Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-18-1998 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 18,1998—6:30 p.m. 2780 Kelley Parlovay—Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Charles Kelley AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you %vish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisor^’ body to the Cit>' Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they w ill be scheduled for the JUNE 8,1998, City Council meeting unless othenvise noted by the Chair. OLD BUSINESS; CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 1.#2363 2.#2340 William Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue. Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing. (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.#2372 Barry and Janice Haglund, 4590 North Arm Drive West, Preliminaiy Subdivision > 2 Lot Subdivision. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). COMP PLAN AMENDMENT - MUSA LINE 4.#XXXX City of Orono, amendment to the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan to include certa’n properties with the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) in the vicinity of the northeast shore of Maxwell Bay and the southeast shore of Stubbs Bay, Lake Minnetonka, bounded on the east and north by County PvOad 84 (Old Ciy'stal Bay Road South and Fox Street), commonly knovvTi as the "Carpenter property." (Staff: Mike Gaffron). ZONING AMENDMENT 5.#XXXX City of Orono, Section 10.55,' Subdivision 15. Flood Plain and Wetlands Management, to revise the scope and applicability of the use of wetlands towards development density credit in sewered areas. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS William Yaeger, 310 Big Island (Lot 64, Morse Island Park). Variances. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). (Request to table to June 15, 1998 meeting). 6.#2361 7.#2364 8.#2366 9.#2367 10.#2368 11.#2369 12.#2370 13.#2371 14.#2373 15.#2374 SKETCH PLAN 16. #2365 17. #2375 John Serena, 4607 Watertown Poad Cv.r Jitional Use Permit. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Peter Lanpher, 1359 Park Drive. Variances. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). LawTence Gleason, 140 Hackberry Hill. Variance. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Kirk Otteson, 710 North Arm Drive. Variances. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Joe and Mary Fiedler, 365 West Lake Street. Variances. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). Gary O’Keefe, having an interest in 1392 Baldur Park Road. Variance and Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). Tim and Lori Line, 4415 Forest Lake Landing. Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Steve Beck, 2795 Shadj-^vood Road. Variance. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Busse Construction on behalf of: a. Greg and Myra Karlen, 630 Deborah Drive b. Larry and Jan McCartney, 755 Hunt Farm Road c. Robert and Julie Hanning, 4220 Sixth Avenue North d. City of Orono, McCulley Road parking lot north of the Luce Line Trail. Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). Christine Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road. (Staff: Mike Gaffron) Park Land Co., 2525-35-45 Shady>vood Road. (Staff: Liz Van Zorneren). PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 18. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on April 27, 1998 and May 11, 1998. 19.Other issues for discussion. 20. Planning Commission approval of minutes for April 20, 1998. 21. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on May 26, 1 998 and June 8,1 998. ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance Meeting Date /?. ? if □ C ouncil Planning C ommission Park commission Other Please fill out the infqrmation REQUESTED BELONV FOR OUR CIIT RECORDS i- V y* i:N:xv:<:vrisv; NAME (please print) 1 2 . -i i-(?Ve-W ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER yvJ30iL^ ■ Uijl . /Z S. ^ //r*'lio a / • itr^M-o }jf :. Ia k/9 4j ih\a y f^^rpt^ d 2- 8.CT\<va Ki £ I i-s-iM 3Wo N. A/LM.Lvi 3 0 . rhiC'll \j 10. & / /( '/ ^ /c ;ti ^ /V 13.A*1 4 \_yv.iy jl ’.,5=) H I "DVI iL^ 14.y&v^<^(y(. \o:^Mt;A 7(?tU3 W , (iQf/i_Q 15.. 991395,4 r / TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomcren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: May 11,1998 SUBJECT: #2363 William Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Variance(s) - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:19,065 sq. ft. (.44 acres) Application:This application was reviewed at the previous meeting (April 20,1998). The applicant was directed to have the surv eyor locate the well and the setbacks. TTie hardcover calculations were also to be revised to meet the zoning code requirements. The applicant is proposing to remove the e.xisting residence to construct a new residence, Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.25, Subd. B, LR-IB Lot Requirements U2363 William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Date of PC. May 18, 1998 page—I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Front 1 acre 100'IS'10' 35’ adjacent to street 35' Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lake Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street Front .44 acre 125’ at OHWL 11 r at 75' setback 80' approx.22' proposed 47' from service road The subject property does not meet lot area requirements. The street side setback is proposed at 22' where 35’ is required. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Struct in 7 Coverage Allowed Proposed Structural Coverage 19,065 sq. ft.4,766.25 sq. ft. (15%) 2,193 sq. ft. (11.50%) Structural coverage is not an issue with this application, Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0 ’-75'8,542 none none none none 75'-250 ’10,523 sq. ft.not calculated 2,630 sq.ft. (25%) 3,033 sq.ft. (28.32%) 403 (3.8%) The applicant is proposing lo remove the existing residence to construct a new residence. The proposed residence is designed to include space for the applicant's father. The plan includes a triple garage. U2363 William Bockmam 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Date of PC. May 18. 1998 page —2 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has designed the proposed residence to accommodate his family and provide space on the main floor for his elderly father. The applicant has indicated that there are 4 drivers in the household and that they desire a 3 car garage. 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 cannot be constructed without a lot area variance. A residence can be built that meets the hardcover requirements. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his properly not created by the land owner. The lot is unusual with the north property line next to Loma Linda Avenue. The need for a hardcover variance is created by the house design to provide accessible living .space 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for hardcover and side yard adjacent to the street will change the character of the area by replacing a smaller residence. The current residence is closer to the road. 4. 5. 6. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many of the properties in this neighborhood do not meet the minimum lot area requirements. Some of the existing residence exceed hardcover requirements and have hardcover in the lakeshore setback. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The side yard adjacent to a .street is not typical for other properties in the area. The granting of the application is necessary for the preser\'ation and enjoyment of a substantial properly right of the applicant. The applicant believes they need to obtain variances to build the residence as designed. #2363 William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Date of PC. May 18. 1998 page—3 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 will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is nccessar}' to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difliculty. There is a lot area hardship for this property. The side yard adjacent to the street could be moved father south, but would likely increase hardcover. Hardcover, could be reduced by 403 sg. ft., by eliminating the deck and 1 garage stall. The bedroom, closet and bath for the applicant's father adds approximately 300 sq.ft, to the main floor plan. Issues 1.The existing structure is proposed to be removed. The lot does not meet lot area requirements. New construction on this lot requires a lot area variance. 2.The front yard is technically next to the service road. Loma Linda Avenue is the side yard. There is a well on the property that limits the location of a new building. 3.The size of the lot in the 75'-250' setback limits hardcover to a 2,630 sq. ft. footprint. This would allow a 2,000 sq. ft. house with a double garage. The desired floor plan with a drivew'ay and deck exceeds this footprint. 4. The permit history does not indicate that previous variances were granted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To grant the lot area and side yard adjacent to a street variances. To discuss whether the need for a main floor bedroom/bath that is accessible justifies an increase in hardcover of 403 sq. ft. given the size of the deck and garage. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Building Pad Survey Topo Map Permit Record Hardcover Elevation and Plan Notice #2363 William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Date of PC. May 18,1998 page—4 I : 1 " / Jennings 5 ^ i I II iUi/V^/' ^JMm !:: i:: I I '2 I: I: I: 3f I: 1r1 .« "i» ■u» e-% e%'jj f- 1 1 1 ■ ^ 1 •sP' ■r ' ■» /I # ■’ ’ '■ - •' g g r ...-.Cj ,rr ^ Application ^ Date Received 7/Z t /^^ Amount Paid 5 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 ^/3c0 ^/ha^ MV/^ ;ro.oo Property ’ Identification Number (P.I.D.I ^3 OC>(7-. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired A/cV, (9 9X (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ‘ ' residential ___^other (specify). Zoning District:________Ljg- \ fj_____________________ APPLICANT f Phone (home) X g //. Phone (work ) </7 3 ’X’T-ZS (0^0 Coh^a Cjiiafa Jlvc> City: Hc<<y\c^_________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name SAhC^ ________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Constmction Cost $ ^ ~T gA^ Ocsu>fJ - duiLO Ti^O ^TO^Y (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED y Lot Area Lot Width V^Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback: ^ F ront 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: -------- U>i- g>bc-s AJoT ^q/j/aj c______ ^^cu,liH(£Mrs - >dfig>Af^ fZ^<S(AfAGT5 pAciury^ o/J (attach additional sheets if necessary) / / 7 23 3^ 00 /-X. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information roust be submitted bv the ann'.^cation dcntllinc 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,jindr-map^rom Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center 348-3271) Certificate of Survey (sign^ by iTTicensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVi' x 11" for reproduction. Topographic sur\'ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy ZVi" 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 owTrer(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Dale OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entrj' 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. i 8 5 9 —• • • • » HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ( rI {4 z / / tSMA —-HNBA —AVENUE^/ EAST 216.00 -32i. H SERV ICE X#' X o Si- til ft I M f' nt. i 09 9 Pfopf/'f' / s. \ % 1 § r 1130 LOMA LINDA AVE PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date I oLp 9 S-tS ta- s8 •7-/^ - -7< 9 /r^-81 Type ot Permit 0 .p'DoJn c(‘S - 3 Ad fm OO/ j >7 3hy ^ . -i/2s/^ir . ^ -SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^ J- EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House ■ ______________ . . Length HARDCOVER CALCULAllUN \NUKK5iltEl «i /* 0-75 V B. Goraee C; Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- -r B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length • f B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Of Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •«- B 75-250 ’250-500'500-1000 ’ Width X 100 = Width . S.F. «• S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F; . S.F. I I* S.F. Cr . S.F. S.F.. S.F. - , S.F. I I. S.F. S.F. S.F.' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. > 4 S.F. S.F. I S.F. A S.F. B % O • S.F. X 100 8^42 S.F. O_____^ A B • « I VO tfi/ S- SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’f^S-lSQ^250-500’SOO-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Lcnfih Width B. Garage C. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasilc G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -r B X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ 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 f943 eio 2S0 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 3i?J3 B. So^3 yos^3 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. 13. gZ % A B A B T9L j • • h y4pfrox\<^a^ U)tH ^octi4! ■sas: XL I- f V pflo.U'T C*-0c3T - /2c.>10) tLEV.^TIOAJ m BA'^T C,L/\\C^) eL^OAj\of^ ■ih MoRTH i.Lcy\A tlA^'OA SntETcT : ••:•; rf ;• •• rr-- I rj •<L! il >:}'■. ■■■ ■ «||i:fe:*'- r;! 1^^; n 19T -J 1“’“ • «■»— 1 J 1 '■?• .f[1 j ! South cLFuatioV MmiaAiMai 0 7T <5 5T t Rcor poofp^' LIVING AREA 1252 sq It 4V le ’S 24-4 ------ j - \ BEDROOM 14*2 x16‘ /•\ f - CLOSET 6'8 X 8' o > * *' CLOSET 3’6 X 7'y (Yi © L BATH r '^7'2x8’ o V / MASTER BDRM 17*8 X 154 y y on HALL 5'8x15'4. y / y OPEN BELOW I I6‘4x21'i I / Oc --------- 16' \ - T4 4 \ / I i I O /\ I I I I T) XI LIVING AREA 1092 sq ft 2,*vol plci)'’pl“^ a._- MASTER BATHV 7'7x15‘4 /1«T> O CLOSET 2n«a-ii I------ I OFFICE 12*1 X 15*4 L 3* T s 16-4 — 4f ■ t I CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crj’stal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2363 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 21, 1998 TO: WILLIAM H. BOCKMANN 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING:04/20/98 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant to have surveyor prepare survey that locates the well and shows the setbacks for the proposed residence. Surveyor is also to prepare revised hardcover calculations . Applicant is encouraged to revise the proposal to keep hardcover less than 25% in the '75-'250 setback. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the May 18 meeting is May 6. In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of requested information by May 6 or the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn. 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: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. GafTron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 15,1998 #2340 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat Review - CUP for Duplex Credit - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, M2 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: Received 5-13-98 B - Preliminar>' grading and drainage plan: Received 4-21-98 C - City Engineer Comments 3-19-98 and 5-15-98 D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4-20-98 E - Memo and Exhibits of 4-17-98 Note: Applicant has agreed in writing to extend the review period for this proposed plat to July 23 New Information Since March 16 / April 20 Meetings Applicant submitted grading plans on March 12, too late for tlie City Engineer to review them prior to the March 16 meeting. The City Engineer reviewed those plans on March 19 (See Exhibit E) 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 were added to the mix. Revised plans were not submitted in time for the April 20 meeting, and the application was tabled at applicant’s request. New grading plans were received on April 21, and have been reviewed by the City Engineer (see May 15 comments). Also, applicant has as of May 13 submitted a revised preliminary plat drawing that addresses some of the concerns noted by Planning Commission on March 16. (The grading plans of April 21 do not reflect this revised plan). #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 15,1998 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 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% {the latest preliminary plat dra^ving reduces the building to 3200 s.f. or 14.7% the 0.5 acre lot) Planning Commission agreed to the concept of allowing the storm pond to be credited toward the extra 50% acreage requirement for the back lot, which is proposed at 0.79 acres in the most recent plan. 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 home plus a duplex New issues identified for applicant to address included proximity of road to neighboring homes; impacts on neighborhood drainage; and lack of time for review by City Engineer. On March 16 applicant requested tabling rather than a recommendation of denial. On April 20 at applicant's request the application was tabled without discussion since no new information was available at that time. Analysis of PRD Option - Benefits, Issues The benefits of and issues raised by the possible development of this property as a PRD are discussed in the April 17 memo. Applicant does not wish to pursue a PRD at this time. #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 15,1998 Page 3 Analysis of Most Current Submittal Lot 1 is a lakeshore lot that is proposed for a single family residence. As a back lot: It meets the "150% of 1/2 acre" back lot area standard when the stormwater pond easement is included per Planning Commission's direction on March 16 (0.75 acres required, 0.79 acre proposed). It meets the LR-lC-1 100 ’ minimum width standard (124* at the shoreline, at the 75' setback line, and at the street yard setback). It meets the required 45' street yard depth (150% of the 30' LR-lC-1 standard). It meets the required 15' side yard depth (150% of the 10' LR-lC-1 standard). It meets the required lake setback of 75'. Average setback is not an issue, since the proposed residence is further from the lake than the residence to the east, and there is no residence to the west. The access outlot (Outlot B) at a 20' width requires a variance to the 30' minimum width requirement; the driveway meets the required 10' setback from the east lot line per Section 10.03, Subd 27 (C) (3), but not from the west line abutting Lot 2, hence a variance is required here. 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 where 30% is allowed; but the narrow (10') 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 0.50 acre minimum lot size required for a non-riparian duplex lot, the same standard applicable for a single family lot. #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 15,1998 Page 4 Lot 2 meets the 135' minimum width for a duplex (shoreland ordinance requirements) if measured along the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. {The Zoning Code identifies the shortest side of a corner lot such as this, as the 'front'. However, in this case the side abutting Outlot A will function as the front lot line and if the line abutting Outlot A is formally defined as the front lot line by City action, the lot could be considered as conforming in width for a duplex lot. The intrusion of the MiVCC lift station into the site suggests that this would be an appropriate conclusion, given the impacts that intrusion has on the building envelope for this site). The duplex proposed for Lot 2 meets the 15' required depth of the side yard adjacent to the back lot access outlot (Outlot B). The 10' side 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 ser\’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. As dra\\m, this requires a variance. Hardcover for Lot 2 is now shown as 8% in the 75-250' zone where 25% would be allow'ed, and 36% 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: Area of 75-250' zone in Lot 2 = 12,915 sf 25%=3,229 sf Proposed hardcover in 75-250' zones = 1,030 sf Excess available allowance = 3,229 sf - 1,030 sf = 2,149 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 + 2,149 sf = 4,809 sf Proposed 250-500' hardcover = 3,170 sf, which is less than 4,809 sf, hence the proposal should be considered as meeting the intent of the hardcover ordinance. Lot coverage bv structures was noted to be excessive (22%) during the March 16 review. Applicant has reduced this to 3200 721,780= 14.7%, meeting the 15% limit. #2340 - Rober & Iris Waade May 15, 1998 Page 5 Outlot B does not meet the 30' width 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 necessary. Also. Oultlot B does not extend to the defined rear (south) line of Lot 1, creating a 'flag' lot which requires a variance per Section 11.31 Subd. 5C. 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 dees meet the paved width standard. Outlot A currently contains a narrow gravel driveway serving three residences to the east of this site, plus the garage for the adjacent house directly east of Outlot A. Since applicant does not control the remaining properties which would be ser\ed by the road, it may be unreasonable to force him to create a cul-de-sac, but it is reasonable in staffs opinion to require that a 24’ paved road be constructed the length of Outlot A, and at the north end connect to the existing private driveway system. Note that in response to concerns raised by the neighboring property owner on March 16, the location of the road within Outlot A has been shifted to the west side of the Outlot, leaving a 17' setback to the adjacent garage structure. 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 distaixe. This excavation would be the responsibility of the developer. Grading & Drainage Plan A revised grading plan was submitted prior to the road relocation and twinhome size reduction, and does not reflect those changes. This most current grading plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer, and his comments appear in Exhibit C, summarized as follows: 1. 2. If pond reaches overflow elevation (i.e. if normal outlet pipe is plugged or a huge storm hits) it will overflow eastward, affecting neighboring properties. This should (and probably can) be revised to avoid such routing. The grading plan reduces potential surface storm ponding for easterly lots, hence while total area draining to east is reduced, its storage potential is also reduced. A greater concern is that if stormwater from the east overflowed into this property' prior to this development, it will now be blocked. This issue needs further detailed review before the drainage plans can be approved. It is likely that an analysis of the immediate watershed is necessaiy'. #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 15, 1998 Page 6 3.A revised grading and drainage plan reflecting the road and duplex changes should be submitted. Some pond outlet details are needed. Berm A berm approximately 2-3' above existing grades and 15' in width is proposed along the west lot line abutting Lakeside Marina. Applicant intends to plant trees or bushes atop this berm to provide screening from the marina. There have been some discussions between applicant and Lakeside regarding centering the berm on the lot line rather than east of it, which would also assist Lakeside in meeting the City's landscaping requirements for the marina; however, apparently no agreement has been reached. Utility impacts would have to be reviewed if this occurred. The berm will not have any appreciable effect on drainage to or from the marina. The berm is directly above an existing sewer trunk line, and the City will require an easement over the sewer if one is not already in effect. The berm and plantings will not impact the sewer, but applicant will be advised of the City's right to disturb it in order to access the sewer if necessary. Summary of Variances Needed and Issues to be Resolved Variances required : 1. Outlot B.a. Width of Outlot B (20' proposed, 30' req'd) b. Driveway setback in Lot B (O' proposed, 10' required) c. Outlot B does not extend to south line of Lot 1, creating a 'flag lot* (flag lots not allowed) d. Only 2 residences allow'ed to access from driveway outlot, 3 proposed 2. Outlot A. Proposed width = 40', required = 50' Determinations requiring confirmation : 1. Conclusion that stormwater pond can be credited toward 'extra 50%area' reqm't for back lot 2. Determination that east line of Lot 2 is its front lot line, eliminating width variance for duplex 3. Reiterate that only Lot 1 has lake access. #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 15, 1998 Page 7 Issues to Resolve : 1. 2. Need to revise grading and drainage plans to match changes to preliminary plat. Further study of how this development will impact neighboring drainage is required. Applicant's engineer. Public Ser\ ices Director and City Engineer need to meet to review this issue prior to Council action on preliminar>' plat. 2.Need to address City Engineer’s other comments in various review letters as part of final plat process. Staff Recommendation 1. The variances noted above are required regardless whether Lot 2 contains a single home or a duplex. These variances primarily relate to the size of the Outlets, and are a function of the site not having enough area to conform with the required standards. Planning Commission must make a recommendation as to whether the variances should be granted. In staffs opinion, the negative impacts of the specific required variances are relatively minor . 2. The CUP for the berm should be granted, subject to confirmation that a sewer easement is in effect. If something can be worked out between applicant and Lakeside, the City should allow the berm to be centered on the lot line. 3. The drainage issues seem to be a stumbling block, in that there app>ear to be potential impacts to ofTsite properties even though applicant can adequately deal with the runoff coming from the proposed development. Study is needed to resolve these concerns prior to preliminary plat approval bv Council. 4. This subdivision has been before the Planning Commission as a sketch plan in January, and reviewed as a formal plat proposal at the February and March meetings. Members of the public have been vocal in their opposition to the duplex concept (especially the rental aspect) even though the zoning code would allow a duplex at this location as a CUP, which is part of the request. Other than the Outlot variances which will be required whether or not Lot 2 contains a duplex, the proposal meets the CUP standards established in the code for allowing a duplex, i.e. it's sewered and within 200' of a commercial property (Section 10.20, Subd. 31). Staff recommends approva l of the duplex CUP, Staff recommends that Planning Commission make a recommendation based on the information at hand and forward this application to the City Council for review. Mi / 4/; . Proposed Lot Areas Lot 1 Lot? Outtot A Outlot B Outtot C Total Area 34,500 21,780 6,708 1,089 1.394 Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft Sq. Ft Sq. Ft Sq. Ft 0.79 Acres 0.50 Acres 0.154 Acres 0.025 Acres 0.032 Acres 65,471 Sq. Ft 1.503 Acres Proposed Hardcover Lot 1 O' - 75' 75--250 ’. 0% Proposed House Driveway Garden Area Total 250’-500’Driveway Existing Area 75 ’ - 250’ = Percent of Hardcover = 21,945 Sq. Ft 24.71% Existing Area 250’ - 500’ = Percent of Hardcover = 2,475 Sq. Ft 25% Lot 2 South of 250’ Setback Line Facing Maxwell Bay Proposed Twin Home Driveway Total Existing Area South of 250’ Setback Facing Maxwell Bay = 8,865 Sq. Ft Percent Hardcover = 36% South of 250’ Setback Facing Crystal Bay Proposed Twin Home Existing Area South of 250’ Setback Line Facing Crystal Bay = 12,915 Sq. Ft Percent Hardcover = 8% A'2- 2,024 Sq. Ft 2,000 Sq. Ft 1.400 Sq. Ft 5,424 Sq. Ft 630 Sq. Ft 2.170 Sq. Ft 1.000 Sq. Ft 3.170 Sq. Ft ^ . k 1,030 Sq. Ft t • jt X*. ; ; V :207:-iaVvc,' ./jP; ••••■. e 0.33a- /{ > \ ‘ ‘^'^ yGARO^W AREA^ ,* (I C6M\V 1 lAW.'llOy. tc -<^342* . iv-ia;‘Nc. ' eo-^3*T* m . .^'^ROPOSE^HOUSE <v VTi^L-. 91S.o ) ;■ (13252) pi^oposeo iwrouR (rtf) 9J2-7 V eRbs»‘6v’'co/^ftOL . .s'tT FEA»ce cnp) 0A/il/\/A66- arrw /^ cnP) « *' /.;■■■' '• /-PRoposeo Povo AIWLi<^3o.7S ’73/ 8ono/n=11t.j5 X 93Z.2J T/VV.- 130 is: am h S .* ~ I •'% o~ «Biai »>Nv 'Oj • • I ‘; •* ( • • •• • \ z^' / •• . r I <• I ujqJi! i^as ey. COa A-OCa R, ; ctvp ; . / / •. ••n—.v.vtO~ ■ 50.0 -V/ 7^y' .ki". / / / t / /, .<■¥1: ( ¥•::''r / PROP. SPOT EL UfP) /WATCH EX. ovuy. ♦. PROTECT G.LO&. f 1^ V? 1/ i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects May 15, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Waade Subdivision File No. 139-2340 C-l Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik jnd Assoc/^tes. irc is AffirivMive Action Equ,v Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo, PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • Marvin l Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R CooV. PE • RcDerf G Schunicht, PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Rouert W Rosene. PE and Susan M EDerlm, C PA Senior Cor»sui!ants Assccicfte Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Kenn A Gordon. PE • Robert R. Pfcfferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A IA • .Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field PE • Ker'neth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE, L S • Robert F Kotsmith • Agnes M Ring • Michael P Rau. PE • Allan RiCk Schmidt. PE Offices St Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud MN • Milwaukee. W' WePsite WWW bonestroo com Dear Mike: We have reviewed the revised plat, revised grading plan and drainage calculations 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: Ple.ise see our M ch 19, 1998 comments as they still apply. 2. Utilities: Please see our March 19. 1998 comments as they still apply. 3. Grading r.nd Drainage: The revised grading plan shows a proposed 932.0 contour along the east lot line of the property northeast of the future twinhome. If the pond renebes the overflow elevation of 932.5 shown on the grading plan, storm water will be routed through this low area towards the existing properties located east of the site. We 'ecotnmend that the giading plan be revised so that flow': are directed northerly towards the lake away from the existing ho:r.:s. ’I he drainage area map indicates that approximately 0.5 acres of the site that previously drained easterly will t»ow flow noitherly to the lake. This will reduce off-site flows onto the properties to the cast but may compound any existing drainage problems east of the site. Storm water to the east of the site may reach greater deptits because there will be less area to pond after a rainfall. The City should review any existing drainage problems east of the subject property as the proposed site grading may limit or restrict any future drainage solutions. A recently submitted revised plat does show the access road shifted westerly away from the existing home as previously reouested. A revised grading plan showing proposed grading along the existing home and street should be submitted for review. The drainage calculations appear acceptable. The pond outlet should provide 1 foot of skimming for watei quality purposes. An cutlet structure detail should be provided for review. It is assumed that both homes will be slab-op-grade construction so that the proposed lowest floor elevations (935.0) will be more than •he ieuu;re<l iTi'nitnuni of 2 feet above the pond HWL (931.66). 4. o'W'mciits: Tlie recently submitted revised plat appears to correctly show the 20 foot utility easement along the exisiir.g sanitary scv.er on the west side of the lot. 5. Finunciat Guarantee: V/ben the olans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvsir.enti 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. r-.n, V.ll-.nnTom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 • Fax; 612-636-1311 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects March 19, 1998 Mr Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City otOrono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Waade Subdivision File No. 139-2340 Ponesirco. Roiene Anderlik Aisoci^tes. Inc ti .in Affirir.inve Action Equ.^l Opportunity Employer PrincpMs Otto G BoncsTroo • Joseph C AncJerl k. PE • L Sorv^la. PE • Rich.<rd E Turrer PJ • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberlin. CPA. Senior Consultant' Astoctate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfeffcrie, PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek A I A • Mark A. Hanson, PE. • Michael T Rauimann. PE • Fed K Field. PE • Kenneth P AncJerson. P£ • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P sViiiiamson. P£ . L.S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St “aul. Rochester Willmar and S: Cloud MN • Mil .vaukee. Wl 0 • * 9 0 w*4l 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: The width of Outlet A is shown at 40 feet where City code requires a minimum width of 50 feet. The driveway shown north of Oiitlot B should be paved to a minimum of ' 2 feet in width; the driveway is currently shown at 10 feet in width. Hie pavement south of the proposed house should be enlarged to allow for turning movements. The fi;e department should review the plans and provide conunents. 2. Utilities: Please see our January 30, 1998 comments as they still apply. 3. Gr&.!ing: The proposed grading and erosion control plan shows a ponding area located south of the proposed ivvinliome. 1 ho gt.tJinj phui also shows an emergency overflow elevation of 933.20. If the pond outlet becomes plugged and tlii water rises to this overflow elevation, the existing homes east of the site will experience some flooding. We rccotnmcnd revising the grading plan so that in the event of a plugged pond outlet the water will be directed away from homes and tow ard 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 minimized near any existing structures. 4. Drainage: We recommend that storm sewer be no smaller than 12-inchcs in diameter. A drainage area map, stoim .sewer and ponding calculations showing pre and post development conditions should be submitted for review. а. !i '.ppca:s :!.? prcpcsed utility easement shown along ihe 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. б. Financial Guarantee: W!;cn 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. /oyy} l oir .<oilog" Cc; Greg Gappa, City of Orcr.o 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636*4600 ■ Fax; 612-636-1311 FROM - Robert Iteade 2. HSSoc.PHONE NO. : 6124727t52 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box <»6 Co ’stal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Il3y. 01 r?=S 0?:I'9PH FOi ZONING FILE #2329 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 29, 1998 TO: Robert Woadc 5240 Nolan Drive Minnetonka MN 55343 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 04/20/98 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled per applicant's request. Ihc revised preliminary grading and drainage plans for the piopo.sed subdivision were iece>vcd April 21. A copy of that plan and the drainage calculations submitted with have been fonvarded to the City Imginccr for review. The next Planning Coinmission meeting i.s scheduled for Monday, May 18, 1998 at 6:30 p.in. A„y new irrmmlon or revi.cU proposols you wi,h ,o submit for that mcet.ng must Ik received by Monday, May 11. State Statute and City Code requires the City to teaeh a coitelusiol) on . PO davs of the preliminovy plat application unless that applicant ag.cci» m willing to an exUnS. The 120 doy period will end Mny 2J ISOS. Tberetbrc notice in the space at the bottom, agreeing to a 60-day extension to July -3, 1998, or fax it to the City by Wednesday. May 16. If wc do not receive your approval for lUc extension, thi.s item would be placed on the Council's May 11 agenda lor foiinal denial. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they arc ava.Kablc from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commissi 1 Iwmby agree to extending the proliinim.ry subdivision review period by 60 days to July 2X 199B. ^ ^ _ ^{\^l_S:dz3.i (Date)(Signature) TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE: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 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 (?) NOT RECEIVED AS OF 4-17 2:00 PM B - Preliminary 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 were 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 expected to be submitted today, Friday, April 17, but are 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. !l #2340 - Robert & Iris Waadc 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 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) was 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 d5ing 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 do.i'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 townhome 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 avoid impacting Nomm'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' Irom 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 would have to be forwarded to the Council's May 11 meeting for denial. PETITION TO THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION t) 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 LINDQUIST THAT "IF ANY VARIANCES WERE REQUIRED, THE PROPOSED APPLICATION WOULD BE DENIED", LAST MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 17, 1998. o MISSIS I6j — C0HMlS3/oNi_CO5S> Not \/A^M6^S> u>iTK 7< IjjH. ujCX^UC:^ 7^ /UAc^E. T^£- P)20/^S5P ARPMpmS UOOLP NAM;* ____________________ 32:^ a2HMSR7pp D.^5mvj7Vi.DLLc-/«j . ... ,5P^P T#.^\ __ .... QkJ____ M ... ----------- 5a/^. -...a; S/^ole..................... CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Robert Waade 1006 Wildhursl Trail Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: ZONING FILE #2340 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 17, 1998 COPIES TO:James McKinnon 1055 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata,MN 55391 DeMars-Gabriel Survevors ATTN; Russ 3030 Harbor Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 Prcliminaiy 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 Commission 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 or 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. 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:?0 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. ch X:\APPS\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACnON\2340 rmaa ^’Tt> fV3'0Tf''^*T /UO/2WAVI-5 H^tAse _ f>oTh^7-n-L. iserrtrt. £fC-^f^/T PIST7)J^C a£^ TO U>’''»i ^C-^M-/^ (Pfi- ■" (T'C ^olt-lYI . /UO AJeva T^ f> uj i/t/jt’T's. U-/1- • pUu 12^' yzo' OC’-CM. . . :f/l^ Oto/VJC/:l<:H/P 7^ £T. ‘7ia J> J /o* - * * t>-I.OA^ tp<PA^t> 2> '1-0 srr2i/i‘ C>-1 I r*; J r^»-t*r A»oT' £3^^ 03wt i./>T^ p^/2. jr'f^rxi/i.e i )D >''• V.• tAA/, qiO«i •>®%i f. lOl'» Jo" J>»C eo.w'J, - o,-^’ -->r*K XWhLl- 3; \ (>■ sO A i ,r f\GARO^ AREA 1 /i y ^ROPOSEf^^HOUSE N wJWnfi ^'dAft<66 ■'^'^ ^1.* fl^S.p- vy nrt \ 30 y. 3^2. - F 'JiM «lMl cAo{ib*( tOA/rftoi ^ —- CO\fCKt AJ d->C * ♦ 75''2SO*^|^ J^. ,Bji»ll»raHfffWl» ' .■• V^V • >■ \ l|5< >J IS<^ A v/i — r\ /V'/' l\ i'- I ■P • r- f \i\- 0/x" /AATCVl e*. ovuy, V V N '*^'<77' ’/•':k';.''‘UN.> vi’-' ' «),/vrD *J.X. 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 - Preliminary grading and drainage plan C - Notice of Planning Commission Action ca. 3-1 -98 D - Memo and Exhibits of 2-12-98 Revisions Since February Meeting Applicant has revised plans and provided addditional information as follows: 1. Incorporated stormwater rate control pond within the proposed lakeshore lot, and provided a preliminary grading and drainage plan. 3. 4. 2. Provided Outlot C for dedication for County Road 51 right-of-way. Reduced private road outlot (Outlot A) to 40' width from 50’ standard, incorporating a 24' paved road to serve 7 dwellings, such pavement being about 10' from the adjacent residence structure to the east which is only 3' off the lot line. Reduced private driveway outlot (Outlot B) to 20’ width from 30' standard, and ended it before it reaches the widened-out portion of the lakeshore lot (this constitutes two variances to the back lot ordinance). File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 2 D. 6. 7. Provided revised hardcover calculations reflecting twinhome moved further south, slightly nearer the County Road, and reflecting revised lot areas due to lot line revisions. Showed a proposed berm along the west lot line as a buffer to Lakeside Marina. Tliis berm is over the existing City sewer lines/easement and reflects grade changes within 5' of a lot line which requires a conditional use permit. Tlie 55' X 35' stormwater pond has not been excluded from the area of the lakeshore lot. When excluded, this leaves the lakeshore lot at 0.748 acres, just a tad under the 0.75 acre back lot standard. Getting it this close was only accomplished by the substandard width and length of the driveway outlot and substandard width of the private road outlot. Revised Plan Conformity to Lot Standards Lot 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 1 O' LR-1C-1 standard). It meets the required lake setback of 75'. Average setback is not an issue, since the proposed residence is further from the lake than the residence to the east, and there is no residence to the west. The access outlot (Outlot B) at a 20' width requires a variance to the 30' minimum width requirement; the driveway meets the required 10' setback from the east lot line per Section 10.03, Subd 27 (C) (3), but requires a variance because it is up against the lot line of the front lot. At least 5' is normally needed to provide for snow storage, etc. File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 3 Hardcover for Lot 1 is proposed at just under the 25% limit in the 75-250' zone and at 25% in the small portion in the 250-500' zone; but the narrow driveway proposal still has a minimal apron at the garage which may be difficult to maneuver, suggesting that at finwd 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. - Loi 2 meets the 135' minimum width for a duplex (shoreland ordinance fe(!uirements) if measured along the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. {The Zoning Code identifies the shortest side of a corner lot such as this, as the front'. However, in this case the side abutting Outlot A will function as the front lot line and if the line abutting Outlot A is formally defined as the front lot line by City action, the lot could be considered as conforming in width for a duplex lot. The intrusion of the MIVCC 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 varianc e. Hardcover for Lot 2 is now shown as 14% in the 75-250' zone where 25% would be allowed, and 45% in tlie 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 fiom 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' width requirement and requires a variance, and use of Outlot B to serve as access to all tlirec units does not meet code standards as noted above. At least one of the units must have its access other than Outlot B or a variance would be necessary. Outlot A is being platted as a 40' private road outlot, requiring a variance to the road \\ idth standard, but containing a 24' paved road which does meet the paved width standard. Outlot A currently contains a narrow gravel driveway serving three residences to the east of this site, plus the garage for the adjacent house directly east of Outlot A. Since applicant does not control the remaining properties which would be 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 do\% n to provide adequate sight distance. This excavation would be the responsibility of the developer. General Comments and Issues 1.Both proposed bulMkfo appear to avoid existing se\ .ines by at least 15'. The sur\ey must show all utiK'y casements of record; no existing easements are shovNTi on the current preliminary plat u.awing. 3.This group of four properties previously contained a total of three residences and w as 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 t*^ree proposed units. The site will be served with private wells. File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 5 J.The Orono Trail System Plan includes '' v.orridor 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-vvay exists for any future trails along the County Road. Riparian Acces.s Issue (See discussion in the February 12 memo) Only the lakeshore lot will have legal riparian access under City ordinances. Stormwater Ponding The preliminary drainage and gradmg plan was received late on March 12 and has yet to be reviewed by the City engineer. The City normally excludes the area of required stormwater ponding from the area calculation of individual lots, per Subdivision Code Section 11.41, Subdivision B (4). When the 35' x 55' pond is excluded, the area of Lot 1 is very slightly under 0.75 acre. The City normally excludes stormwater ponds from calculable lot acreage. However, the City did allow wetland acreage to be used for the 'extra 50%' acreage requirement for unsewered back lots in the Old Cr>'stal Bay Road Addition. Does Planning Commission feel that the goals of the back lot ordinance are met by crediting storm pond acreage toward the excess 50% area'.^ Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. Does Planning Commission support the concept that the lot line abutting the private road outlot, Outlot A, can be the front lot line, thereby making Lot 2 a conforming duplex lot? If not, will Planning Commission grant a lot width variance for the duplex lot? Will Planning Commission in favor of establishing a policy that stormwater ponding can be ^ credited toward th2 'extra 50% area' required for a back lot? ~ Does Planning Commission concur that applicant should be responsible for constructing a 24' paved road the entire length of Outlot A, and granting easements over such road to all property' owners that will make use of it? Does Planning Commission agree that this should be a private road, and not public? "T'H ^ Will Planning Commission recommend approval of the width and length variances associated with Outlots A and B? File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 6 5. 6. 7. \V ill Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to allow the driveway outlot to serve three total dwellings?f/2o0:^£^l--^ Does Planning Commission have any other coiKems regarding access to tlvis property or to adjacent properties? 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. 9. Does Planning Commission find any justification to grant special approval for lake access for the proposed duplex units? ^ ^ 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? ^ ^ ^ yiMvST' Does Planning Commission con 'ur with staff that crediting unused 75-250' hardcover toward the 250’-500' zone meets uie i;?tent of the hardcover ordinance \vithout the need for a ^ variance? ,uP 1^TO /X/C Cci/‘^5lAO«3 Staff Recommendation II. OF (.D' Planning Commission should address each of the 9 issues noted above in any recommendation. If the conclusion is that the subdivision should be recommended for approval with certain variances and conditions of approval, staff would recommmend the following additional conditions:: 1. 2. City Engineer to review preliminar>' grading and drainage plan prior to Council review. Applicant shall construct a 24' paved width road within Outlot A and grant easements to all property owners who will make use of that road. 3. 4. 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. I » File #2340 March 13,1998 Page 7 6. 7. Subject to the standard Developers Agreement requirements. Subject to the granting of the standard drainage and utility easements. Applicant must confirm and show all easements over existing sewer lines, and if no easements exist, grant them with this plat. Applicant will be advised that the 60-day limit for application review will be extended another 60 days due to the previous tabling and future meeting schedules. This item will be brought to the Council for review on March 23. Options of Action 1. Recommend approval with appropriate conditions. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table for further information. 4.Other. 1 1 rt • - ¥ \ CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2329 NOTICE OF PL/\NNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; TO: Robert Waade 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound MN 55364 COPIES: James McKinnon 1055 E Wayzata Blvd Wayzata MN 55391 DeMars Gabriel Surveyors Attn; Russ 3030 Harbor La N Plymouth MN 55441 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 2/17/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS; Tabled in order to allow applicant to revise proposal to incorporate stormwater ponding and County Road dedications, provide a grading and drainage plan, and analyze how exclusion of road and ponding areas from lot area calculations will impact lot sizes, etc. Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is dependent tipon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the March 16, Planning Commission meeting is March 9. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission jig I 1 I TO: FROM; DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator io. 13. 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 planed, since the road will serve up to 7 total dwellings. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List w D - Survey/Proposed Site Plan E - Staff Sketch of Building Envelope and Hardcover Zones F - MCWD Comments 2/4/98 G - Hermepin 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 is not 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 Disidct. File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 2 Please review the sketch plan memo of Januar>' 13, 1998 for discussion of: a. The context of this site in relation to its surrounding uses. b. More discussion about shoreland regulation implications and duplex credit implications, and back lot considerations. The applicant has proposed a revised plan since the sketch plan stage. The new plan is nearly identical to staffs Exhibit F-1 of the sketch plan review, and results in a proposal with few if any variances required. Conformity to Lot Standards Lot 1 is a lakeshore lot that is proposed for a single family residence (see Exhibit D). As a back lot: It meets the "150% of 1/2 acre" back lot standard (0.75 acres proposed). It meets the LR-lC-1 100' width minimum (124* at the shoreline, at the 75' setback line, and at the street yard setback). - It meets the required 45' street yard depth (150% of the 30' LR-lC-1 standard). It meets the required 15' side yard depth (150% of the 10' LR-lC-1 standard). It meets the required lake setback of 75'. Average setback is not an issue, since the proposed residence is further from 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 SecHon 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 and just under the 30% limit in the small portion in the 250-500' zone; but the narrow driveway proposal with minimal apron may be difficult to maneuver, which suggests that at final site planning a more flexible layout may be desired. 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 uith tvvo dwelling units, on a single lot. Under Orono's ordinances this duplex lot could not be split to have two separate owners. The result is that at least one of the units will be a rental, and/or possibly both will be rental. Regarding lot standards: Lot 2 meets the 0.5 acre minimum lot size required (Note that the duplex CUP Ordinance, Section 10.20, Subd. 3 (1), does nol require additional lot area for a duplex: and Shoreland Ordinance Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (A) (1) requires area minimum of 17,500 s.f (0.40 acre) for a duplex within 1,000' of a general development lake if not riparian, or 26.000 s.f. CO.60 acre) if riparian. This duplex lot does not meet the area standard for being riparian, i.e. this is a factor to account for in to determining whether the duplex lot could have lake access). Lot 2 meets the 135' minimum width for a duplex (shoreland ordinance requirements) as measured along the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. (The Zoning Code identifies the shortest side of a corner lot such as this, as the 'front'. However, in this case the side abutting Outlot A will function as the front lot line and if the line abutting Outlot A is formally defined as the front lot line by City action, the lot could be considered as conforming in width for a duplex lot. The intrusion of the MWCC 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 served via an access outlot (Outlot B) but applicant's plan has three units being served by Outlot B. The solution is to design a duplex with a separate access driveway coming off the road outlot, Outlot A. - Hardcover for Lot 2 is shown as 7.3% in the 75-250* zone where 25% would be allowed, and 50% in the 250-500' zone where 30% would be allowed. However, the 250-500' zone should be credited with unused hardcover allowance from the 75-250' zone, because an unused hardcover allowance can be transferred to a zone further from the lake while still meeting the intent of the code. This is demonstrated below: Fite #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 (Cie:it 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 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 necessary'. Outlot A is being platted as a private road. Outlot A currently contains a narrow gravel driveway serving three residences to the east of this site, plus the garage for the adjacent house directly east of Outlot A. The City Engineer has correctly noted that the City's road standard applicable to Outlot A is a 24' paved width for up to seven units. Since applicant does not control the remaining properties which would be served by the road, it may be unreasonable to force him to create a cul-de- sac, but it is reasonable in staffs opinion to require that a 24' paved road be constmeted 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 wiitten 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 ^or this 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 surv’ey must show all utility easements of record; no easement are shown on the current preliminary plat drawing. File #2340 February 3,1998 Page 5 3. This group of four properties previously contained a total of three residences and was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1963-64. No additional connection charges are required. The property has three SAC units credited from demolition of the pre-existing homes, hence no SAC charges will be required. Existing sewer stubs are available to serve all three proposed units. The site wih be served with private wells. 4. The Orono Trail System Plan includes a corrid 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 an> 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 dividi.ig 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 lal:e 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 stiU 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 ’oecn 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 Coimcil 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". How'ever, applicant is not proposing this as a PRD and therefore it would be inconsistent with past City practice and policy to allow non-riparian lots to gain lake access at a density greater than one dwelling unit per minimum lot width increment of the Zoning District. Notwithstanding the above general discussion, applicant has noted that providing a single slip for each of the three dwelling units on the property, would perhaps have less impact than the possibly four slips that might be created to serve just the lakeshore lot. It is staffs understanding that a four slip dock would generally be allowed by LMCD on this site, as long as all four boats were licensed to the owTier/occupant of the lakeshore lot. Stormwater Ponding The City normally excludes the area of required stormwater ponding from the area calculation of individual lots, per Subdivision Code Section 11.41, Subdivision B (4). The current proposal has just the bare minimum acreage in each of the two lots, and creation of stormwater ponding and the subsequent exclusion of the pond area from lot area calculations, will result in the need for lot area variances. The MCWD has indicated the site is small enough to be exempt from their ponding requirements. Since applicant has not submitted a grading and drainage plan nor plans for stormwater ponds, the impact of such facilities remains to be seen. However, it is likely that a lot area variance could be needed once such facilities are defined. The topography of the site indicates that most of thv. runoff from the pri te road and new homes would be to Maxwell Bay. This is also true of the runoff from the other homes to the east. A joint pond might be possible someday. Of greater concern is the runoff from the nearby marinas which are in the 90% hardcover range and which have no ponding facilities currently. File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 7 Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Is there any reason why applicant should not provide the normal grading and drainage plans? Should a stormwater pond be required? Does Planning Commission support the concept that the lot line abutting the private road outlot, Outlot A, can be the front lot line, 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? Stan* Recommendation Although the proposed plan appears to meet most pertinent code standards, the lack of a grading and drainage plan and it's potential effect on lot areas, makes it difficult to reach a conclusion on this subdivision. Applicant was advised of the need for a grading/drainage/stormwater plan on February 3. Pending receipt of such a plan, staff recommends as follows: 1. Approval of the conceptual front lot, back lot layout. 2. 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. 3. 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 propert>' owners who will make use of that road. 6.Applicant shall be responsible for making whatever changes are necessarj' 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 thAp two total dwelling units may gain access via Outlot B, hence the driveway layout for the duplex must be revised. Pending receipt of a stormwater plan and knowing how it will impact the site, staff recommends tabling this application until the stormwater plan and revised hardcover calculations have been submitted. Options of Action 1. Table per staffs recommendation. 2. Recommend conceptual approval, send this along to Council after required submittals have been received. 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4.Other. c 5 ci:v.I It* .-, j Application # 2- '3>^( O Date Received /-^3-^S Amount Paid ^BST^ ^h -a CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ Site address Property Identification Number (PID) Please check one - Property____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT . _ ^. Name Address Phone (home) 4^ 7 ^ City Zip^r^^ Phone (work)^ ^SS'S' 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 u Present use (check)v/ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels n. Residential; no. of units iywu^~) 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 UnitsNumber of Building Sites b New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres X 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 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 I, II & III) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 IfilalS Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 ___ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) ___ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 ___ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 we> Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fets (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. _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineaI 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 $30.00/DweIling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Applicant’s Date Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Plaiming Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. • !7 \ •*j i 4-'V"x '.5-yJ Application H 3 V O p7T 2 . Date Received hZ'\>-*7^_ j t Amount Paid ^ 2-00 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ Site Address //■/ Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT, ^ Name AddressCity Phone (home) ^'7^ 7^^"^2. Phone (work) ^ 5~ zip_££LH^^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________ Phone (home) Phone (\vork)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Conunercial/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 X PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY . Present Zoning District C ~ ' Present Use of Property ^ Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail.2. 3. 4.y 5. 6. 8. 9. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed 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 owner(s). ___ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ___As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY '’OR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s signat The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verifieation 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 Uaade 8. Assoc.PHONE NO. : 6124727652 Jan. 23 1S5S 04:45PM POl VOpilo 6-- A O^no £)U)iWx> Apr} phim-) li/t 0A<u> /O^S ^ ' ' ph: PiSr-lS!^ •• • * r RUN DATE 10/24/97 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44 0009 03265 BOHNS POINT LA E J MC DONALD/C J MC DONALD EDGAR I CONSTANCE MC DONALD 3265 BOHNS POINT LANE HAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 ^4 0010 03225 BOHt4S POINT LA H S V SWEATT HENRY L SWEATT 3225 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT m. PI435401 PAGE 24 38 08-117-23 44 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J S MARY K DOOLING RICHARD D ALLEN 3220 BOHNS POINT LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NA»«/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44 -0018 03280 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 44 0019 03270 NORTH SHORE DR METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM MEARS PARK CENTRE 230 E 5TH ST ST PAUL M^ 55101 TOTAL BATCH 507 00023 •A 5 f5 /'S-V rf'i CM % 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATIOtJ OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE (»J THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOMLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE /o/27/?7«v arm RUN DATE lO/EA/97 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR U'. PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONt^R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 41 0004 03224 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR NAY2ATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0007 03260 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL J TORBERG DANIEL J TORBERG 3260 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA M^4 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0010 03290 NORTH SHORE DR STATE or MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 41 0013 03332 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MN DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0001 03264 NORTH SHORE DR RUSSELL A NORUM RUSSELL A NORUM 3264 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0006 03220 BOHNS POINT LA R A S ALLEN RICHARD D ALLEN 3220 BOHNS POINT LANE NAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 41 0005 03240 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORHi SHORE DR NAYZATA m 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0008 03262 NORTH SHORE OR LAURA ZAUNER LAURA ZAUNER 3262 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0011 03286 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 0020 03342 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0007 03230 BOHNS POINT LA D F & J A DALVEY DAVID F DALVEY 3230 BOHNS POINT LA NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 23 38 08-117-23 41 0006 03250 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC mnJH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 j , l 38 08-117-23 41 0009 03268 NORTH SHORE DR RONALD D STAUFFER JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0012 03324 NORTH SHORE OR MINNETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J 0UT4N 3324 NORTH SHORE OR OROm MN 55391 r.’ 38 08-117-23 41 0021 03324 NORTH SHORE DR MimETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR 0R0T40 MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0005 03300 NORTH SHORE DR MINNETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNT4 3324 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0008 03260 BOHNS POINT LA F E CHURCHILL I L CHURCHILL F E CHURCHILL 1 L CHURCHILL 3260 BOHN'S POINT LA NAYZATA MN 55391 PREUMli^ FPOM : Robert C h5.=oc. PHOHE HO. : bl24727P.E2 Feb. 0? 19?3 02:49PM POl Minnehaha f.ri»,ek Watershed IHsii ict Gray Frashwater Cente Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre y/ f ' yy> JmprovingQuality of ]\\Uer, Quality of Life i^7)7Y\blit 1 A t r\f\Q p Malt; 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MN 55331-9578 Phone:(612)471-0590 Fax; (612) 471-0682 tniaih a5mlo®minnehahacroak.oro Web Site: vvww.mlnnehahacreek org Board 0l Managea: John E. Thomas President C. Woodrovr Love Vice President Pamela G. Bhxt Treasurer Mo'dca Gross Secretary Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas MapKr.Ji. Malcolm Reid OlElrlct Oliice: Diane P. Lynch District Adminislralor ritnttd an reCyfi#J 91 ®Ut Wa po»i cmwmB' I'ebruarv 4, 1998 Mr. Robert Waadc R&l Construclion, Inc. 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 RE: Plat Proposal, County Road 51, Maxwell Bay, Cily of Orono^^ Dear Mr. Waadc: We have reviewed the plat for Ihc above metilioncd property and have the following commeths. 1. 2. 3. 4. The site is le.ss than two acres in size and will have fewer than four living units. MCWD Rule B (stormwater management) allows an exemption for sites which fit this criteria, fherefore a MCWI) permit will not be rcciiiired for ti ealment of stormwater runoff. The MCWD docs have a concern that erosioti control meosures be properly installed and maintained until the .site is reslabilizcd. Wc urge you to follow the City of Orono ordinance.s which govern erosion control. If the topographic study of this site indicates an impact to any area below devotion 931.5 (the 100 year flood elevation) the MCWD would consider this to be floodplain alteration and require a permit for ‘’.at activity. The plat submitted had no elevation contour.s. Please .submit a plat with said contours when llml information is available. I'he MCWD is the local government unit (I.Oil) for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City of ()rono. If the site contains any \vciland.s, a plat should be submlUcd 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. Sincerely, Di.strict Technician / GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices i 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 h Tdephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE:January 13,1998 SUBJECT: #2329 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Sketch Plan for Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision for Duplexes Zoning Dbtrict: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 I - Excerpts from Zoning History of Site Overview This is a sketch plan for development of the property directly east of Lakeside Marina, also known as 'the Straley property', which was owned for a time by the DNR as a possible site for an access, then sold by the DNR when the Maxwell Bay access was built on the Gayle's Marina site^ Applicant proposes to divide the property into two lots, each to contain a duplex. The property currently consists of 4 tax parcels, three of which formerly contained residence structures. Context of Site in Relation to Surrounding Uses The property in question has a unique history which may provide some context for the current proposal. Historically, the property and the four adjacent residential properties to the east of it, have been located between two commercial marinas. The entire stretch of land between Tonkawa Road and the east side of North Shore Marina (See Exhibit 1) was first zoned in 1957, designated as a Zoning File #2329 Januaty 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 two marinas. City discussions that led to the 1984 rezoning of North Shore Marina from residential to commercial, included consideration whether the remaining residential properties between Lakeside and North Shore should be similarly rezoned commercial. The Planning Commission at that time recommended that future rezoning of the area be proved only when a future applicant controls or owns a 2 acre parcel consistent with the minimum required acreage for a lot in the B-2 zone, and proposes a use consistent with the B-2 standards. City Council minutes subsequent to that recommendation indicate no formal action was taken by the Council to adopt such a policy. However, Council discussions prior to the Planning Commission recommendation had indicated a concern that the City risks claims of spot zoning if merely North Shore Drive Marina is 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 Januar>' 13, 1998 Page 3 Duplex Credit Implications Zoning Code Sec. 10.20, Subd. 3 (I) allows one duplex to be located on a single lot in the LR-lC-1 zone as a conditional use upon application therefore, provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Public sanitary sewer service is available. 2. The lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district. 3. The duplex is constructed within 200' of the commercial or industrial district. These standards would be met by the current proposal. A duplex is (briefly) defined as a single building on a single lot containing two separate dwelling units. The duplex CUP standards do not require a duplex lot to meet double the area standards. The Shoreland District requirements specify that any lot approved for duplex use shall be at least 135' in width and at least 26,000 s.f. in area if riparian, and at least 17,500 s.f. in area if non-riparian. Both proposed lots meet the minimum area as established in the zoning district and Shoreland standards. However, lot width and the 'back lot' status of the riparian lot stand out as potential additional issues. Back Lot Considerations Applicant's sketch plan proposes a 30' wide outlet over the existing shared driveway serving the four existing neighboring residences and the four proposed new' dwelling units. This number of homes being served far exceeds the City's three-unit threshold for requiring development of a full-fledged roadway. Likewise, applicant's plan proposes a 12'-20' easement driveway providing access to the proposed lakeshore duplex, which 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( 1 c) disallows a front/back lot division when the residence structure on a neighboring lot adjacent to the back lot is less distant from the access outlt than the zoning district front setback standard. The adjacent residence to the east is within 3 feet of the proposed outlet, rather than the 30' required. Subd. 5C(2b) requires the lot width of a back lot to meet the zoning district standard Zoning File #2329 January' 13, 1998 Page 4 when measured at the defined locations. The standard for a duplex lot is 135'; the proposed back lot is only 123'-126’ at these locations. However, the back lot meets the 100' standards for a single family lot... Subd. 5(C)4d states that no more than two residences nay be served by a driveway located within an access outlot; the proposed plan would result in a total of 8 dwellins being serv'ed by a single driveway. Hardcover The applicant's proposal shows narrow driveways and garage apron widths which in staffs opinion are unlikely to function adequately, especially for the duplex on Lot 1, the lakeshore lot. The 75- 250' hardcover for Lot 1 is shown as using up its full 25%, i.e. just over 5600 s.f. Note also that for Lot 2 the 75-250' zone is not shown, but approximately half of Lot 2 is within the 75-250' zone as measured from Crystal Bay to the southwest. The hardcover zones will have to be accurately depicted on any formal plan that is submitted. Lake Access Implications Applicant proposes a duplex to be constructed on the riparian lot that is 125’ in width. Under LMCD standards of 1 slip per 50' of shoreline, development of this site would presumably be allowed 2 slips. However, as a single family lot. Lot 1 would likely be allowed 4 slips as long as all 4 boats are titled to the owner of the riparian lot. The City has only one other lakeshore duplex situation that staff is aware of, that being the duplexes on Kelly Avenue in Navarre. In that situation, six dwelling units in three duplex buildings are located on property that contains approximately 400' of shoreline, but 300' of width as measured in a straight line. Those duplexes are allowed a total of 6 slips via joint use dock license, such slips being located on an outlot in the southerly end of the site. The correlation to applicant's proposal would be that a duplex constructed on applicant's lakeshore lot might be allowed a 2 slip or 4-slip dock, allowing 1 or 2 boats for each of the two riparian dwelling units. This question remains to be resolved as to riparian access in slip numbers to serve a duplex on this site. It is clear however that the City would not allow riparian access to the duplex lot proposed which does not abut the lake. The Shorcland Ordinances indicate that lots intended to access to public waters for use by owners of non-riparian lots within a subdivision must meet or exceed the minimum standards set forth in Subdivision 16 for individual building lots. Therefore no easement or outlot could be created that provides lake access to the lot adjacent to the road, and the duplex lot adjacent to the road shall not have riparian rights. Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 5 Ho>v 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 arc 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 oO municipal sewer lines. Since 3 residences previously existed on the property, it isunlikely that additional sewer connection charges will be required unless a total of 4 units is allowed, in which case staff will research whether charges are due. Applicant proposes to move an existing trunk sewer line, which the City Engineer has addressed in his comments. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review the proposal and address the following issues so the applicant will have some direction how to proceed: 1.Determine whether 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 E.xhibit 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. ’ J I , I ■ * i 1 h '-A ,.i 4 \Application # ^ '•• ,j .t’’' Date Received 12*':^-^'^ Amount Paid 12^0 ^ A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ( ^ 0^2' STvied' PROPERTY LOCATION 1 t c n Siteaddressc^^C) ^ • Property Identification Number (PIP) On/O : O'i' //7A^ Please check one - Property abstract or ■->, Attach legal description to application. torrens? 0% ' 111 ^^'000 2^ . osr-//7-^3 W OOL2 APPLICANT Name a'^vcl UidddC._______________________ Address I ]-in(^ U } (LT>}4u HQ. Phone (home)-47^-~76ty2. City niJ A.!ZipQyj^ Phone (work T^jL-rKii OWNER (if diffe^t than applicant) ^ ^ (LI^i pn OD Name (X'Y^Lg^ "AAtSJ R "P \ l‘i O Address /<oSIS' ^ City LLJn i,\ZcL^rhJ- ' Phone (home) > < (attach list ifmore than one) Zip ^301 Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size >0- Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ - /d ' / \f(] C£L*f\iC_ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new bundling sites) ^ TjuoW' Subdivision for New Building Sites CMo^iS - '• Number of Building Sites _________Existing Units [oXt ^ New Units -=*7. j^'i Total Units ^• ." '' 1 ‘7* Proposed Gross Density T Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres C^'vo»cJi . • • ' t/ Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land V NDNIMUM IVL\TERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELI^HNARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application tees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on^ertifka^ of^ursey- 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finan«X-603 Govt. Center 348-3271), 5. As an addendum to this appHcaflonrplease attadra ”se^rate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official ’s Signature ________________________________________Date ^^NIiVIUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FLNAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if oppicable). 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.,.4\ppIication Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class 1,11 & III) S250.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 Legal Review and Filing: ______Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ______ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Preliminaiy 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.;___ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + S.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 $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by X Applicant ’s Sienature j:^^^^=^*g^%^^;^^Dat e _________ jJ€. Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to-the meeting. « 1 %4 (9) \ \ ViL.174.94 f$o. ooo m cc «.< . tu, T>-( SEC. 10.26. SUBDISTRICTS . LR-lC-1 ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Uses. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, and Accessory A. Any use as regulated in the "LR-IC District.i^/^{^ Subd. 3. Additional Permitted Use. Within any "LR-lC-l” One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict a credit allowing a 50% increase in dwelling unit density over the "LR-IC" District may be obtained providing all conditions below are coiuplied with: A. All provisions of Section 10.32 Planned • Residential Development are complied with; B. Public sanitary sewer is available; C. All dwelling units must be attached but hot more than four dwelling units to any one structure with a maximum height of thirty 30 feet; D. Parcels of land lying beyond 100 feet from any shoreline shall not have more than 35% of the land area to be developed made impervious by buildings, blacktop, or other forms of hard cover; E. Building size and location meet Council approval; F. Vehicle ingress and egress meet Council approval; G. A minimum of two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit, one of the parking spaces shall be enclosed and attached to the principal structure it serves; H. Density provisions under Section 10.60 are. not exceeded. Subd. 4. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements (See Section 10.25, Subdivision 6). P-2^ SBC. 10.25. LR-IC ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "LR-IC” One Family Lakeshore Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka, special regulations are necessary to protect that natural resource from the effects of intense development. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the ”LR-1C" 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” . Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any “LR-lC'' One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit; A. Any conditional use as regulated in the ”R-1A" District except that a Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any ''LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted' accessory uses; A. Any accessory use as regulated in the ”R-1A" District any 'private docks' subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements, A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10-feet 30 feet 15 feet S 10.20 SEC. 10.20. R-IA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "R-IA" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permit. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "R-lA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. C. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: . _ Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefor provided sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or Industrial bulldi ^ <3uplex is defined as a two-family unit residential • — - » •. • . * ? . i . i r , If % ■5 ig < h >- 5 2 in i:i Q at -a 2 <1 I ^ HI \ib cvi ^ 41s PS |« ll 1 S:-* V. •A 3 I 0 53 3 Ia r 4 ik =* e /S' :.•. j « ♦ .* j .• I '■\ i :f .vi /^t>u {A^iryrif^ bAJ/^ )^Al64fr Bonestroo. Roicnc. Anderhk and Assocutes. inc is an Aff;rm^i{ive Acvon Equal Opportunity Employe Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderiik pe • M^rvm L Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schumcht. PE. • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE a.nd Susan VI Eberim. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferie, PE • Richard W Foster. PE • Oavid O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A.I.A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson PE . L S • Robert F Kolimith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wiiimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. W'l ^ I Bonestroo Rosene Anderiik & | \ \ 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: Waade Subdivision File No. 139-2329 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed three to four lot Waade subdivision. The site is located at 3280 and 3290 Northshore Drive (C.R. 51) east of Tonkawa Road(C.R. 135) in the southeast quarter of Section 8. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: The private road on Outlot A does not meet the minimum width, design speed or right- Qf.wiiy for a private road as outlined in the City Ordinance. The private road currently serves 4 homes and potentially would serve 7 or 8 homes. No more than two units may be served from a private driveway. Private streets serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide, more than seven units require 28 feet. Due to the existing house locations it would be impossible to meet all of the code requirements. We recommend a minimum pavement width of 24 feel 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 ot an existing home. The proposed alignment may need to be shifted westerly to_ allow for construction. The existing overhead power may need to be relocated to allow for construction. Utility construction plans should be submitted for review. 3. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the lakeshore. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses and septic systems. 4. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Maxwell Bay drainage districts. The entire site H 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul. MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 w January 9, 1998Mr 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 easements will need to be revised based on the final sanitary design. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetlands and drainage ways. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC, /07*^ Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono •• • ________________________COM#M<S«.Ol4t. TO „ Pg-wft. Tt> /*? 57 — fifleftagnes /Uperff or Co Srt^Tl_______ ^rfc»i*Mr7Att. /AJ ^4*4# , /S4<+£- to , (AJe?7T. <VL.5 g^TTftJPfefO ^gc. 8 •*~^y 6>ye»e^. 6<A»*o^ei^.___/t--|^-7^ i^JlT. 7 ^l*^lSTO*il^ia cobs’^"” Kfc*AAJef<> .. ^ _ 'MAT OF -roi^liJMK -eAS^/^PF___ ____________ ... AeCA /tCOiWV. _/^ftfcs/Cup y>^4A/AiAj eu<V«*Mr .. .._________S.<rt.i:/W4?/^C^>_^C0 __________ _______________€fisr . TO fC^fbtrt^Tttit^ Ai OF- /‘^5p!)_______________________________________7VU«iw*.i._C7.»Vt.«vv;'r' €SAi*r. __ . TO l^^ fc~ \ _ f^CSflktAiTr^rt, ,. 3-//-S7 Q<g^ ~~ ^2egATP^ ^'Cg<H/«»«»^4 t, b>/sya<fc.T ...__ ______A^^/i^xwzei.eAsTr.^/r. _7aNia<AJik_^ /a9?T)kQFLjc ^.f^^ QgI>J^ 2.. See»AJ6 A^mth- Sn«^^iuviri , _____________________M/UityA/A. PfijoftfArY TO S-2. sec..%^..-------------- (Cohu/ea^r' (AJirfi A)«*rn S^nto___ 2-^B-0>(p A)£Jb ^ f^AoPefin& €AsrOF A » • ' J£ A AiOfiin^ SOUT^ Z//Ug -^0 *0 feirr tr^eir~e?R ms smM.^•4» «.m W.« «••«» **mrn A/jf^^ Mouu> ec /Sl^Asize>E. gAt<ru»»v<. 01 lAju^ibS Avw/i/4^ IWAIA) gU(Ut>/»JgJ^ .________ >r*• Y«o% .•/• j ‘N*^ •• . • • ^ • *• • ••• •• #< (MAXWEU BAY) p/2e- |1f7 liTVi'tWi>«S3' ^ • * • » (MAXWE iX BAY) V. - ..' .. . *.4''A: • . • •^.1 ^ 1 -• /147 ■X r(r s ■■ f.: • ^,m . • • • * *•*• C»». »‘ • ■. . •-‘* i .*1 f*- ..* • ». . • W: t 2.-."»^J* -/m:. .Ml^ • ^ ' . • I n ♦ • • • I rnmm •I 2-ze>-c,fa Tt. q^s-c,! -y:^L \ ! (maxwell BAY) COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION DOCUMENT COMMUNICATIONS JL tY)^\p5 5. To: From: Date: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 14,1998 Subject:# 2372 Barry & Janiece Haglund, 4590 North Arm Drive West - Peliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application:Proposed 2-lot plat of this 5.5 acre parcel to create one new building site. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey/Preliminary Plat Drawing E - Staff Sketch F - Septic Testing Review (Weckman) G - City Engineer Comments H - Area Subdivision History Sketch 1 - Status of North Arm Lane: Various Documents Proposed Lot Area & Width Both proposed lots meet the required lot area and width standards of die LR-1 A District: Area (2.0 acres min. req.) I Lot 1: Lot 2: ROW: Total: 2.74 acres 2.67 acres 0.08 acres 5.49 acres (proposed new building site) (with existing house) (excl. r.p.w. for North Arm Drive West) (North Arm Drive West at sw comer of site) Width (200* min. req.) Lot 1: Lot 2: 427.25' 280.00' (Lot 1 is a comer lot and by definition the short side is the front) #2372 - Haglund May 14, 1998 Page 2 Pertinent Facts and Issues Septic Testing . Lot 1 has tested primary and alternate drainfield sites, which are shown on the preliminary plat drawing. Lot 2 has a relatively new conforming system with an alternate site indicated near the south end of the lot. See Steve Weckman's report. Exhibit F. Setbacks . The existing house will meet the required setback from all existing and proposed lot lines. The existing garage was granted location variances prior to its remodeling in 1991, and its relation to lot lines does not change as a result of the subdivision. The proposed setbacks for Lot 1 appear to be correctly oriented per City code requirements. Wetlands. No wetland delineation report has been submitted. There are no wetlands mapped in either the City inventory or the National Wetland Inventory for this property. The only potential wetland is a small (less than 0.1 acre) low spot in the SE comer of Lot 1. This area is not expected to be impacted by any development of the site, but might be improved to ser\ e as a sedimentation or mnoff rate control basin for the site. A wetland delineation report should be required of the applicant and if in fact a wetland is delineated, a covenant should be filed in the chain of title warning future owners of approvals needed if that wetland is will be impacted by development. Stormwater Plan. No grading/drainage/stormwater plan has been proposed at this time, but will be required. The City Engineer has been asked to review this plat, and his comments are attached as Exhibit G. Under MCWD’s proposed Rule B changes, it is likely no stormwater ponding would be required for this subdivision; however, the City engineer is recommending that some stormwater facilities be provided. Bluff/Woodland Impacts. No part of the property is considered as bluff. No significant woodland will be impacted by the proposed subdivision. Most of the north half of the site was formerly an open field which has partially revegetated. Park or Trail Needs. The Park Commission at their May 4 meeting recommended that a park dedication fee be required rather than land dedication. #2372 - Haglund May 14,1998 Page 3 Road Access. Access to the public/private road is an issue. North Arm Lane is a 33' privately owned corridor upon which exists a gravel road averaging 15' in width. The owner of record is Jean T. Armstrong. The Armstrong family owns the property to the north. Curiously, the City has maintained this private road for many years, at least back to the 1960's, although the City has no apparent documented easement over it, other than a prescriptive easement over the traveled and maintained portion by virtue of the histor>’ of City maintenance. The City' Attorney has indicated it is unlikely the City can claim an easement over the entire 33', but probably has a good claim over the portions maintained and/or used for public purposes (i.e. the gravel surface and some portion of the shoulder). The applicant has been advised he must obtain an easement for access from the Armstrongs (or provide evidence that such an easement exists) in order for the lot to be considered as fronting on a public or private road. Applicant has made this contact and appears to be able to provide this documentation. Without such an easement, access would have to be from the south, forcing this into a front/back lot situation and significantly affecting the proposed plat layout. The traveled road crosses applicants property and the neighboring property to the south near the entrance to North Arm Drive. Note that the portion of traveled road on the neighboring property to the south is near the new mound septic system on that property. It is unknown whether the City has formal easements for the portions of road existing on applicants property and on neighboring properties, although these are also likely only prescriptive. Road Standards . The plat results in a seventh residence accessing via North Arm Lane. This is similar to other proposals the City has reviewed in the past (Lyman Avenue and 'Lydiard Road' off of North Femdale are two that come to mind) where additional use on a substandard road begs the question of road upgrades. In each case, staff has recommended that the road be upgraded to be more in conformity with City standards, and that additional right-of-way be dedicated. In this case, staff recommends that 8.5' of roadway be dedicated along the east side of the property adjacent to the 33' corridor; also that additional right-of-way be dedicated at the south end of the property where the existing traveled road crosses it; and that a portion of cul-de-sac be dedicated at the northeast end of the property. Note that the City has required dedication of 17' and 8.5' of additional right-of-way from past subdivisions along the east side of the 33' corridor. During the Markoe Addition platting in 1992, the City concluded that both sides of the road should give up additional right-of-way to eventually result in a 50' corridor. #2372 - Haglund May 14,1998 Page 4 How or when the road should be upgraded, or whether the road should be upgraded at all, is a topic for discussion. The gravel road averages 15’ wide and will serv'e as the only access for 7 homes, with the potential for a number of additional homes if the Armstrong propert>' is developed in the future. This road could potentially be continued westward to connect with Co. Rd. 19 or north to Bayside. The City standard for such a road is a 50’ corridor with a 28' paved road w idth, ending in a paved cul-de-sac. With the ambiguous road ownership situation, it would be in the best interests of all parties if the City acquires title to the entire 33' corridor as w'ell as additional r.o.w. on each side of it from adjacent properties as necessary. The City could then make a determination as to the degree of upgrade which would be completed by the City and an appropriate portion of the costs assessed back to the benefitting property owners. A more radical option would be for the City to discontinue maintenance of the road and let the road users form an association to decide what level of road service is acceptable. Staff is not recommending this, given the anticipated additional use this road may have in the future. Access for Existing Residence. The existing residence is served by a driveway directly to North Arm Drive West, which is a local City road with many direct driveway accesses. Because this is a local road w ith relatively low traffic levels, it may be appropriate to allow the continuation of this driveway location rather than force its relocation to North Arm Lane. Applicant notes he may wish to move the driveway to North Arm Lane in the future to eliminate a problem with the grade where the driveway exits onto the road. Summary of Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. To what extent should the applicants be required to dedicate additional right-of-way? Does Planning Commission agree with staffs sketch for platting of a partial cul-de-sac? Is there any reason to take the entire cul-de-sac from this subdivision, as opposed to centering it on the existing road corridor? Should the City pursue formal acquisition of the 33 ’ corridor? To what extent should North Arm Lane be upgraded, if at all? By whom? At whose expense? 4. Should the driveway serving the existing house be allowed to remain in its current location? 5. Does Planning Commission have any other concerns or coments? #2372 - Haglund May 14, 1998 Page 5 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following: 1.Stormwater, grading and drainage plans should be required per City Engineer ’s comments. A wetland delineation report should be submitted. 2.Applicants to provide evidence of easements for use of portions of North Arm Lane that are potentially not within City's jurisdiction. 3.Right-of-way to be dedicated on the plat as follows: a. 8.5' along east property boundary b. Portion of 100' diameter cul-de-sac at northeast comer of property c. 33' along North Arm Drive West as shown on preliminary plat drawing d. To-be-determined area at southeast comer for existing/future road alignment 4.City should pursue a formal acquisition of North Arm Lane. Road and cul-de-sac should be upgraded by City to a level commensurate with the number of homes being served, with an appropriate portion of said costs assessed to the benefitting property owners, at some point in time to be determined by City Council. 5. 6. Standard park dedication fee required. Standard drainage and utility easements to be granted along lot boundaries. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval with appropriate conditions. 'i 2.Table for further information or revisions. 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4.Other. r Application it Date Received Amount Paid -^2.^ pj CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION A' PROPERTY LOCATION Site address hlOflSTki- AliM OI^OAJO fUAJ, ^ Property Identification Number ID) SI ^ ^ Please check one - Property ^ abstract or____torrens? ^ Attach legal description to application. >s3L APPLICANT COcn §s/n ^ ,K Name J . ^ _ A'.l(/AALU/Jb_____________ ^ Address ^/S^O A^b/^TH Phone (home) Co City , /OfAJ,f OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ Zip^^JPhone(work) STT-^c/7^ 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) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL LIZI-H Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ / Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / Existing Units / New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size 7 Cl Proposed Use (check) Zacul 'i / Residential _________Other (specify) ^3) V ‘V' -} NHMMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELl>nNARY APPLICATION Q. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. Completed application form. rj.' Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. '5^' 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 Ofilcial’s Signature ______________________________________ Date_____________________________ NDNIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature ______________________________________Date____________________________________ Totals I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S3 50.00 . Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (t$ii>e^etermined per Section 1 1.62) _____ 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/Iineal ft;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub , Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 •y On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x I 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/DweIling Unit _______ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission andCow^I nece«^ t^ofhcesrtiis application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ^ '9'U-n Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the CiV^ffice 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. RUN DATE 0^/06/98 BATCH 509 PROP ADDR (MIER NAME TAXPAYER NATC/ADDR 38 06-117-23 23 0001 00036 AODRESS UNASSIGNEO C A PASS ET AL TRUSTEES CAROL PASS 2536 18TH AVE S MPI.S MN 55909 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 38 06-117-23 23 0002 09620 NORTH ARM DR H D A A M H NINTER DON A NINTER 9620 NO ARM DR NEST MOUND MN 55369 REPORT NO. P1935901 PAGE 10 38 06-117-23 23 0005 09690 NORTH ARM DR N D I L IVERSON DANIEL I LINDA IVERSON 9690 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55369 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 29 0001 00215 NORTH ARM LA C A PASS ET AL TRUSTEES CAROL ANN PASS 2536 18TH AVE S MPLS MN 55909 38 06-117-23 29 0002 00215 NORTH ARM LA C A PASS ET AL TRUSTEES CAROL ANN PASS 2536 18TH AVE S MPLS MN 55909 38 06-117-23 29 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R N ARMSTRONG ETAL JEAN T ARMSTRONG 235 NORTH ARM LANE MOUND MN 55369 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AbDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 29 0006 09590 NORTH ARM DR N B L A J R HAGLUND BARRY L A JANICE R HAGLUND 9590 NORTH ARM DR H MOUND MN 55369 38 06-117-23 29 0012 00360 NORTH ARM LA R D BACKERUD ADS BACKERUO RODNEY 0 A DIANE S BACKERUD 360 ARM LN N MOUND MN 55369 38 06-117-23 29 0008 00370 NORTH ARM LA RAH SMITH ROSCOE S A HARRIET C SMITH 370 NORTH ARM LANE MOUND MN 55369 38 06-117-23 29 0013 00390 NORTH ARM LA JAMES R A ADRIENNE M NEILSON JAMES R NEILSON 390 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55369 38 06-117-23 29 0011 00366 NORTH ARM LA MAM LARSON MARK JAM LARSON 366 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55369 38 06-117-23 29 0019 00350 NORTH ARM U J0T4 M PENDLETON JON M PENDLETON 359 NORTH ARM LA HOUND MN 55369 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 31 0001 00920 NORTH ARM DR R H A M L SLADEK RICHARD H A MARY L SLADEK 920 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55369 38 06-117-23 31 0003 00990 NORTH ARM DR RAP STERNAU RENE A PATRICIA STERNAU 990 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55369 38 06-117-23 32 0003 00905 NORTH ARM DR LAKEVIEN GOLF OF MTKA IfC LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LA HOUND m 55369 I PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 509 00015 0 ■ ■ 'll /!,' MIL'J- ' ;■ i>///A ^V// III \ \ "''Wi-, i \ / /. \/ \ \ V / ns,629.*^. FT. ,7« J IN PRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR BARRY HAGLUND THE SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SEC. 6-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA / / / / \ / I / \ ----j- tX A-\- - Vr-V Avv - \ \ \\\\ .-V X * bpnD<Ncrn ..V.\. - -W - A - .\A\. As,-\l^-i—V Ak v.\ \\ \ iS>4r/^ //4« S€V4 0f to LFr.A! nrsoRpnoN or pprui^f; ? The South 854.50 feet of the West 280.00 feet of the Southaost Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. denotes iron marker Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datum. This survey Intends to show the boundaries of the above descrftied property, the location of on existing house and garoge. and the proposed location of a proposed dividing line thereoa It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Xwv/i /imf XC*/4 r'-77‘- Airs DESIGNED REMSICN DATE DESORPTION DRAWN rurnfm COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. 482 TAMARACK AVENUE, LONG LAKE, MN. 55358 812-473-4141 I 1CREBY CCRTTY THAT THS PLAN. SPECTCAT10K OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY UE OR UNDER IIY 0«ECT SUPERVISXM AM) THAT I AM A DULY UCENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGMEER UM3ER THE UWS OF THE STATE OF LttCSOTA. DATE iM UCE>6E NLAfiER /X7SJ JOB NO. 98^145 ■« A \ if .9 77 W \ 0/i>t y , N 89*M' 30; E r / I / i / » / I •iiif/Wl/ll^ 28a00 \ V ntjitru rt. 1 , ' ' * I '^v ''v >k\\ v\ '1— j. A :i>^. \' ' *''. X89*5«*30 “ W O.^eo.od^\ JC'>^s\\\\\ 'i- ^N'.>RpPPSE(\\v\Vk DI\?IDING\|NFx , \ V \ \ ^ \ S \ \ N I -r 2. . iiM}ftsa /I. ^^ift *€ ^ 1-•— yf0*ms»»t*^ r! i • J • ^nm Kkts ^ X / * /I / .M.T(PHAT( 9Tt I / n / / «/ ^^ !• A / > f'J\ yyA I t PR CERTIFI BAf THE SE 1/4 HENNEF t>t#^JCA-TT?L fe'-f bt^t^/CAr70AiS poTitorf4ct_ y4<liSiUl^|T7txfO .IIGA, DLMIRyift^ruVf Th« Sowt^ 0S4.5O th« North»^ftl OtiO’l*” IM Mh '•^•ofll M«ft< 0tor<«9t <rr o«T ^0^0f^»0i0 **V *• This »«#««/ ^*trck •». • !•»• locoi^ ot o»* pfoooied ^Si•idiA9 Um> •• imprpve'»«nli ®r r^*»«. - - M (21% tyjiT/t^G hAtt i"/<x>* f€Ahi*<s mh Asfm^rr% *'*^*/0 0f ffp.Ciq’ COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.; foo ’ :r»^^T»<Q gMOgftx; I A>n jauvrynpc «rrr p» F TO:Michael P.Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator FROM;Stephen Weckman On-Site Systems Manager DATE:May 13,1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2372, Barry Haglund - Subdivision The proposed two 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 information provided indicates that all drainfield sites meet all Orono standards for design and location. The primary drainfield site for lot 1 meets a 20 foot setback to the existing East property line. Should the road right of way be widened, the function of the drainfield site wiU not be effected and would still meet the minimum State standards. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the subdivision. The City requires the drainfield sites to be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration. ■ : r i 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene ^5 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects :-orcitroo Po\^nv AndvrUk i^nd Aiioci Inc /s A. j rcr ■? I't Acttor Ecju.U (Jpcortunity £mplc 'cr Pnnctp-^ls Otto G Bnnestroo. PC • Joseph C Anderlik, PE • V.*rvin L Sorv.ilcV PC • pichcifcl E Turner P». • Glenn R Cook PE • Robert G Scrun»(.nt ^E • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Pcsene PE ^nd Sui.rn M Eberlin, C PA Senior Con-,.ult.'nii Ajsoc/4rft* Prin-i pt^li Ho*v *rd A S.snford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PF • Robert R Pfefferle, PE • Rich;srd W Foster. PE • Oervid O LOSKOM. PE • Robert C A • Mtirk A H«<nson. PE • Mich,^ei T ^sutmann PE • Ted K Field PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mt^rk R Poits, PE • Sidney P Wili^mson. **E L S • Robert F Ko T^itn Cffices St '■^uf Rochester. Wuim.ir ^ind St Cloud MM • Mii.v^uk-e VII May II. 1998 Mr. Michael P. GaflVon Senior Planning tr^wrdinator City of Grono Post Offiee Bo.x 6(r Crystal Bay. MX ‘55323 1 Rc;Barry Hapiund Subdivision NJo I Dear Mike: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed two lot Haglund subdivision. The site is located west of North Arm Lane and north of North Arm Drive in the northwest quarter of Section 6. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: North Arm Lane provides ihe existing access to the site. The roadway is a publicly maintained dead end pnva»e '••.leet, 18 lo 20 feet wide, approximately 1100 feet long and potentially serving 7 to 8 prcpeftie.s. Tiic .‘southerly end of the roadway is paved from North Ann Drive to approximately 300 feet noith. the remaining ; ‘ngth is gravel. The majority of North Arm Lane lies east of the subject property wr.b.ut an exif’.ing r.gi •. ot-way that varies in width from 33 to 50 feet. The south end of North Arm Lane ennoaches e-ibieily onto Lot 2, Block 1. North Arm Estates and southerly onto R.L.S. No. 924. North Arm Lane shoulu be reconstructed to a minimum paved width of 28 feet to meet current City standards for a private street serving 3 to iO units. A cul-ae-sac should be constructed at the north end of Lot 1 to provide room for emergency vehicle turning movements. We recommend that the southerly end of North Arm Lane be realigned so the roadway does not encroach on neighboring properties. The intersection of North Arm Drive and North Arm Lane should be realigned to be as close to perpendicular as possible. An additional 8.5 feet of right-of-way should be acquired along the east side of Lots 1 and 2. Right-of- way should also be acquired to allow for cul-de-sac construction on the north end and the intersection realignment on die so'jii' end. <ar.d spcciricatlcns for North Arm Uane improvements should be piovided foi leview. 2. Gratli :g: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion co.U ’.o! measures sliould be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the east and north property lines of Lc- i. Additional e. F.^ n control will be needed during construction of the house and septic system. 3. Drainage: Tlie draft vereicn ot the City ’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site drains eMierly to an existing wetland identified as NA-P2. The SWMP has classified NA-P2 as a morteratply susceptible v''etland. Phosphorous loadings leaving the site should be limited to a maximum of 0.28 pburid^acre/ycar. We also recommend that a ponding area be constructed to provide water quality, rate* contrbi dnd nutrient rem.oval of storm water leaving the site. An existing depression in the southeast comer of Lot I may provide a natural location for such a pond. A majority of the site eui.-enfiy dmrii.s lo Mie depression and then easterly through an existing culvert under North Arm Lane. A -Jiainavc u:ea mnp and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 - Fax: 612-636-1311 J! 4. Easements: Final platting should include 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way for North Arm Drive. 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. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 5. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the 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. /07y] Tom Kellogg' Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono •! I RUN DATE 02/EV9a HEhWEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM 1998 TAX BOOK S8 ORONO REPORT NO. PIA33401 OHNER TAXPAYER NAME/ADDRESS METES AND BOUNDS MORT CODE/LOAN i ESCROK NAME/ADDRESS ADDITION NAME LOT DLK PUT PARCEL PROPERTY I.D. ACREAGE SCH NTR SEN PROPERTY ADDRESS SN TNP RG QQ SUFX DST SHO DST R H ARMSTRONG ETAL JEAN T ARMSTRONG 235 NORTH ARM LANE HOUND MN 55364 UNPLATTED 06 117 23 000.65 277 3 38 STATUS: CURRENT SEC-HMSTD REF ID 06-117-23 24 0001 41306 7400 06-117-23 24 0003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CONSTRUCTION YEAR E 33 FT OF H 313 FT OF S 854.5 FT OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 TAXABLE MARKET 400 QUALIFYING AMT NET TAX CAPACITY . 7 FD SHARED TC FD AREA RATE IF PROJ AMT IF PROJECT NO. .00 00000000 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S TAX LEVY/DESCRIPTION HMSTDPRTYP RATE OVER-IO-AC GROSS TAX H LR 120.9460 MARKET VALUE TAX STATE PAID AID SOLID HASTE FEE .08564 38.1490 TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID AMOUNT 11.46 .34 2.67CR .07 8.66 .00 LAND 400 BLDG MACH OWN/ 1 00 BASEl BASE2 NHBASE NON-HMST 7 AMT UNPAID 8.86 OWNER TAXPAYER name/address METES AND BOUNDS MORT CODE/LOAN f ESCROW NAME/ADDRESS ADDITION NAME ACREAGE SCH WTR SEW DST SHD DST LOT BLK PROPERTY ADDRESS PUT PARCEL PROPERTY I.D. SN TWP R6 QQ SUFX B L I J R HAGLUND BARRY L A JANICE R HAGLUND 4590 NORTH ARM OR W MOUND MN 55364 N 280 FT OF S 854.5 FT OF THE SE 1/4 UNPLATTED 06 117 23 005.35 277 3 STATUS: CURRENT 4590 41306 4810 06-117-23 24 0006 NORTH ARM DR H CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1926 OF NW 1/4 EXCEPT ROAD TAXABLE MARKET 148>000 NET TAX CAPACITY 2»101 IF PROJ AMT IMPROVE AMT TAX LEVY/DESCRIPTION GROSS TAX MARKET VALUE TAX ’STATE PAID AID EDUC HMSTD CR SOLID HASTE FEE QUALIFYING AMT FD SHARED TC FD AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. QUAL IMPROVE AMT 2»442.81 00000000 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S 25»000 HMSTDPRTYP RATE H R 120.9460 .08564 38.1490 12.2330 TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID AMOUNT 3>469.32 126.74 801.51CR 225.00CR 27.23 2»470.04 .00 LAND 88»500 BLDG 84,500 MACH OWNX BASEl BASE2 NHBASE NQN-HmT 1 00 750 740 611 AMT UNPAID 2,470.04 OHNER TAXPAYER NAME/ADDRESS METES AND BOUNDS MORT CODE/LOAN 8 ESCROW NAME/ADDRESS ADDITION NAME ACREAGE SCH WTR SEW DST SHD DST LOT BLK PROPERTY ADDRESS PLAT PARCEL PROPERTY I.D. SN TWP RG QQ SUFX # 1 MINUTES OP THE PLACING COMMISSION WEl^TING FEBRUARY 20, 1990 T ' 2- ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. . w v The Orono Planning^GDnunissi9n met on the above date with the following members pres^tr/ Chairman Kelley; Planning Commissioners Cohen# Hanson)s<^el lows and Brown. The following represented the City staf£/^BuiIding 6 Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning & Zoi^ing Administrator Gaffron City Recorder Scheff ler. ycouncil ^presentative Goetten attended and Counoilmember Calla^n was also present. , . ..r,Z, COu:^ #1490 K-P PROPERTIES t ' 340/350 NORTH ARM LANE . PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT OT PUBLIC HEARING 7:04 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. , The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Don Peterson and his partner was present for this Public Hearing. Mr. Peterson said that he had a purchase agreement for Lot 1 contingent upon there being a satisfactory solution the septic system. He said that this is a one-time opportunity to develop both lots to the full potential. He requested that the lot line rearrangement be approved without the additional 17' of right-of-way being dedicated. He said there was already 33 granted by the property owner to the north in 1925. No further right-of-way was reserved and he understands that the City would like to have 50’ of right-of-way. Mr. Peterson said that he would have no objection to the additional right-of-way, but it will interfere with the septic system. Peterson said he had talked with the property owners on the west side of North Arm Lane regarding subdivision of their property. They could dedicate 17' of right-of-way when they subdivide, but they are not interested in subdividing at this time. Chairman Kelley asked how far down North Arm Drive City sewer extends. Mabusth indicated the location on the map. Planning Commissioner Cohen asked how wide North Arm Lane is? Mabusth replied that it is 33' wide and the City is maintaining the roadway. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked how a determination is made in regard to which roads the City ma:..itains. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1990 #1490 K-P PROPERTIES CONT. Mabusth said that she was not aware of a policy regarding public maintenance of roads privately owned. Mabusth noted that at the sketch plan review of this matter, it was suggested that the right-of-way shown came from the east property. That theory has been disproved by the City Attorney. The road was previously known as County Road 43 or Town Road, and was vacated. The specific road corridor was created by foi ler owner, who owned all of the land in the area, for access to North Arm Drive. Mabusth also informed the Planning Commision that North Arm Lane does not directly intersect with North Arm Drive. There is a private property area over which everyone must have an easement in order to access their properties. The City, by maintaining the road for many years, would now define the road as a public road. Kelley asked whether the City would take right-of-way from the west side at the time of subdivision if it obtains additional right-of-way from the east side? Mabusth replied that the City will acquire enough width to make up a 50' right-of-way. Bellows noted that taking the right-of-way from the east side will not render the lot unbuildable, it will only limit the size of house that can be built. Kelley noted that the Planning Commission is also being asked to recommend approval of a 62% lot width variance for Lot 2. Bellows asked if taking 8.5' of right-of-way from the east side would still impact the septic site? Gaffron replied that there is no leeway at all. Hanson asked whether it would be possible for Mr. Peterson to obtain additional property? Mabusth replied that Mr. Peterson has tried to work with an adjacent property owner to no avail. Mr. Peterson explained that should that property owner agree to provide additional land to him, it may jeopardize their potential future septic sites. Mr. Mark Larson, 366 North Arm Lane, asked how the City came to own North Arm Lane? MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1990 #1490 K-P PROPERTIES CONT. Mr. Peterson replied that there was a legal opinion that stated if the City maintains a road for more than six years, it is considered City right-of-way. He said that the City Public Works Director had indicated that the City has maintained North Arm Lane for 21 years. Mr. Laverne Dunsmore, 420 North Arm Drive, was concerned about the City's claim to the road. He said that he has the smallest lot along that road and does not want to see the road widened because it will severely impact his property. Mabusth replied that more than likely the City will not ask for any additional right-of-way from his property. Mr. Dunsmore said that due to the Lakeview Golf Course Clubhouse being located at that intersection, cars currently park on the road. He is afraid that parking will increase if the road is widened. He said he is not opposed to the building of new homes, but objects to the widening of the road. Mr. Rod Backerud, 360 North Arm Lane, concurred with Mr. Dunsmore. Kelley asked Mr. Backerud if he would like to have the City continue to maintain North Arm Lane? Mr. Backerud replied that he did not think that the land owners along North Arm Lane would object to maintaining the road themselves. Mr. Roscoe Smith, 370 North Arm Lane, said that he is opposed to the additional right-of-way because it will have an impact on the mature maple trees and landscaping on his property. Cohen asked whether North Arm Lane would have to be 50' if the City continues to maintain it. Mabusth said there had been informal discussions regarding the maximum of right-of-way that would be needed to maintain the public roadway and whether the 33' would be sufficient. She said, however, that would not be in keeping with City policy. She added that North Arm Lane may be an important link when looking at an overall transportation system. Bellows said that the City has to initiate a strict policy regarding roads. Mr. Dick Armstrong, said that his mother owns North Arm Lane. He said that he would not object to the additional right- of-way being taken provided that it is taken from both sides of the road. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1990 #1490 K-P PROPERTIES CONT. Mr. Paul Larson, realtor for Katherine Axel, seller of Lot 1, hoped that the Council would approve the present proposal because taking the additional right-of-way from the east would reduce the value of Lot 1 substantially. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Hanson, to recommend denial of the lot line rearrangement because of the severe lot width variance being requested. Hanson asked what a possible solution to this situation may be? Kelley replied that the northern lot can only sustain a two bedroom home. Mr. Peterson said if the lot line rearrangement is approved with the taking of the 17 additional feet of right-of-way, he will with draw his application. Motion, Ayes-4, Brown-Nay. Motion passed. #1495 ROD JOHNSON 3740 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:37 P.M. TO 7:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Johnson was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided information to the Planning Commission regarding this application for a preliminary subdivision. Mabusth noted that she has not receiv e confirmation from the State Highway Department regarding Highway 12 right-of-way. Kelley said Parcel B would have a conditional use permit with no principal structure. Mabusth said that is correct, a principal structure is not required. The Conditional Use is permitted for property owners of vacant lands. Mabusth said the only concern she has with Parcel B is that an access has not been defined. Mr. Johnson said that Parcel B is not accessed from Highway 12, but rather County Road 6 where there is an existing farm exit. Mabusth said that Hennepin County should review that access. Kelley said that he would prefer to table this application so that he can review the proposed access. V To: From: Date: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 11,1998 Subject: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment - MUSA Boundaiy’ List of Exhibits A - Notice of Public Hearing B - Informal Letter of Request to Met Council Staff 4-7-98 C - Map: Existing MUSA D - Proposed MUSA Additions Discussion The City Council has directed that staff proceed to make an application to Met Council for expansion of the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) to include areas northeast of Maxwell Bay. The attached letter to Tom Caswell at Met Council provides details as to the City's motivation to expand the MUSA, in order that sewer might be provided to serve existing and proposed developments within the Shoreland District. Exhibits C and D show the existing MUSA boundary and the areas proposed to be included. The intent of the letter to M’* Caswell was to get a sense of whether Met Council staff might recommend approval of such an amendment, and what related or unrelated conditions they might attach to it. The verbal response we have received is that because this is intended to allow sewering of lakeshore areas, they will support the request. However, Met Council views Orono's 2-acre and 5-acre zoning as inefficient use of land that ultimately results in premature extension of the metro sewer system (because efficient high-density development will leap-frog past Orono to the next tier of developing areas and be more difficult and expensive to serve). For this reason, and for all the other reasons that high-density residential housing is being promoted by Met Couiicil (affordability, life-cycle options, etc.) Met Council staff has suggested we should identify how we are accomodating other types of higher density housing types in other areas of the City. Staff will identify all areas where this type of development is possible in Orono. However, the lack of services and high costs of land tend to make the creation of new affordable housing difficult in Orono. Process The public hearing is the first step in tlic process for completing a Comprehensive Plan amendment to revise the MUSA. Once Planning Commission has completed the Public Hearing ^d recommended approval, a Resolution will be presented to the City Council for conditional adoption of the amendment subject to Met Council approval. The proposed amendment will be submitted to the Met Council on their standard forms widi supporting information, and also submitted to adjacent municipalities for comment. Once Met Council has approved the amendment, the City can formally MUSA Amendment May 11.1998 Page 2 adopt it by resolution. Note that this application is separate from the Comprehensive Plan update required of metro-area cities by the end of 1998. That update is proceeding at a snail's pace in Orono due to staff workload constraints which we expect will be eased soon with the addition of a third fulltime staff person in the Planning/Zoning department. Staff Recommendation Review the proposed amendment to the MUSA boundaiy, and advise staff of any issues that should be addressed prior to the public hearing on May 18. j CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parlovay, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, May 18, 1998 on the matter of a proposed amendment of the Orono Community Management Plan (Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan) to include certain properties within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Such inclusion will allow the provision of municipal sewer to the included properties in the future. No schedule has been established for the actual provision of municipal sewers, and no assessments are proposed or pending at this time. The affected properties are generally located along the northeast shore of Maxwell Bay and the southeast shore of Stubbs Bay, Lake Minnetonka, bounded on the east and north by County Road 84 (Old Crystal Bay Road South and Fox Street). The meeting begins at 6t30. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this meeting. Written comments are solicited. A map of the area proposed for inclusion in the MUSA is available in the City offices for review. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator To be published the week of May 2,1998. CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Tom Caswell, Senior Planner Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Potential MUSA Amendment Dear Mr. Caswell: We recently discussed a potential MUSA amendment to allow the provision of sewer to an additional area in Orono. As you know, since 1962 Orono has made a concerted effort to bring sewer to its nearly 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline. The many bays of Lake Minnetonka are separated by wooded hiMs which historically have developed residentially, and a high percentage of Orono's population res'des in the defined Shoreland district, within 1000 feet of the Lake. One of the few shoreland areas remaining to be sewered is the northeast shore of Maxwell Bay. This stretch of shoreline, including the southeast comer of Stubbs Bay, is approximately 1.2 miles in length. This area has to date developed at relatively low densities, ranging from 1 unit per 2 acres to 1 unit per 10 acres. The current average lot width along the shoreline is about 400'. The entire stretch is zoned for 2-acre minimum lot size and is not currently within the MUSA. There is an e.xisting residential subdivision that takes up a significant portion of this lakeshore area. The subdivision was developed at 2-acre density in the late 1970's. At that tune the City's septic system management program was just getting started, and the level of expertise in the on-site industry regarding soil conditions as they relate to septic sites was not well developed. The septic systems installed within this subdivision may not have the longevity of current mound systems, and the adequacy of the alternate drainfleld sites is not assured. It would be prudent to plan ahead for the potential need to provide this subdivision with sewer. The City is currently reviewing a proposed 7-lot residential plat of a 17-acre parcel at the east end of Maxwell Bay. This portion of the Bay, which includes the undeveloped portion of Noerenberg Park, is one of the most pristine areas on the lake.. The parcel to be subdivided has retained its Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Tom Caswell April 7,1998 Page 2 natural character with an undisturbed wooded shoreline. The developer is committed to preserving this natural character and is proposing a 7-lot subdivision served by on-site septic systems. As the City Council reviewed this subdivision proposal, discussion focused on preservation and protection of the natural features of the site and the bay, and on the City's ongoing plan to protect the lake by providing sewer to the lakeshore area. This discussion lead to the suggestion that, as sewer is available in the road adjacent to the property ’, it would make sense to provide this subdivision w'ith sewer to minimize the impact of the development on the property, and to fully protect the lakeshore. The first step in providing sewer to serve the proposed subdivision is for the City to pursue a MUSA amendment for this property. The City Council also suggested that staff explore whether Met Council would consider allowing the remaining shoreline of Maxwell Bay to be brought into the MUSA (see attached maps A and B). While we currently have no plans or schedule for expansion of the sewer system to serv'e this area, the ability to provide sewer to existing and future lakeshore development would seem to make sense. Please discuss this with the appropriate staff people and let me know what the Met Council's response would be to providing sewer to the currently proposed development, and whether expansion of the MUSA in the area outlined on map B is feasible. The MUSA expansion would not change the City's overall vision for development in this lakeshore area. The availability of sew er would facilitate the protection and preservation of the lake and the lakeshore. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If this appears to be reasonable, please forward the current MUSA amendment application format and w'e will proceed accordingly. Sincerely,bmcereiy, /y Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator end. cc:Ron Moorse, City Administrator Greg Gappa, Public Services Director Mayor and City Council To; From: Date: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. GafTron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 7,1998 Subject: Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.55 Subd. 15A(3) Code Section:Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management - Subd. 15: Land Development and Platting - A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements - (3) Area credit for 'flood fringe' in sewered areas Proposed Amendment:Eliminate the ability to credit wetland acreage toward development density in sewered areas. Background In early April Council requested that staff provide background on tlie current Code standards allow ing use of wetlands as creditable lot area for developing sewered properties. This eredit has apparently come into play in a relatively small number of past zoning applications; two very recent ones (Brook Park Realty and Touve/Olsen); and an upcoming sketch plan review (Valerius, re: former John Burger property on Stubbs Bay). The basic premise is that for sew'ered property, the Zoning Code has allowed some wetland to be credited tow’ard the minimum lot area and/or density requirements. This credit has apparently been applied to a relatively small number of new subdivisions and perhaps to a few existing lots of record. This credit has not been widely used since it came into effect in 1970, and staff has not attempted to identify which subdivisions or properties have been granted the credit in the past. The primary concern bringing this issue to the forefront at this time is that properties in the newly sewered (mostly since 1980) portions of the 2-acre zone might w’ant to claim the wetland credit for density purposes. For example, a now-sewered 4 acre lot with 3 acres dry and 1 acre wet, which under the normal 2-acre zone standards would not be subdi\ idable, could now' claim eligibility for a 1-acre wetland credit and propose a subdivision to create two lots, each w'ith 1-1/2 acre of dr>' and 1/2 acre of wetland. This was not the Council's intent when providing sew er to the 2-acre zone to solve septic problems. Council has also indicated that the use of the wetland credit in the 1/2 and 1-acre zones does not seem to match their current view on the subject of development density, and has directed stafT to prepare a zoning code amendment to eliminate the w’etland credit entirely. Wetland Credit Zoning Amendment May 7, 1998 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Draft Amendment B - Subdivision Code: Definitions of "Dry Buildable Land" and "Minimum Lot Area" C - Subdivision Code: Section 11.31, Subd. 3 "Lot Area, Minimum" D - Zoning Code: Floodplain and Wetlands Management: Section 10.55, Subd. 15: "Land Development and Platting: A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements" E - Section 10.55: Definitions of "Flood Fringe", "Floodplain" and "Floodway"; and Definitions of "Floodway District", "Flood Fringe District" and "General Floodplain District". F - Zoning Code: Definition of "Lot Area" G - Sections 31.840 and 31.841 of 1970 Wetland Ordinance #125 H - Discussion of Related Code Issues Authorizing Code Section The current authority for granting wetland credit is in the Floodplain and Wetlands Management ordinance, adopted as Ordinance #213 in 1979 and recodified in 1984 as Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (Exhibit D). However, similar language granting such a credit is found in Orono's 1970 wetland ordinance, Ordinance #125 (Exhibit G). Current Wetland Credit Provisions The provisions regarding use of the wetland credit are in Section 10.55, Subd. 15 (A)(3), which limits the credit as follows: limited to "residential properties served by municipal sanitar>’ sewer" (staff interprets this to mean properties which have been assessed for and provided with sewer; inclusion in the MUSA does not necessarily mean a property is served by sewer; a large property assessed for one sewer unit is not necessarily 'served by sewer' to accomodate a subdivision unless the City chooses to grant additional units) limits it to credit for Flood Fringe lands, which include: a. The area between the OHWL and the 100-year flood elevation on all lakes, ponds and streams (for Lake Minnetonka the flood fringe would be all areas between the 929.4' and 931.5' contours); and All designated sheet flow areas, intermittent streams, and ponding areas; and All lands containing soil types classified as wetlands soils, whether or not there is water standing on them at any given time. b. c. t ^ Wetland Credit Zoning Amendment May 7, 1998 Page 3 - credited area may be used as part of the required minimum lot area for purposes of complying with the land use density, open space, building-unit-to-land-area ratios or similar requirements of the land development and zoning code provisions - creditable Flood Prince area shall not exceed the area of land which 'otherwise qualified for development' (i.e. if site has 3/4 acre of dr>' buildable, can only take credit for 3/4 acre of wetland) granting of credit conditioned on dedication of the appropriate Conservation and Flow'age or Open Space casements over the areas used for credit. It should be noted that we have historically credited the Flood Fringe area between the 929.4' and 931.5' for lakeshore lots on Lake Minnetonka, perhaps without acknowledging this credit specifically. This becomes critical when wording a revision of the current ordinance. Original Justifleations for Wetland Credit A review of Council and Planning Commission minutes from 1970 provides no clues as to the reason the credit was originally established. Howc\ er, the 1980 Comprehensive Plan in the Land Use section, p. CMP 4-28, under the heading "Rural Land Use" states in part that "Orono's rural residential density will not be increased to less than one dwelling per two dry-buildable acres because of the potentially adverse environmental impact and because of the increased need for costly urban services." The crediting of wetland acreage toward the 2-acre dry buildable standard would appear to be in conflict with this Comprehensive Plan statement. A direct connection between wetland credit and availability of sewer is somewhat difficult to understand. If one acre of wetland and one acre of dry land in a 1-acre zone can constitute two building sites, why shouldn't two acres of wetland and two acres of dry land in a 2-acre zone constitute two building sites? If the City's goal in 1970 was to ensure that septic needs are met, that goal is to a great extent satisfied by merely requiring that primary and alternate drainfield sites be provided. If the goal was to preserve more open space in the defined rural zones (2-acre and 5-acre), the credit should only be applicable to the 1/2-acrc and 1-acre zones, which were redefined in 1975 to include primarily the areas near Lake Minnetonka which were historically developed at 'urban' densities. If the goal of granting credit for wetlands was to provide some incentives for their preservation, the regulatory climate of the 1990's has made wetland preservation the norm rather than an oddity. Wetland Credit Zoning Amendment May 7, 1998 Page 4 If the goal was to allow a higher degree of development on sewered properties with weilands to help justify urban single family lot size minimums of 1/2 acre and 1 acre when the urban norm was 1/4 or 1/3 acre, then the credit may provide some relief to a property that might otherwise be unbuildable or not subdividable. Yet, this would in some cases conflict with the subdivision code definition of Minimum Lot Area as noted above. Will this amendment result in further density limitations that make it even more difficult for any developer to provide a range of housing altemati'. es (affordable, life-cycle, etc.) in Oreno's environment of high-priced land? Conformity Status of Previously Credited Properties Some properties which are conforming as to lot area under the current code will become non- conforming under the proposed revision. The amendment is worded such that all properties which have been granted wetland credit towards lot area or density in the past would henceforth be considered as 'legal nonconforming’. However, new subdivisions created after adoption of this amendment shall not be granted the wetland credit, and only those existing undeveloped lots of record which were specifically granted the wetland credit previously, maj use the wetland credit henceforth. It is possible that vacant lots created using the wetland credit arc still remaining to be built on; the intent is that those lots do not require a lot area variance merely as a result of this ordinance. Note that staff has not attempted to search through the nearly 30 years worth of subdivisions and building permits which might have taken advantage of the credit, as this would take a significant amount of effort. Proposed Amendment The attached proposed amendment eliminates the crediting of wetlands toward density credit, but continues to allow the crediting of flood fringe lands for lakeshore properties when such flood fringe is not wetland. This would then allow the continued lot area credit for the area between the 929.4' OHWL and tlic 931.5' 100-year Flood Elevation on Lake Minnetonka, for instance, but only if that area does not meet the definition of wetland. The proposed amendment also accomplishes the following; 1.Declares that all properties that were formally granted the wetland credit in the past will henceforth be considered as legally nonconfonning. 2. Allows wetlands to be credited toward the extra 50% area requirement for back lots. Wetland Credit Zoning Amendment May 7,1998 Page 5 Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review the reasoning behind the current wetland credit, and detenninc whether eliminating the credit as proposed will have any unwanted impacts. If Planning Commission concludes that the wetland credit is no longer appropriate and no longer furthers any definable City goals, then a recommendation for adoption would be in order. ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES /A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 15(A) REGARDING USE OF WETLANDS FOR DEVELOPMENT DENSITY CREDIT The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 15, is hereby amended as follows: A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements. The minimum lot area requirements of this Chapter shall be interpreted to mean that all of the required land area for each building site shall be in one contiguous parcel undivided by Floodway or Flood Fringe and no land within the protected area shall be included in determination of minimum lot area, except as specifically provided for herein: I. For properties not ser\ ed by municipal sanitary sew’er, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least 2.0 acres of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. 2. For properties serv'ed by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. —For residential properties served by municipal-sanitary scwcf a limited density credit may be allowcd -for-mclusion of Flood Fringe lands as part of the required minimum lot area for purposes of complying with the-land-usc dcnsit>', open space, building unit to land-area ratios or other similar requirements of the-land development and zoning-provisions.- The owner or devclopcr-ofsuch propcrty will be credited with an amount of-his land -within the Flood Fringe equal-to, but not exceeding, the amount of his adjacent land whidvotherwise-quQltficd-for development under this Chapter. Such credit shall be conditioned upon dedication of perpetual open space and flowagc-easemcnte-to thc^ity over all protcctcd-arcas so utiliecd for density eredih Page 1 of2 3. For properties abutting a classified Public Water as identified elsewhere in the Zoning Code, for purposes ofcomplvirui with minimum lot area requirements, an area credit will be allowed for land within the Flood Fringe ahutting the Public Water when such Flood Fringe land is not wetland. 4. All properties which were granted lot area credit or development density credit for wetlands as part of a subdivision, lot area variance, building permit approval or other City approval process under prior City ordinances tspccificallv Ordinance #125 adopted December 28. 1970: Ordinance #213 adopted October 26. 1978: and Ordinance No. 1. Second Series adopted March 12. 1984> shall be considered as lepallv nonconforming as to lot area or density per such original approval. After the effective date of this Ordinance (________. 1998X wetlands shall not be credited toward minimum lot area requirements or for purposes of complying with anv land use density, open space, building unit to land area ratios, or other similar reqnhements of the land development and zoning provisions. except that wetlands mav be allowed as area credit for meeting the 150% back lot area requirement as long as the back lot contains sufficient dr\‘ buildable land to satisfV the minimum acreage requirement of the underlying zoning district. Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. a vote of Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 26lh day of May, 1998 by _aycs and _____nays. ATTEST Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 2 of 2 SuiL7>\VlSM 14. "Dry BuildablG Land** — Land area occurring within the property lines of a parcel or lot, excluding: drainageways, flowage areas, floodplains, wetlands, marshland or slopes of 18% or greater. 24. "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water or areas at or below the flood plain elevation for a specific property. All rural lots must comply with the City's on-site septic system provisions of the City Code. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chaptc-r of the City Code or half-acre, whichever is less, (exclusive-of public and private rights-of-way,, vehicular or pedestrian ease ments, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the flood plain eleva tion for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or flood plain area. c SrrAf^dAf^ ^<>^T!oh^ //i ^ /, ^ 3^ Subd. 3. Lot Area, Minimum. The minimum area requirements for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. The lot area must also comply with the on-site septic system provisions of the City Code. Public and private rights-of-way, or vehicular or pedestrian easements, or surface areas below the ordinary high-water mark of any surface water or wetlands or flood plain areas may not be used in order to meet any portion of the minimum lot area requirements. J !> (^eCTJO/^' /^J Subd. 15. Land Development and Platting. No part of any lot within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area shall be platted for residential occupancy or for other uses which will increase the danger to health, life, property or the public welfare. All lots containing land within the flood plain districts shall contain a building site above the regulatory flood protection elevation. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this Section and have road access no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Whenever a portion of the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area is located within or adjoins a land area that is being subdivided, the subdivider shall dedicate to the City an adequate perpetual easement over the land within the protected area and along each side of such area for the purpose of improving or protecting the area for drainage or other purposes expressed in this Section and other recreational uses, as determined by the Council. Public or private streets, driveways, drainage openings and culverts shall not be constructed unless the design thereof has been approved by the City, and such structures shall be designed so as not to restrict the flow of water. Subdivision applicants shall provide all certified engineering data, surveys, site plans, flowage calculations and other information as the City may require in order to determine the effects of such development on the affected land and water areas. A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements. The minimum lot area requirements of this Chapter shall be interpreted to mean that all of the required land area for each building site shall be in one contiguous parcel undivided by Floodway or Flood Fringe and no land within the protected area shall be included in determination of minimum lot area, except as specifically provided for herein: 1. For properties not served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least 2.0 acres of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. 2. For properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building sits without encroachment on the protected area. 3. For residential properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, a limited density credit may be allowed for inclusion of Flood Fringe lands as part of the required minimum lot area for purposes of complying with the land use density, open space, building unit to land area ratios or other similar requirements of the land development and zoning provisions. The owner or developer of such property will be credited with an amount of his land within the Flood Fringe equal to, but not exceeding, the amount of his adjacent land which otherwise qualified for development under this Chapter. Such credit shall be conditioned upon dedication of perpetual open space and flowage easements to the City over all protected areas so utilized for density credit. Ce>bk£T 4 t/\3-BTtA^t>^ ^\AA^^r(^4My^-j-’ Z>CT=/AjiT70AiS A^J^> C>jiT7J.\Cr^.. 3 3. "Flood Fringe" - That portion of the flood plain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study. 4. "Flood Plain" ~ The areas adjoining a watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. "Floodway" - The channel of the watercourse and those portions or the adjoining flood plains which are reasonably required to carry and discharge the regional flood. Subd. 4. Definition and Establishment of Protected Areas. The "Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area", hereinafter referred to as the protected area, is defined and established to be the low areas and flood plain adjoining and including any watercourse or drainage way or body of water subject to periodic flooding or overflow. These areas are divided into the following three protected area districts: A. Floodway District (FW) - The Floodway District shall include those areas designated as floodway in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the surface and shoreline of Lake Minnetonka below elevation 929.4 MSL, the surface and shoreline of other lakes, .'onds and wetlands below the ordinary highwater elevation, and the Designated floodway of all streams and flowage areas. B. Flood Fringe District (FFD) - The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka between elevations 929.4 MSL and 931.5 MSL, the area between the floodway and the edge of the 100-year flood on all other lakes, ponds and streams, all designated sheet flow areas, all intermittent streams, and ponding areas and all lands containing soil types classified as wetlands soils (defined herein), whether or not there is water standing on those soils at any given time. C. General Flood Plain District (GFP) - The General Flood Plain District shall include those areas studied by approximate methods and designated as unnumbered A Zones by the Flood Insurance Rate Map. GFP areas may include both Flood Way and Flood Fringe areas. Development of lands containing designated GFP areas shall be contingent upon submittal by the developer of topographic data (at contour intervals of no greater than two feet) and/or other engineering analysis sufficient for the City to determine the actual extent of the Flood Way and/or the Flood Fringe. Upon such determination, the restrictions of the FW and FFD Districts shall apply. 34. "Lot Area" - The area of a lot in a horizontal plane bounded by the lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of a duly recorded lake or river or area frequently under water which serves as a watercourse draining higher land on which sustains emergent aquatic growth or area v/hich has been dedicated as public right-of-way. 1 1^70 ^ I (e^eiU>T% i?^^^yn,\s\^ Yo (Aj^nvMS^ c^tetai^ & "31.840. Land Development and Platting. No part of any lot v.’ithin tha Flood Plain and '7etlands Conservation Area shall be platted for residential occupancy or for other uses v/hich v/ill increase the danger to health, life, property or the public v/el- fare. VJhenever a portion of the Flood Plain and Net- lands Conservation Area is located v/ithin or adjoins a land area that is being subdivided, the subdivider shall dedicate an adequate easement over the land • V7ithin the protected area and along each side of such area for the purpose of improving or protecting- the area for drainage or other purposes expressed in this ordinance and other recreational uses. Public or private streets, drivev;ays, drainage openings ^and culverts shall not be constructed unless the cesign thereof has been approved by the Village, and such structures shall be designed so as not to restrict ^ the flov7 of water. "31.841. Limited Credit Allowed. V?hen land .to be developed is connected to a public sanitary s.e’^®^ line and includes land v.'ithin the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area, the ovmer or developer thereof will be credited vzith an amount of hio land within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area eoual to but not exceeding the amount of his adjacent I'and V7hich otherv;ise qualifies for development under these ordinances for purposes of complying v;ith the land use density, open space, building unit to land area ratios or other similar requirements of the land development and zoning ordinances of the Village except for requirements for recreational uses. H Discussion - Related Code Section - Dry Buildabic Contiguit>’ Section 10.55 Subd. 15 (A)(2) allows the minimum area of a sewered lot to be 'divided' by Flood Fringe land, i.e. to have non-contiguous pieces of buildable land separated by a Flood Fringe area, as long as the proposed building site has at least 1/2 acre of contiguous otherwise buildable land and has legal access to the building site without encroaching the Flood Fringe lands. For example, in a l-acre zone, 0.6 acres of dry land on one side of a stream or wetland and 0.4 acres on the other side, could constitute a legal lot if the 0.6 acre side is the building site and has legal access. This example begs the following question: Q. Under the current code, if an existing 1/2 acre lot in a 1/2 acre sewered zone has sewer available and consists of 1/4 acre of dry buildable and 1/4 acre of wetland, and the dr>’ buildable is contiguous (sa> the wetland is in the middle with dry land all around it)... does this lot meet the 1/2 acre area requirement? A. With the current zoning code wording, I think it probably does. However, staff has long perceived that the intent of the code was that even with Flood Fringe credit, the area of actual dry buildable must not fall below 1/2 acre for a conforming lot. This is because the subdivision code definition of Minimum Lot Area (Exhibit C) states that: "In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dr>- buildable land equal to the minimum areas prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code or half-acre, whichever is less, (exclusive of public and private rights-of- way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the OHIV of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the floodplain elevation for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or floodplain area". This wording points out a conflict noted below, but also suggests that any lots being created via subdivision could not have less than a half-acre of dry buildable. Conflict Behveen Code Sections The subdivision code. Section 11.31, Subd. 3 "Lot Area, Minimum" states distinctly that "surface areas below the OHW of any surface water or wetlands or floodplain areas may not be used in order to meet any portion of the minimum lot area requirements". This wording suggests that the Flood Fringe portion of a wetland is creditable, i.e. the area between its OHW and its 100-year flood elevation. This conflicts with the w ording in 10.55 which defines the entire area of a wetland as Flood Fringe, not just the portion of it below its OHW elevation. The City has never defined the OHW of its w'etlands, and staff has always treated the entire area of a wetland as its creditable area when using this section of code, rather than just the donut-shaped border area between the OHW and 100-year To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 14, 1998 #2361 William & LaWayne Yaeger, 310 Big Island - After-the fact Variances - Public Hearing This is a request for afler-the-fact variances to allow construction of a cabin on Big Island. The Hearing Notice was published in anticipation of receipt of a survey which was to be completed shortly after the ice went out. No survey has been received as of today, hence staff has notified the applicants and the listed neighboring property owners that this item will be tabled to the June 15 Planning Commission meeting. Proposed Motion Moved by_, seconded by_, to table item # 2361 to the June 15 meeting. Vote:_^ayes,__^nays. I-; 7 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 13, 1998 SUBJECT: #2364 John & Joan Serena 4605 Watertown Road Conditional Use-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1A One Family Rural Residential District (5 Acres) Lot Area:7.0164 Application: The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to convert the former house at 4607 Watertown Road into a pool house. Additions that were made to the structure have been removed. The previous exterior facade has been removed. The applicants propose to reside the building with the same materials as the principal residence. The proposed pool house would have plumbing and heating. For the purposes of this application, the pool house is classified as a guest house. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.02, Subd. 1 Definition of Accessory Use or Structure Section 10.02, Subd. 28 Definition of Guest House Section 10.03, Subd. 7 One Building Per Lot Section 10.03, Subd. 9 Location Section 10.03, Subd. 11 Dwelling Use Prohibited Section 10.03, Subd. 12 Crowding Principal Structures #2363 John & Joan Serena 4605 Watertown Road Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page-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 pool house is considered a "guest house" for the purposes of zoning regulation. It is located on a lot that exceeds minimum lot size requirements. It will be architecturally compatible with the principal structure. The proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the Comp Plan. 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 pool house will be remodeled to meet all current building code requirements. The structure will have plumbing and heating. It will not have a detrimental effect on adjacent properties. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The footprint of the buildings is 41 '4"x 24'6". The height of the guest house is less than the principal residence. The pool house is also more than 10'from the house. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit for a guest house to be used as a pool house to include plumbing and heating provided that the structure will be maintained and used as a pool house for the sole use of the occupants, including domestic employees, or their non-paying guests, of the primary dwelling. Attachments A B C D E F Application Plat Map Topo Map Survey Permit Record Plan H2363 John <S Joan Serena 4605 Watertown Road DateofP.C. May 18, 1998 page-2 w r u im T \Si'' ST 25 Application ft Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) I f j "7 APPLICANT Name -i _________ Address z^C>5 City PiAtKj Zip Phone (home) t^fZ,»»<^■^’2. Phone (work)_________u________ 0\VNER (if different than applicant) Name ______________ Phone (home) Phone (\vork)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired____<9l - I (do) (de-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.) 7<. $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ___$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ___$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ___$250.00 Land Alteration _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee 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 V. i ') g) w\i t' 4 "4’'==^ M REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. y Completed Application Form. 2. ____ Describe request in detail. 3. y. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and rnap from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government CenteiC^8-327^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licenseS^lurveyor) - refer to handout for sur\ey 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). )C List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). )( Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ____ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17 ’ OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: ___Date__________________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s signature Date 1 ♦ OWNER’S SIGNAT The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members /^T^rposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature Date Applicant must have all sGmnittals 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 alt 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. John Scrcna 4605 Watertown road MAPLE PLAIN, MN 55358-9681 012-440-80S2/FAX-440-021S Internet : ooc @sbc -mn .com 5 May, 1998 Liz Van Zomeran City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55359 Dear Ms. Van Zomeran I am in receipt of your letter of 01, May 98 and I hope the included information addresses all your concerns. We intend to use the building as a pool house; it borders the pool apron and will have bathroom and changing facilities, as well as a spa and wet bar. The building will have plumbing and heat; plumbing is necessary for the pool filters and heater as well as shower and lavatory. Heat will eliminate the need to shut down and drain the facility should the threat of an early freeze occur. The roof and exterior walls were stripped during demolition of the two additions, the renovated original structure will be finished with hand spilt cedar shake to match the main house. The lot area of each parcel should be on the survey I foiAvarded with die application; however, 4605 is five (5) acres, and 4607 is 2.0164 acres. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for your continued cooperation. F. Serena JFS/ss 1019.2 5 It? O o •• % \ • • • • ~7 /^cCtcJ PERMIT RECORD ( % Permit No.Date Type of Permit /99Z /c-3o-C,y ____________//'/S'6^7 r/ha //-JS -A 7 / y* /7V3 /<? 7 /a )ciStx^ ________________//--^/- 79 __________ . ^7g'9 ___/d-7-^0 7- 9-5"^ u9s/___9 -,-7^ -^-3 ^9^3. .. _. ____-7 - ',?J^ HU n-i'i 9 7 tlwLh.-. £Sj L'JXlc.c^=£.' / ”79^U'^ k 145 yords to Votcrto^n Rood 41'-4' Drigfna* house on evistlrg 8' deep concrete block ^oun-iation To be renovoted Concrete Pool Heck r Swinninq Pool 24'-6' Addition constructed on B' Joist deck with sill on block foundotlon No cieoroncp below To be denoUshed Addition 2~car gorage walls s»t on block foiirdotlon, poured slab floor To be deno'lshed 23'-4' 117 yorols to Halo House 18'-8' After noking changes to footprint of structure, owner wishes to reconblne lot lines of No.'s 4605 ^ 4607 Vo tentown Rood. cT TO: FROM: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planncr/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 11, 1998 SUBJECT: #2366 Peter Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Variance(s)”Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB 26,261 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.60 acres) Application: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance, hardcover variance and side yard setback to allow a shed, deck and pool replacement to remain. The shed, pool and deck were damaged by a storm in 1997. The applicant proceeded with repairs and replacement prior to applying for variances. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.24, LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District • Section 10.03, General Provisions Subd. 5, Non-Conforming Uses, D, • Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, Average Lakeshore Setback and Hardcover • Section 10.03, Subd. 9. (E) Setbacks • Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (D) Yards and Open Spaces • Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) Placement of Structures and Additional Structure Setbacks tr2366 Peter Lanpher 1259 Park Drive Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page—1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 1 acre 140’35’10’75’ and ALS Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 26,261 sq. ft. .60 acres 50’185' to house 75' to garage Pool is on property line. Shed is 3' off from north property line. 110' to pool The existing residence was built in 1968. At that time, the building permit did not reference any swimming pool. The residence was constructed at 6.35' from the south property line. The timber window well also encroaches into the required side yard. There is a ravine along the south property line that may qualify as a bluff. The City's topographical map shows significant change is elevation. At the time the house was constructed the shoreland ordinance did not exist. The pool and deck may be located in the top of bluff setback. In May 1976 a 24' x 40' (960 sq. ft.) garage was constructed on the property, 10' from the north property line. According to the current zoning code, an accessor)' structure that exceeds 750 sq. ft. shall be located no less than 15' from the property line. The street file and permit record do not indicate when the shed was built. The shed does not meet the side yard setback requirement. In 1976 it was determined that the swimming pool was constructed in 1972 and was built without a permit. At that time, the survey indicated that the setback was 1.1' for the deck and 8' for the house. The owners were required to obtain a side yard variance. The current swimming pool does not meet the required 30' setback for accessory structures that exceed 1,000 sq. ft. The applicant requested a vacation of Forest Boulevard in 1988. The applicant w'as required to combine the lots he owned into 1 parcel. In 1996 the applicant applied for permits to build a retaining wall in the lakeshore yard and along the north property line. The current suiA ey shows a portion of the retaining wall on the adjacent property. U2366 Peter Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Date ofP.C. A/o>’ !8. I99S Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Allowed Existing Structural Coverage 26,261 sq. ft.3,939.15 sq. ft. (15%) 4,606 sq. ft. (17.5%) The pool, deck, house and garage exceed structural coverage limits by 2.5% or 666.85 sq. ft, Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'3,850 sq. ft.15 sq. ft. (.39%) none none none 75 ’-250'14,940 sq. ft.7,732 sq. ft. (52%) 3,735 sq. ft. (25%) 7,732 sq. ft. (52%) 3,997 sq. ft. (26.75%) 250’-500 ’7,471 sq. ft.1,501 sq. ft. (20%) 2,241.3 sq. ft. (30%) 1,501 sq. ft. (20%) none The subject properly exceeds the 25% maximum amount of hardcover allow'ed in the 75 ’-250' setback. A variance is requested to allow 3,997 sq. ft. or 26.75 % additional hardcover. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP 'fhe pool, deck and shed were damaged by falling trees as the result of severe storm. A variance is requested to replace the structures that were present when the home was purchased. Applicant is not proposing expanding hardcover, setback or alignments in any way. Lot is composed of 2 narrow lots and 2 vacated streets. Thus lot dimensions are peculiar to the property and do not meet zoning district requirements in area and width. Adhering to defined setback restrictions makes the property unusable. Lot width is nair.nv and below the grade of neighbors lot preventing a change to pool, deck and shed orientation. Usable space on property is limited due to significant hill in the 75' - 250’ setback range. #2366 Peter Lanpher 1359 Park Drive DateofP.C. May 18, 1998 page—3 Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Without the requested variances, the deck, pool and shed \\ ould have to be removed or relocated. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The situation was caused by the sice of the lot and the location of the structures on the lot. The landowner proceeded to repair the damaged property before obtaining variances. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for hardcover, average lakeshore setback, side yard setback, and structural coverage will not change the character of the area, as the deck, pool and shed have been replaced. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors may be a consideration with this application. The code requires structures that are 75% or more damaged to meet Code requirements is replaced. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining properly. This lot is narrow and overbuilt for hardcover and structures coverage. The s^vimming pool and deck were rebuilt to encroach on the side yard The storm damage destroyed more than 75%) of the pool and deck. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The zoning lots in this area do not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The storm did significant damage to the property. The granting of the application is necessar>' for the preser\'ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Without the variance, the pool, deck and shed would have to be removed or relocated. U2366 Peter Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page—4 8.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contraiy' to the intent of the Zoning Code. The granting of variances fur the pool and deck in contrary to the zoning code. 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. Although the storm damaged the shed, deck and pool, the code requires that new structures comply with minimum requirements. The shed would need to be eliminated because of hardcover or relocated because of the setback. The pool could have been reduced to under 1,000 sq. ft. and located at least 10’from each lot line. Granting the variances would be a convenience to the landowner. Issues 1.The lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The deck and pool do not meet a 30' side yard setback. The house encroaches into i required side yard. The shed encroaches into a required side yard. The garage encroaches into a 15' required side yard. The lot exceeds the allowed hardcover in the 75'-250' setback. 2.The deck, pool and shed were replaced due to storm damage prior to obtaining any variances. The deck and pool were more tlian 75% destroyed. Because the pool, deck and shed were replaced without variances, the City was deprived of any opportunity to correct the problem. 3.The deck and pool encroach into the average lakeshore setback. The retaining wall is partially located on the adjacent properly. 4.The design of the driveway and orientation of the garage increases hardcover. The existing structures exceed structural coverage allowance. 5.The file indicates that the pool was built in 1972 without permits. A side yard variance was granted for the pool in 1976. The house and pool were constructed before the shoreland ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. City staff cannot recommend approval of these variances. 2. 3. 4. To deny after-the-fact variances for side yard setback for the swimming pool and deck. To deny an average lakeshore setback for the swimming pool and deck. To deny the hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback. U236f '^eter Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page—5 .( 5. To deny the structural coverage variance. 6. To deny the side yard setback variance for the shed. The zoning code specifically states that non-conforming structures that are damaged shall be rebuilt to comply with the requirements of the code. This property does not meet structural coverage hardcover, side setbacks, lot area or lot width requirements. This property may also not meet bluff setbacks. As the shed was originally built without a permit, it should not have been reconstructed. A smaller pool with less deck located at least 10' from the property line would have been preferred. The City has been deprived of the opportunity to correct zoning non-confonnities on the lot because of the replacement prior to receiving the appropriate variances. City staff does not want to encourage other property owners in the future to replace/rebuild non- conforming structures without proper permits or variances. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R Application Plat Map Topo Map Neighbor's Letter Acknowledgement Form Hardcover Acknowledgement Form Hardcover Pool Plan 1967 Memo 1976 Memo (May) 1976 Memo (July) 8/2/76 Minutes 8/9/76 Minutes Vacation Resolution Retaining Walls 1989 Survey Current Survey #2366 Peter Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page—6 rii Box ,, GBAN0VIc.ijAVj7i o,\ r/ :i^*i' ORI^i - iC'-liVo/'f// Ann ^lo xwcll Sko^shert! Point UV5f twti«~r » ■%s rlj Sfuidyy^ooJ Point ^ ^ DtHRING OnCMO Arm C^'ISLAND %Crxstol Bohr.i Point Box FiJ^erness Point Slouflijujo r* ^ M«TN»a TOiJsttOittiait fui 2-OCL OTERO A¥f ^"^jOlCKSUI \ AVE Toio wooc»cci WARREil jyf OR frH-^ iTw“ A^rON^R3 CAVAN RO M - sunov*^a^tlOFOROla 8 MTIR lAC n EN R9 Spring I W Park :I „ ' , til5-/^ ■CiUWQ«0 g ococnoAn *•« A ^ rw x_ /< 2\ CUMM tin S;! ikAM « ^ovw >o!g^. i : ^ » ■§7^V /'✓i'CcOOSK Tyi//7 ISLAM) ■U»»HXI<«« Ty/ /// ^Tul ^3 -, 5ic^ [ irvi NiSTONj;"ITiW SHORELINE saac< SOR^I -5 ^- « P (mi ORCtST ■* Connor, U.= ^CC LYOIARO MPOttNtT iP Box R 0 N O “T^iuiilitllo^ 2>G'.AS60N RO I, i SCANURBURTIIO U i irviiu R3 SHADY ISLAND s^MICHLAMO Howards Poin ENCH.ANTtD ISLAND wawatosa ' ISLAVD EDGEWOOO 5'vsCyo v'tw/p^ S RO h<f \ WOOD SIDE no o/u Tnieu |/c. (e/*BRrNMAWN\0 \9 I ika SHOREWOOD o SOOP_______RD s I «•> * ► ORCMARO CR NOBLE sS v'i4lEt«000 lA 4 SUNNTVAIE NEISINE -----OR ^ ROSE S2 LA Mi««aST*SOi "I SHITHTOm LA ■! ■■i /•:■:i "it I . *J li >i Application # Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARLANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $22U.(JIT” 2-^0* ($50,00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFOR,\LATION Site Address, \'5S^ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 66ft*2.----------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv^ey. ~t, ^ Date Property Acquired 8 / •ceLI (do) ^o not)jhlso own the adjacent parols of l^d. Present use of property: X residential other (specif/) Zoning District: .(month/year) if : "V. V* APPLICANT Ki-TIR ^ \Name Address: \?>S^ "PARK OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_^i;j7-]j^^ Phone (woric ) Address: City:_ Qkc^mc^ Zip: SSSl>^ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ •r 1 City:Zip: (a«ach additionaHsheets if necessary) ««./• > r £ V.ARIANGES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback:Front Lot Width X, Hardcover Lot Coverage Side Rear __ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) l\V,c,nui)r tvp-.Alr'Mm,(\ft.VeQ-QA\^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue h^ship 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 application to be considered complete: 1. J 2. Completed Application Form Certified Property 0%vners List of ovvners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Count\‘ Department of Finance, A-603, Govi Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVz" x 11" for I'dd 4. ^ Topographic surv'ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x II" for reproduction. J. 5. 6. 7. 8. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. • Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the inning 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 coirect to the best of iiis/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 3. OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authori2es reasonable entry onto the propert>' by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes q^f investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date 3 • Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commissio n Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review mettings 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. Peter & Diane Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Orono, MN 55364 Situation: Pool--Deck--Shed —were damaged by falling trees as the result of a severe storm (see photo's of damage) -varience request is to replace the structures that were present when the home was purchased...not expanding hardcover,setbacks or alignments in any way Unusual Property Conditions: Lot is composed of 2 narrow lots and 2 vacated streets. Thus lot dimensions are peculiar to the property and do not meet zoning district requirements in area and width. Adhereing to defined setback restrictions makes the property unusable. Lot width is narrow and below the grade of neighbors lot preventing a change to pool-deck--shed orientation, (see photo) Usuable space on property is limited due to significant hill in the 75' - 250' setback range. jj-sjs'O fy! Ji / APRIL 13,1998 CITY OF ORONO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We are residents of Orono, having lived at 1365 Park Drive for the past four years. We are writing this letter regarding our neighbors at 1359 Park Drive, Peter H. and Diane Lanpher, who are experiencing difficulties with the City after replacing their deck and pool which were destroyed by felled trees from a storm last summer. In regard to the issue of their deck encroachment (not in compliance with setback requirements) we state that we do not have a problem with the location of their deck. We were aware when we purchased our house that the deck encroached upon the setback requirement and that a variance had been given by previous owners of our home to previous owners of their home. We would be willing to grant such a variance if a subsequent one would be required of the Lanphers. u ^ .o ' V’*' t V .• . » I (we) Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form 'o U/Jof t. T)/l\Ve. [print name(s)][print address havye^ev^d the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located 2^ \oc. also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Prop^r^Owner Date Property Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)]print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located --------------------------- 2^so referred to as Land Use Application No._____ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days pnor to the scheduled meeting date.r? o o. tr i' ~:' 'O 1345 North Arm Drive Orono, MN 55364 City of Orono 2710 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN April 17, 1998 Dear Sirs: This letter is in regard to our neighbors Pete and Diane Lanpher. We are writing this letter in support of the repairs they recently did on their property, both on their deck/pool and the shed. My wife and 1 have two young girls, and while we were never overly concerned about the proximity of the Lanpher's pool, it is a welcome addition to have it nicely fenced. It is less accessible, and certainly much safer. We also feel that the overall quality of their deck was been upgi ’aded, and only improves the overall character of our neighborhood. We also know that there was been some discussion that the deck may somehow impede neighbor's views of the lake. We would like to assure you that this is not the case, and we have no objections to it. As for the small shed in the driveway, we were very happy to see it be "dressed-up" with new siding, allowing it to better blend in with their house. Pete and Diane have always been wonderful neighbors, and we have the utmost confidence that any project they embark on will not adversely impact our property, and will onlv benefit us. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. j± (n> ^ 4 ■ /tr Laurie Shekels Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I fwe)Lautip [print name(s)] of J3^sr /) /4k»v^ bo [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located -------------------------------also referred to as Land Use Application No. _________. understand that in e.xecuting this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to are approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City CouncU that I (we) am ^are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor^ project or use requu^es v^ouncil approval. Date Property Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located -———-------------------also referred to as Land Use Application No. understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to Cou^il 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. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date AnnlivL^n" “y '■^“"nation that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use prior to rsl'el^efrun7date"”"'^ ft ^ ^ ^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONF)^0-75’ FXISTINC. hardcover IN ZONE A. House ______________ 75-250’250-500*500-1000* S.F. Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Palio/Dcck X X X F. Landscape _ Underlain _ By Plastic __ X X X X X X X X X G. Other / TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A * B ppnPnS.Fn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ............................* englh Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. P-.-i/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B S.F. S.F. «S.F. wet S.F. ss S.F. B S.F. S.F. __ S.F. SS S.F. s S.F. cs S.F. s S.F. s S.F. 9 /r S.F. /r S.F.A S.F.B IIoOX% S.F. ss S.F. ss S.F. B S.F. i ^ \ H •S.F. s S.F. B S.F.• »• **» S.F. B S.F.* sN S.F.{ 'N 7V -A. V . Y m S.F.'<iv' m S.F. ss S.F. s S.F. S.F. •• S.F.A •S.F.B 1C 100 ••/o 11 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ HARDCOVER CALCULAl ION WORKSHEET 250-500* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length 7 Wul’h X X X B. Garage 2^ C. Driveway .GaJc^ (if ,4r X X D. Sidewalk X X E. -Patw/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic e^.e> 4-X X X > ^7 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE '775Z____ - D PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House________________* Length Wic*Jt X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plasric X X X G Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B 500-1 000* e S.F.• S.F. ■rs S.F. s S.F. S.F. ss =S.F. mm s S.F. s S.F. s S.F. S.F. =-si S.F. -S F. S S.F. s S.F. a 5"4 S.F. m S.F.A m S.F.B X ICO =^2-Vo s S.F. 3 S.F.- S S.F. C S.F. S.F. S.F. s S.F.* S.F.f a S.F. «S.F........ S.F.i . • • V *.V .S.F.-. ^ 8 S.F. a S.F. a •S.F. • S.F.A S.F.B X 100 -®/o r I i 1 - 11 HAIU)COVER calculation WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) O-S'75-:=0’250-500'500-1000' EXISTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length Wic‘-h X X X B. Garage ___ C. Driveway ^4-3^ X X /fi/ D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X S3 9 F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X G. Other TOT \L r' \RDCOVER IN ZONE total l aOPERTY AREA IN ZONE __l<yol - B Ian I /5^/ nA-iL X 100 PROPOSED M^pnrOVER IN ZONE A. House______________ ^ Length W.d'-n X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER FN 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. ‘ F. S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. < 0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. L ’• •\v ). .i fV •*. Lx f ’ d ■ S.F. S.F. % A B ir-!.I • : -f -r- r «. • • i ii I1 -5 H. 1 rs C^tiAo\-«.'tlMI5V4Xp \-xCTT # O Q €5 , :0 /'■■• • --.-■ ■ \ ■: ■'. ■• f • r- s _ ‘ ..L..4 —IC T ' - 1 • •r* - ' t f '-ttlH--^ * ^ ^.. .. y I i A ^ .^.4 ... 4-. ”1 r - — Xf^ *♦• —• jca?y 0 6? L — OfiiiLk.^Alo T4^W W‘iU *>/VK v»'V if' U: OO fACK .«*s » .’ •* • /St/o^ i i i 1 t ! ‘ i *•• 1 • 1 • !1 .11“bivoy^ osi^ \»^ ~ st/*^ -2 -J > - \ S-‘2 _ • i TO:Administrator rvCM;Inspector DA i n:October 30, 1967 >i.BJECT:Doug Johnson Lot on North Apifi Drive Tho above in seeking permission to bi^d on the lot in file #121, has gone through Council »ith a ref^ral to Planning Commission, w*. rocomnended Mr. Johnson show where^^e is going to build, where his septic system would be, and how hy would solve the problem of acces through the draw which goes thro^h his property. Mr. Johnscri wisnes to keep the/file open until a decision is made '.•'hotiler he can b?jild or not this is contingent on his purchase o the lot. ' r.et wi th him last week a/d he staked out approximately where his house would be, also his /eptic system. He also said he would abic by Mr. Mills* decision to going over the draw. Bill has alreac; made that, as he is aw^e of the problem. ; Ask that this be roterred again to Planning Commission. I will out there with fihem/and give Mr. Johnson a definite ruling on whet/a •'his let is c! ^d^le or not. / i I j ^ V' 'V I ( / / ;f ; rc- 3 TO; FW»!; Itenry F. Mitich, Zonlni: Administrator Allan P. Olsen, Ruildins Inspector lUTC: Mv Suan-CT: 13S9 Pari Drive complaint on 4/16/76 from ncif*M»ors alloRCS that w«nR p^l ^ addition was hullt on this property without a huildiiig permit and tliat nool is to cloae to property line. Files contain original building pewits *2032 and 2043 dat^ 4/17/68 and 5/2/68 for a 26 ft. X 72 ft. residence only. Pewits do not«||U1 ^/•/Oo lOr a w Ifco A #• IVe «V9n«M»aam»w ^ include pool. Final inspection made 9/W/68. Pewit approval was given by Council 4/8/68. ^io pewit is on file for the pool consttuction. On site inspection confiws that an above ground alminun ^ vinyl pool with wood deck is in place. Survey done 11/5/75 shows setback of l.l ft. from south property line (house is 8 ft.*), appraximatcly 15 ft. fron north line, and well over 100 ft. from lake. iUiacent property to south had deep drainage ravine passing near to this lot line effectively blocking any major stnictural construction near this suhstandaid setback.iCurrent owner Vayne Peterson purdiased property on 5/6/75 from NWlvyn and Shirley Ott. the Peterson's.deed shows.'■,’ivyn Mi HI oiiArAvj wb. •••« ....^^5 tiie pool as being included in the transaction ai^ their Vpowledge is that it was constructed in 1972. 5 -i.*!'I#' i V’ • I ■» f VI •* ^ I V'i] f ‘ .I I.. * ’^n V: -1 . ! TO: nVM: Dick Benson, City Ateinistntor Hihich, Zoning AikUnistTator DATC: SUBJEa: July 9. 1976 vird^siSiAlSr Existing Pool S5of this existing pool dees not neet tlie foquired 10* .ide yard setbadc. It was built about lb ft. fion the side lot line. The Peterson's are now reqpesting a variance of 8b' ftow the required 10* The altenatives here are to grant the varimee or deny and require moving or rci»ving the existirig pool. CfT7fi:iSIOX WITING • August 2, 1976 to anorovc this variance hcciu!sc it is after the fact and the pool h^ !)ccn -here for throe years. The Connission felt that this was not a violation by the l‘ctersi>n’s who purchased the property only/xic year ago. They were unfortunate to inherit an existing non*confoi|ung situation which was .icver before brought to the attention of the staff. 0>J^rIl. M-KTINT. - August 9, 1976 /•■J- i* -<.• r ‘ V'provctl nn the basis that the pwl has^bean there for three years and it wis not a violation by the l^terson'i .J ' •- vb - • 1V *. • V; •. f • tdio pii :• .•s.'ti- •I \ i ised the property anly one year aRO. • > .» ‘rO's.’ IlCXnES OF A PUOKINC OOrFOSSION !CErCC ICLD MIGUSr 2» 119ft • IMGB 2 ChalTwoiam Duilap called to order the Regular Meeting of tltc Orono Planning Gomissian. CMJ. TO ORBR • 8:20 P.M. IBGULMt fBBnilC Pesek moved, Guthrie eeconded, tfiat tiie artm<et of lim Planning Corpission ataeting of «hily 19, 1976, bo approved* ; lotion • Ayes (8), Nays (0). APPMRfAL (F NIMIRS NBETING JULY 19, 1976 Mr. Peterson explained to the Planning CoMission that he had purdiased this property about 1 year ago* He laidar- stood there %«re nisuiderstandings, but felt that the problems had been solved. Ihe Peterson's purdiased this property in good faith. \Kim PBIERSON 1359 PMOC DRIVE VARl/WCE - SUE YARD Pesek moved. Van t^est seconded, to approve this variance because it is after the fact and the pool has been there for tlic post three years. Pesek felt that diis uas not a violation by the Petersen's vho purchased the property only MIC year atio. They were leifortiiiste to inherit at «dsting iton^confonning situation vdiich was never before hrou||ht to tnc attention of staff, ftotion - Ayes (8), Nays (0). Mr. Curtis vsis in attendance and presented pictures of his mission, McDonaldproperty. After a short discussion, McDonald novod, Possk seconded, to grant approval of this variance bscaust tiis proposed addition would be replacing the sidistandard leaito rmrtion of tiic house and it would in no wy encroach ch the existing setbacks. !-totion • Ayes (8), Hays mOWEL GURTIS 4200 HORIH SHORE DRIVE VARIMKZ • LOT AREA 8 hlDDI Titc Zoning Administrator presented the bull li.c Conaission. Mr. I^un was present to for this addition. Van I«est aanud, Guthrie rccosmcnd approval subject to providing fire > >• ui required l>y tlic State Code and the conbii^ticn of jdl . Ite aUbjict.. nCDRYAN 1345 HQRni Alftl DRIVE VARIiOKX - SEnMCK SbYhEBI STRUCTURES tlic individiul parcels and vacated street of tlie vacated street should be referred to ^ atto to resolve its actual status. e auonMy - ^. Ir. 8 Mrs. Smith were in attendance. Mrs. SUith explained to tlic Coisnission tliat at tlie start of the construction treesthey instructed the contractor not to disturb' the that were on tlie property in order to build the house, llu* location of tiic iiouse was then moved over to avoid rc:novir.g the trees. The inspector was never infoneed of the change in location. Lurry Shw, u ncijdibor to ■ nortii of tiic Smith's was also present at the meeting, lie expressed !.is disappointment with tlie building of this itc..o. r.c .mentioned that he complained several times to t]ic* building insncctor regarding tlie building location. T:;c present location of the Smith's hone blocks his view of tJ;e hij.e. "f:.*.- Planninj' Coianission felt that the only ;,...stion hero v.as tiu; roar yard seth.ick as tlie new I at ion -..till I'vt nil stUoyard setback requirement*. I’. ack :;.ovvd, i'.uko seconded, approval of this variance .•••.ise tae i.v.uso is finished, tlov^evei iir.int ing this .. -loViil d:. !.ut constitute apj’.roval for a private dock ti..- : .trip directly ;icross the street, i :iays (.U), TRAVIS Skoni • 1945 FAGERNESS P0II>rr RGAD VARlANOi - REAR YARD SLTEAa .%• C' Henry Muhichf Building & Zoning Adbnih: rntzkior^ stated that Wayne Peterson, 1359 Park Drive, purchased this property about Ia year ago. The previous owners had evidently installed a pool \ , without first obtaining a permit. The location of this existing pool does not meet the required 10' side yard setback. It was built about llj ft. fron the side lot line. The Petersons are now requesting a variance of 8>j ft. from the required 10 ft. The alternatives here are to grant the variance or deny and require moving or removing the existing pool. Planning Commission Fleeting - August 2, 1976 Mr. Peterson was i>ro3ont at the meeting, lie explained that he purchased the property in nood faith about one ysar ago. lie understood there had been misunderstandings, hut felt that the prohlens had been solved. The Planning Commission recommended to approve this v«ariance because it is after ;h« fact and the pool has been there for three years. VARIANCE 1359 Park Drive Auct Q igi(o (C<^ nt ir.u.j r, . ‘ ^ .V OROtlO COUNCIL HBBTZilG HELD AUGUST 9, 1976 .S.', The Coanission felt that this was not a Relation by the Petersons who purchased the propeW only one year ago. They ware unfortunate to inherit an existing non*oonforming sltu^t*®** whl^ was never before brought to the attention of the staff, Searles moved, Welsh saconded, to approve the variance for Wayne Peterson, 1359 Park Drive, per the Planning Cossidasion recoiuaendation of August 2, 1976. Hotion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). i. City of OROISO RESOLUTION OE THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________ • • t A RESOLUTION VACATING AN UNUSED PORTION 07 70RB8T BOULEVARD WZTBZN TOE PLAT 07 SAGA UITJ. REVZSED, SECTION 7# TOWNSBZP 1Z7, RANGE 23 ZN THE CITY 07 ORONO« MINNESOTA WOERBASv the City of Orono is a punicipal corporation or^ani.' and cxistin9 under the lavn of the State of Minnesota; and NUEREAS# on February 26, 1988, Peter H. Lanphor and Diane Lnn;: filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation c: portion of Forest Boulevard originally dedicated in the Plat of Saga K: F.oviscd legally described as follows: I » That part of vacated Ferest Poulovard as dedicated in the plot of "Sago Hill Revised, lienncF*in County, Minnesota" which lies botweer. the JJorthwestor 1 y extensions across it of the Southwesterly and Northeasterly lines of Lot 6, Plooic (•» "Saga Kill Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota"; and WBEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hear, •was held before the City Planning .omission on March 21, 1988, regar'.. | said vacation and all interested persens were given an opportunity to hCsirc’; ar.d WHEREAS, after cue standing and consideration, the Plann. Ccrr’ir.cicn rccori*cnded approval of the requested vacation Cour.'' o; the City of Orono finds that said vacation as proposed, is ir keep . with ♦he public interest in eensiderntion cf the following findi*\cs: 1. The vacation dees net affect the access cr the use of ad^'^'-r. prepertier., ?. Tne City has not and docs not intend to develop, irprovo, the dcd.icntcd right-of-way of Forest Po-ulevard for road purpose: . 3, The City has !:er. and does not inlend to ra i r.ta i r. or y uti* itior. within th*' d<^‘dicr.tcd right-c*i-way cf Porost To'*.; levr. • . I •• •T'.'- u:): “’pro < e.'l r i -c::if f r • • , • • • • • • I » ♦ : * * ’ • .f„-i '■■i < * r..WrE»trt&w. niiMli..■atmnwifiritin I,....Ill Hi A, lii ■ %■ City of OR.ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ■JJ NO. 2i£2. V * NOM* TBBREPOaB BB IT KB80LVBD* that the petition of Peter H. r ar.d Diane Lenpher is hereby granted and that th«* portion of Fore ft ard legally described above is hereby vacated. The granting of the ion IS subject to the condition that upon vacation* applicants must . .;.o vacated adjacent portion of Forest Boulevard w<th their property idy cccbined lot 8* Block 6* Lot 9* Block 7* and a portion of vacated . laco. Saga Hill Revised# Uennepin County# Minnesota). 4 % « 0 V f Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono# Minnesota# at a r r.oc'tir.o held on March 28# 1968. .i-:D h'i<')n //A >;.* iiallir.# City Clerk ' i » Ja.Tcs r/Crabdx# MayorKdW'j: iJ J, v'i^l.ihun . Jr., Acrlriy Mayor u.'i* .. • • . • :• .4 r I t , . . '■ ',;*?■ i :?^ ♦ I ■> "f ►. % ; A ■ * • i ■ m -1^*r /'■ J : j ? j * (jV., 1 ^ Fa L n -S' ■'^i<•< *A •4 |M fc .OfJ&a Sonopi^ CITY<^ <HH>NO FMOmop Um M«Cf»«iU Ray. Mitmmnta S5ap«Mnidpai OOka On the North Shore of ImKo Minnetonka August 31» 1989 .• J >h . .ter lar.pher . Lt.9 Park Srive ..w.ndf Mn S53o^ .. u:R«tair.ir.? Kails at 13S9 Park Drive fc • ••%• . * *i Th« Building s Zoning DepartBont is in receipt of your . . lieation to construct retaining vails on your lakeshore . ronerty. The retaining walls may be built as shown providing retaining vail on the lakeshore yard is no higher tnen 3 . If you wish to construct the retaining walls higher then 3 . the wall would have to meet an average lakeshore setback. would b«i required to sh>w on a survey the houses on the left .ri right of your property to verify this setback. Please advise •m »if you wish proceed with i 3 1/2* high wall or provide the .rvey shoving the houses on either side of your property- i 1If yo'. have any questions please fe^l free to contact me at office (473-7357). Sinceraly •1 .. // jb Lyle Oman# Building Inspector ‘■f: Jeanne A. Mabusch, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael ?. Gaffron. Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator m % 4^ ,\r#* A HNAM h - I7j-7b!t H l!Mi' V«iiUK.> 4 If' ■ a [■ r. V if" Jl A13 Plat of Smyy for MkT'Sar Land Corporatleo ' of Lot 8, Bleek 6, aod Lot 9» Bloek 7, 'Saga Hill Rorlao;*, HeonoplB CetAtjr, Mlnnosota a \^ ‘]U ■ 40. >-e--r- Cortlfleata of Survey: I oorotgr eartify that tflio la a truo and corroet roproaontatlcn of a survoy of *b« bouBdarloa of Lot 8, Block 6, and Lot 9» Block 7, SaiSB Rill Rarlaad, RanaaplB Coub^, Mlnoaaota, and of tha location of all buildlnga tharaon. It doaa not purport to chow othor loprorananta or oneroachaantj , it any. 3^3 Set It t Dito .1 o X !• s 50* 11-5-75 • ZroD Barker PLAM ^JSlh*NSa»e<rroj^ plan REvrew OATS n ap ?rov -:d as sjeviTTcD no. - CCSR£CTiONS AS noted - CCRHECT A f}C3Mg».,T 'u* ..V. I't Fi-f ^ f 1.- fp VI iS >F r?r c lit II i’ Is 980048 7/117/23 LANPHER. PETE ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka. MN 55345 Phone (612) 474-7964 Fox (612) 474-8267 SURVEY FOR: PETE LANPHER SURVEYED: March 5, 1996 DRAFTED: March 9. 1998 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 9, Block 7, and Lot 8, Block 6, SAGA HILLS REVISED, Hennepin County, Minnesota LIMITATIONS: The scope of our services for this job is os follows: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description which you furnished. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed importont. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying existing monuments to mark the corners of the property. Here are some importont matters that are not in the scope of our services but which you may wish to investigate: 1. Is the above legal description your correct legal description and have important matters of record, such as easements, been communicated, in writing, to your surveyor, so that they can be shown on this survey? A title insurance company can issue a title policy and can fax us a copy so that we are aware of these matters. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: *'o" Denotes 1 /2” ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, if ”o" is filled in, then denotes found iron monument. Proposed elevations ore shown with a box around them, while existing elevations ore shown without a box. Arrows indicate the proposed flow of storm water on the site. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer and a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. i JaAies H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 SCALE: ONE INCH EQUALS 30 FEET Eo o SI oin ^ o> 02 co o .2 0) >52 Q.(/) V) <u mm ^ 4> li 4 \ \ 1 t 1 TO; FROM; DATE; SUBJECT; Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator May 11,1998 #2367 Lawrence Gleason 140 Hackberry Hill Variance(s)--Public Hearing Zoning District; Rl-B One Family Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area;23,100 square feet (.53 acres) Application; The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add 6' to an existing residence to expand a master bedroom and closet to 16' x 15 ’. The current bedroom is 10' x 15'. A side yard variance is required to allow the addition to encroach into the required 10’ side yard. Pertinent Ordinances; Section 10.21, Rl-B One Family Residential District Section 10.03, Subd. 15, Non-Encroachments #2i57 Lawrence Gleason NO Hackberry Hill Date ofP.C. May 18, 1998 page—l ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Rl-B District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .5 acre 100’30'10'30' Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear .53 acres 105'34.3'14' existing 8' proposed 140' to house The lot meets lot area and lot width requirements. The addition requires a side yard variance to encroach 2' into the required yard. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Allowed Total Structural Coverage Proposed 23,100 sq. ft.3,465 sq. ft. (15%) 2,238.06 sq. ft. (9.6%) The proposed addition complies with lot coverage requirements. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP i The applicant has indicated that the master bedroom is 10' x 10'. The house is a walkout rambler. The applicant desires to expand the bedroom northward. An expansion to the east would require building into the walkout area. U2367 Lawrence Gleason NO Hackberry Hill DateofP.C. May 18, 1998 page~2 Criteria fi*r Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing residence can continue to be used, however, the applicant has indicated that the bedroom is small. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The situation is created by the location of the existing residence, the topography of the lot and the proposed design. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, The variance for side yard setback will not change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors may be a consideration with this application. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property is surrounded by Hackberry Park. The variance would not negatively impact the park. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The side yard setback requirement of 10' applies to all residences in this zoning district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has indicated that the master bedroom is small. The addition will increase the size of the room. The applicant shall provide testimony about the ability to use the existing residence. 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. U2367 Lawrence Gleason 140 Hackberry Hill Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page—3 i 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. The topography of the site and design of the house create a difficult situation for the applicant to expand the bedroom. Issues 1. The zoning lot meets all other zoning requirements. 2. The topography of the lot slopes to allow for a walk-out rambler. The proposed addition follows the main floor level. 3. 4. 5. The residence is surrounded by Hackberry Park. The residence was constructed in 1958. The proposed addition is architecturally consistent \Nith the house. The overhang is considered a non-encroachment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To approve a side yard variance to allow the addition to encroach 2' into the 10' required side yard. Attachments A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Topo Map Front Elevation Floor Plan Permit Record Survey i U2367 Lawrence Gleason 140 Hackberry Hill Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page—4 A Application tt _____ Date Received V/?<g Amount Paid so. c/v 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) (t PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ Site Address fiiLL ^ LoMG> LAk£jM/\/ -^SS£‘(a Property Identification Number (T.I.D.) 33"//^ 2.3 OOP S'_______ K \ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ^ Date Propgrty Acquired_____^ C O_______________^_____________(month/year) I (do)(^o no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ___residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:____________________________________ V-i «*>,--y APPLICANT Name Z./?K^/?gVc£ £*, G-LEASOH Address:ffACKHEkOtj t4i'LL City: l^A/& lAKE. Phone (homel ¥ 7^~^3.S5 Phone (woric)_jf£T7/P£0_ _ Zip:. C ^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ X. {i‘^ Address:City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail; ^£(Pu£.S7^ To QcJUf HdM^ Tf4£ NoIKTH SI'pB. gy ^ PT. flJi4*cH uJoll L o (?E(Puf/i£ ^ /.gss ^L - ll>N. ■n>Orr.-u/>^’) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage k/' Setback:Front Sid(Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propertj^conditions preventing < )UG (pi • ' - - - Wt \jJ0uLd To the . fiF ruffi t^EOjiDOn^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) /g Uf\fU<:iLAiL^ sMfkLL (id'y U)nuLO UIRB,_..TH£^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ ^ ^XTENsiof^ OF OuF. H ouse to rue Mouth (sidejo V 7 I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AH of the following information must be submitted by 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 Ovmers 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 S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" 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 owTier(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 aPDlication 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 audiorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 \/r\\ OUTLOT A•*VtN (li) 3I5.6j 319. M EAST 4;. r-2 (4) 309.99 3 (70 3!0.5€. 2 (36) 311. 12 ..... 34S -•••• (3) * r. 346 33 r>ro C2) 214 (5) o Ifli.Oi ro LT. "ELM 342. 22 LA « in•r ® (9) 2\1 / \COl001-------j100;) 8 • ,'^^i /Oj* 1 J 170 t 0 cn t n V L/» 220 2 (4)0 ♦-T 220 |T£^. •S x<<r::::^)x:^;-x<;.v» • •105(6 )0cn __ 220 ^ Cncn 5 !3S. 22 T v£) a 'j) PARK vn (34) S W7 170 § cn CO fVl 139. 22 0 10 ^0 0 (16) ^ 217 <D • I 0-4 (17) 217 8 MAPL E A a 090 i 90 OS. 22 1 iV... .•n 23) 4 S 3 -> 0 ^- 1 - cn ^ ,CD ‘'(21)(2uj (22)cn &o 90 90 69. 22 <79. 22 lO '5 .^0 vD 1 ^ ID (24;(33) 160 179.22 to 6 CO 1 3 CD ^ • ‘ y i?5)(32) 180 179. 22 to <r CO 112 r3 ^ (?6)(51) 160 179. 22 1 1 cr> (54) .- '£ V ’-5^ C \r'>* c^T^)* ll ie?.oi Oi I- (55) o>.fiw '£ .V«>‘?C. lei.oi I- •:n o cn C.1 Oo• cr.ui ^ •« ■BKh'^bU C i_r o <20 vwvv 014.2 V 10J2.9 <y<r Water /' flOOl .3 1000.6 ^1010.5 oo / / Lv'1—Lo \o o / 1007.1 J 99^.3 X /69. SCO A f o 0993.8 X 992.3 — V O O 996.2X O -T ^0 \1n i ftCbjW. (^TL£yA^o^^\ F'roMT ^l£fWkTlOt^ fSm J ■U n «j’*. m rr ,4- fiUiitiet) TSAloeoii Ue*t_ r-rLfA^) Mfis-r r'f^^ V^uA»\.(7« PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date Type of Permit urn.nMc/ -yux) Cl iff Up bts-yn vdTw 1 r TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 11,1998 SUBJECT:#2368 KirkOtteson 710 North Arm Drive Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB,One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:19,945 square feet (.46 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to build a lakeside deck and add to existing residence. According to the proposed floor plan, a living room and kitchen would be in the additional area. A street side deck is also proposed. The applicant proposes removing parking area and a sidewalk. A bluff setback is also required because the proposed addition is located between the top of the bluff and the 30' bluff setback. An average lakeshore setback is also required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Lakeshore Setback and Hardcover Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) Bluff Setback H 2368 KirkOtteson 710 S'orih Arm Drive May 18.1998 page—I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140’35’10’75’ and ALS Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 19,945 sq. ft 92’IT to garage 30.4' existing 24' proposed 84 ’ existing 79’ proposed The subject property does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The proposed aduition encroaches into the average lakeshore setback and moves closer to the top of the bluff. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Allowed Proposed Structural Coverage 19,945 sq. ft.2,991.75 sq. ft. (15%)1949 sq. ft. (9.7%) The proposed addition complies with the structural lot coverage requirements. The existing house is 905 sq. ft. The proposed addition would add 453 sq. ft. for a total footprint of 1,358 sq. ft. The garage is 591 sq. ft. The existing house and garage together total 1,496 sq. ft. The zoning code allows 1,500 sq. ft. of structural coverage. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0-75’7,069 sq. ft.None None None None 75-250'12,876 sq. ft.3,100 sq. ft. (24.15%) 3,219 sq.ft. (25%) 3,310 sq. ft. (25.7%) 91 sq.ft. (.70%) The applicant has proposed exchanging non-structural hardcover in the driveway and sidewalk to add the decks and addition. U 2368 Kirk Otteson 710 North Arm Drive May 18. 1998 page--2 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Description of request: Hardship/description of unusual property conditions; We would like to request a variance for the address of 710 North Arm Drive. We would like to add a small addition to the south east of the current structure and remodel the existing house. The new addition would not be going any closer to lake Minnetonka but paralleling the shore line approximately 85 feet back. Unfortunately the house is positioned close to a bluff on the south east side of tlie lot. The bluff descends any where from 6 to 8 feet vertically on the soutli east side of the lot. The south east side of the bluff appears to be man made to accommodate a small road or path for 740 North Arm Drive. ^ Jurrently the house is old and is need of major remodeling and code guidance. The roof needs to be replaced, the siding and windows are starting to rot and need replacing and some to the wiring is questionable. We need to remove the roof and put on a new one. We would like to gut tlie intenor of the house and update the wiring to code and make two new bedrooms and two baths upstairs. A new kitchen and living space will also be added. All the exterior siding will be replaced along with replacing the deck on the back of the house and adding an entry to the front of the house. All of the work will be carried out in a timely manner and performed by professional carpenters. U 236S Kirk Otteson 710 North Arm Drive May 18. 1998 page—3 Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used as a residence. The applicant wants to add more space to the house. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The need for variances is created by the lot size, lot width, amount of existing hardcover, topography, and location of the existing residence. The applicant has designed the addition, however, to further encroach on the average lakeshore setback and bluff. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for hardcover, bluffsetback and average lakeshore setback will not change the character of the area. 4. 5. 6. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The adjacent property is also subject to a bluff setback This residence is forward of the average lakeshore setback; however, it is due to the house to the west being located closer to the lake at 65' and the house to the east located at 130'. This residence is approximately 80'from the lake. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. All lakeshore lots are subject to average lakeshore setback and hardcover regulations. This residence is located between the top of the bluff and the bluff setback The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant will need to explain why the need for the addition and decks to encroach into the average lakeshore setback and closer to the ravine. » 2368 Kirk Otteson 710 Sorth Arm Drive May id. 1998 page-^4 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 encroachment on the bluff may have a detrimental effect on the ravine. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely ser\'e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The subject property does not meet the lot area and lot width requirements. The applicant needs to explain why the addition and deck arc proposed to need variances for hardcover and ALS. Issues 1.The lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The existing residence is built between the top of the bluff and .bluff setback. It was constructed before the Shoreland Regulations. 2.There is a ravine between the subject property and the house to the east. The lot slopes from the street toward the lake. 3.A well is located near the driveway; however, it does not interfere with the location of structures on the lot. 4. Previous additions were constructed in 1956 and 1969. There is sufficient area on the lot to add to the rear of the stmeture. This may not require a bluff setback variance and would not require an average lakeshore setback. 6.The amount of hardcover on this property and the lot coverage is very close to the maximum allowed for this lot as it exists. The applicant has proposed removing the sidewalk which is not recommended because of the topography. The applicant has also proposed to remove the parking space that functions as a backout space from the garage. Given the topography and sight line to the street, it is not recommended that this area be removed. For safety reasons, vehicles should not back up the hill out on North Arm Drive. » 2368 Kirk Otteson 710 North Arm Drive May 18. 1998 page—5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the existing condition on the subject property are unique; however, no hardship exists to encroach on the bluff or into the average lakeshore setback. Existing hardcover is near the maximum limit established by code. The parking area should not be removed. The topography dictates that a sidewalk is needed from the driveway to the residence. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Topo Map Hardcover Sewer Map Survey House Plans Permit Record Neighbor’s Letter V’. U 2368 Kirk Otteson 710 North Arm Drive May 18. 1998 page^^ 1 lo North Ml br. • ••••#• Application # Date Received <7^ Amount Fsd^30D 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 SiteAddress ~7/q Da Property Identification Number (P.I.D.), AAa/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired A pB.\\ IS ^__________________(month/year) I (do) ^o no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V residential ___pother (specify)______________________ Zoning District: I |_____________________________ APPLICANT Name MaU Phone (home) ___________________________________ Phone (work ) _____ Address: ~7/c? A/attik An.r-^ Dft.____ City: AdovAcV _________Zip:S*S"3^*^ OW'NER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: ^ee. ^44^dcWe^__________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width )( Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear ^ Average Lakeshore X Other (specify) IBLMIF^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Sec. ________________ . (attach additional sheets if necessary) A 0•f t *•*:. A ;Pv 'f. J o C II '} •*' •» • 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 X 2. K. 3 X 4. 5. 6. X X Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners uithin 150', labels and olat 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!4" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy ZV2" x II"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons v\ith 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 notifled of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifles that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The o\Mier 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 S' 2»o ~ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 I J c f. .3^^ beck. . Deck. ..Bs'V'o/^Dcc.k ___________ _____-y, _s ‘ X 1&.1S '_ ____V V.^' X <?.6' r...1.13. , 3 s: S F IHlolS:^ Sr 3Z.2H Sf {li)L 5" J 24.0 6F 3Z1.ZH %P &7. S' > 7,2 ^.7 X •^Z.S' 514..... 21, S .S.F. SF. 7.5. S „ SF Srl««S H.l X 2.6 - • ----- v -- I r •.. " 1 r ] H */ —O % ftc«u^vye^jOe\\ ^ ____ jLokfV^^CCLpC. _____^y_! >.7.‘__._. ____/S‘X.5:___ = a Sf. M*2' ^Sc2S' ns. 2u^ s.f . 5f ID* ZjV___ _.RJL_li.^L_. ii^v> S}t It n __r_..^.|:^.. ....5F. -.rVf- 11'- •' J\«nt jz^.s.s: , D» tj,'_______ p»2'_______ ..ft ' ir .fe)*L.. - 65.Z SF V -f -W—u.. a'.w>'-.Jk ... kLl ‘' it ' -'j r jl^C.Sf .a 2xkiMol i G ^/c l,S'..r-S.V Dfk ^ /^.. ....3.^_2*Z _____Cjf* ^SF 1iO NOHfi h(ty\ > ^3 :.' *v '/t!l ________',:»*/ .; fe. Hjt fa '- ^ IT^ V <1. •* Trib h an ol^f c^Kial U does nol- shcvj CU/VC^aI- oi^ SOBjtCT Rzopg.»t.TL^ "yiO Ajor^ /\-rrw ©m. PERMIT RECORD Permit No, S(aS. Date Type of Permit ^^<dd. /5"g^5~ 74^ yy/3 v5--ir--7 r //- /V- ?<-<££^ s-9/3 ^=^z-S=:0 /j )j’ HO ^;~7V //- ■ m L i-. •'• i ’ 1 7!^ O-u v^ /V^'^i‘ olt-r^ JLds^L /'nxxjL c2s^^. <ueZcX^ ^Dnc:^U2- <9 y\s^ 0*x-c<^ ^ 0-.-<''-CL- C/V_j /C^ n! o ^ 7 jUtrv» jSc9'^z6?»u^ '/y^'^UL^ I C>a> 'y^t '^'\f)^'lcrz<' G A*-^ f\ssii^*^ x27I?i>>i.v, ‘T^ r^ <y^"V-uL^ /Lcwx^z'’ JjXj^ Q^ 9y]^<^l^t>^ ' dAAyw-U.‘ Ly‘^“^ hvi^ Alec- cru^ ' M X^- ^^JD-O^-'r-i- ■• ^ ,i-Jl^l<M,<;;^i^ A()£^ S-^CZ7~ CH>C^ ^W64^C>1^ ^Jp <^jrT)v -W'-' . gI - ^’?a.tt- ’ cul/ KfTHi cx^ i'XiA^^ f'^'iCi- Ih'^ ^ fUr^-tS.^ A a^ ■■ [UXA.^H7)< CX Gl SLw-* ■\JL^ MJ^ V.C- ciuoLG ^ gL,pM^- • /I . /? — y'^y ^ ' j Aa.^j \ n /\ y^-1 ,a-5^ /^, \ iA -». .4.2^ -- (7x^ ^ yicMjJ^ cnh^ GlcJ i>Z^^ r' ■" fetfeot- UAj^'^Jiy p4wT>^W^ Qiyiny>\u. ^ CtJ<ji 6 ■'t/€.*-^/^^*u<j ,b;£^->W/K.yS5: Qy^^~(rO<.ihL^ L ^ /r!,„ /}. • oi^..r^<ynjuU\ T jU^ . (G)U>H)&i^ J2Li,u^O~24A^^ M'l/^ )-W«^ oJr^ 6-« • • * \VL.■m :: ... .. IzT • • ^ •• •, I ! ?:.A. :■. I r■ ■• i-“‘- B»- I. >.'«V ! i•• I:• '•’. J :• II • t ^ ; 1. ' V * Jl ■ ** • ••••kfo*-•*'**»* -1 *V ^*’.**’: •••'-, ,*.v^ '* •.'? * ■.**'• •* .,*V . • . V *-^ * ' ^ • •. ‘ i • ‘I r- • V - . ‘* *:. ’u r' -V* ^'V... . • »l- /• ..V /. ♦' • 1 . t •i ' • I A Vi tv/ r A.’?" C *■: r • T - ----------------— J .. i - I ■—L ■■ 4 • i I I. I • \X.\l i .• m - • • < i / »* \* i \_____ •‘V. *• • . *• . : •;. "- ‘ ’i . i ^’ *' •* ’••^’V'*-* * n ■ •‘'J'l . •' > ; - •■"; -^ r-r-1"^ I. • : ; . *: . 4 •* .• *:.* . .• * . 2 *«U •! -Av ^ -iv-r; I V -•"vr I I I . i •J I. J Ll-JJ ^r: -:•[ I__ I ! I V. : h <0 \>4 c ___y. \ o 0 1 i I f > I 1 ) I mmmm TTjrrz::,.-\y.Ky__ -P(J^ -yi^Acti - .. LA1d; IV •litmms ,.. r- f ^ -^i^^iirjCli^JTyyt. 1 T/A^ * / » —-aJ // To: From: Date: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 14,1998 Subject: #2369 Joe and Mary Fiedler, 365 Westlake Street - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre, Sewered Application:Request for lot area, lot width, side setback, side street setback, rear setback, lot coverage by structures, and 75-250' and 250-500' hardcover variances to construct a new 30x44' residence to replace the existing 20x34' residence; and construct a new 30x22' garage to replace the existing 10x19' shed. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey: Existing E - Proposed Site Plan F - Hardcover Calculations G - Conceptual Building Plans H - Letter to Applicants 5-1-98 Requesting Additional Infomiation Pertinent Standards 1. Requirements per LR-1A district standards. Section 10.23, Subd. 6B: 2. Required ^Principal Structured Existing Proposed Variance Lot Area = 2.0 Acre 0.245 ac.0.245 ac 1.755 ac (88%) Lot Width = 200'50'50'150'(75%) Side Setback (South)=30*10'10'20' (67%) Side Street Setback (North)=50'19.3'10'40' (80%) Rear Street Setback (West)=50'63.3'65'- ements per Section 10.03, Subds. 9, lO’*': Required fAccessorv Structured Existing Proposed Vmange Side Setback (South)=10'2.2'5'5' (50%) Side Street Setback=50'37.5'23'27' (54%) Rear Street Setbaclj=50'2.8'12'38' (76%) ♦Assuming this is consii-r^ed a through lot, all accessory structures also require a Conditional Use Permit. #2369 - Fiedler May 14, 1998 Page 2 3. Requirements per Section 10.22 Subd 2 and 10.56 Subd. 16L: Hardcover Limitation Existing Proposed Variance 75-250'zone = 25% 1180 sf (13.0%) 2391 sf (26.3%) 121 sf(1.3%) (Area = 9,088 sf; 25% = 2,272 sO 250-500'zone = 30% 285 sf (17.9%) 564 sf (35.5%) 88 sf (5.5%) (Area = 1,588 sf; 30% = 476 s.f.) (Existing hardcover and zone split as calculated by staff) 4. Requirements per Section 10.03 Subd. 14C; Lot Coverage Bv Structures Limitation: 15% of entire lot area = 0.15x10,676 sf= 1601 sf. Existing Lot Coverage = 688+192 = 880 sf = 8.2% Proposed Lot Coverage = 1320+660 = 1980 sf = 18.5%* Variance = 379 s.f. (3.5%) *21.2% if deck included; applicant indicates deck will be eliminated. Discussion Applicants purchased this property in 1991 and are requesting a number of variances to allow removal of the existing residence and small shed, and replacement with a larger residence and detached garage. The lot is only 50' x 213', or about 1/4 acre. The existing house and shed do not meet required setbacks of the LR-1A district. Conceptual plans and elevation views for the new' residence have been submitted. The footprint of the proposed house is about double that of the existing house, and the new garage will be more than 3 times the size of the existing shed. A portion of the new house and garage, and most of the proposed driveway, will be in the 250-500' hardcover zone. The requested hardcover variances are relatively minor given the small lot size. The lot coverage variance is significant. Recall that Section 10.03 Subd. 14C allows 1500 s.f. of structures regardless of lot area. This lot could have as much as 1601 s.f of structure based on lot size, but is proposing 1,980 s.f of structure (not including the deck), an excess of 379 s.f The proposed side and side street setbacks of 10' become critical from a grading and drainage standpoint due to site topography. A retaining wall located in the northerly alley right-of-way is in disrepair. Plans should be submitted showing how this wall will be dealt with, as well as how grades will change on the site to accomodate the proposed walkout, and how drainage will be directed to avoid impacts to neighboring properties. The proposed 5' side setback for the garage and 22' depth of garage leave a driveway apron within the lot boundary of about 23', adequate for parking a vehicle within the lot boundaries. If the garage is moved northward to meet the required 10' setback, this leaves an 18' apron, barely space enough #2369 - Fiedler May 14,1998 Page 3 for parking a large vehicle between the garage and the alley. According to the proposed garage floor elevation, the garage floor will be lower than existing grade to better match the alley elevation. Review of Hardships The submitted hardship statement notes the 'physical constraints because of lot size'. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship The following criteria must be considered in determining whether adequate hardship exists to grant variances: 1. 2. 4. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property contains a small existing residence, but that residence cannot be expanded or replaced without major variances due to the small lot size. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The number of variances and the magnitude of those variances are related to the size and shape of the proposed house. A smaller but functional house and garage could result in elimination of the lot coverai^e variance, and reduction in the magnitude of the hardcover variances. These variances are related to the size of the house being proposed. However, replacement of the house even at a smaller size would still require lot area, lot width, and .setback variances since the lot is subject to 2 -acre zone standards, a factor which applicant cannot control. 3. The variance, if granted, v^lll not alter the essential character of the locality. Applicants' lot and the one next door are identical in size and are by far the smallest lots in the neighborhood. Each contains a small house. The character of this neighborhood is, for better or worse, changing from what it was 10 or 20 years ago. Larger homes on combined parcels are likely to be the norm in the future, rather than the 'lake cottage' character that seems to be disappearing in most of our lakeshore neighborhoods. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors have not been suggested as a consideration with this application. #2369 - Fiedler May 14, 1998 Page 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Single family residences and detached garages are allowed uses in the LR-IA district. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The same lot area and width requirements apply to all residential lots in the LR-IA district. The setback requirements for this lot are somewhat unusual because it is surrounded by dedicated roads or alleys on three sides, but the lot is so small that even if the alleys were not present, significant side setback variances would be required. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The conditions applying to this lot are the same as those applying to other lots in the LR-IA district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has a right to maintain the existing residence. There is not necessarily any inherent right to construct a larger residence on the property, nor to make changes to the property that do not meet City codes. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrar>' to the intent of the Zoning Code. To the extent that drainage can be controlled so as to not impact adjacent properties, granting of the variances will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Certain of the variance requests are related to the applicants wish for a larger house and garage, and others are related to the hardships inherent in the small size of the lot. I #2369 - Fiedler May 14, 1998 Page 5 Issues for Consideration 1. For construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence, lot area and lot width variances are inherently required, as well as side and side street setback variances of some magnitude... 2. The size and dimensions of the proposed house and garage contribute to the magnitude of lot coverage, hardcover and setback variances. Those variances could be slightly decreased by reducing the size of the proposed structures. Axe adequate hardships showu to justify the granting of the variances as requested? Or, should the structures be reduced in size to more closely meet City standards? One way to meet the lot coverage limit of 1601 s.f., would be reducing the house from 30x44' to 28x40' and the garage from 30x22' to 24x20'... Reduction in building dimensions would result in slightly better setbacks and slightly better conformity to hardcover regulations. 3. Because this is a 'through' lot by definition, the detached garage as an accessory stnicture technically requires a Conditional Use Permit for its location (the CUP is an integral part of this variance request). Given the nature and limited use of the alley, are the proposed side (S') and rear (12') garage setbacks appropriate? Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review and reach a recommendation on each of the following variance requests: - Lot Area and Width - Lot Coverage by Structures / Size of Structures - Side and Side Street Setbacks for House - Side and Rear Setback- for Garage - 75-250' and 250-500' Hardcover Staff recommends as follows: 1. Approval of the lot area and width variances which are inherent in any proposal to rebuild on this small lot. 2.Approval of the proposed garage location 12' from the west lot line and 5' from the south lot line. 1 • ^ #2369 - Fiedler May 14,1998 Page 6 3.The side and side street setbacks of 10' for the house are a bare minimum and staff would recommend the north side street setback be increased if possible by reducing the house width, although this would potentially yield a longer, narrow house to keep the same square footage. 4.The hardcover variances are relatively minor and in keeping with others granted by the City for similarly situated lots; staff recommends approval. 5.Staff does not recommend approval of a lot coverag: variance for this lot. A compromise position might be to reduce the house or garage size to more closely meet the lot coverage limit. 6. Applicant should provide a grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval. Table for further information or revisions. Recommend denial. Other. ?//t. Ji •' I • • ^ ••'; - •Q .y CITY OF ORONO - Initial Application F^^$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 \iJ 0?n "-V~ Wc\V\Q. Property Identification Number (pX d .) '■ '-'i LIGATION Application § 2-3(2?^_____ Date Received ^ Amount Paid D-^ 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: V residential ___other (specify)_____________________ Zoning District: \ f\__________________ Phone (home) Name,IZ^ _______ Phone (work ) ^ APPLICANT •k. V ^. _ Address:~?AS V jO v U^Tk^Cin : V^c>v\^ V n Cv<^ .^VV vk N Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $^ \ Describe request in detail: ^ ^o>vSsrV<u^-V^«> k \ oqvv\^ c\ ^________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area Lot Width yC Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front ^Side V^ear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difTiculty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code re(4uirements:^V A ? **TT^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour anplication to be considered complete; 1. 2.X 3. V 4. y 5. 6. X 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 SYi" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/2" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 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 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 Signaturfr=T7^ Ci J 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 Sienature-ZrCfy^ ______ Date VA ^ 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 RUN DATE 03/28/98 BATCH 501 PROP ADOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 05-117-23 23 0013 003^0 WESTLAKE ST C K HARRER A T R HARRER CYNTHIA K A TIMOTHY R HARRER 340 WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE HN 55356 0016 ST 38 05-117-23 23 00364 WESTLAKE WALLACE W PAASCH H W PAASCH 364 WEST LAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0019 00372 ;JESTLAKE ST ROBERT D ERICKSON ROBERT D ERICKSON 2800 STONE ARCH RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 05-117-23 23 0026 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED E C GAGE III A D C GAGE EDWIN III A BARBARA GAGE 460 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0029 00365 WESTLAKE ST WESTERN UNITED LIFE ASSUR CO JOSEPH D A MARY B FIEDLER 365 HESTLAKD ST LONG LAKE Hi 55356 0014 S'*- 38 05-117-23 23 00348 WESTLAKE ROBERT A OLSON ROBERT A OLSON 348 WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0017 00372 WESTLAKE ST ROBERT 0 ERICKSON ROBERT 0 ERICKSON 2800 STONE APCH RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 05-117-23 23 0024 00341 WESTLAKE ST I E A H K BERGSAGEL IRV BERGSAGEL PO BOX 149 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 05-117-23 23 0027 00389 WESTLAKE ST JANET DONALDSON JANET DONALDSON 389 WEST LAKE ST LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 05-117-23 32 0001 00420 TONKAWA RD ANNICK R H PRATBERNON EDWIN C GAGE III BARBARA C GAGE PO BOX 59159 MPLS MN 55459-8250 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 05-117-23 23 0015 00356 WESTLAKE ST E C ANDERSON ETAL EDWARD ANDERSON 356 WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0018 00372 WESTLAKE ST ROBERT D ERICKSON ROBERT D ERICKSON 2800 STONE ARCH RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 05-117-23 23 0025 00349 WESTLAKE ST EDNA T ANDERSON ET AL N/L E EDNA T ANDERSON 177 PENINSULA RD MEDICINE LA>^E MN 55441 38 05-117-23 23 0028 00373 WESTLAKE ST P H LANGERT ET AL H/L EST PRISCILLA M LANGERT 373 WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE HN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 501 00014 r\ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOE FIEDLER OF LOT 18. BLOCK 2. HILLSIDE PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA MMMqU (NM ■■ t •IF - i ' i- y f' EJI • ' r^V i'nv.: * V fes'*: ■ i LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lot 18, Block 2, Hillside Pork V o : denotes iron marker (936.5): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house and shed thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. f 1' 1 \D\ ?KoPos UO Sl/hi^i-Ci/Arjqp ?V7.^ppopo^eo T^.P .PFi^otAj^^r fuj^k. ?vj.0 emposBD.:^. _ jo£ fi^d;_e:r CF i.(?r le^ I3L0CK 2, HIUS/I7F PARK HBNN£PN COjMtV, MINNESOTA t Us V- in k 4 > M • I £>orrm p ^£l spbd /“«^30' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) F-l 0-75’ EXISTING HARPmWR^T^ rnsv 250-500'500-1000’ Length 7 Width X X X B. Garage | ^ C. Driveway / X X D. Sidewalk ^ ^ ^ ^X X E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE / S.F. S.F. S.F. / I % k( 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.House X • 1 S F Length width X s S.F. X s=S.F. X ss S.F. B.Garage X S.F. C.Driveway X _a.b'H ^S.F. X r=S.F. D.Sidewalk X S.F. X S3 S.F. E.Patio/Deck Sen'X rs S.F. X s S.F. F.Landsc. »e • X S.F.Underlain X S-S.F.By Plastic X ss S.F. G.Other X S.F. e Qm c-m TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - / TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . ~ ^ I t B 100 =• M ‘ u.. *^Txrrr7T\' 13 ■* -r-p •/.. S.F. S.F. % A B •» A —.....Vf?.-C O Staff Hardcover Review #2369 - Fiedler EXISTING: 75-250’ (Area = 9088 s.f.) AIlovved=25% House 688 sf Sidewalk 135 sf Part of shed [192-( 12x10/2)] 132 sf Gravel driveway(nom.) 1/2x15x30 225 sf 1,180 sf (1180/9088) = 13.0% PROPOSED: 75-250’ House (30x44) Deck (20x14) Garage (30x22)-(16xl3/2) Driveway part (10x7/2) Sidewalks (4x30) Stoops (6x8) +,(4x8) 1,320 sf 280 sf 556 sf 35 sf 120 sf 80 sf 2,391 sf (2391/9088) = 26.3% 250-500' (Area = 1588 s.f.) Allowed=30% Part of shed (192-132) 60 sf Gravel d'way (nom.) 1/2x15x30 225 sf 285 sf (285/1588)= 17.9% 250-500’ Driveway (20x23) Part of garage (660-556) 460 sf 104sf 564 sf (564/1588)= 35.5% CMCD zMu. in<n Icnr^- in fH • • ID r-4 CDcncn tH f>- tH CD OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOE FEDLER LOT 18. BLOCK 2, HILLSIDE PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA , '••■5. • • • rt'4. t /- > % I , OIHCINAL documbnt*^i ffffffm •»T. * >* » ' .l-.Li-"-':!:)RV/S5r *J «'-;^i *,MV- ..It*fe;r:J4-.;/3^ > .FIRST FLOOR * t••i' e:SECOND FLOORj .*:’ i Hi '% .1 ‘ • •.r•• * • >v *'jJL ^••->1^\T-«;VVHy t'dwr •C' v-w»' T ■ - .>,<-;<4ili^lk-=.. V •, •"v. “ ■*“-------------»•- *• ^ • it ".It m r -T../4:i\ ^•* ^ •; '-^V , KiihnsBros. KXi I lOtW IN#: CJRFOritD GREENWOOD ' The uniquely styled Greenwood features an • imposins end wall of frendi doors and trape- ” zoid windows. Family activities center in the open area below, wirile the masters of the house are treated to a secluded upstairs loft and bedroom suite. ,i ^i|:;!qi”--i:' ?! ' 'lifilitifri. . I . , .’i'l 1 lei; ■• »? ‘4>;: 1 %',%.iY r ^l' * ■V'li. • w» . iVI -.,., • , *.! THE DETAILS I sr.':' c i IIjfwlal MMli I i,v^2, •*.l •*• • .fvit^/i' • '’•’** I «il i.;t«wh* SECOND FLOOR v: ii'-r'i!i!p' iJii Mtm wtir® m amt,7^'’^. I ^2izJ2IAL '=■" 19 0 0 f/j, y^’/ il' !. J!# ‘ IB-A^ .rlit . VT; ifjt..A. .'*V4’< I?:;"; ,;• ':•': . ■ wm^r ^Ur ■. • ' i * 1 m:Z;r7 ' ■ I * • * fc:v; a i - , r? .V ,•• « %. . J-.' • .!■:/»• jCb r FOt* itr * • • * CO C\J s ICO i *•. 1^!- •. n *■ - * MXIDf (l»3 MT: rout* )«ac WR MSW0OR 101 ROMUIMS f a IQKIMW OM« PHH Mcr m r-0* wiHWf—^ iiBiliiSpiiiii ii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiliiiiiiii »w>sw5n«K)(toffwo«Mc« RIGHT ELEVATION VtaUT«MR NOTE: •• CKURIOR WINOOW 1RIU flCOUWCO AROUND PU1UCIC.<} OF rRONI WINDOWS AHO IRAPCIQIO WINDOWS - NO tyiCNIOR imu RCQUWCO 9L1WCCN WINDOWS - AREA 8CTWCCM WINDOWS IS too SIDiNC NK; WMOIM VR9«n caK M lum WM. 5 •• (MUM IfC NmSOR <14 wot MM WM I IIWR IM |IW.)8- K I-* ik: "■“*7o'tfiSSB?RW Mii •V 8 .1 t. •S-; \J •■''m •>9*^ f It g. »«1 ’■iHyy.i iw-'-'f * . . &: - my-y-- ».« . . ,-V'*’-IW- .-i- S.. V .. . • • •• Hr.. Vi-:: • • wiDHH mi IS'^9 J m -— I J! JSfSlII!51!• ' ?IMff •!.y ififf'if III II {I fill flit I j t ii j it IH iini HIiii I ti»LII’iiiMti rnmiL. 2^.:V4 •vA:'; •••? : .• •• i v ••‘i • ■• :!!!?!!!|!!i:i;i!;;:;;;;[iii;;;. ;;i;u!|i!;;!TT!:!Nlf|| irillllil ■ imuiinniininmiiniHitiMiiiiliti'iiminim in iiiiiini Wmm fPV aa RPI n MIK •roaa FROHT ELEVATION tMnaommvMWMR :.R':Tr;4 • fr. v.'vf .■*. - S' .:v.-rr:i . f t • '»A* < •’••w ■■? * w • u (^ lb "}»' '5- fO'Vt'.'. :.■• •» ♦*• vV* i V. •• CO CVJ ;cd>:fefi* >* ' >§ ) . •V Stvirv- aooR m (ttM IIOOR UK Qw.) KW: rouor 90KU i#csl ksmjcihws rojt nouiKuons roR ftmiUAvoM W IW WH ROQf MHA. ^ftoavwrwj MJIt; OUMO U»C BEIWSMS C[UHG IWl M9K MVL ■'t* fmm '»V1 ^ r-D' OWHIiC m-r»V aS^ >■ v.t: it *? - *'ly» M* I it •mmr i MV St* -31^5.;-/ • 4- T ^ty •-. 1 • .-. '•-H mu JX LLLjIrro s;II II IT rniriacu m 3 J mnuomioMi ivonk lllllllllllTt!|||? \4. ■. ii« y=^q- BEAR ELSYAVON X.VOWONC fee#:-: ■.f'V:::'-’:'--': L o \ i* :<’T^ra r ■/ * i^'^U .• ■ 4 'i -‘■I. • i >!i w.iitlEJl - •* w < < • i y :i ■'r'^ ..i;^iiiJCfr'".. mu 7« {TS..-7.V u GITYof ORONO Municipal OfTices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 May 1, 1998 Joe and Mary Fiedler 365 Westlake Street Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Variance Application #2369 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Fiedler: Your application for variances to construct a new residence and detached garage has been reviewed on a preliminary basis and appears to be relatively complete. However, two additional items of infomiation are critical to the application given the steep slopes and the requested setback variances: 1. 2. House plans and elevation views. These do not have to be architect drawings or final construction plans, but should depict the basic shape, size and exterior views of the house. Topographic information with a proposed grading plan. This is especially critical if you plan to do any excavating to create a walkout situation. I would be pleased to meet with you the week of May 4-8 to go over the proposed plans and answer any questions you might have. The two items noted above should be submitted by May 11 if at all possible. Please call me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Senior Planning Coordinator Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 14, 1998 #2370 Robert Kuhn/Gary O'Keefe, 1392 Baldur Park Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Application: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2-acre, Sewered Request for hardcover variance, as well as a variance and conditional use permit for grading within 5' of a lot line and within the 0-75' lakeshore protected area to permit construction of a new residence with walkout level. Note; The O'Keefe's purchase of this property is contingent on variance approval. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey (Existing) E - Proposed Site Plan F - Proposed Grading Plan G - Draft House Elevation Views H - Hardcover Calculations I - Neighborhood Topography / Residential Footprints Comparison J - Variance Resolution #2831 adopted July 9, 1990 K - Documentation from Prior Approvals L - Comprehensive Plan Review and Excerpts Pertinent Facts Lot area excl. traveled road = 30,800 sf = 0.71 ac (Exceeds 0.50 ac min. requirement) . Lot width = 97.5' at shoreline, 113' at 75' setback (Exceeds 80% of 100' min. requirement) irements:Required Proposed Lake setback 75'84’ Street setback 30'80' W. side setback 10'29' E. side setback 10’13’ Average setback No encr.No encr. #2370 - O’Keefe May 14, 1998 Page 2 Hardcover: 0-75 ’ N. 75-250’ 0-75 ’ S. Existing 496 sf (6.3%) 3985 sf (26.2%) 2284 sf(29.6%'> 6765 sf Proposed Allowed 0 sf (0%) 0 sf (0%) 6288 sf (41.4%) 3800 sf (25%) 605 sf r7.8%^ _0sf(0%) 6893 sf 3800 sf Variance 2488 sf (16.4%) 605 sf (7.8%'> 3093 sf Proposed Lot Coverage by Structures = 3664 / 30,800 =11.9% (Meets 15% limit) Proposed grading: 1. 2. 3. Intent is to lower crown of hill by 2-3', including grading within 5’ of side lot lines and within 0-75' zone, requiring a variance and CUP. Intent is to excavate witliin the 0-75 ’ lakeshore protected zone to create a walkout situation, requiring a variance and CUP. Fill ranging from 1’ to 5’ will occur in the 75-250' and southerly 0-75' zones to create a larger flat area for house and driveway. Background The existing house was built in 1910 according to tax records. The detached garage was built in 1973. A variance was granted in 1975 for an addition to the house and basement replacement. In 1989 a variance w-as granted for 4,940 sf hardcover in the 75-250' zone and 1,893 sf in the south 0- 75' zone (totalling 6833 sQ for replacement with a new residence. A CUP for grading in the 0-75 ’ zones was also granted to allow for filling in the old house excavation and reworking the driveway. That application included a request to excavate for a walkout, which was denied. The variance approval was renewed in 1990 but was never used, so the current status of the site is as it was prior to the 1989 review. The applicant has provided a site plan showing removal of the existing detached garage near the road, reconstruction/relocation of the driveway, and replacement of the existing 1100 sf footprint house and 584 sf garage with a new residence and attached garage with a footprint totaling 3664 sf. The lot coverage by structures will still be conforming at just under 12%. Hardcover on the site is reduced in the 0-75 ’ zones and increased in the 75-250’ zone. There is a net increase of about 128 sf over the entire lot by staffs calculation (414 sf per applicants calculation). The proposed hardcover over the entire lot is essentially the same level as was approved in 1989-90. The net effect is to shift a greater portion of the hardcover to locations further from the lake. The house site is atop a hill on the otherwise very low and flat Baldur Park peninsula. Applicant notes that lowering the hill slightly will result in the new residence being somewhat less imposing in its surroundings. Both adjacent homes are lower in-the topography than applicants site. Note that #2370 - O'Keefe May 14, 1998 Page 3 this is one of the few double lots on the peninsula. However, a portion of that lowering will occur in the northerly 0-75 ’ zone. It appears that 2 mature trees in the 0-75' zone would be removed as a result of this lowering. Applicant also proposes to grade for a walkout. This will require excavation of as much as 6' deep in the 0-75' protected zone where such excavations are not normally allowed, and would likely rsult in a 3rd mature tree being lost. The City has denied a number of such requests in the past, citing Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies that intend to prevent changes to the shoreline landscape (see Exhibit L). In summary, the application essentially requests three separate approval: 1. Hardcover variances 2. CUP and variance for grading to lower the hill within 5' of lot line and within 75' of lake 3. CUP and variance for excavation within 0-75' zones to create a walkout, as well as to fill in existing foundation and reconfigure driveway Review of Hardships The applicant submitted a CUP application form rather than a variance form, hence no formal hardship statement was presented. Applicant did note the prior hardcover variance approval, and Planning Commission may wish to review the findings from the 1989-90 approvals (see Exhibit I). Applicant will be prepared to address the specific justifications for the granting of each of the requested approvals at the May 18 meeting. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship The following criteria must be considered in detemiining whether adequate hardship exists to grant variances: 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property contains an existing residence. That residence could potentially be expanded without variances with some revisions to the site plan; however, access to the property is necessarily within the southerly 0-75' zone, so some variance would likely be needed to revise the driveway even if a house was built meeting hardcover requirements. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by tlie landowner. #2370 - Gar>' O’Keefe May 14, 199g Page 4 The magnitude of the hardcover variances is related to the size and location of the proposed house, factors under control of the applicant. A smaller house and garage could result in a reduction in the magnitude of the hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone. The southerly 0-75' hardcover variance as proposed is the minimum necessary to accomodate the driveway, and this is a factor unique to the property. The variances to do grading work in the 0-75' zone are related specifically to the use to which the applicant wishes to put the property, and are not inherent problems with the lot's buildability or uniqueness in staff's opinion. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Applicant's lot is larger than most other lots in the neighborhood. It also is the highest lot in the neighborhood. The hardcover variance will allow the construction of a residence and attached garage completely within the 75-250'zone. The character ofthis neighborhood has been changing over the last 15 years as the small summer cabins have been enlarged into newer larger homes, typically on 50' lots. \one of this upgrade has occurred by combining two properties, so the applicant's existing double lot is somewhat unique. The proposed house/garage combination will not be substantially greater in footprint area than other homes/garages in the neighborhood. The proposed 3-level view from the lake side, coupled with the greater width of the house than those on neighboring narrower lots, will potentially make this house dominant in the neighborhood. Applicant is attempting to soften this somewhat by lowering the height of the hill so the house can be slightly lower, but at the expense of some mature trees and a slight change in the topography of the shoreline. 4. 5. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors have not been suggested as a consideration with this application. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Single family residences and attached garages are allowed uses in the LR-IC district. #2370 - O’Keefe May 14, 1998 Page 5 6.The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The same hardcover requirements and grading/excavating limitations apply to all residential lakeshore lots in the LR-IC district. 7.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 8. 9. 10. The conditions applying to this lot are the same as those applying to other lots in the LR-IC district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has a right to maintain the existing residence, or to construct a new residence on the property that meets City code standards. A new home could be constructed on the property without most of the variances being requested. The granting of the proposed variances will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Granting of the variances will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Certain facets of the hardcover variance request are related to the applicants wish for certain size house and garage; the southerly 0-75' hardcover variance is related to the factors inherent in the lot due to the lake being on both ends of the lot. The request for grading in the 0-75' zone is for the convenience of the applicant; the request for a CUP to lower the crown of the hill, while benefitting the applicant to some extent, may also lessen the impact of this home in the context of the neighborhood, but results in the loss of mature trees and changes the natural topography of the shoreline. Issues for Consideration 1.Have adequate hardships been demonstrated lo support the proposed hardcover variances? Is the fact that the proposed hardcover variances are similar to those granted in 1989-90, but now with a greater share of the hardcover removed from the 0-75' zone, a positive factor #2370 - O'Keefe May 14, 1998 Page 6 2. 3. in granting the magnitude of variances requested? Is there a basis to suggest that the hardcover overall should not be increased above the current square footage on the site (approximately 6,765 sf)7 Is it appropriate to allow grading within 5' of the lot boundaries and within the 0-75' zone to lower the hill 2-3'? The grading appears to amount to taking 2-3' off an area 50x100' and filling from 2' to 5' deep on the road side of the house to make a larger level building pad; the total amount of earth movement would appear to be in the 500-1000 cubic yard range, a portion of which is required to protect the house foundation. It is a close call as to whether a CUP is needed merely based on excavating in excess of 500 cy; a key factor should be the potential impacts on drainage. The plan appears to not direct new flows toward the neighboring properties. It would also be helpful to know whether the grading plan requires any importation or exportation of fill, or if it's balanced between cuts and fills. Any approval should require the standard erosion control requirements. Is there sufficient justification to allow excavation in the 0-75' zone to create a walkout? Please review the minutes from the prior variance approval, and the included Comprehensive Plan review and excerpts. Staff Recommendation 1. 2. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance for the southerly 0-75' zone to accomodate a driveway. The variance to allow 40% hardcover in the 75-250' zone for a complete rebuild is not necessarily in keeping with the City's nomial practice of holding new constniction to a higher hardcover standard than when an existing home is added onto. The primaiy factor that supports some degree of hardcover variance is that the 75-250' zone is reduced in size by having lake on both ends of the lot. The fact that so much hardcover will be required to accomodate a side loading garage suggests that hardcover might be reduced by having an end-load garage, but due to topography it would have to be at a lower level to end up with a reasonably sloped driveway. Planning Commission must weigh all these factors in reaching a recommendation. Because of the loss of mature trees in the 0-75' zone, staff has difficulty recommending approval for lowering the hill. Conceptually, this proposal to help limit the potentially imposing impact of this residence on the neighborhood is a positive step, but the need to change the natural look of the 0-75' zone to accomplish that, is the problem. If Planning Commission recommends approval, it should be subject to City approval of the grading and drainage plan to ensure no impacts to neighboring properties, subject to a confirmation that cuts and fills are balanced to limit the importation/exportation of fill, and subject to erosion controls. #2370 - 0"Keefe May 14,1998 Page 7 3.Based on City's history of denial of 0-75' excavation to create walkouts, and based on the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, and based on the potential loss of an additional tree, staff recommends denial of the grading to create a walkout in the northerly 0-75' zone. Grading should be allowed, however, in the north 0-75' zone to fill in the basement of the existing residence and grade it to match existing contours. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. Recommend approval. Recommend partial approval or conditional approval. Recommend denial. Other. Application # Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ' Site Address • « S no CL S Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^3 ^1 OOP3 ___________^ f 4 O APPLICANT Phone (home) ^ 7c^ ' / Name Phone (work) ^~ / Type of Application to be Filed C LAP Address '^07 ’'^ (Zry City /}j/AJA/i^/7C/\y-^Zip ^iS ^ -5V,4 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ff£>€.criJT 4, -Sus>V Address Phone (home) Phone (vvork)_ City Date Property Acquired________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Zip __(month/year) LR(-CFEES - 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 ^.VNlTtUh) ^ Pf20f^?2TV _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _ PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _ $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee -JL / •f .;5i23^ 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 * . *2. * •# > ♦ wPP-23-1 •?•?£: li:24 PROn iRSMPX • ••I* «« •••• Qt EEFE IIE'IHhMMhL. 111*:. "to ' Bll »i»® tl2 941 1391 P.03 03 xr'so»ew25 \©*3efiM U2i9 WiUVmIvD SUBMITTAI-S J CoTPplCtCl^ AppllciUon FoiTTl. 2^ ^ rc^ucll Ifi dcJQjl- ,. ,.24...*» 5 * Attach Icp.al dcscripliOn to pppllocUon if nei 'iterations involvo 0. 35"‘ Tuj.OErflrhic survey (cxisiins and proposed coniourF) U chans^^n i" clcymivn (eradca). uoitons v/Uh an tntcrcsi in S"rs:j« ««•'«"«■“ pcn'cna yo-J notified cf thU RppHcftUtm. VOl- Anr, lUvQVIRKD TO SUPPLY 30 for HCTRODVCTIOMU ” X , Zm.m., pi-, eic. to b, (Stan will tcqulie to scelc drawings 9\lbmiit«d) ... 0-. - »■• T.‘r.» nppliceiion is not comploio if t^e above Informniiou has rwt b 6. 9. Ccrtlflvetlun by Clerical Dei^arttnem thm l.eiid Use InitlRiS of Cluiwi Stair:.----------------------------------- Applicanl’e t\zna<a*^^^t*p ^..OWNER'S SICNATURK .PpHcaiion Rnd fuulict eulhotticd Owpet’6 signaturo _ /^r U-------^------------------ AtiyHeani fnutr hpvr aU auVminnb Ia »p iH» Crty ©fficci 2S ^ «i S.linTtroi*n,U,l.u McCin^E are heW on the Mondoy ©f e«h W J e all fcheUiilcd review meetinp of the ai,’„t acicnd l» your pta« end ©Ovlta U*e cclicflulcd fiicccln^. ?'■«'•« KTAnp-ti.cuW 10 have an nu.hori* ^ Buirdi/»2 & ’*■’* mcctn*. ' ":-53:s ’’V- ‘•i f .. I • -4^*. *T i ■» PV ^ X h ‘ -:'>j •' TOTW P.M.S TOThL P.Oi' Pfi s ■'6' \ / I V NORTH ARM RUN DATE 0^/23/98 BATCH 503 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 38 08-117-23 31 0001 01900 BALDUR PARK RD CHARLES B REIO CHARLES B REIO 1900 BALDUR PARK RD HAY2ATA m 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INF0RMATI0f4 SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 31 0002 01396 BALDUR PARK RD R J « M A WETT TRUSTEES RICHARD S MARGE WETT 1396 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA m 55391 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 6 38 08-117-23 31 0003 01392 BALDUR PARK RD R C & J E KUHN ROBERT C A JUDY E KUHN 1392 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADbR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 31 0009 01389 BALDUR PARK RD M D A J A VERSTEEG MARK 0 VERSTEEG 1389 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN BROADWAY SALES 1000 W BROADWAY MPLS MN 55911 38 08-117-23 31 0010 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN BROADWAY SALES 1000 W BROADWAY MPLS MN 55911 38 08-117-23 39 0016 01912 BALDUR PARK RD C C HAGFORS A K E HAGFORS CURTIS C HAGFORS 1912 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0005 01376 BALDUR PARK RD J WANG A D L BOTHWELL-WANG J WAf4G A D L BOTHWELL-WANG 1376 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN BROADWAY SALES 1000 W BROADWAY MPLS MN 55911 38 08-117-23 39 0019 01920 BALDUR PARK RD C M JOHNSON A K M F JOHNSON C M JOHNSON A K M F JOHNSON 1920 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 39 0017 01908 BALDUR PARK RD JAMES P WERNER JAMES P WERNER 1908 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN BROADWAY SALES 1000 W BROADWAY MPLS MN 55911 38 08-117-23 31 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN BROADWAY SALES 1000 W BROADWAY MPLS MN 55911 38 08-117-23 39 0015 01916 BALDUR PARK RD J C ULKU ET AL W/L EST RUBY E & JOHN C ULKU 1916 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 39 0018 01909 BALDUR PARK RD CHARLES AFFIAS CHARLES AFFIAS 2639 JERSEY AVE S ST LOUIS PARK MN 55926 f "O PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 39 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 8902 BURROUGHS RD W DEER PARK HA 99006 38 08-117-23 39 0029 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 8902 BURROUGHS RD H DEER PARK WA 99006 38 08-117-23 39 0030 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 8902 BURROUGHS RD W DEER PARK WA 99006 0 RUN DATE 0^/23/98 BATCH 503 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^35401 PAGE 7 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 08-117-23 3^ 0031 00038 AODRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 8A02 BURROUGHS RD W DEER PARK WA 99006 38 08-117-23 34 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 6402 BURROUGHS RD W DEER PARK HA 99006 38 08-117-23 34 0033 00038 AODRESS UNASSIGNED HAROLD R KITCHEN HAROLD KITCHEN BOX 418 NISSHA m 56468 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 34 0034 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 08-117-23 34 0059 01428 BALOUR PARK RD THE HELI ROTH TRUST GUENTHER S HELI ROTH /TRSTES 1428 BALDUR PARK RD WAY2ATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 503 00023 J I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE I i. U O ■i LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Boldur Pork This survey Intends to show the boundaries of the obove described property, ond the location of on existing house, garage, ond oil other visible "hordcover" thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements *T)r encroachments. ^ o Denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum Ootum: Meoi'i sea level 0-75 FT. ZONE AREA: 16570+- S. F. > 75 FT. ZONE AREA: 15190+- S. F. ,________ $>(TB ^__✓f / 'v • -------------------• '/------ » ♦ » *y* ••••* >\ f-........*c**-/-\ \V\W?% \ 4 4 \ 4 •n » * \ ^0 ^0 I I 1 \ ^0 i ri \ -'^'Vfvvy mm Iv..^..NrST V.* ^^.*»•• \ *' ..L/-. / / / / / / - /. / / ■/,/ / 4 / / -' / • / /••' / / /1 3:^1/ / I I I i I I i i' f-H I / h • / > ■' / I-' i ; •’ ' / / iI ! ! I «**/!■ • / I • / / / I ! • W IL' ____5) ^ -----V-Vr- r:zzzz^-=‘^ >' .^T-VVv(r / * »• bN I *1 itu I > / /' _________" .•*•;.• • *'• ■ •*• *• '.* :•/ . • • • ejo»iwft Hcws« s 5SVWDESIGN wTSSpmw*** NEWREStXHCE GARY & LORI OKEEFE PRQJMMARY STTEPLAH •BMi r*« m SEfinr/DESlGU BSIpMiAmmIa IlMiw^i.tW IMS TAfltQIIMNI ' ! NEWRESDENCE GARY & LORI OT<EEFE PREUMMARY SITE PLAN Ml: r»m mu 0.s eSS c it L-l :3 3 3 S 3 3 ft« Cu tu i ............................ ^ _____________ .Kwri, oooo\ -'..--"'zr >n f-----c / / N ,./ / 'V ■*• ^ _ I > f '* ' '""*sL- ' .N/X. '' ' \ ^X \ N. s I / \ __ I X. s&' .• ; • '♦,••; * ■ “ • .•••# • • • .■ \:SfZ\' \ . i• • •• \ • r 's,: I \ r—ii •. • . i • '" . y " •’. • ?. . .. ■• ?..•*• 1 •; .; - • f / r-/ *•* *^x. 1: •Kb i \¥' /. 5 * V. : • ^i* • \ •» I I * ti ‘ V I’H' ' • *'• * rK‘‘ •• - m . • • • i-. •: ,ii' iHv. •••;■ ^>"-1 V• "i ■ r..i t’rr:-'-! ■ •. ■ rmi • • V . tV,. u * • » X ,r. « % :r. *• • •* > • j • . i A *^7 “ * . • * • • • V . ^ J • • :\ ,*f . ♦ * • . • • f- . ^ : • *• • 1 •• ‘1 HARDCO\TR CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) F.VISTINn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length 75-250 ’250-500’ 500-1000’ Sc>OT\A \Vi(iih B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Platslic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X v JoQ.tv \ a TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 g>'2.50 Oil \^\Co PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE A. House ______________ X 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 s =3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 44 S.F. \9A'L S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. -- S.F. S.F. A S.F. B Hot^x+l ^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ . + B X 100 02-55 11 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 650 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^30 650s.f. g S.F. i ^7 A B % HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' f 75-250' l 250-500'500-1000' A.House X \ ^S.F. Length Width X S.F. X =S.F. X S S.F. B.Garage X 54 o S.F. •• C.Driveway X 2€>Ol S.F. •X a S.F. D.Sidewalk X \^o S.F. X a S.F. E.Patio/Deck X S.F. % X a S.F. F.Landscape X S.F. •Underlain X a S.F. By Plastic X ts S.F.- G.Other X cs S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE .S.F.A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE .S.F.B A ^01-1 B X 100 -'IS.S % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A.House X a S.F. Length Width r X a S.F. X a S.F.^ l. ! X a S.F. D.Garage X 8.54 S.F.•r'• C.Driveway X • S.F. •m X a S.F. 1 • D.Sidewalk •X a 17S S.F. X a S.F. E.Patio/Deck X ga S.F.- f, X a S.F.TJ F.Landscape X a S.F. Underlain X =S.F. By Plastic X =S.F. G.Other X —••S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE <^\An S.F.A •TOTAL PRO PERTY AREA IN ZONE_____-1 ^ 1 S.F.B A ^ —A + B 1 ^ 1 X 100 «% •3) .•y ■ ■ ? f- LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, HARDCOVER - 1392 Baldur Park Road v Gross Lot Area 31,750 sf = 0.73 acre Portion in traveled road - 950 sf Net Lot Area 30,800 sf = 0.71 acre (Exceeds 0.5 acre min. of LR-IC zone) Lot Width: At shoreline: 97.5' (Exceeds 80% of 100' min. reqmt. for LR-IC Lot of Recor At 75' setback line: 113' (Exceeds 100' min reqmt.) Hardcover Zones: 0-75' North 75-250' 0-75' South Area= 105'x75' = 7,875 sf± Area = 15,200 sf ± (per Surveyor) Area = 30,800-7,875-15,200 = 7,725 sf± EXISTING HARDCOVER: 0-75’ North: House (26.5x14.5) Deck / steps (8x12) + (4x4) 75-250': House (26.5x41.6)-384 Det. Garage (24.1x24.2)-(4x24.1) Driveway (1250+975+240) Steps, patios (5x6)+(4x30)+(6x9)+(6xl0) Timber walls & borders (0.5x100) 0-75' South: Part Garage (4x24.1) Gravel Driveway (112+660+220+1056) Timber walls & borders (280x0.5) PROPOSED HARDCOVER: 0-75’North: NONE 384 sf 496 sf / 7,875 = 6.3% 718 sf 488 sf 2,465 sf 264 sf SO sf 3,985 sf/15,200 = 26.2% 96 sf 2,048 sf 140 sf 2,284 sf / 7,725 = 29.6% 75-250':House and Garage (See sketch) Patios and walks (See sketch) Driveway (See sketch) 0-75' South: Driveway (See sketch) 0 sf = 0% 3,364 sf 896 sf 1.728 sf 6,288 sf/15,200 = 41.4% 605 sf / 7,725 = 7.8% Total Existing Hardcover = 496+3985+2284= 6,765 sf / 30,800 = 22%of total lot Total Proposed Hardcover = 6288+605 = 6,893 sf / 30,800 = 22.4% of total lot 2, f , A avaa 5<avd anaivs *f«ofos(e^..l» AiefecJi/CK - wn laivM ivHdON .KWfc bV Of We/4(-t/5oe.|4ooL.' H0'Jif/(5.ARAC-'F R«3Tf(2.;Mr BAct"' £:^;-TA O ac !^- 5694427 kjfsggsg City of ORO ^*■*t •.0'*'rW / •’S • . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY NO.2831 TBA|)i$FER CNTCR19 .MJG 21 1990 A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 PILE #1544 WHEREAS, Roger and Becky Berry (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1392 Baldur Park Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Lots 17 and 18, Block 1, Baldur Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for renewal of variances previously granted to permit construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property, requiring a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit a 2' encroachment past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover in the southerly 0-75' and in the 75-250' zone in excess of the hardcover normally allowed in those zones, and for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and variance to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the regrading of portions of the property located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no grading is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1, This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1544. 2, The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3, The property is approximately 0.71 acres in area. Page 1 of 6 nCity of ORONO ,,,., :,:,;., ^ •. f • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL' * - .*•»: •; 2831 _________ mV.V! ■■•“■■•NO. w IfORQNod 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed the original application #1363 on January 17, 1989 and February 21, 1989, and recommended approval of the applicants' revised request for variances and a conditional use permit based on the following findings: A) Hardcover is being totally removed from the northerly 0-75' zone and is not increasing in the southerly 0-75' zone. This is a substantial benefit to the property and to the neighborhood in regard to quality of runoff entering Lake Minnetonka. B) The hardcover increase in the 75 —250' zone from 26.5% to 31.9% is justified by removals in the 0-75' zone, which yield a reduction from 8.8% to 0% hardcover in the northerly 0-75' zone. All of the proposed hardcover is necessary to preserve the substantial property rights of the owners in developing this property. C) The average lakeshore setback encroachment of 2' is appropriate given that the actual views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners will substantially increase as a result of removal of the existing house. Furthermore, encroachment of the proposed house past the average setback line is necessary to preserve an existing mature oak tree on the property without redesigning the proposed residence. D) The variances requested are consistent with variances granted for upgrade of other residences in the Baldur Park neighborhood in recent years. E) The unique elevated nature of the property in relation to the surrounding properties, suggests- that the residence must be located near the highest elevation and further from the road in order to benefit from the northerly view fo the lake, and therefore requires a longer driveway with its associated hardcover. Page 2 of 6 ^^CITYi ' City of OROINO > • ?;f >-S r ^ •• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUI^CflL ‘ ^ ‘ ; . NO. 2831_________ i r?i' ysHT F) Granting of the conditional use permit and variance for grading in the 0-75' zone is necessary to allow applicant to fill in the excavation that will remain after the existing house is removed, with a blending in of the grade to existing contours. The applicants have revised the house plans so that their walkout concept can be developed without the need to change grades from those naturally occuring in the northerly 0-75' zone. In the southerly 0-75' zone, minor grade changes to reconstruct the driveway are necessary to provide a safe and low-hardcover access to the property. 5. The Planning Commission reviewed application #1544 on June 18, 1990 and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval, finding no changes proposed from the approval granted in Resolution #2587 adopted March 13, 1989. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit for the proposed grading in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 6 iia RONQ-J City of OROIVO ••• c ^ 1-¥• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL VO O *" V',’- t 'V * NO.2831 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS V--- i-'*' Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to allow an encroachment of 2' past the average lakeshore setback zone where no encroachment is normally allowed, and grants a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover of 25.1% in the southerly 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover is normally allowed, and allow 31.9% hardcover in the 75-250* setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to allow regrading of the yard areas in the 0-75 lakeshore setback zone where filling and grading is normally not allowed, subject to the following conditions; 1. Construction shall adhere to the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. 2. All hardcover in the northerly 0-75' lakeshore setback zone shall be removed. In the southerly 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, the existing detached garage shall be removed and the driveway shall be reconstructed in a manner such that hardcover in that zone shall not exceed 1,893 s.f. In the 75-250' zone, hardcover shall not exceed 31.9% or 4,940 s.f. The existing detached garage and hardcover surrounding it shall be removed, and a third garage stall shall be attached to the proposed residence per the site plan. Exhibit A. 3. Per applicants' revised proposal, the grading in the northerly 0-75' zone shall be limited to that work necessary only to bring that exoavation remaining from the removed residence back to pre-existing grades conforming with ^ ® shape and slope of the pre-existing topography. No^ cuts in the 0-75' setback zone have been approved for creation of a walkout. In the so,utherly 0—75' zone, grading is allowed as necessary to minimize the length and slope of the driveway as well as the hardcover associated with it. All areas in the 0-75 zone shall be immediately seeded or sodded after completion of grading, and all grading work on the property shall be subject to erosion control measures as may be reguired by the City. Page 4 of* 6 M mm City of OROrVQ ■\> V > ^ Scijxir •,> ■ r RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.vV^AV^i5 ‘ * NO. 2831_ _ _ _ _ _ applicant is advised that no additional hardcover ^w^353^e allowed on this property in excess of that granted with th.e current variance request# but any future proposal to add hardcover on the property might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover# resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property. 5. Applicants are further advised that the traveled portion of Baldur Park Road extends within the property boundaries and the City may at some future date request additional right-of-way to accommodate that roadway. (Granting of additional right-of-way is not a condition of the current variance approval.) 6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant# but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval# or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (July 9# 1991). 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code# shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein# and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned applicants have read# understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves# their heirs# successors and assigns# hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of July# 1990. / ATTEST: in# City Cl^rk' Property Owner( Page 5 of 6 '‘i «• • «ir p®tel STATE OF MINNESOTA ) City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __________ ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) \ ^ • ...• \ • ’V * * V'.\» The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of July, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Cit STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this before me a^ Nota appeared _ known to me to be —----------- — foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. No^ pSuo V*min Sesota HENNEPIN COUNTY oofnmlsslon expires 9^92 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ___________________________ known to ine to be the per son (s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. * NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of "fe --------------• -____- . - ^ ^ _ -VI,_____ J» ^ • fim&cr A £b&/l . Aio. 2-gS-? /Oo, 35^3/j£!e^O/- • «■ • *• ^ Pjwtwe /jin>t»A-<t. uoJte> - •"<*«=' 'i gS3^-« •*• .jcrjk.w •>. •^t. - ■ ■^B*aJp -RttiSs, rv> • *••’»# /.K C’:N Jl-i — . .. ''• I.' ^ * •••V» _ <,r.-.-Vv^-.,^^ ------------------------- \ le^wsec^I ^ i-y To: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelly Oror.o Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator January 11, 1989 Subjects #1363 Roger & Becky Berry, 1392 Baldur Park Road - Variance/CUP - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IC, single family, 1/2 acre, sewered Application - Request for variances for hardcover, lakeshore setback, en average lakeshore setback. CUP/variance for grade changes in 0-75 lakeshore setback zone. liiot of Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit. C - Exhibit D - Exhibit '£ - Exhibit ? - Exhibit Cj - r.xhibit :-i - ;-:xhib-t 7 - Exhibit J - Exh.lbit A - Exhibit L - I’ortinent Pacts - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Neighboring Property Owner Acknowledgements Survey With Existing Site Plan Soir/ey With Proposed Site Plan Preliminary Elevation Views Preliminarv Floor Plans •■A Proposed Grading Plan Hardcover Calculations Submitted Krtrdcover Review by Staff Baldur Park Area Variance Listing •» ^ •The p.“Oferty ie bordered on the north and south ends by Lak: Mi.r'jjotonkd. Per staff calculations, hardcover in the various zones i.: sura:’.arizee* as follows: 0-7n* ■/!V~2 ‘3G' 0-75’(N) TOTAL 0-''S‘ * %•*J. h ft S) Existing (25. U) ^26.5^) 1,893 s.1 s,no a,, 697 s.f. ( 8.8%) 2,590 s.f. (16.7%) Proposed 1,893 s.f. (25.1%) 6,043 s.f. (39.0%) 362 s.f. ( 4.6%) Zone Area 7,548 s.f. 15,500 s.f. 7,950 s.f. 2,255 s.f. (14.6%) 15,498 s.f. 2. ry • i 'tIv 'ihe 8-75' zones, there is a net hardcover decrease of 335 s.f. 73-250' zone, there is a net hardcover increase of i,933 r. Overall, there is a net hardcover j ncreaso on the property of ^ ' s.f. Please review Exhibit K for a more detailed layout of hardc'*' * on this property. In north 0-75' r.cno, the existing house encroaches in*' n Vc r a CT e sot b"• zo--,''. 'i*he p r op osed res i d<•’ n ce v ill «- r ••• a:rvrox.i:v"* te' V ' into .he av^r;ior> setback r.cn*^, v.'jfh f ' •V attroxi "t'V.• I'.' "• *h-t -rn*-'. 0 '-2.* ^ ^fS TO tAfAUkoi4i" %\ N fii^ f«tofoset^ fr pgc^;*'t' p)e,oPose^ f/UJfilO> /-5 ’ ymPTH^ !f> D/eiVfWA*/ s<Hrt,e iCe-'tiUct^ t.^ 1 o S(M>if^G PtA^i V 05 I/' W ^If I? J V i & \_y '•V.« aiiA^ cHANGeS Fb(^ \ I rs v'* i *>o f> \/lStA^( ZATJO/^ Pue^OS^S - AjoTtS %'i TTAFP § L-< e y.L. -L«.^ ■ ■■»•*■*■ " i'"*^.■fr. V'T—,-‘V ^ I ••- ,^W:; r*'- - ;i% ' • . ,. >r. .:. W-^5 . v//>-V -v ••• • • .•> *?'.. . »7 • > ». •* *:t '?‘T~ •>•:.•.•.■*•• >r V* - - »'‘*1 ^ V 'J-.*..i ^ •'*::V-V ■..';>... '•:• ••S-7 -> v: -^' '■• - i >? -V •*.-V V i--*;. v.^t . Zoning Piltt 01353 January 11/ 1989 'Va^u 3 oS A 3U,« ^ 1*S “ l“.° y«r.Sfb«“\Vn“"-MS V .» iionua^ n»c-ate thoir neod for grading in tho 0-75* *ono If 'X constructed. Vhe cala floor of tho hou.o la already L'il'Sc? tc'L V^ofS? /bo». .xl.tln, 9««o in ord.t to »lnl.l« tb. vj.VwUirc o.\ t^#u V4>l!r;-c>ul; cut# -c.-...,.. -T.y-.J v.lvj rianninc Ccstaiscion and City Council havo t^^ a ...,t ‘-L"v ttaru .;rai;;3t cutn in ohorelina aetback sonoa ^o croato yalk- rrn- in ia the Waters' ajpllcatioa on Casco Point. 1« J.T./.-y" ,, ;t.-dly soro tavoro than that proposed hero) waa created eventually was r<K:ulrod to restore to original ^ra-r" A j'w-i ci^lur Atuation ia tho Waldron application on 4>.fX' -fr rise 5resortV ownor waa denied tho right to cut down hia yard Siceaoary ahorellna bank repairs, to create a w^v"-fc ”t Vho^differenco, if any. between those reguesto and tha current ia m^-elv u diffStance in nagnitude of the proposed cuts. Proo inintiction^^ the walk-out cut ohouJd l»«vo only a Sinixa^oifu^ on giflity cr guan1:ity of run-off water entering the lake. •in xVii jouth 0-Vb* ceno, the fill to accoasodato tho revised <*^^vsway cocoa ^c-What oxtensivo a.id the proposed driveway grades are rather - .ti-co-o-'’ra^ cay incroaao. The driveway ®?rop.woulo appear to m :5i/o i«.“ T'at.ly .t tho .oot. Vh. -hoi. garage access uituation 8eo.ss rathar questionable. Based on the location of the existing and proposed the now house. Regcroing hardcover, the "th^rolati^ of hardcover on the property are tVe hardcover increases tho P^?3®ffy' JiVlat llts. overall hardcover on the propertynoiTo significant then on f ^aa ■ f Th® Amount of structurAl increases from 6,700 e.f. to ?hS in«c«e in the 75- hardcovor on the property is the high end of what has250' sone from 26.59 to 399 is slightIV towards the hardcover, typically been “PP^oved on Baldur Pa.V. Th i3 propOAcd at shown a« a percent of the total l®t *^ ^ on Baldur Park (see 26.6*, which is very typical of what has occjrrea Exhibit L). : ••■r if 7 , .*> ♦; W - * Vi. I ; • * -.IT,* : •••.; j . * • ■., ^ t * ^ ■. */. < ...• ••. V;=v?v.77Vv--. - ‘ 7 • , •: . -r4 - ^ - •! ‘4 s • \I r.• . * y • . >• .« *l ‘1 f ^ -r r.-**••T *v'>HV-:.:Vv ■ ■" ■V •• •I '^1%* J. ’ • (f ' iS j ' * »r ^ . • ‘ ^ 'I • ' ‘,‘fi <* •. • - ■’. , •• *• , rf’ ■./% • •» V:' ;^• :^Vv^•^•>• f «V*3 .• I ▼ ! • • •. \ I ••<.! ; - i-‘ / **-V •»• ;•. > ‘ '.S:^', ■‘iV^ V.'■. '■••rr.j ■ . V * r ** 'I ' ;,v'- * • • M * m ' %,,,:*t-<-;;f y-,v. . ■ ';■■••''vv-yv; ,»Vi';»fV-.*-/ - I • *•■ ’■• 1* ■, -.!•••■..: r>-- ;..• ■•' ' .V t'** ^ •»■* ‘ r‘*» A <",»•,•■.'5a. ' 'r .'• ^ 1 ‘v • V. .V -», /' \ V ' 4 ■ 4.^ * ••**• ,’':.l' sosin*; */ilo ai3S3 January 11# 19G9 ?0f'0 4 of 4 on tr.o obovo iTocw, cobMnt., «4 oboctvationo, .MfC vnuia «io the foliowlAg rocoaaandatlonoi 1. Applioonta aboold conoi#or find jcuth to tttci^yt be^conoiBtoat with saatlak^choro totbacxa. '-’hi- requiroaonc wou*m « j^jxiictico io uiuiiitur oitu«xtlonfi« 2. a«licor,o. abouio co..ol.2.r ronov^ ct,tho cxcccaivo vfuve- “”^3- rorag^in ordar to reduce the oaouat 3. '.;■« ;ironooci cut to “".“‘“'“nich'lio'™ Mcoatly'^n Soaio4 of thi. t.,u..t i. r.lativaiy aiftor co?v**ta to those other caaoa. 4. preservation o£ mature trees on he\^^ *otoaUri°voyu«"h‘r.ha..V^^ thi. coa.tructl.n a. vl.«d fro. across ths ls)ce. 5. The proposed ^^^tompt^to^aise Vhe^h^^ there^ apparently necessitated resulting in what could bo tniTe\rtie ?£^nVViVuatr. ^‘0^rTnar.-t^L^7rVc\Vdown the lot lines and not on to neighboring properties. bring back an alternative site plan. i w:} _r l-‘- * W 4>P HOMlf TO yft^&kO wA/J£C>MT P(tO<*»S Ct5» u N ^cc *• . K :Ci. 'ir'i ' • r /#/£nif- V M ! ' fw'S.:P- 9 2i. • • /^AOMWO pi^oPose^ f/UJfl(^ j'-^' j>efiTH^ lf> p/eiVfwAY /K^A SCAU€ fZ-e-'t^iAci^. ■'■'=• ^ r=zH' *' ^ , - r • • .^' •. ;{ \I? V I/' *sr o 'i H # <-ot, ^;<2AC>€ cHfitNCfeS, pof^ v) r M I! rs i V ■J>: ^P- -.'C> V- • J/ISUAVI ZAT?dAi PM&P05<fS - /ViOTtS H>'i STAFP > . , . <;,*• » f’.Si. . fc ^ t ♦! A-« ■; ^--11 * * ■" ^'»• - r.j*.-. ,f ■ t rf;iA** mi n<" ■*■ ^ <•*;'''*)<-• .HI .-, .«iwrrs8 07 «3 »!«=«« •’” ■-, ^•••:^ ftfSi• ?*fc .y.j.V'AjVU- •.•''li;'-* ir*:-»ri. ■■'•'■'•'’vii •••:»<»??>? ^;-'-.‘'V:>. <- v *r^i ::• -^';f • t'. »#. ^ .va ■ ‘ *1•*■ » ' * V'vt ’.'-' .- >; ■ ■■ V.* -V'U / •. V'-v..S '<■:•■■■■'< • frfRvI 'VKO'j^ K yxfi :H^>y• V • J ■ ‘- " J .:;vyd•; -• J - «SOTES 07 T33 7lMaHiC CO»aSSIO» HEStlXO JM«»»7zcvxas 72U8 dl362-SiJii*i»i this propooal with hioth« applicant if ho had j,o had and the neighbor toneighbors? hr. ®.^j*®5tcRs* Mr Schoenwettor explained that tho^o!ghl2? 5S th^Bailing hia houa« and sonriag to Vlorida. ^ . .V,* <.s« •leaD frogging" circuaatanco waa sol lows ra^iewiaV^ lakoshore setbacks,typically ccnsj-eorad rfhcn | property directly norto she c;uostionou *--^q lakoshore aotbacks for the of :-ir. ik.uuer‘s. Cafrrcn e\?ved that if oao were to proportion to uuo ..f w^.,,/g ©n tho north to tho south, it araw a lino ^’ho aaaa would occur on the south ThxriV w“c.l of' prop.rtl.. loc.t.O on point, or Peninsula'0, as is this property. a.t. vor. no eoonont. fro. tb. public r.9«dln9 thi. Mtt.t and tho public bearing waa closed. «.o coved by Chtirnan F.Uoy^^ %7«^A"lcnLon Yue"! coaaisaioher Cohen, to of^«17 o.f. froo whatever aourcosubject to a I'ardcovor reduction of 4i7 o^ setback ao available, ana “PP^^VhiB^aoolication would bo the property ■V ^ 6 iiSdC: SSRSYC*x3i,3 *.0*- iyj2 PARX RCAb B^!^ffSaAt*l/wbric«“ r«d ertificto of MniUn, v.r. duly noted# The applicants were present for thi# matter. M ox-,laln.d by »»»““« V%«unc*,"f Tn «"d.r“w"d.‘JJJu5 Gafiron, the Dorkj’s currently the hardcover on an existing residence and as a driveway tno property consists of a detached^ g ^ proposal calls that continues uphd.1 I t dock and attached garaga. iho for a now rosidonco A Ar®a but would become 8lig*.S:ly driveway would remain in .®A^®A'tl’ sorry’a to maintain tha detached garage. In order „ortlon of the yard by bringing in will bo necessary ^»rh« Berrv’s are proposing a walx~ ?Iil in tho south 0:!5 ’ withi';! the north 0-75*out which will require grading ^ locate tho zone. Ono of ^voragl setback, is to preserve a Pl.„nln, coool..lon.r 0,1 loo. .xpr....d h,r r...rv,tio„, of J V'•>H®.t ?r -Hf'd */••. w'^i- %. r ■’■oly.'v. *'•*4 . ‘ ^ -v • .' . f. • .1 L:*/:"'*1:. r : ■ ^*.^^ : *» ■ * * • • r * ti;: >. &•. • • • 't •. t.. I-' 1 ■- 4 • •'I • . t —-T .%• , / . . * T ) ?. . *•':>v ;■-.*.• •• .# ‘I*’.•s' «—/-t v:'*" ‘v i ‘ ' ^ . ’ • 1- , » ' ,*^ .'!• r f‘ -**^*'i’*v •v^yv ''' L',«Vi;\ ^**• » .’'•. i"-*-. ^ -•'A ' ■'< i PLUXSItlG COSOIISSIOS K2S»IKG JASWJIY 17, 1939 • ••’ • » •'■: ' ;. ■ O • .* J>;. lo ;i ■I -'**;'*'* . .f •'• <■*” •\* ♦»- «• ^ V. i. *1 *«• * N' t . * .••.*•. •* ' V* V •'.• ; . . *-.V“ '.• Vf’s* r 4 V : : :■ :• |‘ ^ vsA, .>*.*: V* . -•.; ‘..^•.•^^• ■•;. ••>'.■■ » ^ ' *1. f - i J V'‘- •! ‘ ' .->*:•*•*/;•. #• • ' :.'fcvc.v?.v}.. • *^V • f . j ; v* :.-i>“-. ■ ■■ ■•'. 1 '.*. ■•.•. '• ■''■'; ■■•'l I ■ \v>"''-i .• > i i/. • ^ • «v 1 • * - KtaJ'^CS 07 vansocaLC yaa sho foit t:-.at aalloving varaoac®- for a r«»io *xi»ting topography ofi tha uhoulO cnly fc="L““ * tL^u?d bV used. This would bo o^jgciilly ^ s-^*^ *; 0,,t tha .alh-aat woali thhS Bud. diffaratca thiu> cho axittihg battaant. =^i?r tod c«LlJ2a°fpto7a* SSriaYot^rrn=srt“h'i- tr^a «««^ tspjarod *“-*'“7,* a tad*»n%stlMta* Iron t tree tarvlec that dioicu-rboda uQ a — ^cq qo Planning Cociaisaioa^r JOi\n3on St“tta ‘d“aat a ‘;rg-di'ni‘o;t-.crrrTd w’ould thr.at.n th. .ah troo. Planniag Co^jaioofoner bro^^ ^tho ;rth? va «r°t “h?t“ Oa B.r?ya had to vetk vith, h. did not boliova thu-a ahould ho a nood for variancoa. '.V.orc wore no coaoMto froa th. pubUe tag.tding thi. nattor and tha public hearing was closed* xz wau EOVed by Kol^ Planning Tho Planning Commission did son* direction ror and filling on th* north not want to on the south side the s.de in the 0-75 . removal of the detached garage, attached garage nuat oo to build a three-car garage if theMr. Serry expressed ms oesire to bui ... 75-250* zono it Setached gn?age ^^-<3 more waa the cor.cenouB of the applicants to adhere to than 3C0 hardcover. BaTlowB informed ths applicants the average laxeshoro satl»c)c. ®**3' . .„ig roqaests would ?hat coa.?iiance with Kelleycause a substantial ‘^®‘3uction in th a aa^ot^^ actual house Buggosted that a planning Cotrjtisaion's opinion plan. Tho applicant -tlted Jhl? they would not allow regarding the i.^lk-ou . north aide if it required grading in Jh^ O-Vv -one '™,°"n.'Jurri' «n%‘rur, of th. property oust 5^iLin. HcUon, Ayos-7, »sy.-0. Motion phased. t.1:II?. *.> 5;^ ••J. ij: t. *1 t '!:• r Iv. ir ' I i’ > I ^ , {•' r ts. K .,«M O^o. • . *T^* T* ** "* ■ •■vxt'tvy-i- :*5 -,f 'A'- .‘.H c f‘' * .‘ • MV-^ c:^’i2 oj oriciiCi i».0. Box 6» Cicystul B»iy# • ^ »2 %aUOM V21^ BO. 13S3 usraca Off vaasTia coaiasaoa «isi<a 473-7357 ■>““ VOl « Eeck*/ li»orry 1392 l^lour Pa:r?w Tvoau Waysata# 55391 TO a 35od Lund 1^0^Lyndal?A^ St 234 BlooBVlngton^ Kia 55420" n ' Waysata# Bicoaington# ...____ Varianco ________wJh 0/ A??L2CA'yiC^t varianco ________________________________________________ VV ^r- k -----:ri*^V4'" I/I7/89 VOIKI 7 Por 0 Ag«in®t Plaimiag Cci^coiwi K-coaauudfl tte foUoiflasri ' for reiiiaona noted below. • * • V■I '..rV'.- . . ** •.* >'.*•< Vs* ••> KCtfin^ SPECIAL *> 4®.!^ ---------------------- 1. A t. ‘j • K*3\.-. T*-V-'.-’ 'v-.i^-vvv ■• •!' Kortlior-y 0-75' -ono: a) y.lxninato ull hardcover. naceaearv to roetore old » . *?*^ ' • •* 2. '. ' 'yf .' • .‘•. *• '• . vt Southoriy 0-75* ?ono: v--acovor asoociatod with detached *’ a.t.ch.4 ,.r.,. vith .tt.ch.d 3-atall garag'a 75- a)'l'i£‘H^dllvcrtr3ot'(5?Slo'’;!i.) m 75-250- don. Atpllc.nts- noxt scheduled im" meVtl*n9 ”• Mondey,«}-iiM.v - 3?r/»y 5o?rh“."/.eU' lo. i,.* ...tin9. A . . j A- w ^ ■% A % % ,' s'. ■■'.■'• ..I « ♦ • . I ■ i ^ K n^inuad with tho submittal of in all caocc. the *FF^n''^90 d«"y8 or^'^thi City will consider thoroGuosted intormsition within 90 days application oa formally withdrawn. . - . . . • 1 .•■;^; :V * f V •i-V. .-;<>, , 5 •SiV'.Xl' 1 cP.Hcenc h,s t-hle ehcelhin, eddlUone. lh.or«Uo„, vices, contact the Zoning Departnont (473 735ct tne .on.u^ sec,. rlannlnq ConmieMon •f „inu4^n/Tncr;.;e 4iAv ! ^yyroval by the rlnnning Comma.on. A • #•% < a^o . * *' • -t ’ ♦ i »•»' H* , • . i - • ’le^t • •’ •• .. -t n e—rrrfT-'—‘T""; T ’V' T * ----------------------------------------------— *..• • ^ • • . • • . • • .'a ^ 'Crr-^a-'V-^r^rr-V.- . .,. * * ' ' ' ‘.i* ‘ * i-* #*. * . ! . * *• •. ;*3 1.;^ •-. ^- . :• .• ••• ' -V ■, ‘-.>*;*•‘e* •■ ■ ■ % - t i A-' ■.■•■'•• ' ‘ ' • * * .*• 1 ■•.•’•'••'*. i ' cil#WyA$l-;■' V • ‘ ■• ■■ ■ ■ 1^. ■' / ■*■ • ♦ ‘^¥- ■ r'^7;' , ■■ fi^■- ■ '^y ■W- myU.1 m' vj^ (« . i^r ' (■:? it*#-' ■ '■ V ?:-v wT, I .*• '■* ’■ /-( Orono Comprehensive Plan: Review Re: Lakeshore Alterations The 1980 City of Orono Community Management Plan ("Comprehensive Plan") contains a number of general land use and environmental protection goals and policies with which the proposed land alteration would be inconsistent. Specifically, General Land Use Policy No. 6 on page 4-13 indicates that "lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or flood plain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be prohibited .. In General Land Use Policy No. 13, the Comprehensive Plan states "future developments must enhance the environment. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always producing more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density." The Environmental Protection Goals on page 3-20 include the following: "Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged." The City has on numerous past occasions relied on these and other principles contained within the Comprehensive Plan, to deny land alteration conditional use permits and specifically, variances for grading within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, in cases where excavation and lowering of the natural lakeshore grades was proposed in order to, for instance, allow the creation of a walkout residence. The City has long taken the position that such excavations create an artificial and unnatural lakeshore appearance. I AND USE JUNE, 1980 • 3. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. 4. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease ments for conservation of these lands. 5. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. 6. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw * *' development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved Insofar as practical and reason able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas ox soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 ^-3 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 13. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. 14. PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configura tions, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. 15. ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform, City- established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. 16. DEVELOPE'IS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. CMP 4-15 ENVIRONMENT JUNE, 1980 6.THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza Study, the 208 Water Quality Management Study, and Orono's Surface Water Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that require protection as part of the City's storm water management program. It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Management Plan. 7.PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. 'I 8.PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment 9.LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. 10. LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adversely affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new channels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian access where none existed naturally. Dredging will- be permitted in limited circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond the control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner's desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds. CMP 3-20 /3 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator May 13, 1998 SUBJECT: #2371 Tim & Lori Line 4415 Forest Lake Landing Conditional Use-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Size:55,500 sq. ft. (1.27 acres) Application: The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to alter their lakeside yard which is located in a floodplain. The applicants propose to scrape 1" off of the lawn below the 931.5' elevation. Approximately 40 yards would be used to top the last 6" of fill. The 50 cubic yards would be redistributed above the 934.5' to balance the cut and fill in the floodplain. Pertinent Ordinances • Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 19. Land Alteration, Prohibition. Subd 20. Permit Subd. 21. Land Alteration, Exception • Section 10.55, Subd. 4. Definition and Establishment of Protected Areas. B. Flood Fringe District Findings: 1.That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; The proposed alteration of cut and fill in the floodplain will not alter the surface and ground water supplies or interfere with safe and sanitary drainage. The alteration will not impede the flow offloodwater or cause danger to life or property. The alteration will not destroy or reduce the areas of natural vegetation as the rate of water flow will not be altered. U237] Tim & Lori Line 4415 Forest Lake Landing Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 ,->age-l 2. 3. The watershed District must review and approve the plan.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 alteration will not cause loss of life, property, or violate health and safety standards. The cut and fill will not adversely affect public health, safely or general welfare. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The zoning code requires that the City consider these following factors: 1.The danger to life and property due to increasedflood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. The danger of materials being swept away causing dangers to others. 3. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and future development. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit to allow cut and fill of the subject property as shown on the attached plan subject to the applicant obtaining the appropriate permits from other regulating agencies and installing silt fences along the edge of the wetland during the alteration process. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C resolution #3375 D Resolution #3559 E Engineer's Letter - 1996 F Permit Record G Landscaping/Land Alteration Plan H Survey U2371 Tim & Lori Line 4415 Forest Lake Landing Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page~2 l“> ZJ7; Application # Date Received Amount Paid _____ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION A ro• • • •s PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address________ 0 • **• * H.q\^ Ji^(LnlirY\ Oroy\i> 55: Type of Application to be Filed ___________________________________ Propert>' Identification Number (P.I.D.) Ql ~ W'l" 00*^7 APPLICANT Phone (home ) 777P^ Name T/m ^J/)d U)n'eJ-in6-_______ Phone (work) ...4 7 lOQO~ AddresT^V/'^ OftT^O Zip OW'NER (i^ifj'erem than applicant) Phone (home)________________ Name_ Address Phone (work). City Zip, Date Property Acquired'roperiy^^ ^ not) (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more y Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee <’*'o change from original appUcation) After-the-Fact Fee - de Current Application Fee f (•/ ■ Ci THER 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 V =/t . ./ . C • *• 2. 3. REQUIRED SUBNnXTALS 1. ^ Completed Application Form. \/\ Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, t -603, Government Center, 348-32/1). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legd description to application if not included on required survey. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. \/ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ____ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ____ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17” OR S.MALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS Su'SMITTED. (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 inforn;. tion has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_________________________ Date____________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true dndi conect to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature_Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and funher authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members fo^urposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signaUire ^7 ^ _______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 un .ble 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. V ■ V " .. _____ ,1 f•«/—> -■t-rr-<8 —-------'il t '.'- M' n f“.>' T ;x., 8. 3*n*C6-« !<"•I ' '* i.^ ' o .cr' y-‘ -mrnm ■<. « ^7 -t,. (4*5» 'Jr .. ■'T3^-A^_ i=::'' /' /V ■- a? .^v.'C-i^^V'^ ^Vii’:»*:>e5?s:u'J .r MnS fc47l'^-'« •<r' **i* sii5^i?-.-jh? ‘■T^. i? ;•1,f >r: : .‘i ^p:m St. 7:;.; r/ •;-i»::j -7'.' \ \ u >Tv: -. ^*' -• /' TA'*'” ■* SX?1 mmm j' “ r>-^- ■ •- ftV i.’ .* N r ^ rSW||^ ------------- • ■ iTSr^i^CTQ w vV-V'^y V ^ i^> ;A it 335:: ?V;>: jC^ ^ » I. K'-;’ •. . • V* iSC.2 3,1, *V (7)% •4'.. V Vr^-- '•^--!"'' '* ■/“'t j ,-.,!.4iS€?3MS# \ s2Li ■/'5r/'^t: Jr tm. * V*’ J -' vT. , . • 'Oe T' i /' >/ 4JOB nr /- (2?.- ./ V/ >'■' .' 'y.: #?;:• f.r* H.. %:(} ■■ . ’'■ ,,--'. "'''' v,;V; ■■ •^>\ r ■*'n~®-’^'l‘‘‘’^';''“'^ r‘-^'^-^’ •,' -- ■•' :< ^''.:.4 •v / x^dgS\v f*’-J ’*‘• ',\ 1 ^v- / ! •.' " *. ’'/ ■ .*.-. . Vk \--------^_____-•'■ ' ®i^ ^ - f, v^rwBaBSl * CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 3 7 Tt A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) FILE NO. 1892 WHEREAS, Bruce Kehring (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 4415 Forest Lake Landing within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 13 - 17, Tonkaview Gardens, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (A), the applicant seeks approval of a height variance for a po.tion of a new residence that will be at three stories where the code allows only 2*A stories and a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area where the new construction will result in 4,462 s.f. or 32.5% hardcover where only 3,425 s.f. or 25% is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES0L\T:D by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1892. 2. 3. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 55,500 s.f. or 1.27 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 15, 1993 and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following unique fundings and hardships: A. Total lot area is 55,500 s.f. where only 13,700 s.f. lies within the 75-250’ setback area. Page 1 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CUT COUNCIL NO. _3 3 B. c. D. E. F. A standard lakeshore lot with 55,500 s.f. in area would have yielded much higher hardcover allowances within the 75-250’ setback zone. The property is located on a peninsula. The propert>’ contains unique topographical constraints. The house has been specifically designed to limit the need for horizontal expansion beyond building footprint to provide additional outdoor recreational space. Surface runoff from 25.2% of the total 32.5% of hardcover improvements will be treated within a drainfield area and will not run directly into lake. G. A small wing of the new residence will be at a tlirec-story height. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of tfie Planmng Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 granting a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area of 1,037 s.f. or 7.5% and per Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (A) grants a height variance for a small portion of the residence that will be at a three-story height instead of at 2 Vi stories, subject to the following conditions. Page 2 of 5 ftniWDSOhl^ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILq q r .' r NO. Q ^ •' 1. 2. 5. 6. Prior to the filing of an application for new construction, applicant must apply for the legal combination of the five separate parcels that make up the building site. Upon application for a permit, applicant will make payment for a sewer connection charge at $11,331 per 1993 fee schedule and a SAC payment of $750 based on MWCC’s 1993 fee schedule. The City shall require permits for tlie installation of the drainfield and extension of municipal sewer to residence. Applicant’s consultant/contractor shall provide all design and spec information for the review of the City Engineer. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property' not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (December 13, 1994). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 5 • •• • CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of December, 1993. ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of December, 1993 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. CAROLE A. HASEMAN notary RUBIC-AIINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY WT COMMISSON EXPIRES i-ZS-W Notary Public Page 4 of 5 • • •• • CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 15.day of U ti£l , 199J _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared Kah rlr\^. /e. _______________________ known to me to be the person(s) de^ribed in and who e^cuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. CAROLE A. HASEJ^M NOIARyHENNEPIN COUNn K,y cc«-.«.':cN cxpme a V ^ / NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199__before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared________________________________ _______________________ known to me to be tlie person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 5 5 9 .A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDFVTSION 2 AND SECTION 10.24. SUBDIVISION 5 (A) file #2011 WHEREAS, Timothy J. Line and Lori Line (hereinafter "the applicants ) have an interest in the proper:,’ located at 4415 Forest Uke Landing wuhm the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Lots 13 through 17, Tonkaview Gardens, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision .. and section 10.24. Subdivison 5X 'the 4,803 s.f. or 25% is allowed. Minnesota: 1. o 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, findings This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2011. The property is located in the LR-IB. Single Family District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 6-,660 s.f. or 1.4 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application or. April 17 1995. Md recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the followmg unique rindings End hExdships. Pase 1 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 5 5 9 4. A. B. Total lot area is 62,660 s.f. but only 19,210 s.f. lies within the 75-250’ setback area. A standard lakeshore lot with 62,660 s.f. in area would have yielded much higher hardcover allowances within the 75-250’ setback zone. C. The property is located on a pensinsula. D. The property contains unique topographic constraints. E. The house has been designed to limit horizontal expansion utilizing the building footprint to provide additional outdoor recreational space. F. Surface runoff from 20% -f- of the total 29.2% of hardcover improvements will be treated within a drainfield area and will not run directly into lake. G. The major portions of the roof structure will meet the allowed 30 legal height. A small obervation tower located within the central portion of the building will be at a 35’ height. H. The majority of the structure will be located beneath the tree line of the property. The City Council fmds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a "fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spint and mtent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5 The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 - CITY of ORONO i Ifl:-’J> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO- 8 5 B 9____ ‘ 'l>'W CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Rased UDon one or more of the above fmdings, the Orono City CouncU hereby ruSio:‘?TA)%nl-fheirb^- for an observarion rower rbar wi., be 35 ’ in bei,h. subject to the following conditions: 1.Prior to fUing an application for new constniction, applicants must apply for the leoal combination of the five separate parcels that make up the butldm, . f Inon aoolication for a building permit, applicants will make payment for a sewer Upon application tor a o , h schedule and a Sewer connection charge Et 5 * P iqqs fpp <;chcduleAvailabUity Charge of S850.00 based on the M3VCC s 1995 fee schedule. 3.The City shall require permits for the instaUation of the drainfield and If mum^ipal sewer to residence. AppUoants ’consultanitonhacm^ lilw of engineering plans with appropriate design and spec mforma the City Engineer.i ( i 4.Uoon the issuance of a certiP.cate of occupancy for the completion of the wetlunds at the southern shoreline. 5. will expire on that date (Maj 8, 1996). 6.Violation of or non-compliance with my of Pase 3 of 5 I Ok O ^ & I® CITY of ORONO RESOLUTIOiN OF THE CITY COUNCIL ,NO. 3 55 9 7.The undersigned applicanis have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms ofthisresolu; .n and on behalf of themselves, theirhetrs, successors and assig^, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the cham of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of May, 1995. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor rfinu )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 1995 Orono Ciw. The foreaoinc^ instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May, by EdwaM / CaSn, Jr. & Dorothy M. Halim, Mayor & City ^erk of the ^ ' , a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instmmenl was executed on behalf of the k gw JAMIE L. BOSMA NOTAflY PUBLIC-MiNNesOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Commission Expira Jan. 31,2000 Page 4 of 5 . 0 V o 1 Mi CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. '8 5.^Q STATE OF NHNNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day Q{)lfrjLt,AiLL.___________. ^ . within and for said County, personally appeared>J!t^t.i!i-^/L-^ 0 »» known to me to be the person(s) described in and who eA^lited the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ^ki JAMIE L BOSMA NOTARY PUBIIC-MINNZSOTA S{ HENNEPIN COUNTY My Commission Expires Jan. 31.2CC0 ^ ^P’J^g.ag “9gg!y»^SiPg!j90a».g^9i».yJgl5Pg»g»^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared_______________________—^--------------— known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) e.xecuted the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Pu.blic STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of ss. , 199__, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared_____________________^^----------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregomg mstrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of* 5 f^$0C5 >U0rr Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderhk and As^ocunes. tnc ts an Atfsrrnativc Action Equal Oppcrtw^ !\ ''’Vploy^ * Principals: Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Andcrlik. PE • M.irvin L Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Gfenn R C»‘Ok. PE • Thomas E Noycs, PE • Robr»rt G Schunicht, PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Ro<.»Me PE and Susan M Eberim, C PA. Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R. Pfefferie. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskoia. PE. • Robert C Russek. A I A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE • M,:l .1* i Rautmann, PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • y .iiamson. PE. L S • Robert F Koismith Offices St. Paul. Rochester. Wilimar and St Cloud. MN • Mequon. . “A /j /i t\-frs /t /n ^ I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& I Associates Engineers & Architects October?, 1996 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Attn: Lyle Oman Re: File No. 139 Line Residence 4415 Forest Lake Landing Dear Lyle: We have reviewed the plan for handling the excess storm water runoff on the Line Residence. The Plan accomplishes the City goal of minimizing direct storm water runoff to the Lake as a result of hardcover. The design criteria provides for handling tne flow from a two inch rainfall event which is rea.sonable. The system design will require maintenance to insure that it operates as designed. We would recommend that the system be included with our on-site systems for regular inspections. We would recommend approval of the storm water system. If you have any questions, please call this office. Very Truly Yours, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook cc: Blake Bichanich OCT 9 !' 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 ■ 612-636-4600 1 PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date Type of Permit // ^ 7 ^S(c S’ n^ii 1fC\PXh(L ns'^s l^n 6 ' ^ ^ L y3yu.jo^tr^ 7!v’9/)•Cj /0'9 ^■^lUiA 007 C.c). x*- / |j^€jCb|tyl-3®4 4il« »>r 5S^ •• "*•**- ' /t( » ; SuO^U / / { ■ .. A . / .ov '■ '/^// /'/■ iS<o»'frtto jcrn/vyi /-• -I ' ■ / / / ^' /{/''y / V l3lW'’<<i»+ril»i1raain79.>lf fr fcijiia’A ' \ / .■ / / ^ 'Mtcnt'* Tul n H«‘(.jia,y l~- \/ / '■ / / y/J/ A s / •/' /.O'. /y/y. J paiw <lliuS\ wrtt\ a\ df Olid J £, fUJora IfJtrOii F. :i>oau, C^vjti 3,Jo^04iC4 '-{tiJ 'S £1 y ■■4'// ///' Ul\d /' / // /„>// .A“.' © I • !k » <1 K \ \ * % / \ ///=o»\e iacK (ji . ■^0 5flr'flrtttC *f s^db ■'.•wcl ■••IAC. to^ — Fill Oril^bfeKlACl lO®i^ :0L htli)dQ%S' A' •• rM ■A-M 'W-J \ X\ .* // :jv''.yy /• •J • ■1^. o.||* • V ■• A.. K*Crtf»\ Ufdurr Ook bi\di*v^ J^Ked O q L l< Q VflT Arlxwilui J oiob A/*bor/ilft^ in^\ lA.6oictij hodc PiCorti^oA^ ho>\ 2^ Hoi^c la^c K(^ l*b.A^ ;iI^iAo#v .-kkillta \:i6aat\iC0At AniACUd Ji fioc\ii;bii'>\ *N^i|Ujc Aitilot KHiiA\a»vi nstiiuc iiK*Kdt Li^ £l\d^t Tj#Hoyttj BchirtottcL • Xk5fiojfWu Sijp^iVx U'. fitt\§ Ki Hi^<*ocallw / /ln\,:cQ2aw (SnrfKr lJi%Cork/i!lta04*r**'»»0\ w Oo,lja/ii>din i^paCoi^Vt/ur U/\^Nef^0^df Ck^i^u Zi^u\w V Stori^icr L|litt’a\ :^5* 5o/t^ 6irt\Kofdt /imia "T^tiiijjiiKSoii fWikjo lia.AlfM Pi\\ox )ffira Culki*\/^l^ ^wk f^ld^codb\ CaAi\e\ M cltu A»\^t| (cu iiii.\^) «• 6c ix cct Ot0ri((\ i'li mvfca UjJiCd ^•^iwtckio SoMlifUiy #1 Y\ sb' / 4 3f « • II tf X !l X* n‘ W » 71' r( J6 ‘ -\ •K 'V . COlO LYNOALC AVrNUf SOUTH, MINNIATOLIS ^(?) 4*'Ijor7^C«'\c. Y1/^ rof«at Loki LonJ*<^. 6.v»j*3. n !// Q10 iiTM AviM^r NonTMwrsr. iiocHfs\rn '•\ (us^/Ks yy aiAN NO.;OATL; VTAI I Wl' ill 9/Ik -J/^.fiS CUFNfS i»*io*;i r*inf CHON I • •* ’• . * . . •* *.*/.•» i %».« •»••••' 'a?**'" !.«• «ll«* % \f\ t • • i * ? \ . ♦ • « ■ , • »I • • • • « , .• % , * % 1.^?I *• I 7^. ?tai1a?ss«r CRIPTION OF PREMISES; 13, 15. 16. and 17, TONKAVIEW GARDENS es iron marker set es iron marker found shown are based upon an assumed datum. CITY OF ORONO SITE PLAN_ GRADING PLA ey intends to show the boundaries of the above described the proposed location of a proposed house, and the proposed of all visible proposed “hardcover'' thereon. It does not ,0 show any other improvements or encroachments. iT app^^ovlo with revisions ri DISAPRITOVED fi TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 11,1998 SUBJECT: #2373 Steven Beck 2795 Shadywood Rd Variances—Public Hearing Zoning District: LRl-B,One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:34,500 square feet (.79 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance in the 0-75' and 75-250' setback to allow construction of a deck on the lakeside of the house to be located away from the channel. The residence is located in the 0-75' setback and the 75-250' setback because it is close to the Narrows Channel. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential Distiict Section 10.22, Lakeshore Setback and Hardcover %2mSte^tnBtck 2795 Sh(ufywood Rd. May 18. 1998 page—I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeshore Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140'75' and ALS 10'35' Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 34,500 124'160'16.T to house 11.0 proposed to steps 8' from channel 87' from lake The subject property does not meet the minimum lot area or lot width requirements. The proposed addition would meet side yard requirements. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 34,500 5,175 sq. ft.15% The house, accessory structure and proposed addition would not exceed the lot coverage requirement.requirement Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0-75'25,250 sq. ft.4,818 sq. ft. (19.08%) None 4,855 sq. ft. (19.23%) 19.23% 75-250'9,250 sq. ft.3,672 sq. ft. (39.70%) 2,312.5 sq.ft. (25%) 4,022 sq. ft. (43.48%) 1,709.5 sq. ft. (18.48%) The applicant is requesting variances to add 37 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 0-75' setback and 350 sq. ft. in the 75-250' setback to build a deck on the west lakeside of the residence. The existing property exceeds the maximum hardcover limits in both setbacks. it 237S Steven Beck 2795Shadyy>vodRd. May 18.1998 page—2 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated that he would like to build a living area on the far side of his residence away from the narrows. The property is located only 8' from the edge of the channel. The property is bounded by the lake, the narrows channel, County Road 19, and an adjacent residence. The house is at the end of a street and has a circle driveway to provide a turnaround and parking area. The house, proposed deck, badminton court and patio encroaches in the 0-75' setback. 4 U 2373 Steven Beck 2795 Shady wood Rd. May 18, 1998 pages Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The residence can continue to be used as a residence. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. This lot is adjacent to a county road and narrows. The landowner did not create these circumstances. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. 5. 6. 7. The variance for hardcover will not change the character of the area. 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 special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining pror«-rty. The subject property has unique circumstances because of the channel, highway ’ and access. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most of the lots in this zoning district do not have structures that encroach into the 0-75' setback as this lot. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant is seeking relief from the traffic and noise next to the channel. H 2373 Steven Beck 2793 Shadyvnod Rd. Slay 18. 1998 page —I 8. 9. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contraiy' to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, sofi iy, comfort or morals. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The applicant needs to provide testimony regarding his hardship. Issues 1. 2. The lot does not meet the minimum lot area or lot width requirements. The house is 8' from the channel. The house is set back 160' from the street and encroaches into the 0-75' and 75- 250' setback. The property exceeds the hardcover allowed in both setbacks. The applicant could reduce hardcover on the property to accommodate the proposed deck. 3. Previous variances were requested for hardcover and setbacks in April 1993. Tlie application was tabled at the Planning Commission and did not proceed to City Council. (File # 18 17). STAFF RECOMMENDATION To direct the applicant to remove hardcover in the amount of the proposed deck in either setback. Attachments A B C D E F Application Plat Map Survey Hardcover Cals. Topo Permit Record # 2373 Steven Beck 2795 Shadywood Rd. May 18, 1998 page —S ► U 237S Steven Beck 2795Shad)nvoodRd, May 18. 1993 page —6 \ i ’ . • *• rf **•• vn^r^v.- ^ 1 s»5osr - p> mmmxcmA . c*ntM. rWOSFtCTM Bohns Poiltr Crystal Bo} Smith Bay iI Lafayeiic \Country C ub Bracketts Point -e<5: BEACH Lafayette Bay o ^ \ \J ^ ^ Huntington Point Pi Jig.Island _ Crovitx f oint Poinf Comfort ITv ^Island / *^Crescent Bcitch §Jm iSunrise Point # V^->I CirffonBa). excelsior ' ;; ■ Frog ’i’.-. V..3-'|-4<r^ Cilsland Excelsior Bay S->^ •10 ;= _ 00 «••osi = =• > w OUS yj ____ Ift *W1 ' IREWOOP sm cm I lu *^>5 tiurnt Application ft 9^13 Date Received <4— Amount Paid ______ A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220,00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address SMOiiJ^b £I>. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired /oils’J4*f-_______________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: K residential ___^other (specify)______________________ Zoning District:_2;,^^_X^________________________________________________ f¥ APPLICANT Name ^T7S\/£jJ Pgc/C Phone (home ) 7/ ~o S'fS' Phone (wor k) hdid.Kss. St*ADtL)dt>£i iUb._______ City: __________Zip: jryg?/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ ■ V I .i y Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: '7« Estimated Construction Cost $ LuaJUk^ ^ Siw) 1. '■ ‘ JT! ... ’i y:. V '’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: jfc> _______ 1 ^ I *1 ri. 0 - ■' (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; \ 1. 2. 3. 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). Cwu 4. 5. 6. 7. 1 •S-I Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv ’eyor) and include hardcover calculations, as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic sur\’ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (P copy S'/z" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of alLpersou'i with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicaht(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 VY'ari!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 s>theduled 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'b*/ t 1/ 'jC' // i / A*.* V. A A' / r •V ^ A / ?. ^ '5'^ / /56. 93, / O 4 /3) -vv/Zr-^ ‘ V V,/ •s \ :•>>: <'^z 'N / v/V ' ±‘^i^A ^ '/ ' A?/^\ ■ AVv /f'' .cSv •V. / ; m \ / / •:;^ rVv/.y •^xiA .;^^/ i Z\. in'23-3) \ \ • / / V /Z . >' 38// / / - /'■^/ ■ ■' /^-/ 1%'rr/ Z / - V /C/ "^40 '■ f / </"-/ />/ / -v \4j / / ^ # (.; -"i t ‘ - '- } .y /\v.. v\,.,,y / a Mt1« • « HARDCOVER CALCUU\TION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE’one) 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing H ardcover in Zone 8-Z7‘S7 /■eu V * • »•* • • A. ■ H ouse _/S--9 X J2.0 a ' ZZ(^.2>S.F.'\ « • •• LENGTH • ^8./ 'X WIDTH 4^, ^8 % ) /S4 8 S.F. \ . t ^ % 2 . X /s 3o S.F^ .‘^•7 • •\o.f=>•m ^ w 1 9^^ • ■ • Wcoidwall^s • 5.4-X 4-.0 a yy S.F.• S.F. • SiF. /4.7 4-0 X ^/O 4-.0 73• •• • • • • • ^hcJi ‘ B. Oarage , .. \o-.s • X I® .z • 19^-. • c. Driveway • • •»" • •• . X • •s • Jieo 1 W 9 m S.F. •X - I 1 S.F. hlotjcD.. Sidewalk *6.0 1.0 IS. SC Jo . S.F. S.F. "Bci<d.<Cour+' E. Patio / Deck Soo S.F. S.F. F. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY ’ , , PLASTIC SHEETING S.F. • •• • • • »• ^ •* . • X X X S.F. S.F. S • Ft G. Other S • F • Total H ardcover in Zone Total Tsoperty Area m Zone yy/g S.F. Z5.7-Sd _ S.F B 15ZSO X 100 - B % »*• ^ %• f T '•y V«.. c / r r .} f-'-i t * *'• ■= i 7 r V<P5’5'-f r /^. 2?^ • M mm F«Vf • • • 1i • f 5tBVB ? PfiSfirH' HARDCOVER CALCULATION HORKSHpt SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE’one) 0-75'250-500' 500-1000 Existing Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone • • A. * r * **• ** • ■ H ouse 10 >0?X 30.4-S3 '3Z2..‘Z. • LENGTH • ft 2 4-.7 X WIDTH 56.4-83 S<f9./ • ft ft 1 X S3 -------- m A "P ad ’ ^X ft ft 3 S3 • • • BI ooL SwdlL 4,X /0.4,S£>ftIf t *# *. • •. » B. Garage ft X ft ft ft • • • fr* • • • c. D riveway X ft ft • • Zte>o • ft* ft X U/ALc' ■ ^ D,. Sipewal -k •X / • ft SLhe S • ft > X # A S3 Zo ft . . ' . . . . 13ad . Cciytcr z.^ ft X ft 41 S3 /OZ ' • E. • ?ATI0/ . .......... • D eck ft X ft ft 8 ~ a -r ft- • •• ft • • • P.LANnSCAPP X ft • AREAS UNDERLAIN BY • .X ft ft ft • PLASTIC------------ • • SHEETING X ft ft •• \ ••i ft ft 1 X • ft ft •ft ft* ft . G. Other X •a . Total H ardcover IN % Zone 3C/7Z . . SiFJ ’S* P • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. «• S.F. S.F. S.F S # F • SiFi S • F« S • Ff , S• Ft S.F. S.F S.F 3^7Z/ '^\T\X 100 • . • /ll/ fYS f •/ Y 'I. (> C£1 . j>9.7i> % • • P<s^fc z. / SSO - y^2Z T ^2.5^7 = i-rnp: • ••• • •• •••••.* «• F*W • • • • Water 929.6 !50. 500 h ^^d\|WOod » Permit No 9<?fe mi urn. >Bh(Xci2^yX^O<> d ~f?cl « . * •. PERMIT RECORD Date V4?7/<?2^ • • Type of-Permit ■5. HOCKOt^ /v£=uj~ nocu' /S' TO;Chair Smith and Orono Planning Conuuission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM; Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE;May 12,1998 SUBJECT; #2374 Busse Construction, on behalf of: 1. 2. 3. 4. Greg and Myra Karlen, 630 Deborah Drive Larry and Jan McCartney, 755 Hunt Farm Road Robert and Julie Hanning, 4220 Sixth Avenue N. City of Orono, McCulley Road parking lot near the Luce LineTrail Conditional Use Permits-Public Hearing Application; Busse Construction is in the process of working on the Cty. Rd. 6 project. The construction company needs to remove fill from the road. Several property owners in the area have indicated that they want to either have a bemt constructed or existing berms expanded. The Zoning Code requires that any land alteration that involves moving more than 500 cubic yards or changing the grade vithin 5’ of the property line requires a conditional use permit. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 19-21 Land Alteration and Permits I Findings: 1.That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; a. 630 Deborah Drive {Karlen) The applicant is proposing to build a berm along the south side of Watertown Road. The proposed berm would be 6'-9' high and 265 ft. long. The purpose of the berm is to screen <he residential property from the roadway. The berm will not interfere with drainage or on site septic systems. b. 4220 6th Ave. N. (Hanning) The applicant is proposing enlarging an existing berm by increasing the width on die back side of the berm to tie the existing berm to the new berm proposed at 755 Hunt Farm Road. Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of fill are needed to alter the existing berm. c. 755 Hunt Farm Road (McCartney) The applicant is proposing constructing a berm along the County Rd. 6 in the McCartney's side yard to tie into the existing berm on Hanning ’s property at 4220 6th Avenue. The proposed berm will require 5,000 cubic yards of fill. It will screen the McCartney's residence from the County Road. The berm will not interfere with drainage or septic systems. d. McCulley Road (City of Orono parking lot) The applicant has proposed raising the parking lot with 23,200 yards of fill. This 'parking lot' is used for snow storage by the City. A wetland is located on the edge of the area. The applicant will need to install a silt fence to protect the wetland. The wetland will need to be delineated and the required 26' buffer shall be maintained from the wetland. The existing parking lot ranges from 14' to 4' below McCulley Road. The parking area will be filled 10' above the existing ground level. The fill height at the southern end of the parking lot will be 4' below the road and will increase to 6' above the road at the northern end of the parking lot. The existing driveway slopes down to the parking lot The proposed driveway will slope up from the road to the lot and will be limited to a maximum 4% slope. The maintenance vehicle and walking access to the Luce Line trail will be 12' wide and limited to a maximum 5% slope. f . 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 berms will not be detrimental to public health and safety. They will provide screening from the road for the residential properties. They will not interfere with any sight lines for vehicular visibility and will not interfere with any e.xisting or future septic sites. 3. The proposed fill in the McCulley Road parking lot will not be detrimental to public health and safety. The fill will not alter the existing drainage pattern on the site. The existing parking lot surface is firmly compacted soil suitable for driving large trucks on for hauling of snow and DNR use for maintenance vehicles. The fill material will be compacted cuid graded to provide adequate drainage and to allow' for heavy vehicle movements. The material will be compacted to the standard density used for typical road construction projects. The top 3' of material will be compacted to 100% of standard proctor density. The material below the top 3' will be compacted to 95% of standard proctor density. The applicant will be responsible for payment of costs to an independent testing laboratory for density testing. Top soil will be placed on the berms and berms will be planted with grass seed for erosion control. The existing parking lot surface is firmly compacted with minimal ground cover. The existing slopes at the edge are vegetated. The proposed fill area will have a 20' wide buffer strip around the edge with 4" topsoil and seed. The slopes will be topsoiled and seeded and other protective measures as required to prevent erosion. The proposed parking lot surface will be firmly compacted and graded to allow for heav>' vehicle movement. This area will be seeded to provide for a minimal ground c^ /er. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provi.sions of the Zoning Chapter. The proposed berms comply with all of the other regulatory controls in the Zoning Code. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit for the proposed berms on the residential properties at the size and height shown on the plans subject to: 1. Installation of silt fencing for erosion control and wetland protection. 2.Establishing and maintain natural vegetation on the berms after fii al grading of the berms. 3.Applicant to provide the City with the proposed berm design for the parking lot before May 20,1998, that meets all of the requirements listed in this report. Attachments a-d by address of each individual property Application ff c^3'7*~/ Date Received /9 y Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Q>3>0 i^gbord^k \Ae Orono^ A aa J Type of Application to be Filed t-A(vJD j^L^l A'rtc a J_____ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 3/— ] I 6 - Z. QoOg Phone (home)applicant ;^ ______________ Name __________ Phone (work) 0)^} Address f/> -T f, City, -17?^ Zip f^J07 Phone (home) 4^ '7 3'~ ___________________ Phone (work) 3^^ 33 ^ (3 6?3q 0>e bor^(r\ Dfg-;^it>' Pro o o_______ O^VNER (if different than applicant) Name Myr«iL- h\Cl^(oi^ Address / — - rv - * / Date Property Acquired 9 (month/year) 1 (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 ‘^1 I .1 PRDrTID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-thc-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee : ay V' '-A *? 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. 2. 3. 4. s » • 6. 7. 8, 9, Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350*, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Government Center. 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed suncyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and propo.sed conti)urs) 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. Ihis would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s). Construction plan, if applicable (sec 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 (II” 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 L’se Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff;________ f)atc APPL’^CANT'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 tm^^d correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date ^J//^ /9S' 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 -99 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 ' (jyO ' Q. J 2. 3. required submittals 1. Completed Application Fonn. Describe request in dclciil. , i i / Certified Property 0%vncrs List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603, Government Center, 3^-1221). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for sur^•cy information. . , Attach legal description to application if not included on tequtted survey. Topogtaphic survey (existing and proposed contour.s) if land alteration., imoh changes in elevation (grades). 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Constrtiction 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. submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please ten,ember that >01^ applicarion is not complete if the above information has not been included. <i Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:--------------------------------------------------------------- 1VO •st yrucAar. ^ information supplied is tjuo-and-correct tjihs best of/s/her knowledg . Applicant ’s signature Date (TvSr'SSr for- S.Vw"fll , 4- - cj OWNER’S SIGNATURE / . / ... ..^Ucation and further authorized °'T enw'Lo"y C&staff. consult'ants, agents, commission members. ’arctncil'n7mbr/or%CoscLf^^^^^^^^^^ Owner's signature Qf: Appticaa. mus. have^ —s inl^tie Planning Commission Meetings are he d on the thir y j. applicant is unable to attend a Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. f 'i 5220 Road No. HENNEPIN COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 320 WAvfiiiir St'iilli Hopkins. Miniicsoin LAND AND BUILDING ACQUISITION DATA PrO|. No.Parcel Owners:__^ fYlyCiX Kurldy)AiMrc'is;(d .. Dil I • = ...ZQH ft. 'ooogrnphic information required: Lot lines and dimensions. Sveet O' hi^fw^ay froniajje PicDosed R ‘V; Ime and access takmi;. SliO^ North Arrovy niitimi* .iiiiJ location of nil bnildm^S and improvements |Mi**iM«r .nirnnfrinrnis of biiiidinj^s and equipment »f »*'.irinn):fin!*n! is nCCCSSnry duC 10 R W taking. Permit No. ^161 3'1 I3X 7*3.1 S_ 9^33^ PERMIT RECORD Date n-hSn 0-36-il d'-/o •/ 7 V-y‘5'32 ’ /(o ' 2 -t S’-^1 1^6 T^borAJy^T^riut Type of Permit ) luo Htd. » ■ « I i li I . I i ■j I '\ 'n , # » I «••...•• \> % ••• \ \\ V-.... \ ''..^30? m ...............V ^ ^ - • •#298 tn V I ^ m . i- ■... \ -( ^”«..;/V,- )' ^/\ 'x .................. - -. . /^bf^fr....;--::.:•••••••• * • • /..CNJ '• ?95 ft) ■J 95. V• VI * J****“% »/ t Vl> . o> ______ ^se "■ N - *Xx» N •\ ' * V \ ■‘‘C'. '• ^ ‘.■'•NT flfe "* 0 « ^ '\ ' * • • / / I ,V; XVTD..' LkV; Application fi __ Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ______7^ ^ __________ Type of Application to be Filed P *7/ ^ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) C?/ - i^ OGO ^ APPLICANT Name ^ Address /C>^ ^ Phone (home) Address __________Phone (work) 7Z4Z?’' _ cit>v^4^^ Zip. ^ Phone (home) ^________Phone (work)__________________ '7:T2' ^zou ^ City OWNER different than applicant)y Zip 3 r ^ 'A^'yuz- ^! 9 y 1 (do) (do not) also own the jrajacent parcels of land. Date Property Acquired (month year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - (Robei^V V2 ac Cc $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ^^0,^0 fT5~3 S“^ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use n rt $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ‘ ^~?6 l"3 $225.00 Guest Ilouse/Guest Apartments n I a . / $200.00 Duple.x Credit/Bldg rPOpeny^ f\c.^\Stre<J 1^5/ $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-thc-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $ f. n351 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 m ■ ^ ■I.' rt '• \3 : 9 PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District_______ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certitied Property Owners List of owners within 350 ’. labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center. 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for sur\cy infomiation. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (c.xisting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in ele\ation (grade.s). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interc.st in the properly. This would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(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 DOC UMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL D0CUMF:NTS 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 Lam’ U.sc 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 e.xpenscs incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the infomiation supplied is tm^nd correct to the best of his/lier knowledge. Applicant's signature Date /9S^ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date (KQ^ "I/a. y- Applicant must have all submittals into the City olyccs 2v d.iys 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. required submittals • A % * 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 3^-22U). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to hau.l-ut for sur\-cy information. . Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur\-e%. 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 m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Constaiction 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. vnii APF RFOUIRKD TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMEN IS OR COPY FOR ^pScTION^I r X I7- OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMEN'I^|v SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to submitted.) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. •V Certification by Cierical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:.^----------------------------------------------------------------------_________v -^4. Sf-.■ «*■ infonnation supplied is tme^md-correct to^ best of/sdier knowledge. Applicant's signature d Date /i*-N , 4- ?hro™« Sy^taowlcd^ and i)^s to this application and further authorised Jcasonabl^ entry onto the property by cliy staff, -"f and Council .members for purposes of/nveshgation and verification of this^ Owner's signature ---------------- Applicaal man have llats iat^Jhe fr«mc=r?5 Plaanins Commission Meetings are hetd on the third .^ppean, i, unable to attend a all scheduled review meelings of .he Plannmg Commission nd “ W scheduled meeting, please make anangemenls to have an aulhoriaed agent aUend >our p Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. lOTII i i t SURVEY FOR: G.A. CQCLSOA/ HOME Prepared By: G/O80-O/S 4//-^ fiwrvM *V ——'^30.00—' SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Soils Testing 10550 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka. Mn. 55343 Tel. 546-7601 t*n.«-. A, .401 ** Prop «n.^r"2 \ v>Vc. V.x — S4.I till Xa /lost J ‘'o':... - «<><' z. .V- loo.o -' ; PE5CRIPTICN; Ut 1, Heck t. WNTINISTON FARM. BOICHWRt! Top of Iron plpt as shown. Eltvalfon • 9S.30 (Attuaod Oitua). ADDRESS PERMIT RECORD •.’/ QrV'' .00*^ ''.a / '.V 'i'.--------------------- ^ "••-------------------- ' { / • / • ••L4J\ ’* 1-T. ' I o ' *»;/ -'L li ' i/\»» K^' • / i? ' ; , / s'- Ifll. ^ i / \| Eii?» / / ///y.ry 6 / •'■''•'//?;ev'v'///'.#9. •. i'll ^ / s * ftiy* * » * * I * r I I/ / •'n ,' /,XX'-'' ■•' ■' ■• 'j------- ^ ^ if / i • t /• * t • 1 ' Ao ' \ ' • X / •' :' • .* ' V >'i 5 , / '• / : ; : • •. . \ \ I^ / / / • ' • I I* *. I A «r s •. ^ V>* ^ ^ » 'a* * x^'x' / / / /, V'/ •'''x X'' / / x'‘/ ■'' X''' X /\!i /.....x' V , '2k: •,":--;:i-^-X ■.; %*■ i Application if Date Received 9^ Amount Paid C CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Tj'pe of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /=3 — OC APPLICANT -id, Name /^/^<lA6ay Address" f65^ E: . City Phone (home) Phone (work)_ ^7^- /3^3 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name -t.n?n Zip j 5-^3 o7 Phone (home)_ Phone (work). Address (jo- (ZJ City S5^SJc> Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ______$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ______$300.00 CommercialAndustrial Use I_^ $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore ■-aU * »f. t .2 1. \V : ) 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 i-■) R ^ - (jy{)' fZJ required submittals _ ^ ^ A • 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Properly Owners l.ist of owners within 330', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 34^-3221). Certificate of Sur\ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for sur\cy information. . Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations invohe changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest m the properly. This would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current o\\7icr(s). Constaiction 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. von ARE REQUIRED TO SUITLY 30 COIMES OF LARGE DOCUMENIS OR COI ^ FOr CpScTION .X 17" OR SMALLER, FOR ALL I,OCUME^^ SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yon; J 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:___________________________ -------------------------------------- wi I ThTtpplfcant Lfeb^y^agrees \o provide all infortnalion required or requested Admiidstrator agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not coveted by original fee pay"’™') “ “expenses incurred in review of this/PpHcation and certifies that the information supplied is |rue^^ correct t^ best of^s/licr knowledge. Applicant ’s signature Date ?” “Zowled^es and ^es to this application and firrther autboriaed Jeasonab^ entry Lto the property by City staffi eonsultants. agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes o^Investigation and verification o is req^ DateOwner’s signature I^ all scheduled review meelinss of the Plaaniag Commission and ^ ,„c scheduled meetina, please make airangemenls lo have an aulhonzed n„enl y P Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meslmg. i # ^ '•I /,'toi • './ ^^r»' . OO^ ,'rS. ' / ' U1 *" .^' ' f i • .......*» 'cO'* »' -. ' *. » ' f'\ A/o . PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date ±si:ii.Mk_ _ _ _ _ v^£i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |l'■^i\<■"i <1-/s'-<?;•' Type of Permit ^SfTtC. _4^^^- t Application U Ar Date Received ^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Site Address vfi C V ^(7 T 0\ Type of Application to be Filed • C^. r> __________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _______________________________________ APPLICANT ^ . A 1. Name ^\hO^\^C'P Phone (home) ___ __ Phone (work) 612.' 2''~) 3 ' 6 iPS <; E r b/'f-JioUr^ City /)rui Ui\jzip S5^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ClA\) oF Phone (home) Phone (work) Address B>/^y C 6 Date Propert>' Acquired City CKJJ^ M 9-yby Zip S~>3Z? __________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75,00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls \\ithin 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 f m % REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tm^^d correct to the best of his/her knowledge. ________DateApplicant’s signature C- 0 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reason • ..ile 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 9/ /A'l (~> C P^ i' " r:\bLVC ' Date 4- in -^g \Blvc sxixi/icts 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. ■ . Ei>; • { 'A required submittals 1. ____ Completed Application Fonn. 2 Describe request in detail. ■ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’, Inbc o and plat map (>ou must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center. 3^-3ZZJ). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. • i . . Attach legal description to application if not included on required survev. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in ■ the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). -------As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. vrm APF RFOUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIFS OF LARGE DOCUMENIS OR FOR ^pSc TION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENIS^ ICLmED. (Siaff will require to scale drawings of all doeuments, plans, etc. to >..3 submitted.) The Applicant and Property Ovvner must sign this application. application is not complete if the above information has not been included. ^ (i Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. - ^ Initials of Clerical Staff:__-------------------------------------------------------------------------------‘ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ^e*'tpplfcant Lfeb^agrees*\o provide all information requited or requested by tlie Zoning information supplied is tjue^correct t^ best oyrts/hcr knowledg . / ______Dote ____Applicant's signature rnTcouncil'membe"^^^ purposes of^vestigation and verification of this req^sf . • / c TV tt' \n \ Date ------------Owner's signature f ----------------- 5'-) 0- fs 1. int^he c TT'oITwI's'Ts days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. —tc«< 36-ll8~Z ‘ir- <»a> OF .f; \i r<^No V :5j \ «»« w \ (ti -----------^4 • I3/- (/8'23-13 \ y r*t y>t i \ m • < rtClVtRTO •^F I r5 firj /' \ \ (n)• _•»^ • • u i.t. m mrw*rt i?51 (7) a • > tM _'L. 15 ’ IMS iij, i i mv •« r-■^■lUWCU^^-S-----(MMJL. t tlH-.--lS-1953 15:03 FROf-1 94730510 P.02 Hennepin County A. Aalqujl OpporiuitiCT Employer May 18,1998 Mr. Ron Morse City Administrator City of Oroao 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Cry'stal Bay. Minnesota 55323 CSAH 6 FROM TOW’NLTNE ROAD TO WEST OF TH 12 FILE NO. 2374 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Dear Mr. Morse: Toniglit. the Orono City Planning Commission will consider approval of the Conditional Use Permit for land alteration at four locations submitted as part of tile No. 2374. This is to inform you that 1 specifically acknowledge my support for constructioii of the berm at 755 Hunt Farm Road. Tlie McCartney’s are deserving of the berm and if not tor some raisimderstanding as the project developed, a berm paralleling the roadway would have been included in the original construction plan. Sincerely. Bruce M. Polaczyk, Design Engineer BMP;niak Dtpartment otPuMic Worta i 520 VVsshington .Avtnue South Hopkins, MimesoU 5534J-S496 (<lt)VSO-2500 FAX.t«12)9JO-2SU TDD.(t.l2)930-:'5S< TOThL P.02 To;Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 11,1998 Subject: #2365 Christine Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre Application:Sketch Plan Review of proposed subdivision to create an additional building site from this parcel containing 3.31 acres of dry buildable land plus 1.20 acres of wetland. Pertinent Code Sections: 1.Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management - Subd. 15: Land Development and Platting - A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements - (3) Area credit for 'flood fringe' in sewered areas: This code section allows the City Council to grant a credit for use of wetland toward the dry buildable area area requirement for "residential properties served by municipal sanitary sewer". Staff interprets this to mean properties which have been assessed for and provided with sewer. Mere inclusion of a property in the MUSA does not necessarily mean it is "served by municipal sanitary sewer". A large property assessed for one sewer unit is not necessarily 'served by sewer' to accomodate a subdivision unless the City Council chooses to grant additional sewer units to that property. 2. Section 10.23, Subd. 6B: LR-1 A District Minimum Lot Requirements: Minimum Lot Width = 200' Minimum Lot Area = 2.0 acres 3.Section 11.03, Subd.2.24: Subdivision Code Definition of Minimum Lot Area (Excludes 'wetlands' and 'vehicular or pedestrian easements' from inclusion as credit toward calculated minimum lot area) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Preliminary Plat (Sketch Plan) Drawing D - Sketch Plan with Staff Notes E “ Pertinent Code Sections #2365 - Sketch Plan May 11, 1998 Page 2 Background This 4.5 acre parcel was created via subdivision in 1993. The e.xisting house was provided with sewer as part of the 1992-93 otubbs Bay project, but the property was assessed for only one sewer unit. There was no intent by the City at the time sewer was provided to reach a conclusion as whether this property was further subdividable. Only a stub to ser\ e the exi.sting house is shown on the sewer As-Built plans. The applicant had her sur\^eyor lay out a proposed subdivision that exhibits the following lot dimensions; Lot 1 Lot 2 Total Gross Area 2.23 acres 2.28 acres 4.51 acres Wetland 0.85 acres 0.35 acres 1.20 acres Dry Buildable Area 1.38 acres 1.93 acres 3.31 acres Less Veh. Easem't - 0.10 acres 1.28 acres Defined Lot Width* 185'+214'+399’+ * As measured per ordinance at the 50' front setback line Lot 1 requires a variance for lot area and lot width. Lot 2 requires a variance for lot area. Lot Width Variance Analysis The proposed width of Lot 1 is approximately 185' by definition (as measured at the 'rear of the required front yard', i.e. at the 50' front setback line). How'ever, the functional width of Lot 1 as measured perpendicular to the side lot lines is about 142'. With the required 30' side setbacks, a house approximately 80' in width could be placed on the lot without requiring setback variances. Lot Area Variance Analysis Staff is aware of only two lot area variances granted by the City since 1975 in relation to new residential subdivisions. In one case, this was the result of a City-motivated downzoning to eliminate the Stubbs Bay Marina. The second case resulted from a 1980 agreement related to the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project and the potential need to condemn land for a lift station. Both #2365 - Sketch Plan May 11, 1998 Page 3 these area variance cases were quite unique and the Council found them to be justified. In virtually all other residential subdivisions since 1975, the City has held strictly to the minimum lot area requirements. The use of the wetland credit for sewered properties has been used in only a relatively small number of residential subdivisions since the credit came into eficct in 1970. It has al.so been used for at least one identifiab 'existing lot of record' (West Ferndale Road). However, the City Council has indicated that the provision of sewer to existing residences in the LR-1A district to solve pre-existing septic syste.m problems, must niji be construed as an intent to suddenly allow the subdivision of other\rise unsubdividable parcels in the 2-acre zone. In fact, staff has been able to identify no such approvals occurring since the 2-acre zones were created in 1975. Applicant's property contains only 3.31 acres of dr>' buildabic land, of which 0.10 acres is a driveway easement serv ing homes at 3770-3780 Bayside and is not creditable toward minimum lot area. The property clearly does not not contain enough creditable area to be subdivided under the LR-IA standards, unless one of the following occurs: 1. 2. 3. 4. Applicant acquires additional adjacent contiguous diy buildable land (how ever, there does not appear to be excess dry buiidahle in any adjacent property). Council agrees to grant a second sewer unit and grants the wetland credit {which Council has indicated is not their general intent for newly-sewered 2-acre zones; note that Council has directed that a hearing be held for a zoning amendment to eliminate the wetland credit entirely, which is scheduled for the May IS meeting).). The Council finds there is sufficient justification to grant a lot area variance {which is unlikely because there is nothing unupte about this situation as compared to the two cases noted earlier). The property and surrounding area is rezoned for smaller lot sizes {the Council has consistently indicated over the last 20 years that zoning of the 2-acre districts will not be changed just because .^ewer is provided). Other Subdivision Issues/Factors The site is served by a single driveway within proposed Lot 2, which could function as a si 'red driveway for both Lots. The access situation would require review and approval by Hennepin County since Bayside Road is County Road 84. Bringing a third user to the existing easement driveway serving 3770-3780 is also an option for consideration, tut brings up the issue of the need for improving that to a private road standard. #2365 - Sketch Plan May 11, 1998 Page 4 An existing shed on Lot 1 would have to be removed as a condition of subdivision approval since it becomes an accessory structure without a principal structure. Only Lot 2 would have lake access via Outlot B of Burger's Bayside Addition. Lot 1 would not be allowed lake access because Outlot B is only 122' in width. A covenant would be filed with this subdivision indicating no lake access easement can be created in favor of Lot 1. The subdivision would be subject to park dedication of either 8% of the land or a park fee of 8% of the fair market value of Lot 1. If tlie value of Lot 1 exceeds $61,250, the park fee would be capped at $4,900 per City ordinance. If the City ultimately approved this proposal, a sewer connection charge of $14,665 (1998 fee schedule) would be due at final plat approval. Staff Recommendation Approval of the lot area variance for this new subdivision would be inconsistent with tl*e City's past practice and is not recommended. There are no unique circumstances here, and no hardship making it impossible to use the land, since the land being used for an existing residence. Approval of the lot width variance is a secondary issue. The City has grimted lot width variances for subdivisions where additional land is lacking but a home can be bui»t that meets all setback requirements. If the lot area issue could be resolved, a lot width variance might be justifiable. One option for applicant to consider is to sell a portion of the property to an abutting owner, which would require a Lot Line Rearrangement. This might allow applicant to retrieve some value from the excess land while making an adjacent property more conforming to lot area standards. Planning Commission Direction Requested This is a sketch plan request which doesn't require formal action, but the applicant does need direction as to whether Planning Commission will recommend the granting of a lot area variance in order for this subdivision to occur. If not, would you recommend the alternative of a lot line rearrangement with a neighboring property? This item will be presented to Council on May 26 if applicant so requests, or if Planning Commission recommends in favor of the area variance. Application ff Date Received Amount Paid ^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 3"75Z^ ^recA>a Property Identification Number (PID) 0^^//l—2-^ ^2-! '^00‘2-Q Please check one - Property K abstract or____torrens? ^^^^Attach legal description tolipplication. APPLICANT Name 0h £(/h. Address City__ Phone (home) dZCifOD.Ziv5<3S\, Phone (work) 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 / ‘2 -t /. 2 V. S'/ Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL X' Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ * • _____ 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 / / •X:’ ' Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Z____Units per >__Acres X UiUld pCi ^y Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land 2. zS' A-c Residentid —---------------- Other (specify)_________ i\nNIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMLNARY APPLICATION I. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees” listed below. , ^ Completed application form. ^ y Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. /WA y4: Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (> ou must obtain this list fi-om 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 MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to FYeliminary 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 o f Credit. Zoning Official's Signature _____________ Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Adm'mistrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, 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 III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class 1 and 11 Subdivision Application $200.00 (Np change from original application) Renewal of Class III, Preliminaty 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.; _____ 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 $30.00/DweIling Unit The applicant hereby agreeSjiojitQ^de all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commissiomjfra^un^'-necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. (V Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Date f * V.//:•. /»■ Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 8c. Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. S e9 ’48' 35" E 176.7S PRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHRISTINE VALERIUS OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. BURGERS BAYSIDE SECOND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ADDITION l_ N 89*44' 16" W 149.05 X 'm S 09*44' 16" E 148.50 . ^ O)0£ Of VeTLANO / / / y-' A ‘ V.4 / \ i /• iff /. i n aj f*<i4 \ : gnfrr^0$^X >' T‘ / /•/ /! \□ : / X \ \at»c..v^ W\ t N 89*35'41" W 236.71 IFfiAL DgSTRPTfQN OF PREMISES : Lot 2. Block 1, BURGERS BAYSIDE SECOND ADDITION o : denotes iron marker Beorlngs shown ore based upon on assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the obove described property, ond the location of on existing house, shed, ond gravel driveway thereon. It does not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments. r^r^t AAi4 S 4.Sitdri€S arvKinMl nirr oescRpnoN >^77'^ I HEREBY CERTTY THAT THS PLAK SPECnCATOi OR REPORT I S 89*48'35" E 176.76 o idn ino< o PRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHRISTINE VALERIUS OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BURGERS BAYSIDE SECOND ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA c L N 89*44' 16" W 149.05 h I S 89*44* 16" E 148.50 O N 895^'41" W I L~o'2^ /.1h AC. / . -2. B-" 0 A<- 2.2,g> ^ - EDGE Of \ETLAtrt) -X ^ X / ---------------- / \/ / \' \ \ i £.ZS*4C. /• Jztdc. t»r V \ 17w K "i/V"/: ♦» f 'l'/^ - 1 t \■TTVI /• . 1 V. 2,lgt4C. • \ « i \ S \ : /■ • : 1 \: 1 •» \ .• 1 / \ U3 •.— <*i« /AiCL.. <?Asiu'r, /S OyiTQ.. TTf^ ^ OP" ^/ZoP^JfcO ^r" /1 c>P e'l^isjb^^T ^26>oV/6.i'^ 72^0 ^ -P. - 0jC? 236.71 MO! 84^; Tbayspe , \ ^ IS Is t FCAL DfSrRPTIQN OF PREMISES ! Lot 2. Block 1, BURGERS BAYSIDE SECOND ADDITION o : denotes iron morker Bearings shown ore bosed upon on assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of on existing house, shed, and gravel driveway thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroachments. 7V/X A4fA 3 4.S/fjf£ff -VX fS i 'yT \ ^ V •■..4 lO.S^ Svcfiri /s/-^)3 § 10.55 A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements. The minimum lot area requirements of this Chapter shall be interpreted to mean that all of "the required land area for each building site shall be in one contiguous parcel undivided by Floodway or Flood Fringe and no land within the protected area shall be included in determination of minimum lot area, except as specifically provided for herein: 1. For properties not served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least 2.0 acres of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. 2. For properties S' ved by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area.rr 3. For residential properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, a limited density credit may be allowed for inclusion of Flood Fringe lands as part of the required minimum lot area for purposes of complying with the land use density, open space, building unit to land area ratios or other similar requirements of the land development and zoning provisions. The owner or developer of such property will be credited with an amount of his land within the Flood Fringe equal to, but not exceeding, the amount of his adjacent land which otherwise qualified for development under this Chapter. Such credit shall be conditioned upon dedication of perpetual open space and flowage easements to the City over all protected areas so utilized for density credit. Subd. 16. Special Assessments. The land area in the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area which is not to be developed and is not used for credit as in Subparagraph A, Item 3 of Subdivision 15, and which is dedicated as an easement shall not be subject to special assessments to defray the cost of other municipal improvement projects, including but not limited to trunk sanitary sewer and water mains and storm sewer improvements. Subd. 17. Nuisance. Any filling, alteration, construction or artificial obstruction of the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area is declared to be and to constitute a public nuisance unless a permit to construct and maintain the obstruction has been obtained in the manner provided herein. A. Removal of Artificial Obstruction. If an artificial obstruction is found after investigation by the City, an order shall be issued to the owner, following ten days written notice and hearing thereon, for removal within a reasonable time as r ORONO CC 371 (4-1-84) q 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 n a €'2_ t jfiAiAJ • L ot ' S 10.23 Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Bac^, Hard Cover, and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Uses Within the "LR-lA" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: District. A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA" Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-lA" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit; District. A. Any conditional use as regulated in the ”R-1A" Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-lA" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use; A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-IA" District and 'private docks' subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. be observed; B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width 2 acres 200 feet Front Yard 50 feet Side Yard 30 feet Side Yard Adjacent to Street 50 feet Rear Yard 50 feet SBC. 10.24. LR-IB ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "LR-IB" One Family Lakeshore Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential developments 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 or Long Lake. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka or Long Lake, special regulations are necessary to protect these natural resources from the effects of dense development. This district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer'. ORONO CC 284 (4-1-84) ^'"3 S 11.03 21 "Improvements, Private" -Any improvement, requited by this *^for the^City'^will not^asIuUfany tisponsibility for its maintenance and operation and which shall not be dedicated to the City. required by thL^-Cha^Jj^rlmproJ^m^^ 23 "Lot” - A tract, plot or portion of a subdivision or other parcel o^f^^land i"tended^ a_^s ^a^ uj,^rt^^fo^^^^^ ?o^'’buUdUrd“eiopme^t. Every platted lot shall be a buildab^ lot or an outlot. ..........zoning Chapter o^t^e City Code, in r -.srcfrcV''?. •.'.'.•..°".v,u:septic system Provision's of the buildable by sanitary sew^er, _ nrescribed in the Zoning Chapterland equal to the minimum areas prescrioea in /exclusive-of -bl\^/ =aid- p^ifate- ol^t^ ‘’-\Ti ijcefs-tt lii^buiiii^g sl?e without encroachment of a wetland or flood plain area. __ - "1C tiT«*. niiiidable" - A lot or combination of lots outlots which’meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Chapter ol ?Se 2ity code anfthis Chapter for the intended purpose. ■7C "Tot Outlot” - A lot which is intended only for public or private roadways^be restricted by the appropriate e/^ement and mu^ ofrh?tu'irio\*’%m^he%falterbe%est by the appropriate restrictive covenant or open space easement. 27 "Lot, Corner" - A lot situated at the intersection of two (2) streets, the interior angle of intersection not exceeding 135 degrees. ORONO CC 419 (4-1-84) [, I [ r i [ [ i i i i r 1[ May 18, 1998 City ofOrono Enclosed you will find a signed petition from all of the neighbors that would be affected by a subdivision of our property giving us support in our endeavors. Only one person on the list of properties within 350’ feet did not sign. The person who did not wish to sign is not an owner of an abutting property, they simply were not happy with the variances you granted to other new homes in the area. The two newest homes that both abut our property do not have two acre lots, they also do not have 200 ’ ft width. You will find that this subdivision would be consistent with the other properties in the area- actually our lots each would be bigger than both of the lots of the two new homes. Thank You Christine & Gary Valerius This letter is regarding the property we own at 3750 Bayside Rd. We purchased this property in 1992 with the intent of subdividing after the sewer was put in. At the time of purchase, we spoke with Jean at the city and were told we had to wait until the sewer was in. We have hired a surveyor and have divided the property in a manner consistent with other properties in the area. We are asking for your support in our subdivision. Thank You (' J>~^^ 3. 4. Todd Signature , , w J3 V-70 3 -70 o ^ .3.77 T f^cLLf>IcU. O/'J'K 15. Thank you for your support Christine & Gary Valerius Mi r Robert D. Erickson 847 Tonkawa Road Orono, MN 55356 May 18,1998 Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members, Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns regarding the request for variances at 365 Westlake Street. Last year 1 purchased the property across the street at 372 Westlake Street 1 was aware, at the time of purchase, that the Westlake Street area was zoned LR-1 A, which specifies a two acre minimum lot size, and that a former owner of my property, Loren Bruggeman, was denied in his application for two one acre lots in 1996. For the last several months, I have been working on a new plan for this property with the goal of not requiring any variances. My wife and 1 have recently leased the home at the address above. Our plan was to live on Tonkawa until our new home on Westlake Street was complete. With this background, 1 was more than a little surprised to learn a few days ago that staff would consider approval of a new house on this sueet on a .22 acre lot, resulting in a density four times that which was denied Bruggeman. In reference to the staff report dated May 14, I can find no mention under " Pertinent Standards " of the requirement for a 50 foot Front Street Setback (East) requirement per LR-1 A standards, nor any existing or proposed dimensions for either the Principal Structure or the Accessory Structure regarding the setback from Westlake Street For neighboring property owners, this setback is probably the most critical in terms of the visual impact Ihe stated hardship," constraints of lot size," did not deter the applicant from buying the property in 1991, and was probably reflected in the purchase price. Only now that they want a bigger house docs the lot size become a" constraint." 'Ihc applicant has not met the criteria for undue hardship for the following reasons: 1. The property ggn be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by official controls. Although the existing residence is small, it has been used in its current configuration for many years. The applicants themselves have used it" as is "for at least seven years. The fact that they now desire a bigger house does not make the existing use unreasonable. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances created by the landowner. The landowner probably was aware of the 2-acre zone standards, which have been in place since 1975, prior to their purchase of the property. Their desire to build a larger house on a substandard lot would appear to have been created totally by the applicant and not by circumstances unique to their property nor out of the applicant's control. 3. The variance, if granted will alter the essential character of the locality. The average parcel size in thb neighborhood is 1.0056 acres (see attached table ). The existing front yard setbacks are, for the most part, generous ( see attached map of existing conditions ). If the proposed variances are granted, additional density will be created not consistent with the LR- lA Zoning Distria, or even the LR-IB Zoning District to the south. Construction of a new house will elimiruue the possibility that the existing property could be combined with other parcels to create a larger lot. 4. Economic considerations do ost constitute an undue hardship since reasonable use for the property exists in its current use. Although the existing residence is small, it has been used in its current configuration for many years. The applicants themselves have used it" as is "for at least seven years. The faa that they now desire a bigger house does not make the existing use unreasonable. ------ 5. (See staff report ) 6. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are Qjii peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The same lot area, lot width a/ui setback requirements apply to all residential lots in the LR-IA LHstria. f 7. The conditions dfi apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The same lot area, lot width and setback requirements apply to all residential lots in the LR-IA Distria. 8. The granting of the application is nsi4 necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant The applicant has the right to maintain the existing residence. There is not necessaiity any inherent right to construct a larger residence on the property nor to make changes to the property that do not meet City codes. 9. The granting of the proposed variance will impair health, safety, comfort, morals, and in other respects is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Granting of these variances will reduce the integrity of the Zoning Code and violate a Constitutional principle of equal protection under the Law. Granting of these variances would be contrary to the following portion of the intent ofthe Zoning Code: Section 10.01 Subd. 2 Intent and Purpose. (6) preventing the overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating the use of the land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land and buildings surrounding them. Granting of these variances would allow the most overcrowded parcel in the neighborhood to become more overcrowded. (7)....protecting the quality of storm water runoff. Lake Minnetonka, Long Lake, the wetlands and marshes within the City; i i Granting of the hardcover variance will negatively impact both the water quality and the flood control of Lake Minnetonka, which is both near the subjea property and down hill from it, with no storm water management structures (ponds ) to control this runoff. (8) providing for a more orderly transition from a rural agricultural to a rural residential environment; A more orderly transition to a rural residential environment could occur if the property were combined with others to create a larger parcel 10. Granting of the proposed variances would appear to serve as a convenience to the applicant and owner, and the applicant and owner have not demonstrated an undue hardship. Most, if not all, of the variance requests are related to the applicants wish for a larger house and garage. Based on the fact that this application fails to meet 9 of the 10 Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship, 1 ask the Planning Commission and the City Council to deny this request. In the event that you are unwilling to do this, I could accept an action to table this application to allow time for the following actions: a) An examination by Staff of the potential for rezoning of Westlake Street to LR-IB, b) An exploration by Staff of the potential for future lot combinations on Westlake Street to reduce density, and c) A meeting between myself and the applicants to discuss alternatives for their future home. Thank you for the opportunity to address this issue. ^ncerely, ^b Erickson WESTLAKE STREET, PATTERN OF OWNERSHIP 1997 Tax Book Address East Side Parcel Area (ac) Est Mkt Value % land Constructed iHomestead? 3865 (8) + EofW291ft 1,2,3 2.07 $226,200 76%1916 no 3895 W291 ft of lots 1,2,3 1.0 203,700 23%1971 yes 332 Lots 4 & 5 1.38 223,000 53%1906 yes 340 Lot 6 0.68 143,000 57%1946 yes 348 Lot 7 .0.67 129,000 63%1951 yes 356 Lot 8 0.66 127,000 52%1930 yes 364 Lot 9 0.65 158,500 51%1960 yes 372 Lots 10,11,12 +alley 2.01 259.000 72%1951 no West Side 3965 (4)0.89 $106,000 36%1966 yes * 309 Lots 1,2.3 1.57 166.400 27%1950 yes 341 Lots 4,5,6 1.57 88,600 47%1914 no 349 Lots 7 & 19 0.72 77,000 46%1908 no NA Lots8-11 1.03 4.200 100%NA no 365 Lot 18 a 0.22 48%1924 ves 373 389 Lot 17 Lots 14.15.16 0.24 0.73 52. 171. Ill • II 46% 54% 1924 1910 m- ♦ yes yes n TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator May 14,1998 SUBJECT: #2375 2525-2535-2545 Shadywood Road Sketch Plan for Proposed 32 Unit Apartment Building Application:Park Land Company has submitted a proposal to build a 32 unit apartment building 3 parcels located at 2525,2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road. The applicant is requesting sketch plan review. Description Zoning District Lot Size Acres Loti B-4 31,231 sq. ft..71 acres Lot 2 B-4 31,205 sq. ft..71 acres Lots LR-IB 35.090 sq. ft. dry buildable .805 acres *There is a wetland on Lot 3, the rear of the parcel which is zoned residential, (acreage based on previous staff memo from 1977) Total Size : 2.2 acres diy buildable Proposed Density: 14.5 units per acre Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.24.5 (B) LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre • Section 10.43 B4, Office and Professional District pag€--l Description of Project The applicant is proposing a 32 unit, two-story apartment building with an optional 4 units located in a third floor. Underground parking is proposed to have 47 spaces and a surface parking lot would have 7 spaces for a total of 54 spaces or 1.7 stalls per unit. The apartments would be rental units. The size of the units would include 20% more space than average market rate units. The units would be 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom + den, and 2 bedroom units. Each unit would include laundry facilities, storage areas, and pantry closets. They would rent for $1,200 to $1,500 per month. The market niche is empty nesters from the local area and childless working couples or singles. The units would include a larger master bath than other styles of apartments and decks or roof terraces. The hallways in the building are designed to be 8 feet wide. The building would include a community room that would have a small kitchen and it would be located in the rear of the building to overlook the wetland. The architect has states that the building was designed to take advantage of the natural characteristics of the site and to keep massing to the north side of the lot next to the office building. From the south side (Kelly Avenue) the narrow end of the building would face the wetland. The architect has indicated that the runoff would be reviewed and no additional runoff into the wetland would be added. The building is proposed to be approximately 80 ’ from the wetland and 36'-40' from the front street property line. Comprehensive Plan The subject property is located in the urban service area and commercial district on the land use plan. According to the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan, (CMP5-4) "the urban area will see new residential development on the existing vacant lots and undeveloped parcels similar to the forms of development projected for the closer-in suburbs. Opportunities exist for substantial rehabilitation projects in the older urban neighborhoods....Overall urban density will remain relatively low because of the ecological considerations of proximity to Lake Minnetonka." Housing Improvement Goals 1. To improve the housing conditions of persons residing in substandard housing. 2. 3. To provide safe, healthful, and blight-free residences and neighborhoods. To provide opportunities for a mix of housing types, locations, and cost ranges which will meet the needs and provide adequate housing for all ages and family groups. page-2 4.To provide housing types and residential densities consistent with environmental and land use plans and with the availability of public services and facilities. 5.To provide immediately beneficial housing programs for the greatest number of needy Orono residents. Urban Housing Policies The urban housing policies are stated in section CMP 5-12 of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies #2 through #4 are applicable to this application. Policy U2 Alternative Housing Types will be provided by planned residential developments. A limited amount of land is available within the Urban Service Area for planned developments of attached townhomes, garden type apartments or mixed residential and limited commercial land uses. These housing clusters or multiple family developments will be acceptable only where full urban services are available and only where the proposed density is compatible with the neighborhood and wil local environmental constraints. Multiple family developments generally will not be considered appropriate for lands within 1,000 ft. of Lake Minnetonka nor for areas such as Navarre that have limited transportation access to outside employment or shopping facilities. Policy #i Urban Density Residential Development must occur within the existing Urban Service Area Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The Urban Service Area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas. Policy #-/ Urban Density Residential Development will utilize the capacity of existing public services and facilities. New residential development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the Urban Service Area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water, sewer, drainage, transportation, and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden the services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. page-3 Zoning District Minimum Lot Size 20,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 100 ft. Front Yard 20 ft. Rear Yard 30 ft. Building setback requirement: No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line. Zoning Issues The subject site consists of three separate tax parcels. The two front parcels are zoned B-4, Office and Professional District. Residential apartment buildings are not listed as either a permitted or conditional use in this district. The permitted uses are limited to municipal buildings, clinics, and banks and insurance offices. The conditional uses include nursing homes, rest homes, hospitals, schools, research centers, veterinary clinics, kennels, libraries, museums, galleries, and restaurants in an office building. The proposed use does is not listed in the zoning district. The proposed use is not allowed in any zoning district in Orono. This proposed development cannot be constructed under the current Zoning Code. Analysis of several possible options follow. Amendment to the B4 District The current purpose statement of the B4 district indicates that this district is for office uses that have limited contact with the public. The purpose statement for this district does not refer to residential uses. In order for this project to be allowed in this zoning district, the purpose statement would need to be amended. The conditional use list would also need to be amended and an appropriate amount of density would need to be determined. The proposed density exceeds current density standards in every zoning district. 1.Should the function of the commercial district be expanded to include residential development or should commercially zoned land be preserved for future commercial use? 2.Should the purpose statement be revised to include apartment buildings or townhomes as a compatible use in the business/professional office district? 3. 4. Should the conditional use list be amended to include apartment buildings or townhomes? Is expanding the purpose statement and use list consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use map and policies? page--4 New Zoning District and Rezonin^ As an alternative to amending the B4 District, creating a new zoning district may be another option. The highest density that is currently allowed is in the LR-lC-1 district where 2 units per acre are allowed and a 50% density increase is allowed at the discretion of the City Council. The City Council is considering an amendment that would eliminate the density credit. Another zoning district, M-6, is also in the Zoning Code that allows a mix of dwelling units types. However, it has never been used and was drafted for possible future development along Highway 12. It also does not address the type of development the applicant has proposed. A new zoning district would have to be written that bridged the gap between the highest density currently allowed in the Zoning Code and the proposed density of this development. Rezoning a parcel to a higher residential district in the middle of a B4 district would not be consistent. It would be a spot zoning. The City Council at their May 11,1998 meeting asked staff to review the B5 zoning district and the commercial zoning districts in Navarre. Staff will also review the B4 district. Overlay District Another zoning technique that may be considered is called an "overlay district". This is a floating district that is not mapped but is allowed as another layer of standards over an underlying district, such as the B4 district. Boundaries are established where an overlay zoning district may be placed and standards and criteria are enumerated to meet performance objectives. A multiple-family overlay could be drafted that states that apartment buildings are allowed in some commercial districts subject to a list of objectives and criteria. Applicants could then ask for a rezoning to the overlay zone. The need and use for an overlay zone would require an amendment to Comprehensive Plan policies and an amendment to the Zoning Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The sketch plan process allows the Planning Commission, staff and the applicant to discuss the project without the applicant incurring significant costs. By ordinance, the Planning Commission is to consider the subject property and the best use of the land. Attention should be given to location, arrangement and size of the lot, proposed use, and surrounding development. page-5 Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K ■'i - . * Application Plat Map Legal description Traffic study Trip Distribution Letter from surveyor Urban Service area map Land Use Plan Zoning Map B4 district standards Historical record from microfiche n-) ^ „ s. page-^ Application H Date Received 2,Z Amount Paid ' CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ Siteaddress ^ Property Identification Number ^ID) 0O».t.2o«»m»l.%-u-ooift,Li^-m -xv»u«0C(3o Please check one - Property X abstract ^ X torrens? S Attach legal description to application. ^ <S APPLICANT Name^r^RvC CoMPAWAd Address P.O .*BoX 2L713 Phone (homo) Szy»l*44-5 * City Sr. Loot^T^tC t MuauESOTX Zip5S*lZfc Phone (weric) 5n-^- •tiMt --------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name CuKUl *H "Roo& Address S‘2.So L^e.Phone (home) City . Muoioc<>orr»» (attach list if more than one) ZipS^yu Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) VKgAkyT LmMb Present Zonir g District J Ld' IB PROPOSAL _________ Diyision for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ Subdiyision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _________Existing Units _________New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential _ Other (specify) ■■■ i i . RnjUMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2.^Muleted application form. 3.9Pr^iinary plat information on Certificate of Survey. ^ Go'If S!^34t?27ir Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Zoning Ofnci^^^gn«ure ® separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 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 '^{'7^ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. ^plication Base Fees: X Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 -------- Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Paric 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 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) ml Tmni*A%/AwiAn^ Date Totals B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft; lin. ft. X .50 “ $_ lin. ft. X .50 «$ I^equest 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 Commissionand^ouncil ne^essatv to process thijapplication and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Applicant's Signatut^e^^^^^A^<^» ^DM, Owner's Signature Date /-> Applicant must have all^bmittals into the City 6ffice 25 days before the Planning Commission mee^g. 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. ‘1 i I c LEGAL DESCRimON Parcel I That pan of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Leach Addition lying Nonheasterly of the Northeasterly line of Block 4, Townsite of Langdon Park. Torrens Property. Parcel 2: Ail of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Leach Addition, except that part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Leach Addition lying Nonheasterly of the Northeasterly line of Block 4, Townsite of Langdon Park Abstract Property. Records of Hennepin County, Minnesota r BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE. SUITE 500 / EDINA. MN 55439 / (612) 832-9858 / FAX (612) 832-9564 May 7, 1998 REFER TO FILE;98-32 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Joshua Aaron, Park Land Companys*James A. Benshoof and Peter A. Huitgren Traffic Study for Shadywood Road Residential Development in the City of Orono BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Park Land Company has proposed construction of an apartment building development located along Shadywood Road in the City of Orono. As shown in Figure 1, the proposed development site is located south of the intersection of Shadywood Road (CSAH 19) and Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15). The development would consist of 32 rental apartment units. Three land parcels form the proposed site. The two parcels abutting Shadywood Road each have a street frontage of about 125 feet with a back property line 250 feet from the street. These land parcels are currently zoned by the City of Orono as Commercial B-4. The permitted land uses for this zoning designation are offices (municipal, professional, insurance, and general) and banks. The third parcel is in back of the front two and is about 250 feet by 390 feet in size. This parcel is not zoned for commercial use. More than half of the land area in this parcel is wetland. Thus, the total land area available for commercial development on the site is 62,500 sq. fr. The two purposes of this memorandum are: a) to compare the expected amount of traffic generated by the proposed apartment building land use with the amount of traffic likely to be generated if the land parcels were developed commercially b) to determine the extent to which the proposed development would increase traffic volumes on the adjacent roadways. • // f ■'^'^^^« v'.\ , U I /.•'•■ -w \ r-"> V ii . •- . •• \-v.-. . • -^.r.— I •: !'^'-'.r-^ 'v—'; <i^- -I ;. •! w?^ •.-i3r- r-O* c '-^1—' ..* o * • I i risrz SCALE «• Vv 4.*2000* k- • V - -; / y { ^\ : i \ v\; •«.'. ) Sm,'/ci'?SVo. >v ••• ' ' •).•• >*»iZ .•■•'/' ■•'.ic-v ,• y C v “Ju-5':r*: ^.'^\ V '‘V-'\^.-.\ \\^ '^':- ' V,\ V^'“\ *"'''' - V. C5C3 \ v,\ \3^ >'C’T -»cs- y •• p. “*• 1 ^IViZnc 2^cc:» I / if f • f >>l .m ic^o fji ,':i(!3.crc J /// . . V TCN'KA r::/ bay >vIp^ , ' V\\V^; hii »c=. \ ••^-* / /V'i r.r.e» c AC r* —«.*f*o %!* y.v •-.'^ri,;' i\ PARK LAND COMPANY W BENSH00F& ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENSINEERSANDPUMIIERS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR SHADYWOOD ROAD RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT VFIGURE 1 PROPOSED SITE LOCATION A*. Mr. Joshua Aaron 3-May7, 1998 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON The first traffic issue to address is the number of trips that the proposed development is expected to generate, and how this compares with the trip generation that would be expected if the site were developed commercially according to current zoning. Realistic commercial development alternatives were formulated in order to provide a basis for meaningful comparisons. An examination of the zoning ordinances resulted in three candidate alternative commercial development scenarios. Current zoning permits an office building up to two stories in height on this site. Based on the commercial land available and a typical site coverage of 30%, a two story general office building of 37,500 sq. ft. could be accommodated on this site as one alternative. A second alternative is a 37,500 sq. ft. medical-dental office building. A third alternative is a bank with three drive-in windows. Trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) have been used to compare the number of trips that the proposed development is expected to generate with the number of trips each of the three alternative land uses would be expected to generate*. The rates examined in this study are for three weekday time periods: daily, a.m. peak hour of street traffic, and p.m. peak hour of street traffic. Table 1 shows a comparison between the anticipated trip generation of the apartment building and the three commercial development alternatives. TABLE 1 Weekday Trip Generation Comparison Commercial Development Alternatives A.M. Peak 32 Unit Apartment Buildine 37,500 sq. ft. General Office Buildine 37,500 sq. ft. Medical-Dental Office Buildine Bank with 3 Drive- In Teller Window s Hour Trips 16 58 91 71 P.M. Peak Hour Trips 20 56 137 190 Daily Trips 212 413 1,355 1,234 The data of Table 1 indicate that the proposed apartment building development would generate much less traffic during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and on a daily basis than would any of the three commercial alternatives. ' Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. The rates used arc expressed as the number of trips generated per dwelling unit for the apartment land use, the number of trips generated per thousand square feet of floor area for the office land uses, and the number of trips generated per drive-in windowr for the drive-in bank land use. Mr. Joshua Aaron -4-May7, 1998 EFFECTS REGARDING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON NEARBY ROADWAYS The traffic generated by the proposed development is expected to be distributed on the local street system as shown in Figure 2. This distribution reflects the traffic draw of Highway 7 to the south on CSAH 19 and Highway 12 to the northeast on CSAH 15. This distribution results in 60% of the development traffic passing through the intersection of CSAH 19 and CSAH 15 and the remaining 40% of development traffic traveling to and from the south on CSAH 19. The 1996 Hennepin County traffic flow map indicates that 26,000 vehicles per day (vpd) pass through the CSAH 19 and CSAH 15 intersection. The proposed development is expected to add 127 trips daily through this intersection. This represents an increase of about 0.5%. A similar percentage increase is expected during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on the expected trip generation, the expected trip distribution, and peak hour turn movement counts collected by Hennepin County at this intersection in 1994. The 1996 Hennepin County traffic flow map indicates an average daily traffic volume of 11,900 vpd on CSAH 19 south of CSAH 15. The proposed development is expected to add 85 trips daily to this segment of CSAH 19. This represents an increase of 0.7%. The percentage increases of traffic through the CSAH 19 and CSAH 15 intersection and on the segment of CSAH 19 south of the intersection are so small that the new development trips likely would have an imperceptible effect. CONCLUSIONS A comparison between the expected trip generation of the proposed apartment land use and three alternative commercial land uses for the development site indicates that the proposed apartment land use will generate much less traffic than any of three alternative developments on the subject property that would conform with existing zoning. The amount of traffic added by the proposed apartment building development to the local roadway system is negligible compared to the e?dsting traffic volumes on CSAH 19 (Shadywood Road) and CSAH 15. ^./^‘i.,\v. ~i ‘.'.i -^. ..“c ! ;■• \ * 1 •/,^- ■ • .-c-»^ V’.A \Z, /— .;., '-------^•. \ .I t A. ''^.-.-t" •••.•■ . .' .. ' .A,~ • :.\ \ V, • V \ :-A - ‘. *. s: •— ... '‘5“.'^.^. ^-\r- -<'Cv\ • I .' • •' i; •:. .••=^-*•. •.•.••• ^ •» Ar;. ______ •- \‘ ■ ‘ ' ‘••‘t .V \oi J/ -Ji');.c r J •5 1 j.--5-;>Cv- V/: •' •j« V.'-t *1 t.:»| SCALE 2000' : r' ' -"' : /•"*. .y-.\ . ^15% •»»_ • . Lyz •'" ■■’--A.'’'•!^<!r^”A^ 7\''''v StM'~ • •%;•. 7//'- V v' N • V • I - c * • a.tA«r ♦-^ ^ i •• . •>» • v^ — ■;— ^ • — « lA^ ^ 'a. ••if • ' jx -r -•* /i5* :A: - - - ~ ~TT::>sf. . 7~~;•-/-rrr-jXiT^'15%'"-' K*-' .-s. r . «--'' -• ' - "^'- A. -• ^'si r. •;' :a. yT---. ">-/I ^.':- \'S. -rN^v^\A \VA V a \ "v \l‘=!^= •.-.V A. •• •. ■‘. *VN ^;I ; A’,'.'.'V VA- .vX 'V'-'>7>- TON'KA !,i:l 'v;--"' . bay V-i Vr.-. ii.i '•■•^ ■»; ^ 1*^ ^ ‘ ^ bJ_A *3 ^ j ^ / %*r*^ • ! -i/ ijicrrsill il^ -'S ?■/ ‘•.‘ ‘\ i.'/ • i * . ^•i.».€ .•V'..“.r.<sc'*ic r-^f «' r's ■3- AVf- U. PARK LAND COMPANY BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,ING. TIUNSPOnrATIOIIENGINEERSANOnMNEnS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR SHADYWOOD ROAD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 2 ANTICIPATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION :| 05/08/1998 09:43 473-4435 COFFIN & GRONBERG PAGE 02 COFFIN it CRONBERC, INC. •UUVSTMO. CMAINamNO ANO CANO ACAMMWia 4|«l^TAiyUIIACK AV«m#» UOMO iAKm. MIMM. May 7,1998 Park Land Compan> P.O. Box 26773 St. Louis Park. MN 5.'^42<> Attn: Joshua Aaron Dear Mr. Aaron; I have looked at your proposed btulding and parking areas on the Navarre ^e in Leach Addition for drainage impact.s. I am fomiliar with this site because of my work for Clair Rood and Waters & Associates on previ(iu.s- plans for this site. Id the previous plan.s T iricd to send as much drtdnage toward County Road 19 as possible where storage could be provided while reducing the runoff to Kelfy Avenue. Your proposed concept plan would allow us to direct the runoff in a siinilar manner with less runoff going to Kelly Avenue after your development because of the reduction in contributing dramage area.. The runoff rate to Count} Road 19 would also be reduced after development because of the construction of a stont'watcr pond in that location. Sincerely, COFFIN A GRONBFRCi. INC. Mark S. Gronberg. P.l A f..S. MSG/cr t c UJcx: < UJ ►—» > a: UJ o) -.j <1:ai cc Iz:c COor ZD cC UJ c UJ o oc UJ on CO or: ZD <3: UJ Od cC UJ C-J •—i > Od UJ 00 o:: ZD q: <n0c H COM q: 00 00 «o: 00 ZD MIS n I yl\TWf '‘.vV . yJ: 1 |( A'tiJh'^ I !^r A ••J•• V Ml :i isi /> it) ■■ I: A . L^»{ oQz: ▼ !<(/) UCOuJ(/)mur^xc/) rT \ LU a:oc UJcno Ln UJ alo in UJ a: C_J < <c >—I H- 2:21 2:2Z 1 1 -J UJ UJ UJ UJ 0 0 0 0 i .2T t—i 1—1 ►-H »-H 0 _1 CO to i>o to <C ►—»< UJ UJ UJ LJ ►—1 H-►—4 C2l oc DC OC 0 OH ZDH- Ql ^— - -—J UJ 1—4 00 Sc <c <c f—ZD CO ck: CO dl 0: ZD q: ZD 210 -3 0 2J ZD 0^QC CD t—4 1—4 CO o (0 0) m tsrrm in §a. ■ a B □ ■ H ft ® " -<r f I ♦ •*!N i* i.i ¥ •t I* 7 -- .»vs ^ M ^ y-T' > ¥ V....- ■ ■ i'‘?i' ■' ■ >aW§);\ "X i /^ /'Uj5 .//'S o UJo (.0 ------I?V-S' . ? / ----------;i_.....m i' 9. ■ - x;-cc^<&c/ ■ TWWi'-_____'■ ' y- /■ ■' *: •>. /■' (.•)ov< • r*' - » n5i / ' o ' / '-j?„.) u i;±^ fri^LUn cr^^O *^a;o< Official Zoning Map City of Orono, Minnesota R*1A One Family Residential District 1 Acre R*1B One Family Residential District 1/2 Acre LR*1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District 2Acres One Family Lakeshore Residential District lAcre One Family Lakeshore Residential District 1/2 Acre One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdisirict 1/2 Acre One Family Rural Residential District 5 Acres One Family Rural Residential District 2 Acres One Family Rural Residential Subdlstricl 2 Acres Seasonal Recreational 5 Acres Retail Sales Business District Lakeshore Business District Shopping Center Business District Office And Professional Business District Ltmiteil Ncighburhood Business District iMinvfl Urban Dt veiopmer^t AiJopti'd by UuJinunci' l/#\ OocttnluT Vi, 1974 January 1, 1979 Juno 14, 1976 Nnv»inlH*r '/?, 1970 October 11, 1977 January 9, 197R October ?6, 1978 Novembor 14, 8 Fnbruory l|, itfSO January 2. <981 Ordtnonce 246. Detemb Ofdino.'ce 249, AprI. Ordinance 250, July II Ordinance 33, March NAVARRE AREA DETAIL MAP 1141116 •itt -■4 2000 massufii'.'/2 mi. 5000 ft. north Road Key: Rjulk: «oaos **r»wa!» Moods ISBERG RIESENBERG CHELSETH and ASSOCIATES INC. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOC., INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS St. Paul, Minnesota REVISED: NOV I, I980 FEB. I5, I98I SEPT. I5, I983 Al'G 28, I984 JUNE 30, I936 JULY I3, I987 MAR. I7, I989 JUNE 5, I99I JAN. I6, I995 § 10.42 L, Fencing, Wherever a "B-3" Shopping Center Business District abuts or is across the street from an II Dtl District, an adequate fence or compac^^«*ay^^en hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet^in heigr^^hall be erected. When adjacent to a street, it shall no^be less thar^three feet nor more than four feet in height. ilding Design anB Construction. Se'lk.Section 10.40, Subdivision 6 N. Height. TI^»*i#lfcture or building shall e^eed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. SEC. 10.43. B-4 OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-4'' Office and Professional Business is l.^.tended to provide a district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative office buildings and related offices. The office uses allowed in this district are those in which there is limited contact with the public and no exterior display or selling of merchandise to the general public. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-4" Office and Professional District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-4" Office and Professional Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses; A. /‘uni‘ipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. B. Offices. Professional offices and offices of the general nature. C. Clinics. Clinics for human care on an out patient basis only. D. Banks and Insurance Offices. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-4" Office an Professional Business District no structure or land shall be use for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Nursing Homes, Hospitals.^ Nursing homes, hospitals, rest homes or retirement homes, provided the site sna contain not less than 600 square feet of lot area for each person to be accommodated and that no.-building be located less than j feet from the side lot line. ORONO CC *345 (4-1-84) § 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to any rear lot line, 15 feet to any side lot line, 35 feet to any side lot line adjacent to street; except when abutting or across the street from an "R” District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F, Fencing. Wherever a ”B-4" Office and Professional Business District abuts an "R" District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height (no less than three feet nor higher than four feet adjacent to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagraph G. H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. I. 2-1/2 stories or Section 10.75. Height. No structure or building shall exceed thirty feet in height except as provided in SEC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT Subd. 1. Purpose. The ”B—5" Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the "B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district:since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) S 10.43 B. Schools. Private academies, schools, trade schools, colleges and universities for teaching. C. Research Centers. D. Veterinary Clinics or Kennels, hospitals, clinic or kennels. Animal E. Libraries. F. Museums. G. Galleries, Etc. Historical buildings, museums, art institutes, galleries and playhouses. H. Restaurants (Class I). Restaurants which are located within and mainly servicing an office building providing there is no outside display or advertising of the restaurant use. I. Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "I” District and is in the same ownership as the land in the “B” or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessarv by the Council. J. Public Services. Public servdce structures, including, but not limited to.es, inclu' electrical tra^mission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange build stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations Md electric . u r e stat j ■ power substations. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting wer subst antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-4” Office and Professional Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: District. A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1" Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Yard, Setback and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. A.Area. The feet. B.Lot Width. feet’. c.Front Yards. D.Rear Yards. feet and unless the rear yard has access from a public street or alley, a side driveway of 12 feet shall be provided to assure access. ORONO CC 346 (4-1-84) L S 10.61 sum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 D. "B-1", "B-2" and '’B-4”: Height. Within the "B-1", "B-2'' and "B-4" Districts, no sign shall extend in height more than two feet above the highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building nor shall any sign be located closer than ten feet from any property line except that any sign over ten square feet may project two feet into any required yard area from the principal building. Source; Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 E. "B-3" and "I": Height. Within any "B-3" or "I" District, no sign shall extend in height more than six feet in height above the highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building. No sign shall be located closer than ten feet from any property line except that any sign exceeding ten square feet may project only two feet into the yard area from any building. Subd. 4. Purpose of Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Regulation of off-street parking and loading spaces in this Chapter is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and so to promote the safety and general welfare of the public by establishing minimum requirements for off-street parking, loading and unloading from motor vehicles in accordance with the utilization of various parcels of land and structures. All applications for an occupancy certificate in all districts shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicating the location of off-street parking and loading spaces in compliance with the following requirements: Source: Municipal Code Effective Date; 9-1.4-67 A. Application of Parking Rules All Districts. In addition to the regulations and requirements set forth elsewhere in this Chapter, the following regulations and requirements regarding off-street parking shall apply to the required and non-tequired off-street parking facilities in all use districts: Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 B. Parking Requirements Waived for Building Under Construction on September 14, 1967. Structure or uses for which a building permit has been issued prior to September 14, 1967, but ORONO CC 382 (4-1-84) J S 10.61 for which work has not been completed shall be exempt from the hereinafter stated parking requirements if the structure is started within six uionths after September 16, 1967, and continues to completion. C. Existing Parking Not to be Reduced. Off-street parking spaces and loading spaces existing on September 14, 1967, shall not be reduced in number unless said number exceeds the requirements set forth herein for a similar new use. D. Floor Area. The term "floor area" for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking spaces shall be the net usable floor area of the various floors, devoted to retail sales, services, office spaces, processing and fabrication exclusive of hallways, utility space, storage areas other than warehousing. E. Seat. In stadiums, churches and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews or other similar seating facilities, each 22 inches of such seating facility shall be counted as one seat for the purpose of determining required parking. F. Size of Parking Spaces. Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet wide and twenty feet in length and each space shall be served adequately by access drives. For purposes of calculating parking space requirements, one parking space for one vehicle shall equal 300 square feet of storage and maneuvering area including access drives. G. Commercial Vehicle Parking. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of passenger automobiles. No motor vehicle over 7,000 pounds gross capacity and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a residential district except when loading, unloading or rendering a service, except that one such vehicle may be parked at the residence of the owner or operator of said vehicle. Under no circumstances shall parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for open area storage of commercial vehicles nor for open air parking for business purposes of automobiles belonging to the employees, owner, tenant or customers of business or manufacturing establishments other than the home occupation permitted for that property. H. Location of Parking, parking in the "R" Districts shall be on principal building. Required off-street the same lot as the Subd. 5. Setbacks for Parking. Required^ off-street parking in all districts shall meet the following setback requirements: ORONO CC 383 (4-1-84) § 10.61 A. "R” Districts. Within all "R” Districts all vehicles normally owned or kept by the occupants on the premises must have a garage stall or open parking space on the same lot as the principal use served. Garage stalls accessory to residential structures may be located anywhere on the lot other than a required yard area except that such garages may be located to within ten feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line subject to Section 10.03. Open parking spaces on lots must have a location other than a required yard except that such parking may be located in a rear yard to within ten feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 B. "B” Districts. Within the "b-2" District parking may not be allowed in any required yard or landscaping area. Within the "B-1”, "B-3" and "B-A" Districts parking spaces and/or garages shall be located in areas other than a required yard except that parking may be located in a rear yard to within three feet of the rear or side lot line unless the rear or side lot line is in common with an "R" District; then the setback distance shall be the same as required for the "R” District. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 C. "I" Districts. Within "I" Districts, off-street parking spaces shall be not less than twenty feet from any street right-of-way line nor less than five feet from any interior side lot line or rear lot line, except when a side or rear lot line is abutting an ”R" District. Then, off-street parking shall be not less than ten feet from said lot lines. Subd. 6. Joint Parking. Required parking facilities serving two or more uses in the "B" or ''I'' Districts may be located on the same lot provided that the total number of parking spaces so furnished shall be not less than the sum total of the separate requirements for each use and provided: A. The proposed joint parking space is within thirty feet of the use it will serve. B. The applicant(s) shall show that there is no substantial conflict in thr orincipal operating hours of the two or more buildings or uses for which joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed; and, C. A properly drawn legal instrument approved by the City Attorney, executed by the parties concerned for joint use of off-street parking facilities shall be filed with the City Clerk.^ Said instrument may b6 a three or more party agreement including the City, ORONO CC 384 (4-1-84) § 10.61 Subd. 7. Control of Parking Facilities. When required accessory off-street parking facilities are provided elsewhere than on the lot on which the principal use served is located, written authority for using such property for off-street parking shall be filed with the City so as to maintain the required number of off- street parking spaces during the existence of said principal use. No such parking facilities at its closest point shall be located more than 100 feet from the premises nor more than 300 feet from the principal use or building served. Subd. 8. Storage Prohibited. Required off-street parking space in all districts shall not be utilized for open storage of goods or for the storage of vehicles which are inoperable, for lease, rent or sale. Subd. 9. Design and Maintenance of Parking Areas. A. Access. Parking areas shall be designed so as to provide an adequate means of access to a public alley or street. Said driveway access shall not exceed thirty feet in width at the public walk center line and shall be so located as to cause the least interference with traffic movement. All off-street parking spaces shall have access off driveways and not directly off of a public street. B. Fractional Spaces. When the determining of the number of required off-street parking spaces results in a fraction, each fraction of one-half or more shall constitute another space. C. Signs. Signs located in any parking area necessary for orderly operation of traffic movement shall be in addition to accessory signs otherwise permitted. D. Surfacing. All of the area intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways for four or more vehicles shall be surfaced with material to control dust and drainage. E. Lighting. If lighting is provided it shall be accomplished in such a manner as to have no direct source of light visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent land. F. Curbing. All open off-street parking areas designed to have head-in parking along any lot line shall provide a tire bumper or curb of adequate height and properly located to ensure that no part of any car will project beyond the required setbacks. Subd. 10. Required Off-Street Parking. Where the principal use of the structure served is as listed, the minimum parking facilities (open or enclosed) shall be as shown. •• A. Single Family Dwelling. Two per dwelling unit. B, Multiple Dwelling. Two per dwelling unit. ORONO CC 385 (4-1-84) § 10.6X C. Motel, Motor Hotel, Motor Court or Hotel. Four spaces plus at least one parking space for each guest room orovided in the design of the building. D. School, High School Through College. At least one parking space for each seven students based on design capacity plus one for each three classrooms. E. Churches, Auditoriums, Undertaking Establishments. At least one parking space for each four seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. F. Theater, Athletic Field. At least one parking space for each six seats of design capacity. G. Community Center, Post Office, YMCA, YWCA, Physical Cultural Studio, Pool Halls, Libraries, Private Clubs, Lodges, Museums. Ter. spaces plus one for each 300 square feet of floor area in excess of 2,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure. H. Hospital. At least one parking space for each three hospital beds. I. Golf Courses, Country Clubs, Tennis Club, Public Swimming Pools. Twenty spaces plus one for each 300 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure. J. Day Nurseries. Four plus one for each 500 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 K. Office Buildings and Professional Offices, Banks, Savings Institutions. At least one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. Source: Ordinance_No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 L. Drive-In Establishments. At least one parking space for each fifteen square feet of floor area in the building. M. Bowling Alley. At least six parking spaces for each alley. N. Motor Service Stations. At least three off- street parking spaces plus two additional off-street parking spaces for each service stall. O. Retail Sales and Service Establishments. At least one off-street parking spxice for each 150 square feet of net floor area. ORONO CC 386 (3-1-84) § 10.61 P. Restaurants, Cafes, Bars, Taverns, Night Clubs. At least one for each 80 square feet of public floor area. Q. Furniture Store, Appliance Store, Warehouse Under 15,000 Square Feet of Floor Area, Auto Sales, Grainhouses, Kennels and Studios. At least one parking space for each 500 square feet in excess of the first 500 square feet of floor area in the principal structure. R. Auto Repair-Major, Bus Terminals, Taxi Terminals, Boat and Marine Sales and Service, Bottling Companies, Shop for Trade (employing six people or less). Garden Supply Stores, Building Materials Sales. At least eight off-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 feet, including warehousing and all outside sales and storage area related to the sales and service functions. S. Skating Rinks, Ski Areas, Dance Hall, Public Auction House, and Similar Recreational Uses. At least fifteen off-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area over 1,000 square feet. T. Manufacturing, Fabrication or Processing of a Product or Material. At least four off-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of building. One additional off-street parking space shall be provided for each 2,500 square feet or fraction thereof of land devoted to outside storage. Subd. 11. Application of Loading Rules to All Districts. The regulations and requirements regarding off-street loading and unloading shall apply to the required and non-required loading and unloading facilities in all the districts. If, in the application of these requirements, a fractional number is obtained, one loading space shall be provided for a fraction of one-half or more, and no loading space shall be required for a fraction of less than one- half. Subd. 12. Location of Loading Berths. All loading berths shall be 25 feet or more from the intersection of two street right-of-way lines. Loading berths shall not occupy any yard requirement bordering a street. Subd. 13. Size of Loading Berths. Unless otherwise specified the first berth required shall not be less than 12 feet in width, and 25 feet in length. Additional berths shall be as specified, but not less than 12 feet in width and 25 feet in length, all loading berths shall maintain a height of 14 feet or more. Subd. 14. Access to ^Loading Berths. Each loading berth shall be located with appropriate means of access to public street or alley in a manner which will least interfere with traffic. ORONO CC 387 ^(4-1-84) TO:Villase Council FROM:Adninistrator DATE:Juno 6, 1968 SUBJECT:Conditional Use Pemit - Unity Invastnent Corporation by%hi‘;t;.s2d •• -i'<= -Co ^n->.ss,c^ M ISIDBlfi At_ rsfcOPP-bK V < ^4 r • • ♦ i . . ..•:.-• <• •‘•* • V- ■ Hicifo^icl^ i f • s. • '.-vj -.:i * 7 .« ’IV 'r ' a i m VILLAGE OP ORONO Regular Meeting of the Village Council* June 10* 1968 The Village Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Ross* Councllmen Butterfield* Franzel* Searles* and Stubbs. Searles moved* Stubbs seconded, that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 27, 1968* be approved. Motion* Ayes (S) - Nays (0). The following appeared: G. Faber* L. Hork* H. Renner, R. Gasch* W. Parten, H. Willis, Mrs. H. Willis, Mrs. A. Purvey, and Mrs. A. Kuehn concerning Marinas. 0. Keiran concerning Stubbs Bay Resort setup license. W. Wear concerning 68SR-1. D. Tuthill concerning a Town House project. • Searles moved* Franzel seconded, that the request of B. H. Hennings for a division at 447S Bayside Road* be referred to the Planning Commission, with consideration given for a SO’ easement beyond the present 30’ easement. Motion, Ayes (5) • Nays (0). • Stubbs moved, Butterfield seconded, that the request of Percy Duehn for a division at 1160 North Arm Drive, bo referred to the Planning Commission, with the request that this division meet Village requirements. Motion* Ayes (5) - Nays (0). j Franzel moved, Searles seconded* that the m request of the Unity Investment Corporation I for a conditional use permit to construct I a 65-unit townhouse at 253S Shadywood Road* I be referred to the Planning Commission for % review and recommendation. Motion, Ayes (5j XNays C0)« ^— Stubbs moved, Butterfield seconded, that the request of Adam Huzio at 712 Tonkawa Road for a 3’ setback variance for a boat shelter, be referred to the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (Oj. 7:30 P. M. MINUTES DIVISION 4475 Tayside Road DIVISION 1160 North Arm Drive DIVISION 2535 Shadywood Mad VARIANCE 712 Tonkawa Road 9% A ■ • > '-4 ’ >1 •• --ih '■■■: 'j; (■.■•.‘a ! -i'--iW:’ / • A • f- V * :V "i J".: .-ri A ■i {■> 1r.? ;! J * 3 'V:- m K Bife;'-' j ^ : ,• . • rl-A-v '< i y « i Jc o j :• i I VILLAGE OP OROMO MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, VILLAGE OP ORONG, JULY IS, 1968 Acting Chairman, Robert Searles, CAll#d th# Meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. Present were Rice, Nichoiis, ?lcCarthy, and Dongoske. Councilman Stubbs representing the Council and Councilman Butterfield also sat In at the Meeting. Absent wore Russell and Bartig* UNIIT INVESTMENT CORPORATION Mr. Tuthill and Mr. Angelikis appeared representing the Unity Investment, to answer questions by interested citizens. The f'^llowing of a large group appeared to ask questions of thciri. In order of appearance; King Tristuni, John Birch, Mr. 8 Mrs. E. J. Schroeder, Mrs. T. R. O'Malley, Robert Warren, Pat Swenson, D. C. Messer, Steve Anbuhl, Ed. Stanke, Roger Dolliff, Sheldon Kaplan, Walter Massengale, Tom Nelson, ws. Val Elliot, Jack Wenger, Cy DeCosse, and Gladys Olson. Discussion was held or. traffic count; credentials of Unity Investment Corp.; price of rentals; setbacks; the taxes derived from the project in comparison to number of children added to the school system; the comparison between having commercial in the area or townhouses; problems of pollution and water; on ht.i the area became zoned as it is; on the spirit of zoning. After discussion, Sheldon Kaplan asked the Planning Commission if he could take a standing vote of, for or against the project, which was granted. Of the estimated 60 people in the nail, all were against ex *nt 6. A petition of 10 names was presenteu opposing the complex. Dongoske nov'ed Nichoiis seconded, that the project as ; nted be denied, with a recommendat. that the future density of these projects should be limited to o units per acre and the quality of these projects be commensurate with the area of the project. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING •i I <ii "&i®5 iSMg^<(-v*V**-’. ^- ■■* > ’ * . ■ ■ >'> /' . /VILLAGE OP OROIMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, VILLAGE OPORONO. JULY IS, 1968Acting Chairman, Robert Searles, cilled the Meeting to order at 7:30 P. M, Present were Rice, ?Ucholls, flcCarthy, and Dongoske. Councilman Stubbs representing the Council and Councilman Butterfield also sat in at the Meeting. Absent wore Russell and Bartig. UNIIT INVESTMENT CORPORATION Mr. Tuthill and Mr. Angelikis appeared representing the Unit/ Investment, to answer questions b/ interested citizens. The following of a large group appeared to e»k questions of them. In order of appeerence: King Tristuni, John Birch, Mr. 8 Mrs. B. J. Schroeder, Mrs. T. R. O'Malley, Robert Warren, Pat Swenson, D. C. Messer, Steve Anbuhl, £d. Stanke, Roger Dolliff, Sheldon Kaplan, Walter Massengale, Tom Nelson, Mrs. Val Elliot, Jack Wenger, Cy DeCosse, and Gladys Olson. Discussion was held on traffic count; credentials of Unity Investment Corp.; price of rentals; setbacks; the taxes derived from the project in comparison to number of children added to the school system*, the comparison between having commercial in the area or townhouses; problems of pollution and water; on he./ the area became zoned as it is; on the spirit of zoning. After discussion, Sheldon Kaplan asked the Planning Commission if he could take a standing vote of, for or against the project, which was granted* Of the estimated 60 people in the hall, all were against ex- *nt 6. A petition of 10 names was presenteu opposing the complex. Dongoske moved Nicholls seconded, that the project as p* nted be denied, with a recommendat.* that the future density of these projecv> should be limited to 6 units per acre and the quality of these projects be commensurate with the area of the project. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). >«k Si.*•1 CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING i:F** •• *•. !,''iv . -V ‘5 >• . o . . 5 P ^ «* j it m M: mk"J rv* k • t* ‘JI*V t f-j'tt: my Chaiman D. J. Russell called to order at 7:30 P. i\ Preset and Nicholls. Absent were Bai McCarthy, and Stubbs. UNITY INVESTMENT COP.?. Mr. Dick Tuthill appeared in I above corporation to answer qt regarding their proposed 65-un complex at 7535 Shadywood Road asked how they could put 65 un area and Mr. Tuthill exhibited the site plan, showing the lay asked where accesses were and answered. Discussion was held kind of pool, answer being out kind of community house an .ans or less, for pool users and pi of trees already on site, answ retention of all trees. Nicho about how the water supply pro solved and Mr. TutMll had no s'^swer for this. Russell sugg would be a ^ood time to start water. Nicholl« Tiiovcd, Rice seconded. Public Hearing be held. Motio Nays (0). BOATPORT SETBACK: Adam Huzio Rice moved, Nicholls seconded, setback variance on the boatpoi allowed to conform with presem Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). VARIANCE ON SETBACK: Sigrid Jc .Variance on setback and varianc l'an accessory building in prior residence. Rice moved, Nicholls seconded, setback variance for the house but the moving of the garage to issued only on a conditional us and permission be given by owne adjoining proper tie.*;. Motion, Nays (0). * MINUTES OF THE XEGUUW MEETING OF THE PUNNING COMMISSION, VILUGB OF ORONO, JUNE 17, 19«8 s>; N-r ♦ 5-.;' f I fi-j ij/-. gijr) II Chaiiman D. J. Russell called the Betting to order at 7:30 P. li. Present were Rice and Nicholls. Absent were Bartig» Dongoake, McCarthy» and Stubbs. UNITY INVESTMENT COf,?. Mr. Dick Tuthill appeared in behalf of the above corporation to answer questions regarding their proposed 65-unit townhouae complex at 2535 Shadywood Road. Rice asked how they could put 65 units in tnia area and Mr. Tuthill exhibited diagrant of the site plan, showing the layout# Rusiell asked where accesses were and this was answered. Discussion was held on what kind of pool, answer being outdoor; what kind of community house an answer more or less, for pool users and picnickers; use of trees already on site, ^swer, planned retention of all trees. Nicholls about how the water supply problem would be soli^ed and Mr. Tuthill had no ready answer for this. Russell suggested It would be a ^ood time to start public water. Nicholl« :.ioved, Rice seconded, that a Public Hearing be held. Motion, Ayes (3) Nays (0). BOATPORT SETBACK; Adam Huzio Rice moved, Nicholls seconded, that the setback variance on the boatport be allowed to conform with present earage. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). variance on SET^>^K: Sigrid Johnson .Variance on setback and variance on moving ' an accessory building in prior to a residence. Rice moved, Nicholls seconded, . setback variance for the house be granted but the moving of the garage to lot be issued only on a conditional use permit and permission be given by owners ®f adjoining properties. Motion, Ayes (3) Nays (0). CONOITZOHAL USB PBRMIT VARIANCE VARIANCE * 'T VXLUGE OF ORONO Regular 'Meeting of the Village Council.July 22. 1968 *^he Village Council met on the above date wxth the following members present: Councilmen Franzel, Searles. and Stubbs. Mayor Ross absent. Butterfield late. Stubbs moved, Franiel seconded, that the .linutes of the Regular Meeting of July 8, 1963, be approved. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). The following appeared: Kine Tristani, attorney, representing neighbors in the area of the 65-unit townhouse co^>lex proposed by the Unity Investment Corp. N. Larson concerning building permit. Mrs, T. Halloran and Mrs. J, Rosengren concerning Old Crystal Bay Road. / Stubbs moved, Franzel seconded, that the i I proposal of the Unity Investment Corporation I for a conditional use permit at 253S Shady- 1 wood Road, bo denied. Motion, Ayes (4) - ^Nays (0). 1 <. Mm‘vmv*■ 7:30 P.M. MINUTES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2535 Shadywood Road Franzel moved, Stubbs seconded, that the. . Albert Addison for a variance'*.' at 3382 Bayside Road, be approved as recommended by the Planning Commission, Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). j Stubbs moved, Franzel seconded, that the ^ Alden Purvey for a division at Place, be approved as recommended N Commission. Motion, Ayes (3) - Fr£.,zel moved, Stubbs seconded, that the request of Gust Mattson at 3845 North Shore Drive for a division, be approved es recommended by the Planning Commission.Ayes (3) - Nays (0). VARIANCE 3382 Bayside Reai DIVISION 3990 Cherry Place DIVISION 3845 North Shore Drive - il^v,, .* tV\ 6'" m In* \ hi i.- W V • ’ J p.)vm tV-' 1^* •• ^ % m:' • •H*' ] Pi % i ' I • ( 41 f *• 4 t li 1 I f i X I •! TO; PROM DAT2: SUBJECT: Villsge Council Inspector March 7, 1969 Conditional Use Pemit - TUthlll u* Tuthill. dba Unity Investnont, has »ade an MSJiSn fSJ . c»dl?lon.l «;. P.T.U to conotruet which were denied. is now submitting application tor xnc *v u«*w. .»« adequate print. i*V U ^ b*' ?)< . }>j .1 y' p ■ <' •,''* 111 . . • * r //.. . r .. . ' / •. A' A . I I • %(? » N t •% 'J V r-\ ‘ :.v;. I ‘I;«V.‘I*</••I' ^A.»6 l! \15 •it m tt ;; I f' •iv • I 4r. :*) t•' i t'l ii‘ ^.jf-i :-.S !|. it‘ ''J'•S {!^ ' iJ t ri I f: iv li ! f! 4 'II 1’ • • i f i ;' «• 4 ♦•' SSAfLJJi VILUGB OF ORONO Regular fleeting of the Village Council* March 10, 1969 The Village Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Ross, Councilmen Butterfield, Searles, and Stubbs. Councilman Frantel absent* Stubbs moved, Searles seconded, that the Minute< of the Regular Meeting of February 24, 1969, be app''oved. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). 7:30 P.M. MINUTES %:■ -' The following appeared: P. Fahlin, R. Kempf, L. Hork, J. Lehtinen, 0. Xieran, and R. Holm gren concerning marinas* I. Mckown and J. Young concerning weed inspection. Searles moved, Stubbs seconded, that the request of George Scherven, dba North Star Realty, for rezbriing from R-ID to R-IB, 3260 Navarre Lane, be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation* fiction. Ayes (4) - Nays (0)* Stubbs moved, Searles seconded, that the request of Stanley Rudd, 650 Park Lane', for a division for the purpose of constructing a garage only, be approved* Motion, AVes (4) - Nays (0). Butterfield moved, Searles seconded, t^t the request of Robert Dongoske, 4320 Forest Arms Lane, for a division, be referred to the Pianriing Commission for review and recommendation. Motion, Ayes (^) - Npys (0). Stubbs moved, Searles seconded, that the request of Helen Dalton, 3760 Watci ;own Road for a conditional use permit, be approved, ffotion. Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Searles moved, Butterfield seconded, t’:at the request of Richard Tuthill, dba Unity Investment, for a conditional use neimit, i55S Shadywood Road, be referred to the '.'lanninp Commission for review and recommen a.-.tion. '’otion. Ayes (4) - Nays (0). REZONING 3260 Navarre Lane DIVISION 630 Park Lane DIVISION 4230 Forest Arms Lane CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3760 Watertown Road CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2S3S Snadywood Road ’;'r* ••• ■ i fev' f V f t‘. ‘t • V *. * •* f. *• • • . 'iUMUTtS or A RECULAR meeting held march 17, 196}P«S0 2 A livoJy discussion followed, and it was brought out that in view of an adverse docking conceptnnd set a high standard upon which to base tig.itcned restrictions on existiiiK and future installations, and that by far the most serious problem was really the unsuper- vised public launching ramps being built by Hennepin County. ^ Dongoske moved, ffeCarthy seconded, that approval of the Hork building permit be recommended, subject to conformity with all existing codes, and that the Chairman should contact Hennepin County and all other interested parties concerning the nroblems w.uch had been discussed. Motion,'Ayes (3)nays (0). » f K j t-corgo Scherven, representing himself, picsented a topographical mop of the area he wished rezoned, legal, Lots 49-52, Wallace’s Addition to Minnetonlxa Beach, i200 Navarre Lane^ for purposes of constructing a telephone storage garage for 24 company cars. “cCarthy moved, Dongoske seconded, that tin* approval of the rozoning be recommended. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). McCarthy moved, Stubbs seconded, that the division of Robert Dongoske, Lot 5, Block 2, Forest Arms, 4230 Forest Arms Lane, be divided into three parcels end combined with adjacent properties. Motion, Ayes (3) Nays (0). Richard Tuthill, dba Unity Investment, rcpresentcu himself, in a request for a conditional use permit to construct 10 double units on Lot S, Block 4, Langdon Park, 2535 Shadywood Road. Heard were •’esrers. Van Lierre and Hanson, *Ics lanes •\nln.hl and Blliotr. Mr. Tuthill explained REZONING 3260 Navarre Lane DIVISION 4230 Forest Arms Lane CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2535 Shadywood Road VJ. Si • 4- '.r i • 4ft./ ^ • h‘}r zm -■i •>*' .•♦r KX 1% if •■' • !*'■:> K-h; kf .r p: H-": m ^---------- “ -• v^>.ac*>' XINOTSS OF A REOOUR MEETING HEID MARCH 17. 19<9 I thax haa haa^uM:i%"i;srp'js5io*!i,%?‘i:siu?ia ►«»• j ^r^uU'lnU.Jt^ll^iy that th.buildin* piana.'^M;n:;,‘s?jn,S'f sijr^o). The following narina licenses ye.e considered: reconnended that there b2 Jo Jip.«X«? ^MRINA LICENSES JJcJnS’eSJJS ihlri;*use Ma ..sJtJSjt^^-sJjJiJ." It jUreJ.r*' would h^**f^K**^w**'®*^*’^ sanitary service * would be exhorbitant in view oi til approaching Nfunicipal service. parking.^*'* be adequate Mr* Hork»J^i*iI® *PPf*cations, including and it ill considiJfd oxpansion%JoT?:,r;Jart,\iSa%%%^^ ^ 'Respectfully submitted. o^^bael Scheller Secretary i* .•.7 ' f.‘. ^.'A ,:.f: r-T • ^ 1^stV•»« 'V j r*'*^ .'••ft r?»3 •!K V* i * •■■» *. • i as ;Su^::!;;.k«~«, .U .,. 1•r: i VILLAGE OP ORONO*Ai.bAuc e March^Sl^/^igJS^ Village Council, with tJie^fSiiowinJ^ ”*J ®" above date req«^"J^*^!jS«««^»econded. that the Withheld until f'inai^ ,*** final approval «• Cou„cU?'^J,f*;« JJ-s^have baeSV.^J.ted TOetints and the investijatl *''* •’•cent th® <Iuestlon of licen«4n°"* ''"ducted regard the facts as found by "ar*"” •«« of® the probl^„s’’of®?,“Jf*L5?.®ai‘t^concerning the**nrohii Council to ex pollution’and re<niia^”* ^s®Rc, lake Orono, and ?he "^^^.Viifaie of these problems, the Council^^tSHv*^®? control ?fc‘^S?e!? ‘-'® ap"Ju=a*??o\s‘’’lof°“??n^"® ^ (i*‘v prii:\rcZU ‘h. Pure Oil be approved North Shore "SO only. . . *•'.= ;.. .• • •-. j :* U • e «•; #’ ma?iJriicens4 aJpi“ation°"f°c’ *’'*yarina be approved for ‘^i Stubbs Bay for new variances should^h^^^^^ requestsCouncil. Motion Axes Pftented to' Ayes (5) - Mays (0), license appi’cat!?i°of *Gaylc®‘^marina th'e%%'"®u5^ions V*.._ 7:30 p.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT marina licenses - "anna licence aiiliL:!;"™*®- ‘hat the i J? approved for 8*^51105* Ji?h ^ ' i' i^at Council receives‘Je,stipulation ' the adjacent Texaco staM«« ?i. from •*; ' Clientele may use thei? S®- SP»tes* y •- Motion. Ayes (S) . J"' facilities. • , . 4 * . •* • J. V, Spates •• V north shore pure oil STUBBS BAY MARINA GAYLE"S MARINA ,-','v-v p ; : ;i* . «I'a-a • !; £ X H ! B i f i CITY or onor-.'o appuc . •. •• • : ( • t December 13, 1977 wwm City of Orono Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 , '•-• • •. ■ - ..w V?# • •'•• •• ' ■■■ Dear Sira:# 1 *.• # , Enclosed la Land Use Application described property into two B-t eoJ «>b , residential lot. Ky piano ore to end one . building on lot 1 and I have e » medical clinic site plan for this building The 8 Propoeod --cteo on a smaller b.“ ‘t n I ■ "" ‘"e site Plan. ordinance section 3(,.02g relation f ' ^ ^ **®“®** zoning ^-.d be proyldod rnoresslr a : Tl"’' ’ :°7 RoeT« 1 n“”"‘ --- e conditional pee ePP:lcatlL^:rtl^::::r a % rrrr * -»• ™,rr.'" ■•"■V "“PPWPn lo th,, . '■er nu e;ni;,. , . _ ....... ^ would poou „ ,,^„.nip e'.nold„r,.i:„,,_ '■'.urc. ih.,ni: r„^ ( I I * • • «f*,• • • »-< * 4 . - t e • • r;- ♦ ^ i ,4nnm\ I ‘| mt Henry F. Muhlch, Zoning Adailnistrator Decenber 14, 1977 SUBJECT: Tom Leach - 2535 Shadywood Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit for’ Dupl» • u f • V. - . •* - > ^ * * *. Vt.r >r Dupi^ v:^•^ Enclosed are copies of a proposal submitted today by -Th^s Leac!i. • • ' Z The proposal consists of an application to subdivide Lot 5,. Block 4 Townslte of Langdon Park into 3 lots and a separate application fo * Conditional Use Permit for duplex credit on a residential lot adja to conmerclally zoned property, ** i «ne^ for both Business and Proftiilonal(B-4) and Single Family Residential (LR-IB). _ “LISLE’S" ESS5 “ “ All lots would comply with the code. - Exhibit A - Preliminary Plat V t Lot 1 - B-4 31,231 sq. ft. Lot 2 - b-4 31,205 sq. ft. Lot 3 - LR-lB - 35,090 sq. ft, dry bulldable The plat also indicates wetlands, contours, drainage easements, and existing structures which will be removed. We might consider a wider drainage easement along the south property line for future storm drain construction. k f In conjunction with the division, Mr. Leach also has provided a site ^an for the construction of a medical office building on Lot 1 (Exhibit B). The site plan shows building size and location and parking. Zoning Orainance Section /r38.311 regulates parking requirement - 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area. Lot 2 would be made available for some B-4 use to be determined sometime in the future. Exhibit C - letter from Hr. Leach proposing C<» donacv the r< s Int ij Lot J to the City. • T ! t !>»• L i t y : s n<»r i nr ■•r< i « <1 {it i t, a i n i ti,• i lii- p i la•• • I , ;U'. !.• Ji is-que:,t l<tg approval ol a C. ut<! 11 i.Mt i-l ivr.it lor .:«v!.y L'-t 3 i!' Che Structur.; i •. l(,c,u-d v/ithin 2i,-;' . , ' • i • • •• T /-• r r, r- 1 ... f ........... . . . - - . I .i • I r i'• t. firiviLi* ...i!.: lIh- mrin 1*^1 : m V. l*;.'ii. ; % ; >1 : ■ =1 • ^ i1 >i ■V^ vf* K •^» »P1 Tom L«ach • 2535 Shadywood Subdivision and Condicional Use Permit for Duplex » Page 2 •i« . : .. ;•*■'• •■ • . ■» LI'’**' '• '-It*' ‘ ,. ir,. •. , • - •■ . . . . . . . . . • • > . • V* . • .•< ■ -«tJ ^ - o'-*:*^ • •• • • V • • • * * ' A flowage and conservation easement should be required over the wetXioids. Our park dedication fee schedule applies only to residential subdivision. Ve should, therefore, consider whether we should access the prcperty^ss one buildin^ site or for two units when we apply the duplex credit' ' » m'' A Public Hearing has been scheduled for 8:00 P.M. on Jantiary 16, ‘ 1978. * • •* Copies of the proposed subdivision have been forwarded to the following with requests for coonents: D.N.R., M.C.W.D., County Public Works ‘ Dept., City Engineer, City Attorney, City Administrator, and the City;. Public Works Director. ^ ^^i.. • t PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING - January 16, 1978 Dr. Tom Leach was present. Building & Zoning Administrator, Henry F. Muhich, informed the Commission that boug Mattson, of the Hennepin County Public Works Department, had called Che afternoon of January 16, 1978 in response to staff's earlier request for coninonts regarding this subdivision proposal. The Co\mty recornmendatlons included: 1) Seven addition.cl feet of right-of-way easement along County Road vl9 2) Change location of driveway approach from north property line to single approach located in vicinity of common lot line between lots 1 and 2 - thereby reducing traffic hazards that may result from several driveway approaches. Suggested all three parcels use one single common approach. Dr. Leach explained the problems with relocation of aporoach because of the topography of the land in the area of the common lot line. Steep slope makes this location objectionable. Commission reviewed Cre.: I'rank's reports. Second report cinted January 6, 1978 suggested redviein>: requirement' for utility casement (storm sc.v’or) from 30 feet to only J5 feet because of existing 20' sanitary sewer easement located south and pirallrl to south property line of entire original parcel. Planning Civ'riics i<*n :•••<*.« fol lo'wing .'ond i t i oo«:: i:';';('v'l t'l p; i* I i ”ii i*. m v pl'*f i. I 1 Iof I o • »t i.'M and !i'u:itv •■i:o ! f •' *1 ! *V • * ... . ? : ^ •J S'v^^'.-' "ooi-y- • 'y^yr.K:! ’■&•■ if '*■ i ■• c^mi^lonai:-*U8e;'Petttltv€w;k4>t®;.. 2) 3) Tom Leach - 2535 Shadjiiobd Subdivision and Condltlonal-'trse^Pefiidt'‘for^Di^ p.g. 3 .... '-. '■ ■■■.;■ ■' .'; •• '•’ ■■•• •■ ■.■ ■.■ ■ ; ■•. •■•*-, • • • • • , .• • r A?. •/ • £•>«. ^ V-* * *C* Access easement be provided for .residential lot Drainage and utility easetsents be provided as approved by! Engineer (15* along south boundary line) ; and ■ . s’ . .:'. • 4) Wetlands and flowage easesaent over area designated as wetlands (description and agreement to be approved by Cl^ Engineer and City Attorney). ■ ■■'.■i :. ■- - . *•*'''■■ Cotnnlsslon also recoonended refusing offer to donate lot ;3 to! theSClty ! ' ■ m'■Uji and approve conditional use permit to construct duplex on lot 3. 6td>J(Mt ;>^r^^ to structure meeting all setback requirements. r^yi?eLvv, '•'1 iv*' In conjunction with the approval of the conditional use permitt 'the Coianlsslon added the condition of a park dedication fee . for the resldentl^ lot as a condition of approval of the preliminary plat ($2,000 parkij^*:.- dedication fee - $1,000 per dwelling unit). m ' . IS STAFF - January 18, 1978 Don Murphy of Hennepfn County Public Works, called me. He Informed me that Dr. Leach had met and convinced him that a comron access located at the common lot lines of lots l*and 2 might be ebjc*etlonable because of the steep slope at this location. Mr. . Murphy a Iso Informed me that the County would recoanend a 26* road easement rather than the 24* ease-’ ment as indicated on the plan. He also suggested that access to lot 3 at the time of development should be located at the south boundary line of lot 2 to reduce traffic congestion. A.report with these reconnendatlohsT^ will be coming ehortly. I 1 CITY COUNCIL - January 23, 1978 ( <«p% ■*- \ V’ji 1.Reviewed proposals and approved preliminary plat according to Planning Commissisn recommendations. Will require standard title opinion review and conser\»ation easement over wetlands. Council also conceptually approved conditional use permit for duplex pending final plat approval. ' MEMO UPDATE - AUCl'ST 23, 1978 ™ All requlrccrents of preliminary plat approval have been completed. The proposal Included consideration of a duplex unit on Lot 3. Because final planning has not boon completed for the duplex, final approval of cnc conditional use permit will have to be delayed. The park fee has been ptiid on the basis of future duplex approval. The p! It incluihs • ‘50 it. ttrlv*.*wiy and utility ensenit-nt uver Lot I to serve Ijit ‘I and i '50 ft. utility eiiseroent .tlong the entir*- sou'he.'ist side f*»r f'.tture i:i.>t il 1 at Lon of stt»rin sewer. I ipprnvil «»f tin* fin 11 p! it iccerd. in.* ti» the itf in-: .l«‘!ei*rtl n! ae. t ion oit tlie i t i on I ! U .e pei.'.ii i*> I : i t. • e site p| m. I a t »•. 1 • » ..»M:i!SSiu:; mi;k* i.io Art;esT jk- r* ......Ipplovl! pen .1 lit t ;• • -•%* »m • •» • m « f • iri;'''^^SfUXES 1> M' A lot^dth -v«*lence^b*\ easterly yioyer'ty ;Xlae:;,4il«B®!.Stubbs- The westerly pex^l^ be Vdnb^^;.^ the. yasd^ to the. soutli;. end;’';;; The east proper^ priaelde . -- ,- -,- - - for the westerly^pexeel sisee.at tills, tisie. there is BO xmqfsdxmait for south parcel. « . • , * *. * • . • '' ' . * After further dlseusslon CosiBisolOBer Bessel with* drew the lootloa. 2) 3) A) Conmlssloner Burr isovedy Coonisslener Bessel seconded, a notion to table the request for pre* llninary approval of the proposed subdlvlsloti to consider eonbinins the westerly parcel w5.th the southerly parcel and to detemlBe if the 27 ft. should be run through the southerly parcel as well as the westerly parcel. Motion - Ayes (6); Hays <0). The notion passed. The concensus of the Gonnlssion ^s to ’approve the subdivlsien if the 27 ft. easenent runs throu^ the south parcel and that the westerly parcel is coabined -with the south parcel. The Conmlsslon pointed out that If the property was subdivided so the easterly pi^el wqiild be only S acres rather than the proceed 7.3* acres, the westerly parcel then would be 15 acres and could be subdivided into 3 parcels rather than only one as proposed. Chairwoman McDonald announced this was the tioM and place for a Public Hearing on the petition of Dr. Thomas Leach, for preliminary approval of a subdivision at 2535 Shadywood Road. The Zoning Administrator fresented the Notice of Public Hearing and the Affidavit of Publication. He informed the Conmlsslon that the applicant is asking for a conditional use permit to construct a duplex. He added that a conservation and flowage casement would be required. Also, he stated the County had called him this afternoon regarding this subdivision and suggested one cononun ac'jess be used for the two business and professional buildings and for the duplex. 'x^LIC HEARING-8: DR. THOMAS LEACH 2535 SHADYWOOD ROAD SUBDIVISION (PRELIM.) #344 m I'7'* ^I-hiX. K . I ••• - :*r. ii- 5^1^ ' J* « « V ■•i \ fci' • t .'] !r^..^- rVv./Avl** '«nA •- mNOTSS or A PIAKNISC In his letter of Dccc»4bcr 20, 19 Engineer suggested a 30^ ft. wide ■.. _■ the touthcaet P«P«»V '(cqhStXi suggestions by the County The Coaanission addressed to the City and the request permit for the duplex After all the public were heard the; i^Mtc Hear^^ was closed at 9:27 R.M* ■^• ’ The Zoning Administrator informed Dr. Leach that the City would require a conservation and flowage casement for the conditional use permit if Lot 3 was not dedicated to the City* The Commission addressed the access for Lot 2* Or, facach stated that the natural topography favors the access where it is shown on the map along the northwesterly property line. He added that it would be a problem to have an access between Lots 1 and 2 because the slope there is about 45® and between Lots 1 and 2 there are a few spruces which block traffic on the road as it comes up the hill* He also stated the division line is where it is to meet the minimum lot arcti requirements and the access for Lot 3 will be along the north part of Lot 1 which is perfectly level. He aiKled that he is pi-cpared to begin immediately. V-V {' f> »*. May®^ Host commonicd that because of the topography it would be difficult to have a comnon dcivcway. e •*n !> ' \ ■ i. The Zenlng A.:..iln 1st rater foil the eonilUfonal use permit should ho a.tdro-s»j.H Jf the .luplex rvels the area »o«l lot wl»1ih r*<p!ir. ll»» foil the <*uJy I: /* proM« a W1S i’»'* -o.'. s*V* ul ••••I**.h no ru? l^. r i* kMlf^on .... fc r*'v*o t T ich **%'!• 0. • u-r 4**1 • nJiil* I \ • it I *•:! A** • t ti n S. 1 t ^'■;i ‘’■4• <r * 0 3 !'3 } '< Hi i M «i•* •I . ! ; • ' ‘ J ' (1) (2) (3) iJiUTES OF A Pt^I!W:COMMISSIOIl|»i« The applicant wotk .with the:‘Cotb^;\re8atdln*-'- the issue of access; and fte a^lleant provide a.aoTO8e;and;wetUtnd;::v^ 'v^' f . ■^DR;; TEONAS' L^CH■;?}p ??344 casement; and ^ 13 ft, easennent be provided'along 'the' -vv-'V^ southcast^property line of Lots. 2 .and 3 " V^e'approved'. -I—we. a^i«9 «ctnw . for drainage and utilities, to ^be'approved by the City Engineer; and • . ' ^e applicant provide; an'easdnent for Lot 3, The Commission did not favor Lot 3 being dotted . to the City and approved the conditional use perralc •cinent for access .V" ■ srralt-i-' , * • V ' - •v. -i • * ' ••• h .. - V.*' - *. •' d. ••> %• e»« .V : Jfotlon - Ayes (5); Kays (0); Abstain (1); Hassel. The motion passed. •• •.. •» V Mr. Sandy Ritter, from Crosstown Pr^rtles, was present. Commissioner Kassel stepped down from the Commission during the discussion of this item because he had a conflict of Interest. . * * .a The Zoning Administrator explained that the final plat applies only to the portion of the property which Is in Orono and that the wetland easements CROSSTCWN FR0PSRTI2S (LAFAT3TT3 Ri^tcs PLAT) ' 3201 NAVA3RS LA^:r . ... FINAL PZ/iT A??.^.07AI, •' ^266 • .. V‘^; 2 Conralss loner Wilson asked what the‘City of Mlnne- conKa Beach had done about access to the lake. I; W' that this Is still being con- sldered by the LMCD. Also, he stated that the City Engineer recommended all the water come from Orono because there are two dlffer^t systems between Minnetonka Beach and Orono which cannot be interconnected. He added that the roads will be private. .4p The Zoning a\d;n!nistr.vcor addressed the Articles of Incorporation of Lafayette R».lgo Honeowners Associa- Covo-o- . Conditions and Restrictions, and Byl.aws or v..i*i**erte Rldt-e owners Association, which ^ lu :• included in tne Cot:*:.!sston^'rs* packets. .‘•r. Riiri r iu.ed ,;,.n:u rc m Ion . »s..vius i,u\ iiilUty ...Id r. ,.! . i:;. .,nt n.crc h.-l.v. r.u J’u.r di...-i!.sl.>n, C.. f<s? o.-r !••••?*« ..... .• » •.* • V* •#!» s*..,u r :• ......l s.v. .. I.-.l % '............... ' .'i I • lay.'tc* - cm i*,v /ul 1. . I• V. - ; •' -.'i •- • »/• VMS >v !•' Cl^ Attorney's j«pproval agreenent. 2. Ci^ Attorney's approval of'title, opinion 3. No park dedication'^fee Council Meeting .• January- 23« 197B Pesek noved, Paurus seconded, to adopt! Resolution 9867, A Resolution Approving Registered.Xrfind Survey _, as per the Planning Conniissioa recoiranendations, subject to the City-Attorney *s-V approval and the Mayor and City Adoinistrator to sign>o£f on the resolution. Motion, Ayes (3) » Nays (0). • r’RES6t.0TI0K 5867 •' • SLS. • J .<• : .y>. Serhard Rcils,ac Mayor Van Nest entered into the record the Plan ning Conmission minutes concerning a prelisdnary subdivision request of Dr. Ton Leach, 2535 Shady- wood Road, dated January 16, 1978, which state: Dr. Tom Leach was present. Building & Zoning Administrator Henry F. Huhich infon&ed the Commission that Doug Mattson, of the Hennepin County Public Iforks Departiaent, had . : called the afternoon of January 16, ‘1978 in .response to staff's earlier request for coaments regarding his subdivision proposal. The Coun^ reconnendations included: \ 1.Seven additional feet of right-of-way easement along County Road #19. 2.IChange location of driveway approach from north property line to single approach,located in vicinity of common lot line between Lots 1 6 2, thereby reducing traffic hazards that nay result from several driveway approaches. Suggested all three parcels use one single common approach. Mr. Leach explained the problems with relocation of approach because of the topography of the land in the area of the common lot line. Steep slope makes this location objectionable. Commission reviewed Greg Prank's reports. Second report dated January 6, 1978 suggested reducing requirement for utility easement (storm sewer) from 30 feet to only 15 feet because of existing 20' Sanitary sewer easet.\ent located south and parallel to south property line of entire ori<jinal parcel. Tom Leach •? ’• (Cost Lnued) *4 •• -4 mmm A. _.» l^&G^^UVR HBCTZliG O? Pl«t subject to tbe followiae condit^tons: - ^ Issue of location between applicant Oepartanent f-* I* * .-;.:2535^ Shncivvc!«r/ r:o^id?Z'i ' t't ...V-TvVr option of approach- to‘bo'xesolved'^':."^ ■;•'■■/, plicant and Coun^ Vt0ii^_V!6x^ --M •• - • • •, . . .^ • • . C* • . ^ i *' ..* • \ ’.*•«•• ,*• ** * *i^»-j** . ^cess easement be provided for residential lK>t 3» >:.• •w. ».■ 1 * •■*• ■ r? •'• • .• /t'.,. ;•.■ . *. _‘.i .*••; Drainage Md utility easements te prcivided as . approved by City Engineer (15* along south boundary line) -• * ■.>r.-'AS?; ■.(■■ ’■'VfV•V •.•'-• ‘ ^ •• •» .- *'V C • *•*• ' ^ «• *•• -f .:*» Wetlands and flowage easement over area designated as wetlauids (deseriotion and • agreement to be approved by Ci^ Engineer and City Attorney)• * • •. ■; »• •.\i - ••■>. "' t'rt;. / h V V •■' ■ r •. t* , ■» ’ /-f*'mr. AV,I - ssiSSSSs' • •.*• ;-vv’-ir; ' . *^V.' .»• \ I •- r SiiH^ SieUtJ^SSJt?;'’' «tadlctlo» f« - W.OOO pS •. .• ' •! I I■\-‘- V (‘..v• ••'^r '■ •■.r-u’ staff - January 18, 1978 s .*/ ‘ net and convinced him that a co.jmon access recc^^e’SI'^^2 24' easement as indicated suggested that access to -ot 2 at the tune of development should be located at the south boundary line of Lot 2 to reduce traffic corgestion. a report with these recorTiTiendations will bo coining shortly. Council fJooting - January 23, 19’’8 Peack moved, Paurus seconded, no approv_- a con ditional uje permit for -» «!upl*..y. for To.-i f. •.. -h, •i • i j L;.ad/v/<jr»j I'o.id, on Lot 1 iz'i rtf....,.-. A .. L • ^ - • 1 • . •.. • 1t •» l»._- rc.i » f ! rn.-t! w:.«-n pl.u I ») - rJ.iy:, (o) . • * • I • 0 i ••* • • L- rU '} : ’• I • ♦ R5CTjj;AR WSETING OP THE. ORO!90 C&SSCXLi 0 ’ "'••••' •'>! '•. ’ ^ ’ . ■■■ •, •. ■• '■ '■■• -. r "•.•.■•*: C* j '^ - >V-: ’7.^': P«s«k moved, Paaros oeeond«d;',td /giva. xtralininary :^:‘J?uaDS ’»3«5307?- “ ■* “ V. ■ _ _ _ _ _ _^ plus title opinion to the City, notion, Ayee <3) »«ys <0). ■ .. ... y..:. .; ,; • ...• r . . .• . < r.* • ■ . ‘ i •i Mayor Van Nest entered into ning Consnission minutes of George Dixon, 3250 Fox use permit for a guest house, dated January 16, 1978, which state: '’ Georgs •Dixon;- •: >-r. • r/.' • - .v"vr-'>V3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V, ,. •• , ■ • • •.; Contractor Nr. NONulty was present. Planning Commission recormended approval* of. . x ■ -> > v-; conditional use permit for guest house with the ' L following stipulations: ; -JV] 1. Size of structure not to exceed dimensions indicated on plan. 2. Second residence to be used for guesthouse purposes only. j 'r - 3. Prohibit use as rental unit for/income.:.'' purposes. - , . ; - * • • y.‘ ■ . ’. * •• • Council Meeting - January 23, ,;1978 * V i Mayor Van Nest moved, Pesek se'ccnded, /to approve the request of George Dixon,.3250 Pox'Street, for a conditional use permit for a guest house per the Planning Commission meeting of January 16, 1978. Motion, Ayes (3) Nays (0). Mr. John Hacking and Mr. Cargill discussed their proposed project, subdivision at 580 Worth Am Drive, Victoria Grain Company. Mayor Van Nest moved, Pe%>ek seconded, to adopt P.esolution 9868, A Resolution Of The City Of Orono Granting Preliminary Approval To The Praliminary Plat And Approval For The Construction Of One Private Dock Structure Across A Marsh, in accordance with previous %ujreeriont with final design to bo included in the final hardshell. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0) Mayor Van Nest moved, Pesek seconded, to .e.yi-cjve a v.iriance to Ordinance No. 125 to conr>truct one private dock across wetlctnds ar, per :nt .ttul resolution. Hardship being tin*.- r!,nst r-: i :i Ik .1 I'Ut'l | «.««t , 'Si* ji.i,, / . . ' !<• • • • • •• ■v>--'K ' 'V SUBDIVISION 590 North Arm Drive 9200 RESOLUTION 9968 Victoria Grain Company 580 North Arm Drive • « 1 ^ mJ tO) . li mC! T \ .'J m *’ ORO.NO > ' •j'liknijr Q tO^« ‘ • '• ’ ' ■ ’••"•'*■ v • : » v • • . • \h- */v * v . _,*v . *.• '/•' :* i‘ V • • • ; . «jv- •.'•■• •• '* V .* .‘* »* •’ • ' >«u:3f\5< •.' -•• ...r--O.- ■.iV'.* ■.• •'•'•• *. ’•■ / •■ '7 •# Lwicll’ • * *• .Dr. 2710 Balseiiad Lum MouDd, V/- Mlmicseta: 59964 • ■ - . * • ** * • R«: #344 SiMlvltioti Application Dear Dr. Laadh: > ••*• • t ' f ^ >•* • *• %X • ■ •■' V. * ' • : . r-.**, * »<*f •.-*:V ', To follov up aj latter of August 7, 1978 as per our tel-^?.one conversation today.*. The duplex approval can be conditioned upon site plan revlw by Council prior to issuance of a building percit, but the approval will expire if no building permit is Issued within one (1) year. ■■■ 5Che park dedication fee will be $600.00 for lot 3 without — -- - - - - - - -••— - • * -duplex approval o^.572.00 with duplex e drainaga/easenent along the south east side of lots 2 and 3 nisti.be at least 15 ft. wide. This can be done by vV'*> > •. • completion dr:utilities easement. ‘ . w •T‘ \ 'Hfi: ■*; ■ - i, ' ■ J’ ^ - Sincerely; • >i ■;1 . ^ 't'. ■. •..*.* dan P. Olson •i Village Planner AP0;kh Enc. %;-u m-:'W1 >.■•• 'V- i :■,•*• ••.••■•. •••• •i': •'*» v>» * *. <; f ^•- : . V r r.f HKipr It- • IJr £ii ^iE*y*■j '■'-] ^ /< ■ *:' ! :1‘ • •»■r I ,*4 I 1 I i« J •I J 1 T* • « •* ^ *%•'■• ' ■ •• ••'V' •'■ ''eiTY O*!*.•'>•*'*’ ■•■’. ■• ' • *• ^ • • ''■ '. ’^ .'- “*V ■ ‘ *-■ • -it • • /; •.* •Beyular Meeting of the Orono CoMncil, August 29, 1978 •. t «•I • V •. ;7;00 -?.i:-xv V.'.. . • m r. • >. The Orono Council net on the above date with . the following raenbers present: Iteyor Van Nest# Councilraenbers Ka3senga?.er; I*«»uxuc» and Pcsek, Councilnenber Butler arrived at 7?23 P.M. Also present: City Mninistrator Benson, City Planner Olson, and City Attorney KalXerson, Absent: City Engineer Olson. Taurus moved, Pcsek seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda*, exce »t item #22, with all staff data and supportive information to be included in the Minutes in the sequence they occur. Mot-lon, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Lake Mi netonka Conservation District representative Nor nan Paurus discussed t!; proposed LMCD policies and actions. Mayor Van Nest commented that the City Council and Planning Commission will hold a joint meeting at 7:30 P.M., September 21, 1978 and that the City Planners should attend. At that time, it would be appropriate to plan our future joint meetings. I ' No comments from the Park Comi^ssion. Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, ;entered into the record a nemo update on the request of Ton Leach, 2535 Shadywood Road, for a subdivision and conditional U..O permit, dated August 23, 1978, which states: All ro(iuiroments of preliminary plat approval have bcc*n connletcd. The proposal included consideration o£ rt duplex unit on Lot 3. because final planning hns :iot L..--.n c&:-pl<;^^id for the duplex, final ipprivjjl of the conditional use permit will have to bo cel.i/cd. The park toe has Leon paid on the : •• -■! . . . . * '• *•/ ' rKi y: : 5 1. V ■ % #' V?.. ■ ■ I t *• • ^ % *•- CONSENT A'^^NDA*-’1V • a I»MCD IMPORT ‘ * *•' *a PLAJTNING COMMISSIORv • S • . • ••# •’n;? ■ V. PARK COMMISSION l/^BDIVISION & -i CONDITIONAL USE 2535 Shadywood Road #344 Toro Leach luic o: futur- duplex opprav.il. Vno : !io’'v:c; js l\t. u» i I: . .i'.; . w .• I- ;*u*.t * \ • • (i r i V .1 n i v» ty •1 .*c- Tot 2 iT.c a 22 . 4:. :i • ili ^ ; I#i n v; • r. • s • i*• • • • • * . • • • . • . a : . ;. I: [ i^ i , : ‘ • . I • • • < *MZMOTES OF A PLAJWING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AVGUST 25•• • r.-;.?,- v;.v • ■: .i.;I.-:' • ■•v.95!: V:>7n‘'1?7S, Page 2 f. Ratsel announced this was the tine and place for a Public Information Meeting on Popov/Poisson aubdlvision request. Olson explained the request and stated he had the Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of yailing. Mr. Poisson was present. No public comments were heard. The Planning Coiranisslon was concerned about the driveway surface and an existing erosion problem. There was lengthy discussion regarding the roadway as a private driveway and the need for easements and/or platting as an outlot. It was decided that platting was definitely required and that the road should be an outlot up to the point where it veers west across the Poisson property. The City engineer has reviewed the engineering drawings, but we have not received . any written conments from him. Olson stated he had received a letter from the MCWD (dated 8-24-78) stating they had no apparent problems with this subdivision, however, it is subject to formal review by the MCWD at which time drainage details would be required including Justification for the proposed pipe size on the driveway. There was concern that the lot lines could be relocated somewhat to omit or reduce lot portions isolated by the road from the other properties. McDonald moved to table the application pending possible revision of the lot lines, receipt of additional drainage information, and receipt of reports from the City engineer and County Highway Department. Motion seconded by Hamnerel. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unaulmously. P0P0V/POI55O?] ■ 40SC74010 Beysido. S13DIVISX0N’ • . Public Info. <5410 7:40 P.M. - 7;4?. .* . a*? m: FINAL PLAT ^.‘344 HasscI stepped down as Dr. Loach is a client of his THOMAS LEACH firm. Applicant was not present. Olson stated that 2535 Shadyvood Rd. all requirements of the preliminary plat approval have been completed, llio proposal did include consideration of a duplex on Lot 3, but final planning has not been completed and approval of the conditional use permit will have to ae delayed, "Fhe park foe has been paid on the basis of future duplex approval. Hannah moved to reconr.iend approval of the final plat as per the attnci ed resolution. Motion sJ-cii..ded* by Hammerel. Vote: Aves (4>, Ai.st.iinec! (1) Mtr.sol. Motion passed. I - ^ t' . r.V ■#.. e. •RTGULA?. ?1EETING OP THE OROHO C0W^CIti^AV6PST'29;. 1979 *<V ». .*••* « f!ayor Van Kest novod^' Pesek socon^ed# to adopt Resolution #932, A Resolution Approving The Leach Addition, subject to nodirying, the r<ssolution to show a 15* casement for drainage purposes on the plat. Motion, Ayes (4) -'Hays (0). Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, informed the City Council that all requirements, of the preliminary plat approval have teen completed for American Re- builders, 2400 Sixth Avenue North. All sites . have acceptable septic system locations, although mound type systems are required due to the high water table. Consearvation easements have been provided over the pond on Lot 1 and a low area on Lot 2. Hennepin County requires common access . for r.ots 2 & 3. I recommend final plat approval according to the attached resolution. Council Tweeting - August 29,, 1978 Mayor Van Nest moved, Massengale seconded, to adopt Resolution #933, A Resolution Approving The'Plat Of Willow Run, subject to all easements being shown on plat. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, informed the City Council that the preliminary subdivision for Lloyd Kelley, 125 Brown Rosi South, was approved on June 28, 1978, subject to the'.conditions noted on the attached list. Thejcity Engineer is reviewing the driveway plans.i All other items have been completed to the satisfaction of the staff. j I recormnend final plat approval according to the attached resolution. , Planning Conmission Meeting - Augusc 14,. 1978 Pl.jnniii''; Corinlssion reco.jnended final plat .«'*prov.il per the attached r«*solution. Council ing - Autnist 20, 1973 P.iurusi ;e .i'-co:.'!-*:!, Lo ion R •!»»*> inn ,\ppci.'vii»n .tn.* Pl.it Of r.:.'.vn, »o !id • nn *.<.» r.o!j£y Out lv»t lit) .• A • • ‘-i (*•)ft.) ‘♦.'V** - ■■ - -•■nii ■ •• . , -i ^ .riigrr 7. PESOLCTIOr? .? 9 Leach AcJd-Vi*.i6.n ’;j'-; MM 1 :‘-V ■ 'w .1 r* ; •*,SU3D1V1.^101I V '2400. S.ixth .Ave.nvflAHtf ;.?353 - • •Ameri cen Rebel ■ ■ ■ . •* ^1.*. * •*,. • *»*1 ' • *i* • * • c • ■ ■ 0 • i w{ a; *>; • i-iA •- -iM '1: i-.-v ^ ,.. .. ■*. -'i RESOLUTION #933 Willow Run . ■, SUBDIVISION 125 Brown Road Soul #372' Lloyd Kelley .H'lSOhU'IlON’ ?9 34 rolloy Or«-on 1 ‘ \ > . ''■f ' ^•^•V v;;• - V. f> '. ' *"• a % t • Ji^l •? . :-3 ! V -r . '•’ •* V •-. i) ... • ? . ’ '' f .rv . - • . • >•..i -t •> ■■.• %• *f .‘T-- fdSSOLJm^^ 922^ ' ,m*#..••••.• • •• ,•• - ^ .*•...' A KESOLOTON A?PRCfVII55 TSE LEACH ADDITION 7- -• 7 • ’ • • 1 -• • V* . *.*■-*.•, n V f • * -••V . ' . • . . * •';* . f • •r ., ’• * • 7 •!• •* ’ *• • •.. »- M • • » •■ * orgaol*ed and «clst^ * ‘ *. * ■ •. ' . . . * * '' ': .• Cl^';<^cU-of- t&e City-k orcro “ - - - , ecoco-iie anisubdivlaloQ regolatlono_ of land vithln the City; and •'‘' *{<'3'. ^ J ' »•* ;kVHEREASy the City Council has considered the for a aUbdlvlsion plat by Thomas Leach the enbdi^rider; cr.d ^ WHEREAS, the subdivider has coapletcd all reqvirer«*^^s cf ^ ^ ^the platting regulations of the dty, In^uding: -• • - . • <♦’ •* ^dlcatlon of required drainage and utility ecs<^‘t3. Dedication of public streets and roads. • • %•:[ Dedication of open space and flovage conservation sGrers-’^. •—V;. Payment of a park dedication fee of $1,572.00 - -- CTMtlon of a private driveway and utility easeseat aevons Lot X to serve Lot 3. * »«•> ; ' ’ 7 * •; ' V •>’. . ■> - County, Minnesota; subject to the following conditions: ', . •’ k» The aforMald pUt !th*U be filed vlth the Hmamin County RMordw • Offte. em or before Hareb 1, 1979, together with a certified original copy of this Reselntlfm aad ^eeuted copies of tha^oranmeand urxiity easement" docxdtent, flwage and conservation easeugai dutumeuiy f and-prtTate--------- driveway and utility easement document. ^ »»>all expire If the plet 1-snot been filed by the date specified above. In that event, !•• w<l’ sSrio7r«lfi!* “ City of Orono'fo; " Dated this day of Aiimigf-1978 Mmoa^ a L, • illiara B. Van Nest, >',ayor ATTEST: V. I: t i t K. , (II itW / A'lini n i s I rat ur • * V*' » e «l.a«>• • . .... v: .•*' 1^f, h\. '■■>. Ivv»< ^ ^ f' fk 'i:<- TO:Planning CommissionFROM:Jeanne A. NabusthDATE:SUBJECT:July 16 1981#637 Lorraine Nordblom, 2535 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Lot^A?eS^*^57®Jnn " Limited Neighborhood Dusiness District Lot Area - 37,500 sf required 2G,000 sf Lot width - 1S0>4* required 100* Location - Lots 1 i 2 of the Leach Adaition List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Building Permit Application Leach Plat Building Elevations Access Easement ^^^*F^"^Hennepin County Highway Department (2-9-78) is: i' L?‘.1 ™i SCj‘ss:ii"Slisisniss A«? sssi'sscis'"'""againsrthe Dlac^nt****** recommendt^i*-K4e. P**ce®eiitof plwitings^ curbing c>r p^rklno stallsi“SS"tS;%:s;s;"Si Mss'Sis sssss:«vi^|.rss ssssn isaiss'ss' cation of the access for driveway easement. The City Engineer Ans isBitA ^ -- w v&jkvisway ca will also respond to the ac ;eos issue. ThS®d?iiSS3riMeiStf2iJl!S 2 and 3 should be lS*''wide. wide oaseaent.•,V/. ♦*-. * the south property line of lots The site plan shows only a 10* 1(1° fouth edges of the parking lot irust be extended i}*38!J?o"-"S2;°2ril the'?a%ilnr;tand:?d required parking utalli; proposed parking :.t..lls.- 40 •;i • T Vr' • (1 - - T'Ti’t r tff rWiH .r^-. S • mi i m Ilf.i .•v* \-iiCr ‘: V ; ii'r A>•. ** ' • • • y. */ /• V'S t • '7 • r«* : 's •* ’ • » ,!.//• • • •• • •• ' • - •. iis -t4 i MI 1' . Lorraine Nordbloa Page 2Landscape plan notes sugar saplss planted along Shadywood Poad. This should be changed to low lying shrubs that can be maintained at 2* to 3* height. A loading berth, 12* x 25* wist be designated on the plan. The trash pick up area or dumpster should also be designated. Applicant should submit a signage plan for the office building. Pocommended Planning Comsdssion Action - to table the application pending receipt of reports from City Engineer on drainage plan and his suggestion for reconciling question of driveway easement location with that of proposed access location. Hennepin County will respond to the same issue end slso review the prooosed access. ‘ •• - |.*t. A'i* ■y‘.. ,j v'v-r-i't \'j.i iv * ■ mr‘-,2;rv;'’- ——iipji C ^ mkm» u i fP$M mm Fmmaam.'m<: ./t:m ■WPgitge* ' ' J ^4 *♦' L '• H' ‘ <*^**y^ •— V. ; ^V\-'V "• ■ ■ 'i i* \ ^ ^ \ if • • U . t . ^ ■ M >•• i>rvv:^ ■ryvyM ••• • • r # 1* ■ J / A % T-t*?; \ /•- . . . ,ir- . ''• '• . I. ’•• j',■ ij /> ■:i•i Vf) • ? 4 il . t J » i: <Nf MINU'M J Of TilE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 20, 1981 Pago 5Applicai.t wa;* i>ro3cnt along with »o«e family members. v,l,lication involves a conditional use permit for an '^part^nt w CrconsttocMd .bov« . 9»«q<.. Habasth noted .f. fact that thin would bo S new•ucst houue requires the same area and lot width as a new rc!:tdt:n2c. This lot can not meet those requirements. AUDREY OCLANO 2601 Casco Pt. Rd Conditional Use Permit «636 7.*s •' Wove.mo noted that if the mother-in-law house could bo virutructcd in the greenhouse area thereby being attached:“rpart ‘oi ir.ci?i?.cip.i •«““!* “if - tsr”•anrou.jn •■he i>rincipal structure that Jo could -.a.is.^ leciui fcmcfits • Aupl leant sus asked to submit revised o.ans no.^ig ni!nni?c f.cUcd changes in the plans for the August .1981 Planning CemmissLon retting. No action was required. ,'pplleant was present. The Planning Co.iumission reviewed t^-l I.rorosud 2-lot plat. All standards have beenrluOaU'C* » w——------------- i z ;Mabusth noted that the only question .or prelimi- 7:uj V.onda-/, August 3, 19jl_. DAVID STEARNS 2171 Shady%«ood Rd. Work Session Subdivision 1638 :tr. : -rrainc Nordblon was present. Msbusth noted the tv.**/ ior the site plan; - uJvJiticrial 20 ft. of parking turnaround for the end ,^37 .jORRAXNE mordblom 253! Shadywood Rd. Slto Plan Review >;t il la { 2 - f. io,.cilc question of proposed adeess and need to ri tuir. a clearly defined access driveway to r :tii J_ntlal lot 3 to the road. | [ • * because .it would be\)t w.is a«jalnst this suf|<joftion ---------- toi. c.ritininj ;n consideration of future o/p^nriion plans i>: th*.- i.... i iiti'j and they may :.cll off one o: tho Lot.s. I‘ Lijiif * * f»* •v.\.:.wisiio;. asked for more Cl arincation c-mcerning •V M-.tion or scLlinri off lot 2 sincu the o;.lco :ro.».ctV; purkim r.r'iu in;: ent;* un* tJVi.i'.cl .*/ tno t.Mr’.iui 'ic.*i»iv::.atca or. lot J. .; is^; b *. tti - coalition ot r./tir^vi ! r.^ *** .^’*/‘^' • ioto [n i*ji to •. u*; r *.**.*! ^ #• - * • • w $• • • • 4 ! •*.• • 1 (t i • w’.* ir.*/ w i^ ao: ij i l iT*...M- :o: * t t «• • . ♦ I . ; t ivi. t<> :*j V'» r:A‘\:cii.mu M mmi Ml— i'4•:iHi *., r 4i ^V )■■ J-: t:• * .’A, h ■ *W> KWL^'ft^VTO*PROM:DATE:SUBJECT:Planning Conaission Jcann* A. Nabusth August 12, 1981 ‘ Associates. 2535 Shadyvood Road - Connazcial Site Plan P.eview Brief Review of Application since last review A revised plan has been submitted by the applicant the changes requested by the City Engineer?* A moatlSS^"^ was held at the rHe with the developer? engineer SShlil’ oi uuxy i9, 1981, notes the changes requested at that loeeting. ^ r drainage from the parking lot and office 2 -residential lot to rear will be iScMl^witrPah?i^*?h'^ pr^rty line and use a shar^Shop. Owner of Lot 2 must grant a U,t y*-'*?*'***yy «<1 utilitlo. «.«.nt in (*wr IfBhould take necessary steps to remove time the new ease- JhS?ei awilJ: APPrcIved the use of the ' ■ 4* *4*'^*'’ “ 4 - bonding Bnrths - Loading arU hat not been deaignatad.' j - ^ndscaping - Landscaping has boon approved bv the cit-v »“-'nr.c..pin County HighEi? DeoS^me^t? ^ 6 - bignage - one- sign n..*. • x«:t.ca 00 sf ir area. .. . . . . . . . .. *w n: ■ wV':o?v mw mt mi U; ‘ -^-'wA -■ >•' • -1 5 \ ' i ' ** .Vi. . . *■* % '■ •)•"•V f ^ ■ -‘v', Vmm (% Va;-.V.yu'^, ’in • , .^‘.T • . • •■*. 8 ^.tj;»t I fiilWiyii Mm fi* rf lifihl ilYf ^ ^ 1 ^ _t; t •% 1^. *r. Nordbloa & Associates Page 2 •M \Plndinqs1 - Adequate sewer and water to serve the proposed facility.2 - The cotnmercial Lots 1 and 2 align with the cosBBercial toning line - all proposed conuaercial improvements on the site meet che required setbacks from the residential zoning district to the %Mst. Conditions of Approval 1 - Access permits will be required by the Hennepin County Highway Department for access to coanercial site and for shared access to be expanded for driveway to residential Lot 3. 2 - Prior to issuance of bui^lding permit - Lots 1 and 2 ^miist be combined. 3 - Owners of Lot 2 must grant a new driveway and utilities easement in favor of Lot 3. 4 - A loading berth or loading area must be designated on final plan to be presented to Council. S - Landscape plan approved per plan dated August 6, 1981. 6 - Approve cite plan dated August 6, 1981, noting all setbacks and 41 parking stalls. 7 - Temporary erosion control p construction. ^ Application should give beginning construction date for the record. ••• ans'required during » w". . . . - I * > -r ‘V /f. - % r ‘ ^ .*• -.l ^ * ** r i- \: * ■; i A . ; * 1 vl ■-1 V I • i '* o-;-' >»U ? •• •*r** I*",'* . I* • m >:v.:-•’ •■?#j K > . 5i\)^ * -t^ ? - m •UTtS Oi- Ti,E PUV.VK1S.C COMMISSION NEETIMO OP .„heetimo or Aocost n, i„j ,; V — - r f«*claJi??c^;* >^«ferr«d back to »» a newly bCllt‘’«a'^°'’®f‘^' ■'*'« •t'uctu"e*to‘Sl *ec«»»opy ■«PPUcant',ea?io Lh the^W-^plicant stated thzi*- • rom the propertv Hurr buyijestod th»r .-^ i—i... RICHARD P. vrcH vllLToV x-*6J1 .uyycstcd .H -"*—"9 9-rage. «uuna. - building permit be tak«noe taken out for the _ ^ renovede — th^Eichnrd Nicb vnrl.„„ .ppUc„ion ^ ::-- — bane. lot may only pe from R..t Poi„r 3 - !-vicpi„,. . . w*nc • % 1 - at..,io oar ,ara,e to remain for atora,. p„rpa.e, ’ ^'»Una C» ____ . ^ ^ purp . *•- applicant agree, to move - " l'!i:i » •. i .... _ I JiJjiitjiny permit to be tak«>n A u m ^ ~ f'.om-jvcd oyistina k <* " •duna. .«^>'i^ting shed close.^ to J " V ;• ■•■ •< * * . . •’• • • • •• *•- ^ , • • J-oto.,, ..oooaacu. Vote. r<;'Vi.;es pu" LuE”t«d (IheVrecopO that the .4,„,»? Mty j4JJ‘ ‘he /nOJBLOM I ASSOC. have casemcjit Shadywood Rd rcial Site” •'^’.'DonuJ., wa. .-cn.. . ' *" *«VOr of'Lot 3. VrVS • will tend Also improve- S CSCoet^vx, J:/^,... , «*ccess. snati-.i ;•■'•* •*••''-•’• I or. would ty. m •*- :.•••/ y.-. :.i.;.,crv..i: * Applicant , ^ -•■■ . 1 .,....•',r,.a.'" "• • - •■>••• r^nre-.iir*. <’»<•* • .'tObo;..| 1 .; ,1^.^ •"■••••ir .ir,'J I.-, »t i* {.i*af ^ Ji#.* :i •-• •: h ■<:.♦ • t * * • • !i:• • •- -» - . * ».'l :.-.• •.. , ,.. *,.• •• •* .• • •• «•• • t I • • • •• • • • • •I ; • t •••1;. • •••- •••*. . .;. . ’'••••: tor ;n f.o ‘••‘•*** *.‘Uf. „•, .1 • • . *• •W I * • I • •• • •• • V ' O jlrf |. » \ ,* a I • • m Ip ■»0'V 1 iWPWti. ^ . ---W V'.<:^:h.mIjtjgMM Vi.'. V - V ,V ::i:;'wTi:.i ^i* vHi: i*L.v;Nir;G conlmissiojj meeting of august 17, 1981 Page 6 r.'., .:tt*.-n r.c’.t; : to ui^orovo the conunercial site plan of NOROBLOM (CONT.) •iortihlo;-. i Aj:iv.jiutt;S subject to the following findings: i - Advi:at.. aowor and water to serve the proposed facility. j - The Ci^:;.r..cicial Lots 1 fc 2 align wit! the commercial li-4 zonin^j line - all proposed commercial improvements on tin. site meet the required setbacks from the re; lac.'iMal zoning district to the west. ..j.J sut.'O*^ ‘o the following conditions: : - Access jer.Tiits will be required by the ilenr.epin County liiqni.i/ L.epart.'nent for access to commercial site and lor ..l.ireil ac;;ess to be expanded for driveway to res- ICef.t lai :.ot J. ^ - I’l'iur to issuance of building permit * lAts I S 2 must be co;t>Lii:;ed. . - Owr.ers ii Lot 2 must grant a new driveway and utilities eaae::-.:.t in favor o: Lot 3. ; - A ioa-.s;r.} herti. or loading area must be designated on pl.'i; to Lc presented to Council. . - Lur.u.-c.i!.-; plan ajjproved per plan dated August o, 1981. t •j - Aj'ic&vo site plan dated August 6, 1981, noting all setn.ic.-.- and -ll parking stalls. i | • / - Te.r.t o: »; erouion control plans retired’duijlng M4 ” SIM mm i’MjS *i4 1.7 mi Kv- T •» ■ •.Vvf, • Onl, -A i'l t!ie : access to serve conmcrcial ; *'j * r y ; *.ouftor area to rosidentiai prp^rjt!'.'to >: .t'-Donai I winded. Vote: Applici:.. a lu present. There was no^oi to a<::rv;... this application. leTaUdience w «. •: that, the a[jplicacion would brinq.mbout a far the old qar< ial>Lo'..i ..•.ttet •.nviro:;.T..;ntal condition since tfic old gaVage and • c/.iot .r. j pavir.g *o bo renovird is located closer to the 11 r.* . TLv ::•_••«• i trage will I •; located closer to the road :.a!. It proviUc- laat*? ». irnaroimcl on the property. BRUCE CURTISS 1920 Fagerness Pt Variance ■ 643 te<'- m m-K r' - . I • • • 1 *. . ' * I r>--c'L'?-gK Curtl : :ron? r •« »•/ ir; - ..•.•Cl'oa . - .f:.; tf.at M.-; ttav. 1-. I roa'I is 17 ft. from the •i. . p:..posv'l jirii:*-- t...t ib.*t the actual right of ■ ;t. < I i-raf.t. .xp.ait.- : *r.i* rbey woal't L«.- r . V >•» • I .t ^ ^i % .# t '*>•! i '.-Ct V* ‘ ^vVb# ' v V^La Lr-V..- -V - ' V- '.‘‘Vit • •:; y>‘vV4'-^ •• ■••• • • •■• •• ' 'iv*’ » * •ix'i • ','i • ‘ *' • U “ 't • *• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Charles Schroeder, Dale Lindquist, Elizabeth Hawn and Lili McMillan. William Stoddard was absent. The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffiron, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services Director Greg Gappa and Recorder Carole Haseman. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. hr* OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (Agenda item #1 follows item #2) (#2) #2340 ROBERT WAADE, 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 6:30-6:32 P.M. Smith announced that Application #2340 was tabled at the request of applicant. (#1) #2325 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CINDY OLSON, 950 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES - 6:32-6:50 P.M. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the Planning Conunission previously reviewed the application at the January meeting and application was tabled at the request of applicant on March 16, 1998. The property is zoned LR-IB and meets all of the minimum zoning requirements for the district except bluff setback. The existing residence was constructed before the Shoreland Regulations were in place and is located between the 75' lakeshore setback and the top of the bluff. Hardcover is not an issue. The revised plan proposes 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. Staff recommends approval of the revised plan with the condition that in the future the deck and screened porch cannot be converted into enclosed living areas. Olson's builder from Lake Country Builders stated the original plan included an upper level screen porch or. the deck area but that plan was revised because it obstructed the lake view. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#1 - #2325 Lake Country Builders - Continued) Hawn asked if the screened porch could be entered from inside the house. Lake Country Builders explained the screened porch design is similar to a walkout with entry from the stairway. Smith asked if applicant was comfortable with the recommendation that the area could not be converted into an enclosed liveable area. Olson said the present deck needs to be replaced and understood what the Planning Commission was recommending. There were no public comments. McMillan asked for clarification if improvements could be made to the house on the side facing the road. Van Zomeren said the building pad was limited and would not meet the 30* setback. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2325 for the construction of an 8'x27' deck with a screened porch area underneath upon the condition that the deck and screened porch cannot be converted into future enclosed living area. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (Agenda item #3 will be heard at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#4) #2352 RICK FREDERICKSEN REPRESENTING WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, 200 WOODHILL ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 6:50^:52 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren explained the tq>plicant is proposing to construct a 14'x22' pump house over a well currently being installed. The country club is a conditional use and any additional structure on the property requires an update ofits conditional use permit It does meet the setback requirements. The accessory structure will not be visible or have a negative impact on adjacent property owners. Staff recommends that the structure be included into the conditional use permit application for Woodhill Country Club. No public comments. Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2352 to approve Woodhill Country Club to build a pump house as submitted. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#5) #2353 LEN BUSCH, 1265 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCE - 6:52-7:05 P. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Van Zomeren said the property contains 1.22 acres and is located in the LR-IA 2 acre minimum zoning district. The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance in the 75-250’ setback area to build a 750 s.f. hobby room. There is a large wetland area in the northeast section of the property. Hardcover numbers are high because of the driveway design, and construction of the pool and patio took place prior to the Shoreland Regulations being in effect. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the application with the intent of reducing hardcover. The structure is proposed to be located 10' off the property line which meets the setback requirements making use of the existing driveway and a comer of the existing hardcover. Busch explained the driveway is odd and difficult to turn around in. It is too dangerous for cars to back out onto County Road 15. One car in the driveway can block all cars. Although he does not like the driveway and would like to get rid of some of it on the side, he needs the space for parking as several family members visit often. The proposed fiw standing building needs no diiveway. The installation of a garage door would allow access of storage items and would result in a 5-6* pad in fipont of the door. He suggests cutting off about 350 s.f. of driveway with a lawn area in front of it. The building is 725 s.f. which would only add 395 s.f. to the total square footage. Staffs alternate proposal is not an option because it is located over the well on his property. Van Zomeren apologized for the misrepresentation but the surveyor did not indicate placement of the well on the survey. Busch said his property is unique and secluded from neighbors. There would be no increase in water runoff to the lake because drainage flows to the wetland area on his property. He is looking forward to retirement and needs to find space for his hobbies. The propos^ building would meet his woodworking needs. No sewer or water would be installed in the building. Smith asked if there would be adequate turnaround space. Busch felt it would. Lindquist indicated the building size was excessive. Busch said the 25’x30* size makes it symmetrical with the garage. Smith asked if he had existing living space to use as a hobby room and/or other area to give up. Busch said the house does not have a ba^ment and lacks storage room. Van Zomeren said adding 300 s.f. of hardcover represents a 3.2% increase for that setback area. Hawn suggested reducing the driveway. Smith recommended reducing the building size to 25'x20'. She inquired how the building would be heated. Busch intends to install a gas furnace and wood stove in the proposed building. Hawn suggested approval be based on the condition that only a limited amount of hardcover be added. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#5 - #2353 Len Busch - Continued) Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2353 for construction of an accessory building no larger than 25'x25' with the condition the driveway be partially removed so the total hardcover added not exceed 300 s.f. and the understanding that there will be no future approvals of additional structures or hardcover on the property. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Van Zomeren indicated she would obtain a survey with the well and sewer lines marked. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS (#3) #2355 SUSAN AND DOUGLAS VAN MOORLEHEM AND KEN TURNHAM, 4490 WATERTOWN ROAD - CLASS IH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:05-7:30 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaffion explained approval is requested for a 4-lot plat at the intersection of McCulley Road, County Road 6 and Watertown Road with part of it adjacent to Tumham Road. The property contains 35.6 acres and is split into 3 pieces by existing roads. The existing house is located in the northerly portion which is 22 acres in area but contains only 4.8 acres of dry buildable land as extensive wetlands are located on the property. The area south of County Road 6 and west of McCulley Road contains 5 acres and is proposed as a separate lot. The third piece is located in the southeasterly area and is approximately 8 acres in area and is proposed to be split into 2 pieces. The zoning district is 5 acres. When the City created McCulley Road in 1980, thm was a condemnation of property from this parcel in order to have a corridor for the road. As part of the condemnation proceedings, the City agreed to allow the 8 acres to be divided into two 4 acre parcels. The City is obligated to allow that split. In the future, the intersection will be undergoing significant changes by the County resulting in the loss of 2 acres to the 8 acre parcel. The County in its acquisition realized that the taking of 2 acres would probably reduce this to a one lot situation and financially settled accordingly with the owners. Presently the City is looking at this as a 3 lot plat and {q>plicants are in agreement. Because of the reduction in size and loss of a second drainfield site, staff recommends the platting of Lot 1, Block 3 as a single 6 acre lot. The result would be a 6 acre single building site that has tested septic sites with ^veway access fiom Tumham Road. The second parcel would be approximately 5 acres with access 400-600* south of the new intersection. This lot has two septic sites tested and approved. The 22 acre parcel with the existing house contains approximately 4.8 acres of dry buildable land and because of the unique circumstances, a variance is likely justified to allow less than a 5 acre requirement of dry buildable area. The applicants* wetland delineator needs 4 - J ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#3 - #2355 Susan and Douglas Van Moorlehem - Continued) to confirm the wetland area. The Class III subdivision is subject to park dedication fees and requires an easement and covenant over the wetlands. The City Engineer's report states the need for drainage area calculations and a grading plan. In summary, the diy buildable acreage needs to be confirmed for Lot 1, Block 1. A lot combination is recommended for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 to be combined as a single 6 acre lot. Also tq)plicant needs to provide stormwater/drainage calculations to confirm that there is no need for stormwater ponding. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as described. Douglas Van Moorlehem said there are no immediate plans to build on the southern lots. Gaffion explained a park fee would be due with the application. The park dedication fee could be delayed if some of the lots were platted as outlets now but eventually a future platting proc^ would be required to change the status of the outlets into buildable lots. Lindquist mentioned the possibility of the lots not meeting future zoning requirements if the rules change. Gaf&on suggested the option of paying the park fee at the time the building permit is issued as long as the lots are not going to be immediately built on. Van Moorlehem asked the amount of the park fee. Gafifron stated it is calculated at 8% of the undeveloped value of the land or a minimum of $2,900 per lot or a maximum of $4,900 per lot. If the property is platted with lots, the park dedication fee is determined now. Van Moorlehem agreed to have the lots platted as buildable lots. Smith asked for public comments. Norbert Johnson of 4520 Watertown Road expressed a conr ;m that a change in the topography would cause a drainage problem on his property. Gaflron stated there are no plans to change the topography. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2355 for a 3 lot residential subdivision as outlined in staffs memo of April 13,1998 stating the need to confirm the amount of dry buildable acreage. If it is not 5 acres, a variance will be recommended. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 will be platted as a single 6 acre lot. Driveway access locations to be subject to approval of the Public Services Director. Confirmation is needed that there will be no drainage changes. The standard plat conditions apply along with the usual assessment of park dedication fees. Vote. Ayes 6, Nays 0. Gaffton explained the Park Commission will be reviewing the City's trail plan along McCulley Road. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 NEW BUSINESS; PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED (#6) #2354 KONRAD KRUEGER, 520 HANLON AVENUE - VARIANCES - 7:30-7:40 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren e.xplained the property consists of 1.1 acres in a 2 acre zone. Applicant proposes the construction of a second level addition over the existing residence and an attached, one car tuck under garage that encroaches into the required yard areas. Variances are required for front, side and rear setbacks. A 200 ’ lot width, 50' front yard, 30' side yard and . ear yard setbacks are required for the RR-IB zone. Staff does recommend a 24.9' front s'. ,oack variance to allow the nearest portion of the residence to be located 25.1' from the front setback where 50' is required and 28.3’ exists. The approval includes an overhang for front awning which shall not extend more than 1.5' beyond the exterior wall. Staff also recommends approval of a side setback variance of 20.5' to allow the 9.5' setback to remain where 30' is required and a rear setback variance of 35.5' to allow the 14.5' setback to remain where 50' yard is required. A variance is needed to add the second story and to build on the existing foundation. Krueger indicated the house is small and asked if the second floor was an issue. Van Zomeren explained that a variance is required whenever a non-conforming structure increases in massing or bulk. Krueger said the neighbors had no objections to his proposal. Smith inquired if he had lived there long and suggested that the debris be cleaned up. Krueger responded he bought the property two months ago and on Sunday he cleaned up the yard. Hawn asked if the shed was on his property. Krueger said it is actually on the other lot. Hawn questioned if the footings would be able to support a second storj ’. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#6 - #2354 Konrad Krueger - Continued) Krueger responded that would be the first thing to adjust. The walls will come in slightly and the side walls will be reinforced. If the garage is allowed, then the walls between the basement and garage will be taken out and replaced with a wood foundation. All the masonry will be revvorked. Smith inquired as to the timeframe. Krueger intends the project to be completed in 3 to 4 months. There were no comments from the public. Hawn was concerned about drainage on the neighbor's property. Van Zomeren explained consideration of the drainage issue would be part of the building application plan re^'iew by the Building Department. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2354 to allow the construction of a second story over the existing residence and an attached one stall garage per staffs recommendation and that applicant work with the City Engineer to ensure proper drainage. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#7) #2356 JON AND DIANN RAPPAPORT, 3067 FARVIEW LANE, VACATION - 7:40-7:55 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron summarized the request was for a vacation and rededication of a new drainage easement to allow construction of a replacement septic system. Currently the septic system is non-conforming and needs to be replaced by the end of 2001. The property abuts Lake Minnetonka and contains a pond which is considered a wetland. The area to the west is the only suitable location for a septic replacement system. A portion of the proposed mound location would encroach in the drainage easement originally created in 1977. The actual drainageway is west of the easement and the new septic system can be constructed in the proposed location. The Septic System Inspector has given approval to allow a setback of approximately 55 ’ in one comer and 65-70' in the other comer where a 75' setback from the wetland is normally required. In the future, applicant would like to build a sport court in the abandoned septic system area. The new area has been tested as a feasible location and staff recommends approval. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#7 - #2356 John Rappaport - Continued) Smith questioned the availability of sewer to the area. Gaffron explained it is Orono's goal to bring sewer to all the property along the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. Council has directed staff to make an application for an amendment of the MUSA boundary to incorporate the northeast shore of Ma,\well Bay and the southeast shore of Stubbs Bay which remain unsewered. There is no estimated schedule when this might occur. Applicant is willing to construct a new system ratlier than wait for more than two years. Rappaport explained at the time of purchase the seller gave special consideration for replacement of the septic system. There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Hawn seconded, to approve vacation of the existing easement and rededicate a new easement per staffs recommendation. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2357 SUSAN AND KENT WHITWORTH, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - 7:55-8:10 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren explained a hardcover variance is requested to allow construction of a retaining wall along County Road 15 and a conditional use permit would also be required for grading within 5' of the property line. Topography is an issue. The proposed retaining wall would be partially located within the lakeshore setback and on Hennepin County right-of-way. Permission from Hennepin County is needed. The roadway divides applicant's back yard and the lake. He proposes to neatly tie the retaining wall into the neighboring property and to provide safe access to the lake. Applicant has a concern for his children playing in the back yard by the top of the slope. Whitworth voiced his concern for safety of his children and access to the lake. He plans to have 3 terraces with a drop shorter than 5'. Berg asked if there w ould be a loss of mature trees. Whitworth said he would lose a couple of immature trees. There were no public comments. 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#8 - #2357 Susan and Kent WTiilworth - Continued) Whitworth indicated that upon further study it might be best to extend the wall further than the proposed 60' and continue it to the north property line. Berg agreed with the proposal but would like some continuity with the appearance and materials used in the retaining walls of the adjacent property owners. McMillan stated tree replacement is necessary if trees over 6" in diameter are removed within the 0-75' shoreline setback area. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2357 to construct a retaining wall to the north property line keeping the overall appearance consistent with the neighboring retaining walls with an effort to preserve trees 6" in diameter or greater and/or mitigate the trees. This application is subject to approval from Hennepin County. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. WTiitworth asked for clarification if he needed approval from Hennepin County prior to obtaining a building permit. Schroeder said the Council would probably make it a condition of approval. Van Zomeren also asked for a determination of the actual amount of hardcover. (#9) #2358 RANDY AND MARIE STAFFANSON, 1422 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - 8:10- 8:20 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren stated a fire destroyed applicants' garage. A 24'x26' garage is proposed by moving it forward of the previous footprint approximately 5-7'. The triangular shape of the property presents a hardship for the location of the new accessory structure. The previous garage encroached in the 10' side yard setback area by 6.16'. The new garage will encroach slightly more than that because it will move forward and the distance between the garage and side lot line decreases as the garage moves towards the front lot line. The property is located in the 250-500' setback area. The hardcover currently exceeds 30% but the applicant is proposing less hardcover because the proposed addition would move forward and be located over a portion of the existing driveway. Staffanson noted a discrepancy in the size. The garage is proposed to be 24'x30'. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#9 - #2358 Randy and Marie Staffanson - Continued) Smith mentioned the shed could be taken out of the side setback area. Van Zomcren indicated it would be difficult to move because of the concrete pad. There were no public comments. McMillan moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2358 to replace the garage that was burned granting side yard and hardcover variances with the condition that proposed hardcover not exceed 31.18%. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. Van Zomeren informed the applicant that the building official specified the need for frost footings. (#10) #2359 HESTIA HOMES INC. ON BEHALF OF MATT AND KAREN PARKS, 825 FOREST ARMS LANE - VARIANCES - 8:20-8:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren explained the property is 1.26 acres and meets the lot size requirements for the LR-IB zoning district. The application has two parts. First, the applicants are requesting approval to allow a garage addition that was constructed in March 1998 to remain by granting variances for bluff setback and average lakeshore setback. The second part is to allow construction of a new 526 s.f. lakeside deck where a smaller deck was previously located. Because a miscommunication within the building department occurred, the builder was given premature approval to construct the garage. A 30' setback is required from the top of the bluff which limits where improvements can be made currently and in the future on this property. Staff recommends an after-the-fact variance be granted for bluff setback and average lakeshore setback for the garage addition. There were no comments from the public. Smith stated the Planning Commission was in consensus with an after-the-fact variance for the garage. Van Zomeren estimated that the new deck comes out 12' further than the old deck. Lindquist stated the new deck is approximately 28'xl4'. In reviewing the site elevations, Van Zomeren stated the the old deck came out 2' from the farthest lakeside wall. She was unable to find any records showing the exact dimensions of the old deck. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#10 - #2359 Hestia Homes Inc. - Continued) McMillan inquired if a bumpout had been done to the wall. Applicant's builder from Hestia Homes commented the only bumpout on the house was a bay window on the first floor. Lindquist determined the addition of the deck amounts to an increase of 336 s.f. of hardcover. Van Zomeren noted the existing garage and proposed deck do not exceed structural coverage or hardcover limitations. The issues with the deck are setbacks to the bluff and average lakeshore. McMillan felt replacing the existing square footage was consistent with other recommendations. Schroeder asked if the bump out was done in anticipation of approval for a deck. Hestia Homes answered it was not a consideration and they had been focused on hardcover issues and unaware of the impact to the bluff and site line. He asked for clarification of the bluff ordinance. The applicant bought the property before the bluff ordinance was in effect. Van Zomeren responded the bluff ordinance protects the views from the lake for aesthetic reasons and provides protection of structures to prevent erosion to the bluff Lindquist did not feel comfortable recommending approval to increase the size of the deck. Hawn suggested a curv'ed design instead of a rectilinear shape to the deck. Hestia Homes said the lack of depth would be a problem. The original deck was only 10-11' deep. The current deck proposal is for an 18' depth. A common deck size is around 14' which would put it 9 1/2' past the edge. Lindquist suggested a compromise. Schroeder commented that the original size of the deck was acceptable at the time the house was purchased. Hawn said there was no point in building a deck that was not useable and proposed approval be made in terms of square footage. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2359 for (1) an after-the-fact variance for bluff setback and average lakeshore setback based on the fact the building permit was issued; (2) a deck extension consisting of 392 s.f plus 24 s.f. for the side section. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Smith alerted applicants that in the future there should be no additional impacts done to the bluff McMillan offered the applicants the option of tabling this application to redesign the deck. Applicant agreed that the recommendation was reasonable. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#11) #2360 ANTHONY KMETZ, 640 ORCHARD PARK ROAD, VARIANCE RENEWAL - 8:45-8:47 P.M. - CONTINUED The Applicant was not present. Smith suggested phoning the applicant to remind him of the meeting while Planning Commission took a 5 minute break. (#12) #2362 BOB HOWARD, 1300 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCES - 8:55-9:18 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren explained variances for front, side and rear setbacks, lot %\idth and lot area are requested to replace a structure because of a fire. Access to the property is from Shoreline Drive. A wetland area was identified on the property. The property is located in a 2 acre zoning district and is actually less than 1/2 acre. In the RR-IB District the lot width requirement is 200 ’, front yard is 50', side yard 30', side adjacent to street is 30' and rear yard is 50'. This lot is restricted for buildability. The structural coverage is proposed to be less than 15%. This lot is in the 500-1,000' setback area from the lake. Hardcover is proposed to be less than 35%. The structure was more than 75% damaged and the non-conforming section of the zoning code governs replacement. The subject property does not meet the lot area and lot width requirements so in order to return any structure to this lot, variances are required. The existing residence does not meet the setback requirements from the front or the side setback. The proposed residence would improve upon those setbacks, with the exception of the rear setback. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width, front and side setbacks as proposed. Any future structural additions should not exceed 15% structural coverage. The applicant is working with the Building Department to clean up the site. Elevation plans indicate the level of the garage will be more accessible. Applicant needs to submit a grading plan prior to getting a building permit showing normal and customary grading near the residence and lot lines. There are no hardcover or structural coverage requirements. Smith noted the lot is substandard. Van Zomeren said the RR-1B has the most difficult requirements to meet with the lot size at less than 1/4 of the requirement and the lot is further impacted by the wetlands and the fact that the property is a comer lot. Smith asked if the size of the house was being increased. Van Zomeren said the existing building is approximately 1,966.20 s.f. and 2,734,4 s.f. is being proposed. Howard explained the only change being proposed is the addition of a two car garage and the front door location will face east instead of south. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#12 - #2362 Bob Howard - Continued) Smith referenced a letter received from Andrew J. Goetten, a neighbor, dated April 18,1998. Van Zomeren reported an adjacent piece of property had been sold in a tax forfeiture sale and the present owner would be willing to sell the property to Mr. Howard. Smith summarized the concerns in Goetten's letter as 1) Mr. Howard confine his construction activities to his platted lot; 2) that mounds of dirt, railroad ties and debris be removed from the unopened Fox Street right-of-way, area be returned to pre-existing grade and be stabilized with grass; 3) that the City of Orono carry out maintenance obligations relating to pump station, gates, fences and appropriate screen plantings contained in grant of easement. Van Zomeren said the letter had been turned over to the Inspection Department for review. Howard explained a remodeling project was started about 2-3 years ago and had not been completed before the fire. The new project is an insurance issue and feels the insurance company will be in control. He referred to a 6 month state law for rebuilding. The house burned December 4, 1997. Applicants would like to be in the new residence by fall. Smith noted the proposed residence met the 26' setback from the wetland. She questioned applicant if down sizing the garage to a 2 stall would be a problem. Mrs. Howard indicated there would be no problem because it was just the two of them. Schroeder said applicant needs to clean the area and remove the railroad ties. Howard stated the railroad ties were not his nor were they on his property. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2362 for lot area, lot width, front and side setbacks as proposed and any future structural additions should not exceed 15% structural coverage. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Berg suggested to Howards that a good neighbor policy be enacted as to cleanup of the premises. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#11) #2360 ANTHONY KMETZ, 640 ORCHARD PARK ROAD, VARIANCE RENEWAL - 9:18-9:21 P.M. - CONTINUED The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was now present. Van Zomeren reported applicant is requesting the renewal of an elapsed variance to allow the construction of an attached three car garage and entr> way addition. A front setback variance is required. The property does not meet the lot area requirement for the RR-IA zoning district. Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Staff recommends to approve the renewal of a front setback variance to allow an attached three stall garage and entry way addition that would be located 71.7' from the front lot line where 75.7' is existing and 100' is required. Schroeder inquired when the variance expired. Van Zomeren stated the old resolution expired May 27, 1996. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2360 per staff recommendation. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#13) #2363 BILL BOCKMANN, 1130 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCES 9:21-9:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present together with his son, Dave. Bill Bockmann noted he purchased the property from his father but his father retained a life estate interest. Van Zomeren explained the property is only .44 acres where 1 acre is required. Applicant is proposing to replace the existing structure that would have a three car attached garage. Topography is not issue. Staff has concerns with the placement of the structure. Variances are required for lot area, side street setback and hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback. Applicant has indicated that plans have changed. Dave Bockmann informed Planning Commission that he has redesigned the house. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#13 - #2363 Bill Bockmann - Continued) Van Zomeren said a survey is needed showing the new structure. Dave Bockmann has changed the front of the house to face the west toward the service road. The new structure will be located 22' from the north line and 17' from the side south. When the staff report indicated denial, he proceeded to rework the plan. With the new proposal, the garage faces to the west. He demonstrated the placement of his new plan on the survey. Another issue is placement of the well which is located 33' from Loma Linda and 44' from the service road. Any structure needs to be located 3' from the well. They would rather not abandon the well because of the cost. The deck has been angled to conform to the average setback line. The entire house does fall behind the 75' setback but tlie average setback line is strange and difficult to conform to. Because his elderly grandfather will be living in the proposed structure, special consideration was made in the design to address his care. The three car is a necessity because there will be four drivers and four vehicles. Lindquist inquired as to placement of the driveway. Dave Bockmann said the driveway would come off of Loma Linda and stated the service road in the summer is very crowded. Lindquist asked the width of the service road. Van Zomeren stated the road is 20' and functions like an alley. Gappa said the City does not plow the road. Smith said overall the plan is better and suggested moving the structure further to the sen’ice road. Dave Bockmann stated moving the structure in that direction would interfere with the well. Berg suggested tabling the application so the applicant can return with revised calculations and an updated survey. Smith explained that the Council would also require an updated surv'ey. Van Zomeren noted the well needs to be shown on the survey. Berg moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2363 for review at the May meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MARCH 23,1998 AND APRIL 13,1998. Berg, who attended the April 13, 1998 Council meeting, reported review of the Brook Park Realty application noting discussion of the 60 day rule. Brook Park was given the option to work things out and come back. She noted that the Old Crystal Bay Road plat was approved with a bike path on one side of the road. The Hauser application was denied. Regarding the Olsen-Touve preliminary subdivision. Council felt the matter was a housekeeping issue and recommended Lots 55 and 56 be ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 (#14 - Report of Planning Commission - Continued) kept together and Lots 57-61 be combined. Ottcn appeared in connection with the ar endment to industrial zone moratorium. His property is located at the intersection of County Roads 6 and 12 and he would like to be able to have the use of the property before it is condemned. No one attended the March 23, 1998 Council meeting. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith asked the status of tree preservation and home occupation. Van Zon'eren said the home occupation review will be brought before the Commission at a future date. Smith .'»aid she would rather have a separate work meeting scheduled. Berg informed members that the park dedication fee was approved. Gaffron explained the park dedication fee cap of $2,900 minimum to a maximum of $4,900 which applies to everybody regardless of the value of their lots. In connection with commercial subdivisions, a relationship was established regarding commercial activity and the use of parks as employees would use trails or parks. (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 16,1998. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 16, 1998. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON APRIL 27,1998 AND MAY 11,1998. April 27 - McMillan May 11 - Lindquist ADJOURNMENT Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to adjourn at 9:55 p.m. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Sandra Smith, Chair Person 1 # 1 '/ivV; :.£'-:-‘.k.'-- h '\t ^' •A:P-- JT^- (I ■ :'v;w- .» . r. • • • . , V • '■■•■■■;■' . -V ‘ 4 ‘ ■ '' fi li'^ . r ■, • ;s' ^ T" .• '■■ v: fL.- 1; ;, V -j? ':, '■ '.'> -s... > f*':.'-'d:';* 4'’ ■>■- " * '• '**. ' ' y PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAI^^ ' .. j. J6. . ■.-■/- ••!■ ' ■•' ■■ •. >'" ■ ■'•. ■ .'■ r> ->:t PAmrCLf. (PtDM»-11T-23410011) ,1 right anglM to to* tnl «n* of »*W ••etom »l • pomi JW * »**f Souto of to* «« to* **»l toi* of »•« »*eto>o loo*tf»f w«i *n **M(n*o« *w ro«f p«/po**» ov*r 1/1*1 p*n of saw 1S.7 tool /ftog Moiritnrty of s«W 1/n* *mf Nort/i of to* counly ro«l. XtSO, •« tow pwf of Oov*mm*nl Lof 1, S*c(Wn ». roaws/i/pr:i;sssKrrrrsr:r;rs=isr,r;!srr?xrr.r^r;^^^ /. ffO.f «>*f WMI of *«M «*ctoNi toi. »W*«*o to* /H)Wi«.«f*f»com*fOf/^c«toito^ ty O^:;:?^;rir;ry;srr4rss;jr^ «n*. tt*ne* »o«rt/i**»tortK «WnB »»W counfK rowf to l/i* po/nl of cM*»*oc*iiwl. CXCgPf to* Wtof 70 toW to*nof, **W 70 to*l P*to0 m***u™<f »f /Wii *"B<~ . ?S.', EXCEPT to*f part of f/i* *oto» aPov* ifawrripart pnmiut lying South of a linodnmo *f •ng/as to to* *•*» Mn* of aaW aactow *1 a po/n( JM.5 faa^outo of fi* , aaat /to* of saw aactow. togatoar */l/i an aaaamanf for niaO po/poaaa toaf part of to* atwva dttcrihmd pism/saa Vug tootoartK of to* Hn* toawn a if^t aaal^ of **« aaetoin *f a poWf JOt* faaf Sooto of to* (n**n«f*r eortiar on to* oaaf fW* of saw sactoMi, occonhng to to* raconM pWl thmoofon fa* ancf of r*conf /n to* offfe* of fft* Honnopin County Paconfar. PARCEL 7. (PIO M-11T-7S 41 OelD) TJia KWaaf f 5.7 /**! of to* Easf 5M toaf of toaf part of Govwnoianf tol f ***"\®'* featog TWtoat Htoaf of to* sactWit «oa; toane* soutoasatorty atong saW coimiy to toe ^Mf ofMimnancamanf. EXCEPT to* Mtoaf 70 toaf thonot, EXCEPT toaf part of to* riMcribod pnaitoa* V/ng Souto of a «o* toawn *f right angtos to to* a*^"* o'“« a potot 4M.5 toaf Souto of to* maamtof comar of »* aasf tot* ®'"“ **®'^’ ftoalnnaMf a* Kn* ’X" and EXCEPT toaf part of to* anffra aPov* dneribod promito* fyfngWoftoW^/n* drawn *1 rfgPf *ngf** to to* aaaf «n* of saW saetfon af a po/nf 354.5 toaf SoulA of tfto mosndf comor of tho MSf //no of aokf soct/on. PARCa. X (PID «0»-f f 7-23 44 0002) Commonc/ng ot a point diotant 447.8 faat Wool of a point in tfto oaat Hno of Govommont Lot 1 dtolwif 370.35 foat South from thamoandof comar at Iho nodhaaat comar of Lot 1; thanca South 82.06 faat; thanca South 11 dagraaa 47 mimttaa Want 11638 faattotha actual point ot boginning: dianca continuing South 11 dagraaa 47 mtnutaa f 03.17 foot; thanca South 12 dagraaa 37 minutaa Caat 71 faat to tha northarfy Una of County Road Ho. 61: thanca waatariy along aaid road Una 47.2 faat (o a point diatant 523.3 M%9I from tha aaat Nrta of Lot 1; thanca Horth paralM with aaid aaat Una to a point dua Waat from point of baginning: thanca Eaat to baginnirtg, Saction 8, Townahip 117, Ranga 23. PARCEL 4. (PID 800^117-23 44 0018) Lot 1, Block 1. tUoaUafa Addition, according to tha racordad plat tharoof, Hannaptn County, kUnnaaota. Togathar with aU haraditamanta and appurtanancaa balonging tharato, aubjact to tha following aatapdona: Utility aaaamanta, road aaaamanta, toning ordinancaa, and minaral raaarvation of racord. /VOTES ^ 1) REFER TO P5EUM. PLAT fOR SITE PLAAf DIMEAfSIOAfS. DERADI/VE REVISIONS PEA Uiy (4;zi/SS^ ■ • nil : ■ ' - ..’H f. :V.' ‘ ^ -‘#5 ■ vi- % ■' . ■. , , .i ... ■>)' ■- ■ 'ji > . n.». -V vr- .■■• V V . . Kf LofAraa* Loll 34,500Sg. PL 0.79 Arras Loll 21.750Sg.PL 0.50 Aero* OutMA 9,704 Sq. Ft 0.f54Acr*a OuHolB f,055Sg.PL 0.025 Acras OulfolC 1.394 Sa.FL 9,9ftAtm Tofa/Ato* 55,47tSg.Pt 1.903 Aem Mfffarricovar iPlf O' - 75' 75' - 350' 250' . 500 ’ 0% Praposad ffouaa Driyowpy Oardan Area Tolaf Orivmny 31,949 Sq. Ft 24.71% - 2,024 Sg. PL ■ 2,000 Sg. PL . i.199Sa.£U a 5,424 Sg. PI a 530Sg.PL ExMogAnoTf-lSO' Parcanf of Hardeovar Brf*ffrtgAr*a250'-500' a 2,475 Sg. PL Parcanf of Nardcovar a 25N Loll South of 250' aefPac* lino tocfng *«*jfw*fl Bay Proposed Twin Mom* Drfvawajr Toll Bdaifng Area Souto of 250* SafPacP Facing Mamnll Bay - 5,505 Sg. PL Parcanf Htrdconr • 45S South of 250' SafPac* Pacing Crjrafaf flay Twin Homo Existing Ana South of 250' Satback tins Facing Crystal Bay • 12,915 Sq. FL Percent Harxlcover • f 4S a 2.370 Sg. PL a 1.000 Sa. FI a 3,570 Sg.FL 1,030 Sq. Ft m.■ ■: .. ■ , I-'- V LAw’sCBVtYwIo^C S=s:2s, '• OB a to*! 'B ♦ la .g-fl •*.' Op'ot#''** Of* o* 0 »-• .a* ’’ •0 »• a* a* " *i«*OofO »»• (•« 0 ..1 5'H .• (tool y' '• •• EW(»- 9* •g . ■»• Od" 1 d 0(i *f5»a •-g-MTOif^'* * •• . • ti*' ' l. vo.1'o->3 to.. ..•.■..'-on . 2oHi it. ■ Mdif s* B.sip •*.# — •sT.;.' - PREPARED FOR ROBERT WAADE ■ ■ ■ ■ ' ■■ 5' ’. ' -,' . ' ■. I :^¥ ■■V .Tik nuKB.1. (nm-iiT-t34i9eii) i - i I LM 1. SKttM m.______. . „ _______________________TmumUi OH* SmwrtMH rtfT). nM9* TVMiiqr «iM (19. Mwtt «r« MW tlimi Hiafcilol**—»t«—rt>D*«t«pe*W»X.i«ySiMil»o^W«;y^M^ m^m^rnmettldwtclIim lLttmtrammufmiMnttMapitniomtoiimratttp^altaM 1I.7 fc.* »o.«l*«(y 0# «*ort(i 0# l»« e««<r <0«* ALSO as IM sort of nnnmmTrTf Let f. SecMm «. TowmMp 11T. Hmtgm 21 ••2i22i;co!III£S.r«»7^^Mtfceof8acS0<il*il—ictallieiieiOei^fcoafeciionrfBeStoieowaoMwlotyi— L^ IMaMlaate: Stance ■ooMtaoaMy alBOB MM aSwo at oaM Mta 1M. ra Mat M 0 soMt laMcM M7tftl«wtlMMtetaaStaocSen*w«ietaMotaoaaitaiaiWf»eewwratl^eMoi>e>taSlyd^ ncofStatta Boo* swot Ooadb, p. Ill; SwoeoaootW»»atew«W««g»^«;?*<»«f Mte# M 70 %•! MIm fiiMWiMW <t f^pM Mpfit Aow fPa wwiM% Mm IMfVOf; mstao to Staoota Snoot oats ooctlenatose*itlW.S Mot Set* ot ISO aioo^co^et ISOSsjrjsassrrsrsisrrrsris^^«WWaotaataoottSMata|taWWSIStalSonS>;taStan»anWfConyonlSoo^SrtaotaoW oocson. oecoWh* 10 Sta leeoWiS pW Stataot on «a onS ot leeofS *t Bta otSeo ot ISO ttannaitai CotMiyAMontar. tLet1»taBW»*s^«"SSI,4tL PMCEL 2. (P» SS-f 17-2141001 S» dhdfv Af MkraatflB Mav LaMa MhwalDifiMai* iMvivca aoifiMiiivMw^ afoay IMa sAofV o* aaw Mwwm.rt IMI #o . poifti iiIwfeM M 71ftl teal IMrt 07 M« aMlfcai Mm Mrf IM comaro7lMrfcuii»aMdMy<teaMJatu<MaMteMoo*4>t o7DMMi, p. IJ7; Manea oomIMoi^ atonji ^Sr^S.WsotaSoto«toodtanntarlsSlansltatalSoo.ol«aootMoae^ ,«ta-4SMtIta5^Sta«««nlireo»MfotStaooaiS».otaalSaa.a«an,^llOtWoerfSoS »» Sotas WoWtalaS ao »ta’A-, an<t eXCeW ISal pail ot ISO onlSe aSovo WiCfl^ S»e«^ lySiJwSlS of a (Sta (Sawn ai rtpSt anplaa lo Sta oaaisn^ aa« aacSon at a poSil W4.8 tael SoirfS ot Sta anansar eontar at ISO oaat Sna ot saM aacUon. nmCELl. ^ SSS-f 17-2144 SBS« CeawiantlBp at a point dtaltnt 447.1 Mat Wtal ot a petal fti ISa aaat Sno ot Oea ITMJStaatSeuSiSomStaiitaanSai-conwratlSanoilSaaatcemof otLol l.-MMocoSoWS WPS Mot; Mone# llSapriaa 47 mtautaa Wtal 115.11 Mat S> ISo actual polnl otSapSmSw Stance conMMilnp SoulS 11 Sapraoa 47 «•cl 1M.17 Mot; Htanco SoulS 12 c mSwtaa Eos! 71 «MI M tfw norfSany Sna et Connfy Boas Mb. 51; Stance laaaler^ aSNip said rooit Sne 47.2 Mat to a point dialanr 521.1 tael Mlaar Son MW aaat Mm ot Lot 1; ISenca Moris panMaf ntSiaalSaaatllwateapo»il4Ue»teatSon»polntotSaplwnlnp,SwneeEaatlebaBlni«lnp,SecSon 1, rownoSlp 117, Rang* 21. BMCEL4. rP»SW-117-1144«)lD Lot 1. Mock 1, MbeStra AdWllon. according to Me lOcoiSM pMt Marsot, NannopM County, rapaMar lalSiaSSaiecWlanianlaanda i; um^oaaomanla,madi Loti M,m •pRUftliataB Lata ti.m a«.RMMswBOMMil HIM •MWAtMAMW oaMatB 1M» •b MMMB wm ossate !■! !■ n tmttmmmwAias mm ag.mumRmm r-7S’ TT-M EatattafAiBsTr-lW a 21,145So7L PataentotWardaaaar ■ M.71N uwa»ft SWIM 51 laar-wri 2,475 SM.Pt mias SanSt at IWIaWsiS IBap - tkSWSiiSl 15N SaatSotaW'SatSaeSfMnaCqniMaar WaposaSTtaM Manta firtaltap Ptna taSS atasr SalWaS Line paetntCrraaaiBar ■ fawiapK ^rcentMarSaevar a sm 1.515 SpW t’- A PREPARED FOR ROBERT WAADE