels in the LR-lCl zoning district. The single family backlot configuration requires 150% of the standard or 0.75 acre. The front lot is proposed for a duplex based on its proximity within 200' of the commercial district. The application was tabled in February to allow the applicant to provide a stormwater plan and recalculate the lot areas. Outlot C will be dedicated for right of way. The applicant has changed the boundary between lots I and 2 by moving the lot line to the south. An access outlot will be provided for the lakeshore lot at a reduced width of 20' instead of the required 30'. A private road corridor is proposed at 40' instead of the required 50', with a 24' paved road. The lot line typically thought to be the front lot line is less than the required width. Gaffron indicated the applicant is also planning to add berming with plantings along the property line abutting Lakeside Marina. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (U2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the general comments in the memorandum, #1-3. He noted that no additional sewer charges are needed. The property will be served by private wells. He concluded that only the back lot has riparian access. Covenants and restrictions will be placed on the chain of title to ensure that no riparian rights are given to the duplex property. The pond will be located north of the boundary line between lots 1 and 2. The applicant has asked to receive credit for the pond towards area for the back lot. GaflVon said the intent of the code is to provide additional buffering, and he believes this is being accomplished and supported the credit. Gaffron reviewed the issues for discussion, # 1 -9 on pages 5 and 6 of the memo. He recommended the road be private. He noted the code only allows for two properties to be served by a drivew'ay instead of three as requested. A CUP is required to fill within of the lot line. Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission agrees with Staff in recommending the credit of unused 75-250' hardcover towards the 250-500' zone. Waade had no additional comments at this time. Russell Norum, 3264 North Shore Drive, noted the location of his property. He said he has no philosophical objections to the application and is open to being flexible regarding variances and conditional use permits. He asked if the private road would be located over existing land to access the homes from CoRd 51. He is concerned with the road being cut in noting his own house has had problems with settling and the road w’ill be next to it. Norum said he also is troubled with the ponding. A large pole building is located nearby that resulted in flooding in the area to the north of his property. He questioned what effect the ponding would have to drainage. Norum also indicated there had been an access road to the west of the property at one time and questioned what happened to that access for the subject property. He noted there are water pipes running under his lot and three other lots; their location is unknown. While he believes the new construction will aid property values, he is concerned with additional noise and lighting. Smith clarified the concerns voiced by Norum, namely, 1) access to the property, 2) additional erosion problems, and 3) why the previous access will not be utilized. Norum said he does not object to the road itself but to further erosion. He felt the new road would be satisfactory if improvement was made to ponding. Gaffron remarked that the impact ffom the driveway location so near Norum's property is significant due to the steep cuts and needs to be resolved The City Engineer has not reviewed this issue. Gaffron said retaining walls may be required. Gaffron indicated the westerly access driveway never had any formal status. Its location is poor due to sight lines along the hill. The County has concluded that the proposed access is best in terms of sight lines but suggested the hill be cut down. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Norum's garage is located less than 10' from the proposed paving of the road. Norum indicated that the easement road was never meant to be used for the subject property. Waade suggested building up the property to eliminate retaining walls. GafFron agreed that changes are necessary and suggested the City Engineer review the plan. Gaffron responded to the flooding issue. He reported that it appears all drainage from applicant's site will go to the pond. It, however, will not solve the neighbor's problem. Staff felt a comprehensive review of the area's drainage should be conducted from the marina eastward. Gaffron noted that there are no plans affecting the water supply off the property and does not know if there are any water lines on the subject property. Gaffron asked that a condition of Planning Commission approval include the City Engineer's review of grading. Dave Dalvey, 3230 Bohns Point Lane, said he has spoken with neighbors and presented a petition opposing the duplex and variances for the property. Smith read the petition and the undersigned names. She noted there were unsolved issues surrounding the application, which has been reviewed twice by the Commission. Mabusth asked if the code section regarding the issue relating to the front lot line was available. Stoddard indicated he also did not understand the front lot line issue. In discussion issue #2, Mabusth noted that wetlands and stormwater are all defined as drainage easements and the referenced example is for a rural property. She supported allowing the credit for stormwater ponding. Commissioners agreed with Mabusth. Stoddara felt the road should be private. Commissioners agreea. Gaffron explained that the code standard for a private road width serving 3-7 units is 24' wide. If the road is public, it would need to be wider. Mabusth asked if a road name would be required. Gaffron said this would normally occur bui with the existing access, the homeowners can retain the North Shore Drive addresses but may desire a sign board to direct people to their properties Stoddard said he supported a 24' private road but would like the City Engineer to review the preliminary grading plans prior to review by Council. Gaffron clarified the reasoning for the width and length variances necessary for Outlots A and B. He indicated that two outlots are necessary for access and for the road. The City will require easements over the outlots for underlying utilities and to grant easements to the other property owners to allow them to continue using the access. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Mabusth asked if the applicant would meet the area requirement if given credit for the ponding Gaffron indicated there would only be a very minor underage Mabusth asked if the duplex would be served by Outlot B. Gaflron indicated it would and noted that the standard calls for no more than two units being accessed olTthe 30' corridor. The reason behind the standard is to limit the units as three units would require a road. There may be a hardcover issue if the access was changed. Stoddard lelt the variances for the widths of Outlots A and B made sense as it would allow for smaller roadway and lessen the hardcover. He noted that the property is allowed a duplex under the code and felt the road issue was not substantial enough to show any opposition. Mabusth asked what the absent Commissioners felt about the issues. Smith indicated that Lindquist was concerned with the number of variances and did not want to encourage their need. Gaffron said the duplex requires a 135' minimum width. The lot width as defined by CoRd 51 does not meet the requirement. It is only met if the width is defined along the private road outlot. The upper lot has about 121' width and the low er lot has 122'. If the exception' segment in the front of the lot is considered there would be about 140'. Mabusth noted there v.ould be a hardcover problem if additional drivew'ay was necessary for three dwellings on one driveway outlot. The driveway would be minimized .vith two dwellings on one access. Berg asked if the proposed units would be rental units Waade said he would live in the single family home and rent out the duplex. Gaffron indicated the duplex would have to be rental units as the ownership of the duplex cannot be split into individual units under the City ordinances. Smith noted that all of the Commissioners at the last meeting were opposed to providing riparian rights for the duplex. Mabusth asked if the sewer locations have been reviewed. The issue of easements needs to be resolved as well. Mabusth noted the need for a hold harmless agreement for the City. Gaffron said the manholes would have to be raised as well. Waade said the bermed area would be built up about 5', and he would like to plant a row of pine trees for screening. Commissioners voiced their support. Smith asked what type of landscaping would be planted. Waade said he would like to add about 8-10 arborvitae trees on top of the berm to make a hedge. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert VVaade - Continued) Stoddard asked for clarification of the hardcover variance requested. Gaffron said the northern lot would not require variances in the 0-75’ or 75-250'. The problem lies in the 250-500' zone from Maxwell and Crystal Bays. The amount of hardcover allowed in the 75-250' setback will not be totally utilized, and the applicant would like to take the excess and add it to the 250-500' allowable. Staff supports that request as it meets the intent of the code and the massing would be pulled further back from the lake. Smith, Mabusth, and Stoddard agreed that this scenario meets the intent of the code. Sam Marfield, 2455 North Shore Drive, in noting the nice area along North Shore Drive, felt the use of rental or multi-housing would not be appropriate to the neighborhood. He asked that Lindquist's previous comments about not granting variances be carried through. Jack Swenson, 3020 North Shore Drive, said he felt the same as Marfield. He sees no reason to grant any variances and feels the character of North Shore Drive is one of single family residential. David Dalvey felt the application would result in cramming houses on a property and add to the busyness and crowding of the area. He did not believe the application was a good project. Mr. Henson, 3216 North Shore Drive, said his property was next to the subject property. He noted the problem comer with the pump house location. He felt the proposal was a good use for the property in keeping the majority of the area single family. He noted more of the properties could be twinhomes. Henson supported the application and felt it would maintain the neighborhood's character. Gaffron noted that the issue of structural coverage has not been dealt with regarding the duplex. The proposed stmctural coverage is 4800 s.f or 22% of the lot area where only 15^0 is allowed. Gaffron noted that if the applicant chose to withdraw the request for duplex and submitted a proposal for a single family residence, the lot width requirement would change to 100' and would likely have a smaller footprint. Jim DePetrow said he did not support the duplex proposal and felt the sentiment is for single family dwellings. Waade commented that if a single family residence was built, it would still be rental property. He felt the duplex would be better in quality than most of the area's homes. His targeted renter would be upper bracket. Waade said he plans on living in the single family residence and believes the project would clean up the area. He noted that a larger unit building could be built on the property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION » w<r% »-*%»% •• • . .. iviLi^iiiHVJ 1 uuL^LJ KJi'^ iViruwii I (n2 - ^2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Smith asked Waade about proposing a single family instead of a duplex and what effect it would have on variances and structural coverage. Waade said the issue was economics. The front lot has a pump station near it and is near the marina. Waade felt that lot would be best serv ’ed bv a multi-familv unit from a development standpoint. Smith asked if the road outlot was taken into consideration for the 22% structural coveraue. Gaflron said the road outlot would not be considered part of the lot area. Berg asked about reducing the square footage of the duplex units. Waade indicated he could reduce the size Beru asked what stvle of buildinu was beinu proposed. Waade said the duplex would be a two-story slab on grade. Gaffron said the footprint would need to be limited to 32 x40' to meet the standard. Sam Marfield asked why two duplex homes are needed on the property. He asked whatever is built that it be built within the code without any variances. Mabusth asked what variances would be required if a single family home was built on the lot. Gaffron said lot width variances for the outlots would be required unless the front lot line was changed. There would be no change to the credit tor ponding. Smith asked for Waade's comments regarding moving in the direction of a single family residence to miticate some variances Waade said he would need to know what he would be allowed on the property. Stoddard felt the application fit in with providing residential between the marinas. He felt some of the variances would be eliminated. He supported the lot width and driveway access for three units instead of two. He noted the property is zoned for duplex and could be higher density than what is being proposed. He supported the stormwater pond credit towards the extra 50®/o lot area requirement. Stoddard said he had been unaware of the structural coverage. He noted the 24' driveway width is required for emergency vehicles. Stoddard said he would support the application if the structural coverage was reduced. Waade was informed that about one third of the square footage would need to be reduced to meet the structural coverage requirement for a 3300 s.f footprint. Gaffron explained for Mabusth that the lot width requirement would be eliminated for the front lot^ack lot if the proposal was for single family instead of duplex. Waade indicated that he could reduce the size of the duplex. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Mabusth asked what other variances would be required. GafFron reported that lot width would be required unless the lot line along the road outlot was defined as the front lot line instead of CoRd 51. There would be no need for a hardcover variance if credit was given for the ponding. The variances necessary’ would be for the length and width of the outlot. Berg said it was important to note that the driveways would still be located there whether one unit or two. Jody Dalvey said she would like to see the area cleaned up. She believes people would be less apt to buy property in the area if a duplex was allowed. She acknowledged that her primary concern is with the duplex. Berg felt the main issues have been addressed. Smith suggested tabling the application to allow the applicant to redesign the project. Waade asked if the Commission w'ould support the duplex proposal if the footprint was reduced. Smith felt the main issue was with reducing the structural coverage. She noted support was voiced for the variance for the driveway. Smith informed Waade of the need to submit a drainage plan for review. She emphasized that lake access would only be allowed to the single family residence. Stoddard said he supported the Staff' recommendations noted on page 6 of the memo noting the property is zoned for duplex. He supported the driveway and lot width variance and structural coverage of 15%. He suggested the applicant work with staff. Smith noted the applicant also needs to protect the adjacent property in regards to drainage as part of the grading plan. Marfield reminded the Commission of Lindquist's comments. Smith informed Marfield that Lindquist was speaking for himself She noted that the plan as proposed would most likely be denied if a recommendation was made at this time. Smith informed the applicant that the Commission needs to see the revised plan before review by Council. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to table Application ##2340. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Agenda item #3 follows item #5.) L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS (#5) KEVIN AND LISA OLSEN/JIM AND JUNE TOU\T, 4196 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CLASS I SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 7:49- 8:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailinu and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaffron reported that the request is for a metes and bounds simple subdivision to separate a platted lot that was legally combined in the past. Lots 55, 56, and 57 were legally combined. Mr. Touve sold lots 55 and 56 to the Olsens without lot 57. They w'ere advised that this constituted an illegal subdivision and would require a formal subdivision with the City, but the City staff would not recommend approval due to the sub-standard lot situation and given history of ow nership of the property. Gaffron noted there are wetlands located on lots 57-61. Gaffron said he did not recommend separating lot 57 from lots 55 and 56 due to the lot sizes and "lot of record" status. The zoning is one acre. Lots 55-57 have a total acreage of .81 and meet the 80% requirement for buildability. Any reduction would make the size more substandard and give Touve increased potential for building within the remaining lots. Gaffron noted that Touve has not made any application to date regarding future building and that would be a separate application. Gaffron reviewed the issues for consideration as noted on page 2 of the memo Lots 58- 61 when combined would be under the one acre requirement, and contain only .48 acre of dry buildable, which would not meet the standard. A driveway would also have to cross over the wetlands Gaffron indicated that the request to add Lot 57 to 58-61 would result in making a substandard group of three lots into a smaller group requiring variances. He feels consideration also has to be given to lots 58-61 if combined on their own merit. The deeds were created over 10 years ago, and the Olsen's have paid taxes on the 3 lots without having a deed to all three lots. Olsen ’s now have the property up for sale, and Gaffron believes the intent is only to sell the two lots. This needs to be resolved. If the lots are not separated, lot 57 would have to be sold with the other two lots. Gaffron said neither City or County records document the history behind the combination, and he recommends denial of the application. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16. 1998 (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsea^Jim and June Touve - Continued) Lisa Olsen asked for an explanation of the process by which properties become legally combined. Gafl'ron said people make the request directly to the County or request the City to submit a letter to the County on their behalf Olsen asked w hat format is followed to make this legal GatTron said the format requires the signature of the property ow ners and acceptance on the County ’s part Olsen asked if there is any record show ing the legal combination. GatTron said there is not noting it likely occurred during the 1950-1960's. Olsen disagreed with the way the lots were noted in the recommendation of legal combination. Gaftron said the terminology for legal combination refers to the tax document, and since the County shows it as such, he needs to rely on that intormation. Olsen felt the legal records of the property indicate something new w as created between 1963 and 1975. The first two lots are shown taxed together and later include all three. Olsen referenced her letter sent to Stafl'regarding the property's history. Her parents originally bought lot 55 and later purchased lots 56-61. She purchased both lots 55 and 56 from them in 1987 because the house located on lot 55 encroached into lot 56. County records only showed lot 55 and the house deeded on one parcel. She later purchased lot 56, and ow ner's duplicate of title includes lots 55 and 56 Olsen said she has never owned lot 57 and never legally combined the lots. The only place where this combination is shown is on the tax records. The County records only show two lots. Gaftron asked if this was shown in 1987. Olsen said no. Gaftron said that was a key point because lots 55 and 56 were on one title. Olsen asked how the City can say she must buy another lot due to a typographical error when the legal records only show lots 55 and 56. She reiterated the only place all three are noted are on the tax records. There are no other records to indicate approval of this combination or legal document indicating the three lots were combined. Olsen said she was informed that the most expedient way to handle this issue is through subdivision She felt the problem was created through an error made by the City that created the illegal subdivision. She a.sked that the combination be reversed and reflected in the tax records. Gaftron said he would not change his position; noting while there were separate deeds, the lots were legally combined. Mabusth asked if there were any variance applications in the past. GafFron said in 1977 and 1979, the City relied on the record showing the combination in issuing building permits and reviewing variance requests. The three lots were combined at that time. Gaftron also indicated that reliance is placed on the County plat maps. He concluded that unless a formal subdivision is applied for and approved, the property owner cannot sell off a part of a property that legally is combined as one parcel. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Olsen asked that the lots not be referred to as a leual combination, since there are no documents to substantiate that it occurred. Mabusth informed her that it was a phrase used for combination of lots for tax purposes. Mabusth asked when the error w'as made. Gaffron referenced a County letter indicated it occurred prior to the 1960's. Mabusth said she would find it hard to imagine that this occurred at the City at that time and probably occurred at the County. Berg asked if the property has always been Torrens property. Olsen said yes. Olsen added that the Hennepin County letter said it occurred prior to 1960's but the revised plat of 1963 did not show the combination, and the next revision to the plat map occurred in 1976. Olsen indicated that a set of maps from the 1960's show ing the lots separately, and the combination likely occurred in the 1960's. Gaffron informed her that regardless of this information, it is the City's position that a subdivision is required to separate lots and asked the Planning Commission if they would allow this to occur. He asked that the Commission consider what impacts the subdivision would have with building on the property'. Mr. Touve referenced the plat map where lots 55 and 56 are combined and where the three lots arc shown combined. The deed shows lot 55 being a separate lot since 1953. Touve said his property show 4 tots taxed individually but two were combined at one time and then a third added. Gaftron referenced map H-6 showing two lots combined, lots 56 and 57. He concluded that this map was prepared by the County in 1987 without City approval, and the property owner was informed that a subdivision was required. The current County maps show all 3 lots combined. Touve felt Gaffron was being highly speculative. There were no public comments. Smith noted that Staff recommended denial. Stoddard asked if the property owner had any desire to purchase lot 57, understanding that there was no access and the property included DNR protected wetlands. Touve said he had no desire to change the lots. He said the substandard lot is similar to others in the neighborhood. He said this was not brought forward as an issue when he sold the lots to his daughter. Touve asked that the record show that he did not try’ to deceive the City when he applied for a variance in the 1970's. He had no idea that this was an issue. All seven lots were indicated as they were all under one ownership. There was no question regarding lot combination at that time. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONEVnSSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Stoddard said it was his opinion that it would be best if lot 57 was combined with lots 55 and 56 with a driveway easement granted to the other lots Mabusth asked whether he was requesting this of the applicant of if the buildability of the other lots were a consideration. Olsen informed the Commission that they are a large family, and it is not an option for her to purchase the additional lot. She asked that the lots be addressed by those that she owns, Lots 55 and 56. She would like to move forward. She asked if any other information is necessaiy’ or questions regarding legal ownership. She asked if the issue was due to the substandard size of the property. Mabusth clarified that Olsen would like the Commission to act on lots 55 and 56 only. Smith agreed that the substandard size was an issue. Olsen said she did address this with Gaffron, and had told her he would not give his opinion on this, and Olsen thought the lot size was satisfactory. Gafiron was asked if additional information was needed to assist in changing his opinion. GatTron said he has read through the nistoric file and reviewed the 1987 file, and Staff will not support the subdivision request made by the applicant. Olsen said she made a rough calculation of other lots in the neighborhood with e.xception of the lakeshore property. Of 18 lots, only 5 met the standard or were .88 acre or larger. The remainder were substandard and similar in size to her property at .58 acres (Lots 55 and 56). The hardcover of the property is at 11%. Touve responded to Mabusth questions regarding the development of the 7 lots. He said he w'ould be willing to negotiate with the City, County and DNR regarding the building size and wetlands. He informed Stoddard that the wetlands have been delineated. He noted the wetland area has changed over the years due to manmade efforts on the east end with the building of a dam. A hill w'as pushed in by the road that changed the wetlands resulting in it becoming larger than it had been originally. Touve felt he had an adequate footprint with 25' to build without any variance with room for the 26' buffer from the wetlands. The problem has arisen because the wetlands were enlarged. Touve said he would accept having a dri\eway to the east. He said it was his understanding that the City was using the pond in the past, and the City implied that he would get this land back when the sewer was installed. Touve said he was concerned that the substandardness of the lot is a result of someone else's doing The 7' drop from the culvert to his home has been blocked off. He plans on adding cattails and dredging out the pond for ducks. If his plans were approved, he then would be willing to give a portion of lot 57 to lots 55 and 56. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON M ARCH 16, 1998 (^5) ^2350 Kc\'in 2nd Lis2 Ols^^nOirn 2nd June Tou'/c • Coniinvicd) Mr. Touve's other daughter noted that lots 55 and 56 are similar to others in the neighborhood and asked for approval as presented Smith informed her that the Commission can only act on what is included in the application She indicated that the application can be tabled to allow the choices to be evaluated Commissioners agreed that the application would likely be denied as proposed. Ms. Touve noted that the neighborhood was not perfect. Berg informed Ms. Touve that this is the time for the Commission to make improvements Olsen said it was also time to correct an error made by the City in the past. She would like to have the ability to sell her property if she so chose She disagreed that the property was ever legally combined as there is no documentation to substantiate it. Smith indicated that the Commission does not always accept Staffs recommendation but based on the information before her, she suggested the applicant work with staff to explore options. Olsen said she has worked with staff for 10 years to no avail and does not believe any additional time will help. Stoddard noted that many properties are substandard. The Commission's role is to make property conform to the zoning. He indicated that further discussion should be held regarding the wetland and driveway, and the applicant should include the Corp of Engineers, MCWD, and DNR in the process as they are the approving agencies for areas that include wetlands. He would like to see this issue resolved before any further recommendations are made. Mabusth concurred. Touve said the Corp of Engineers informed him he could fill areas less than 1/2 acre. Stoddard said the other two entities must also be involved. Olsen noted that the home on Lot 55 was built in the 1920’s and became substandard when the zoning was changed to one acre. Olsen said the non-conformity was not created by her Stoddard was of the opinion that the application as presented would be denied and suggested further discussion include the wetlands and driveway issue. Olsen asked if tt^e problem was with the buildability of the property or substandard size of lots 55 and 56. Berg said these were all issues of concern. Smith informed Olsen that tabling the application would allow her to keep options open. Denial would result in that recommendation made to Council for their action. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Touve asked if the Commission could mandate Staff to work w ith them He indicated it is difficult to work with the other agencies prior to City approval. Berg informed Touve that the process called for the other agencies review before City action can be taken Smith said the City would help him work through the process Gaffron said an application would be required for building on lots 58-61 and advised that this be a separate application Stoddard reiterated that the DNR protected wetlands required approval from the entities noted prior to review by City. He suggested this be done now or an easement would be required and the lot could not be sold. Stoddard moved to table Application #2350. Olsen asked that the Commission act on the application at this time. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2350. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2335 LAWRENCE MOLSATHER AND LINDA SALLEE, 3285 CARMEN ROAD - VARIANCES - 8:49-8:56 P.M. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed photographs of the property. The applicant proposes to rebuild and expand an upper level deck located on the lakeside of the property requiring variances for structural coverage, hardcover within the 0-75' lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, and lakeshore setback. The Planning Commission was previously concerned with the hardcover in the 0-75' setback and asked to submit revised plans limiting the increase to 1 -2%, which would still enable the applicant to have a more functional deck. A new plan was submitted. The original plan showed the deck extending 6'7" beyond the overhang. The extension is the same in the new plan but in a smaller area. The remainder extends 2-1/2' beyond the overhang. Gravel was repoited to be located under the deck and by the lakeshore, which Staff had been previously unaware of and hardcover calculations were redone to reflect this. Bressler reviewed the issues 1 -6 as noted in the memo and reviewed the recommendation for approval. Molsather and Sallee were in agreement with Staffs recommendation. Mabusth asked if the hardcover calculations included the stairway and 25 s.f of pavers. Bressler said the calculations include all hardcover after removal of plastic. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#3) #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee - Continued) There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval per StaP reconi.nendation. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4) #2292 TO.M OKERSTROiM, 770 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - 8:56- 9:40 P.M. The Applicant was present. Dressier distributed pictures of the property. The application nad previously been tabled due to problems with the survey, vshich did not accurately reflect the hardcover. The proposal is for a detached garage with dormers requiring variances for hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, structural coverage, and street setback. Dressier indicated that staff feels the garage location at 8' from the right of way is problematic. The residence was built in 1996 without a garage. The residence consumed the allowed hardcover and structural coverage. A driveway is still needed. The lot area and width do not meet zoning requirements. The structural coverage is proposed at 19%. Dressier reported that the drainage pattern was altered when the residence was built. The drainage problem has not been corrected which was a condition of the temporary certificate of occupancy. Final certificate of occupancy was not obtained. Dressier indicated that the 35' street setback could be met but would further increase the amount of hardcover. The shed will be removed as part of the application but was to have been removed when the house was built. Dressier recommended approval per the amendments and conditions noted in the memo. Okerstrom informed the Commission that he had been unaware of the hardcover issue when he built the house. He feels this should be disclosed to the public. He would have made changes to his plans at that time if he had know n. Okerstrom indicated that the building pad is the same as the previous residence on the property. Dressier said Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, had discussed these issues with the builder when the residence was built. Okerstrom said the information was not passed on to him. He said he only heard of the shed removal and drainage issue recently. Dressier said the drainage correction was part of the condition of the temporary certificate of occupancy but was not done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (U4) #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Smith asked what hardship the applicant had for the proposed garage. Okerstrom asked Smith to explain hardship. Okerstrom indicated that the lot is only 50 ’ wide. The garage plans had been reduced from the original proposed size. He did not believe a one-car garage would be aesthetically pleasing. Smith in noting the significant increase in hardcover, questioned how the property got to this point. A member of the audience noted that everyone needs a two-car garage. Okerstrom informed Stoddard that he was informed by Dressier of the problem with the 8' street setback. He is willing to place the garage further back but it would further increase hardcover. Stoddard said he would support more hardcover to place the garage further back on the p'-operty. Mabusth indicated that the necessary parking spaces would also be provided if the garage was moved back. Mabusth asked what guidelines were given to the applicant in September and the dimensions of the proposed garage Okerstrom said the original proposal was for a 30'x24 ’ garage. It is currently proposed at 24'x28'. Mabusth asked if other garages in the area have gables or dormers. Mrs. Okerstrom said other garages are similar. She indicated the garage would be 1-1/2 stories for storage purposes, and other garages in the area are two-story and closer to the street. Stoddard asked what the neighbors reaction was to the proposal. Okerstrom said both neighbors were supportive. Mrs. Okerstrom noted that the prior review did not include any discussion of the proposal due to the improper survey. They had been made aware of the need to decrease the garage size and place the garage further back on the property. Stoddard said he would support the proposal if the garage were moved further back. He noted the Commission typically would like to see the whole picture of what will occur on a property Mabusth voiced concern with lack of information provided to property owner at time the house was built. She supported a reduction in the garage size. Dressier noted that with the shed removal, the structural coverage would be 18.4%. Mabusth asked what the structural coverage was for the property with the previous home. Okerstrom said the previous house was closer to the lake and there had been a detached garage. The residence was moved back 8' because of the deck. Mabusth said she w ould prefer that the absent Commissioners were present for the discussion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#4) #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Stoddard noted the problem with applicants coming back after building a home and asking for variances to build a garage. He suggested the property owner sign that they have been informed of such an issue when a residence is built. Mabusth noted that sometimes the owner and builder are the same. Dressier clarified that the shed removal was not a condition of the certificate of occupancy but the drainage correction was. Smith suggested diiection be given to the applicant. It was clarified that hardcover and structure size were issues of concern. Smith felt safety would be improved if the garage was moved further back. She suggested considering a smaller garage since the structural coverage would increase and due to the house only being two years old. Okerstrom voiced frustration with resubmitting a plan that was a result of Staff' recommendations and hearing that further reductions are now needed. Smith informed him that the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity previously to discuss the issues. She would not support the structural coverage as proposed. While she understands the need for a garage, she was concerned that variances are being requested only two years after the home was built Mabusth noted that the intensity of the structure is also an issue as the setback is substandard. Mabusth explained for Mrs. Okerstrom what is meant by being substandard Mabusth commented that the original house would have been smaller if the garage was built at the same time and considered with that application. Okerstrom said they were unable to aft'ord to build the garage at that time. He also indicated that the house is the same size as the previous house. Berg reiterated that the Commission tries to improve properties and decrease the amount of structure on a lot when new construction takes place. Dressier reviewed the direction given. The Commissioners agreed to a 20' setback and hardcover. Mabusth asked about intensity of mass in relation to the lot line. Stoddard indicated the house is new but a reduction from what existed He informed the applicant that if the motion is denied, the Council will review the application with that recommendation or the application can be tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff on further reductions. Okerstrom asked for direction on garage location. Smith informed him that the Commission cannot redesign the garage but a structural coverage reduction is necessary. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION VIEF.TINCi HELD ON MARCH 16. 1998 (U4) #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) The size of the garage w as discussed. A two-car garage was satisfactory, but Berg auestioned the need for the second storv. Stoddard indicated that a reduction in footorint would also reduce the mass of the garage. Bressler indicated a 22’x24' garage would reduce the coveraee bv 120 s f to 18%. The oroDOsal was at 18.4%. With the shed removal, the structural coverage would be at 17.5%. Stoddard moved to approve Application #2292 per Staff recommendations subject to a footprint limited to 22x24' or 528 s.f. The dormer would be allowed as well as heating but no plumbing. Motion failed for lack of a second. Stoddard begun to make a motion to delete the second floor but Okerstrom questioned it. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2292 for a 22'x24’ garage with an 8' first storv and a 10:12 pitch, without dormer, per Staff recommendations. A space heater will be allowed. Vote: .Ayes 4, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#6) #2343 TIMOTHY AND BONNIE JOHNSON, 627 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - VARIANCES - 9:41-9:50 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and .Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were represented by contractor, Pat Hanley. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The proposal is for construction of a detached garage with dormer located near the front lot line. Variances are required for locating the structure in front of the principal structure and for side yard setback. Bressler explained that it would be difficult * locate t-c accessory structure to meet the side setback if it is to follow the line o'' * hr .se and tie in with the loop driveway. The concern is with the location encroauhuig into the 10' utility easement. He noted that the garage doors will not be visible from the street and will present the look of a small cottage. The dormer will not be used for living space and no heating or plumbing is included. Bressler recommended approval for the accessory structure located 227' from the front lot line with principal structure located 329' from the front lot line, but recommended denial of the 5' side setback variance. Hanley indicated that they attempted to place the structure to the side of the house but were unable to obtain the proper turn into the garage. The other side of the property is a walk-out. There is an attached two-car garage on the property and the proposed structure would be used for storage purposes. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#6) #2343 Timothy and Bonnie Johnson - Continued) Smith asked if the structure could be reduced in size to meet the required side setback. Hanley said this would create a long narrow structure. He was informed that the structure could not be placed over the utility easement. Berg asked what the hardship is for the proposal. Hanley said the applicant is allowed to have more structure and there is no other location for its olacement. Mabusth noted that the neighboring property received a variance for a tennis court. There were no public comments. Smith supported staff recommendation with the structure meeting the 10' side setback. Mabusth moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2343 per Staff recommendation. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Berg, who indicated the structure was too large. (#7) #2344 DOUGLAS AND MARILYN HOLCOMBE, 1056 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCES - 9:50-9:58 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed photographs of the property. The proposal is to rebuild a main level deck with an enclosed porch underneath with a stairway from the main level deck leading down to a small deck and steps on the lake side of the porch. The proposal requires variances for hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250' lakeshore setbacks, average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage. The existing deck nearest the lakeshore was built without a building permit bv a prior owner. Granting the variances would not result in further encroachments from existing structures. Bressler reviewed the issues. The lot does not meet the lot area and width. A lot line rearrangement was approved in January, 1998. The stairs and deck are the only increase in structure to the house beyond what was approved with variances in in 1977. Holcombe indicated that the stairs were part of the original approval. The proposal negligibly increases structural coverage and hardcover as it will be primarily placed over existing hardcover. Bressler recommended approval for replacement of the existing deck and adding stairways, enclosing the area under the deck, a second level deck, and a landing on the lake side of the porch. Staff recommended removal of the lower level deck that was built illegally. The applicant has agreed to this removal. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#7) #2344 Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe - Continued) The applicant had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Mabusth noted some reductions. Bressler said the reduction would be from the removal of the illeeallv built deck and increase is only for the staircase and smaller crade level deck. He noted the significant grades require the decking. Mabusth noted there would be no impact to the average lakeshore setback with the curve of the lakeshore. Berg moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2344. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#8) #2346 MARK AND PAMELA PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - 9:58-10:06 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren congratulated Brissler on his graduation from college and new position with the City of Northfield. Smith extended appreciation to Bressler on behalf of the Planning Commission. Van Zomeren distributed pictures of the property located in the LR-IB, one acre zoning district. The lut area is only .387 acres if the vacated portion of Forest Lane is included. Without that vacated portion, the lot is .336 acres. The applicants were encouraged to move forward with the vacation. Documentation shows that other vacations have occurred and this will likely be allowed here. The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add a second story to the existing residence. The existing structure encroaches into the west side yard at 3.4'. The chimney encroaches 1.7' and allowed at 18' and encroaches by 1". The residence is located front of the house next door. Van Zomeren felt the improvement will not affect average lakeshore setback. Van Zomeren said she was concerned with elevation as it slopes from the streetside doorway and the west side is completely exposed. The height is in keeping wnth the height requirement. The proposal includes an additional two bedrooms, storage room, master bath, with walk-in closet and bath. Staff asked that the Planning Commission provide direction due to the close proximity of the side yard variance request. The option was not available to place the improvements to the side of the house. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#8) #2346 Mark and Pamela Palm - Continued) Acknowledgment letters were signed by adjacent neighbors. Van Zomeren said the request is reasonable but is concerned with the 3.4' side yard setback. She cautioned the property owner to get a maintenance easement from the neighbor for placement of a ladder to access the upper portion of house if application is approved. Mrs. Palm said her neighbor in the neighboring house was unable to attend but supported the proposal. Van Zomeren acknowledged that the homes were staggered and encroachment was not as severe due to this. Smith asked if the neighbor on the hill would be impacted. Palm said there were mature trees and the view would be upward. Smith noted she would like to see the existing excess in structural coverage eliminated. Mabusth moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2346. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) #2347 TIM SWEEZO, 4480 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA'ARIANCE Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2347 at the request of the applicant. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2348 MARY JANE HAUSER, 1540 BOHNS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - 10:07-11:13 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant, Mr. Hauser, was present along with Attorney, Bruce Malkerson. Bressler said staff received a letter from the applicant ’s engineer regarding stormwater management in response to staffs report. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The application requires a hardcover variance in the 75-250' lakeshore setback for a new residence on a vacant lot. Bressler displayed the survey noting the house and loop driveway location. Hardcover was previously proposed at 32% in the 75-250' setback and is currently proposed at 29.4%. A 2-car garage in being proposed in the 250-500 setback, ahead of the principal structure, which is allowed on the lakeshore lot. Stormwater detention ponds are being proposed, which the applicant believes is adequate to mitigate the additional hardcover. Bressler indicated that the applicant would kke to continue with the proposed ponds even if the hardcover variance is denied. Bressler said staff believes the pond will reduce runoff through a natural swale and supports the ponding proposal. A grade level deck is proposed that will not encroach the average lakeshore setback; such a deck is considered a non-encroachment. A proposed spa is planned behind the average lakeshore setback. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#10) #2348 Mary Jane Hauser - Continued) Dressier reviewed the issues #1-8 as noted in the memorandum. Dressier noted that the proposed driveway takes advantage of the e.visting grades. The alternative suggestion would result in extensive grading. Dressier said Staff recommended denial of the variance as the driveway and deck could be reconfigured to meet the requirements Attorney Druce Malkerson, representing the Hauser’s, provided additional information to the Commission. He felt the hardcover ordinance data does not support the requirement. He said the revised plan is typical of homes found in this area of the lake and Orono. Malkerson referenced the existing asphalt driveway and the sharp rise to the treed area. If the driveway was placed elsew here to reduce the amount of hardcover, Malkerson said it would result in cutting through the treed area and causing headlights from vehicles shining into the neighboring homes. While acknowledging that the plan is new construction, Malkerson said the existing lot with landscaping and grades reflect where the best location is for the home and driveway. Dressier informed the Commission that Staff is not advocating for the new driveway but believe the existing driveway could be altered to reduce hardcover. Derg informed Malkerson that the proposal is for new construction. Malkerson responded that the proposed house size is normal for this area. Smith asked Malkerson if it is the applicant's preference to maintain the plan for the residence as proposed and place the driveway in the treed area to reduce the amount of hardcover bv 4%. Malkerson said that is the applicant's intent given the size of their family. Malkerson reviewed the hardcover allowance according to State law and felt it was not binding upon the City. Malkerson referenced the lot configuration in speaking about the applicant's hardship in substantiating the plan noting the lot was twice as wide as Malkerson also noted that the surface runoff goes into the lake untreated, and while it was the City's responsibility to treat the runoff, his client was willing to treat the runoff on his property via the pond. Malkerson said the intent of the hardcover regulations was to enable the cities to liberally grant variances, and cities have changed that intent. He felt the intent of proving hardship w'as not that there was no other use for the property but to give cities flexibility in granting variances. Malkerson felt the limited excess of hardcover over the standard is reasonable and meets the requirements of allowing the variance. Mr. Hauser said the plan has been revised many times with keeping in mind the 14' drop in grade. He felt any other location for the driveway would be unsatisfactory. Hauser felt the house has been scaled back as much as possible. Hauser said his neighbors support his plan MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON M.ARCH 16, 1998 (#10) #2348 Mary Jane Hauser - Continued) Hauser said his intent is to utilize the lot in the best manner. Hauser said the neighboring homes exceed the allowable hardcover. Hauser felt he was not asking for anything special noting he could meet the hardcover allowance by placing the driveway in the treed area but reiterated the problems it would cause in that location. Hauser said the design has gone through much review. His time line is problematic, and he would like the Commission to make their recommendation at the meetine in order for him to move forward with his financing Mabusth indicated that hardcover was the only issue and noted that the house was ideally located on the lot. Hauser asked the Commission to consider the additional burdens existing on the property. Berg suggested that an option was to eliminate the circular driveway. Mabusth asked if consideration has been given to removing a portion of the loop. Dressier said eliminating the loop driveway would reduce the hardcover within 1% of meeting the 25% allowed but had been informed by the applicant that this was not an option he would consider. Dressier said staff then looked at the footprint for possible reductions in hardcover. The plan for a straight driveway through the treed area would result in hardcover of 27%. A drivewav alternate was noted on oaaes 10 and 11 of booklet presented by Malkerson, which eliminates the loop of the driveway reducing the driveway by 1000 s.f at a 12’ width. Hauser indicated this would place the driveway into the higher elevations. It would result in difficulty in backing out and require retaining walls and 2000 cubic yards of fill. Smith inquired about the proposed separate structure on the property. The structure is a proposed 2-car earaae in addition to the 3-car attached earaee. The oricinal plan was for a 4-car attached garage but was eliminated due to hardcover. In noting the applicant's strong feelings regarding each element of the application and not wanting to redesign the plan any further, Stoddard asked what could be done to reduce the hardcover Hauser said he has tried to do so and considers the straight driveway as a last resort. He feels the property conditions with the grades and fill constitute hardship to allow the hardcover variance for use of the existing driveway. Dressier proposed a change to the garage structure location and size to meet the hardcover. The separate structure would be increased in size and the attached garage reduced in size. It was noted that this increase would result in the structure becoming an oversized accessory structure. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#10) #2348 Mary Jane Hauser - Continued) Hauser said he understood that his plan calls for a hardcover variance. Hauser said the depression pond would give back to the property and treat runoft. He felt this could be a viable option to allow the variance to be granted. Mabusth asked if Hauser has disr^ssed the pond with the neighbors. Hauser said the neighbors were concerned with standing water. The proposed pond will stop the runoff and immediately percolate resulting in no standing water. Bressler noted that Staff supported the ponding as planed but reauired the 25% hardcover be met as well. Hauser asked if the Commission would recommend hardcover at 27%. Hauser felt any further reduction in hardcover would affect the neighborhood. Bressler noted that the hardcover on the property to the north, which has an older residence, is at 26.4% in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback. The house to the south was given a credit for the swimmmg pool towards hardcover as pools were not considered hardcover at the time it was built. Hardcover at that property is 27.1% in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback. Smith, while noting the excellent plan, felt it was incredulous that 4.8% of hardcover could not be eliminated. She felt the proposal was new construction and there were no hardships to allow the hardcover variance. Mabusth agreed that the site plan was excellent but the hardcover was excessive. Hauser asked if the Commission w’ould recommend any leniency to allow him to work wdth staff. Berg said Planning Commission's directive is to meet the 25% allowable in hardcover. Hauser asked for an explanation of hardship which Berg supplied. Hauser said he has not mentioned the economics of the proposal but felt he needed to indicate that the house size was necessary to justify the expense of the lot. Smith agreed that the house was in keeping with the neighborhood but recommended the 25% hardcover in the 75-250’ setback. Hauser asked if the Commission would recommend a smaller variance. Berg noted that the Commission is given guidelines in which to follow from the Council. Stoddard suggested the possibility of 25% hardcover in the 75-250' setback and 30% hardcover in the 250-500' setback with the applicant working with staff to meet these guidelines prior to the Council review. Bressler said there would be no variance reejuired with this suggestion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#10) #2348 Mary Jane Hauser - Continued) Smith and Berg both felt the code should be applied to the application and the 25% hardcover be met. Malkerson reiterated that the driveway would need to cut through the treed area to meet this requirement. Malkerson did not believe the lot should be considered a "clean" lot, such as is found in a cornfield Bera said the requirement aoDlies to all lots. Malkerson suggested the grading and filling be considered as well. Berg noted that the issue is whether the lot can be built uoon within the oarameters aiven. Malkerson disagreed that the test of the lot was as indicated by Berg. Stoddard noted he did not believe there was a hardship based on the lot. Stoddard said he may consider a plan with a small variance but the Commission historically does not send to Council applications that are not substantiated with a proposed plan. Stoddard said he could not support the plan as submitted. Hauser asked to table the application for further review. Smith explained the procedure that is following. Bressler asked for direction for the applicant regarding the amount of hardcover. Hauser asked if the Commission would approve hardcover at 25.9%. Bressler noted that tabling the application would require an extension from the 60-day review period. GafFron was asked for his opinion. Gaft'ron indicated that he would not be able to simulate a nercentase. He indicated in most cases the hardcover allowed sets the limit. Circumstances may present some alteration but is difficult with no hardship shown for a bare lot. GaflDron said Council may look at the existing amenities. Bressler noted that 320 s.f would equal 1% of hardcover. Berg asked if the applicant would consider eliminating the loop while still maintaining the entrance and driveway. Hauser said he would consider that noting the hardcover would still be exceeded by about 500 s.f Discussion was held regarding placement of the garage but Hauser said the locations were such to take advantage of the existing grades. Hauser said the driveway could come straight in as an option as previously noted. Berg informed Hauser that the Commission's intent is to create a good situation for both the city and applicant. Smith questioned whether there was adequate support of the 25.9% hardcover requested. This would result in elimination of the loop without moving the driveway. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#10) #2348 Mary Jane Hauser - Continued) Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to approve the hardcover variance in 75-250 setback to allow 25.9% hardcover based on the applicant’s proposed redesign of the driveway to utilize the layout of the lot. This recommendation would be subject to the applicant redesigning the plan prior to Council meeting. The recommendation is based on the applicant's stated hardship of having to cut into the treed area, reconfigure the utility poles if the driveway is realiened, and chances to cradinc. The driveway is to remain in the same location and hardcover removed where it can to meet the 25.9% hardcover. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#11) #2351 LAURA ZAUNER, 3262 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES - 11:14-11:21 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and AflRdavit of Publication w ere noted. Fred Hendrickson represented the applicant. Dressier distributed photos of the property. The application is a request for an after-the- fact variance for 0-75' hardcover in the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore, and lakeshore setback for a deck replacement with railing. The replacement results in a reduction in hardcover. Bressler reviewed the issues as noted in the memo as well as the staff recommendation for approval. Hendrickson said there had been a misunderstanding between the applicant and what was previously approved in 1992. Rotted decking was removed and replaced. The end result was a smaller deck. Additional hardcover was removed elsewhere on the property. There were no public comments. Hendrickson indicated the house is for sale. Berg moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2351. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 ZONING AMENDMENTS (#12) cm' OF ORONO CODE AMENDMENT RE; PARK DEDICA'OON FEE - 11:22-11:31 P.M. Gaffron referenced Moorse's memo indicating the City's intent to change the ordinance to reflect the rough proportionality and nexus requirements that have evolved concerning park dedications. Council had asked for a revision. Moorse suggested and Gaffron concurred that minimum and maximum dollar amounts for park dedication (to be established annually) were needed based on the value of park system. The park dedication ordinance was revised in 1989 to 8% of the value of the land of new subdivided lots. This did not take into account the impact per residence on parks, nor did it address proportionality. Gaflfron noted the changes and additions to the code. He indicated the ordinance amendment is not in final form. Stoddard asked how the park dedication has been challenged. Gaffron explained how this has occurred. Gaflfron informed Mabusth that Moorse has concluded through his analysis that the park dedication maximum per lot should be about $4,900. This is iustifled based on park needs and anticipated needs for parks in the future, taking into account the existing park system value and the number of lots exnected to be develooed in the future. Berg noted the current ordinance did not reflect the need for park development and focus was on large lot sizes with need for trails not parks. Gaffron said the nexus shows the connection where bringing more people into the area will result in more use of parks and these people paying their fair share. Mabusth asked if the Park C'^nimission reviewed the amendment. Gaffron said they gave some input and are not tot.'illy pleased with the result but accept the fact that the current ordinance is inadequate. Commissioners felt the amendment issue did not require further review by the Commission. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment subject to minor revisions and legal review prior to Council review. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16. 1998 (#13) CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT RE; LAND Af TFWATIOV . 1 H-aTOHA Gaffron reported that the land alteration code amendment is to allow staff the discretion reeardinc aonroval of 10 cubic vards of fillino/aradine/excavation within the shore setback zone without requiring a conditional use permit. If staff determines a specific application does not appear to meet the intent of City policies or goals, it can be further reviewed by Planning Commission and Council. Gaftfon recommended approval as drafted. Smith supported the amendment. It was noted that an idea was presented by Bressler regarding allowing clearing of a path but no more than 25% of beach should be altered. Gaffron said the Comprehensive Plan suggests there be no change to the shoreland. He feels this would result in both good and bad impacts citing a recent example for a beach. Stoddard noted that the area below the OHVV mark is controlled by the DNR, who recommended approval of that proiect. Gaffron felt that proiect would have been recommended for referral to Council because it created an unnatural environment. He noted that the Watershed District has authority between the OHW and the flood plain. There w'ere no public comments. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve the zoning code amendment for staff administration of limited types of land alterations on lakeshore property. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 23. 1998 AND MARCH 9. 1998 Smith, who attended the March 9, 1998 Council meeting, reported that much discussion was held regarding the Old Crystal Bay Road subdivision in relation to the trail and its location on either the west or east side. Gaffron indicated the Council decided to take an easement on the west side of the road on the subiect property in order keep options open for the future. Tliis results in easements being located on both the east and west sides of Old Crystal Bay Road. No decision was made regarding where the trail will be located. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to withdraw Application #2349 at the request of the applicant. Caribou Coffee. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 1 *7 1 00«A « ^ A ^ ^ vr Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Februarv 17. 1998. Vote; Aves4. NavsO. (#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MARCH 23,1998 AND APRIL 13,1998 March 23 - Stoddard April 13 - Berg ADJOURNMENT Smith moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at 11:42 p.m. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Sandra Smith, Chair Person