Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-1998 Planning PacketP BLIC ATTENDANCE □COUNCILS __ . PLANNING COM:MISSIONd p ARK COMMISSION □OTHER NAME (please print) PRESE FOR (from agenda) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 5. ______________ . _____________ _ 6. ____________________________ _ '·---------------------------- 8. ____________________________ _ 9.___________________________ _ 10. ___________________________ _ 11. ____ , _______________________ _ 12. ___________________________ _ 13._______________________________ _ 14. __________________________ __ 15. _____________________________ _ QfU.95.4 ORONO PLANNING COMiVUSSiON Monday, June 15,1998-6:30 p.m. 2780 Kelley Park>vay-Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: J. Diann Goetten AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the JULY 13,1998, City Council meeting unless othenvise noted by the Chair. OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or behveen scheduled public hearings. 1.##2364 John Serena, 4607 Watertown Road, Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). 2.#2368 Kirk Otteson, 710 North Arm Drive. Variances. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). 3.#2370 Gary O'Keefe, 1392 Baldur Park Road. Variance and Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Mike Gaffron). SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS 7:00 p.m. 4.#2383 Christine and Gary Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road, Preliminary Class II Subdivision. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.#2361 William and LaWayne Yaeger, 310 Big Island. Variances. (Staff: Mike Gaf&on). 6.#2376 Richard and Marion Brown, 2685 Shadywood Road. Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren/Paul Weinberger). 7.#2377 John Chenoweth, 3850 Shoreline Drive. Finding of Substantially Similar Use/Commercial Site Plan Review. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). 8.#2378 William Memik, 1840 Lakeview Terrace. Variance. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren/Paul Weinberger). •'1 9.#2379 Deborah M. Sholl, 4100 Watertown Road. Variance. (Staff: Liz Van ' Zomeren/Paul Weinberger). 10.#2380 Bruce Schmidtt on behalf of Richard and Kathy Kyle, 1140 Tonkawa Road. Variance. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren/Paul Weinberger). ZONING AMENDMENT 11.#XXXX City of Orono, Chapter 5, Business Regulations and Chapter 10, Zoning regarding Home Occupations. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren). PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 12.Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on May 26 1998 and June 8, 1998. 13.Other issues for discussion. 14.Planning Commission approval of minutes for May 18, 1998. 15.Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on June 22, 1998 and July 13, 1998. ADJOURNMENT 4 L I City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax; (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE:June 8, 1998 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commissioners FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT:#2364 John Serena 4607 Watertown Road Conditional Use Permit-Continued Public Hearing The applicant was present at the May 18, 1998 meeting. However, because of the weather conditions, the applicant needed to leave the meeting before his item was considered. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2364 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 20, 1998 TO: John Serena 4607 Watertown Road Long Lake MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 05/18/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below - Applicant not present. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission June 15, 1998; meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. jig 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 Acre:) 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 P'ohibited Section 10.03, Subd. 12 Crowding Principal Structures #2363 John & Joan Serena 4605 Watertown Road Dateo/P.C. Mao 18. 1998 page-1 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 flic 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. 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 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.lhat 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 I O'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 tliat 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 #2363 John Joan Serena 4605 Watertown Road Date ofP.C. May 18, 1998 page~2 Joorv at^ John Application # Date Received ^//a /<?<)' Amount Paid ^cX^S.oi) CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address WA-T Type of Application to be Filed sXp^y^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) '^\\\ ^"7 APPLICANT Name Phone (homel (r>V2. ♦ AAC\ • Phone (work)_________»« ______ Address A(Ti ^<^\\/kA City I^Aik I Zip_^S2£2. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. <9l - ^-1Date Property Acquired __ 1 (do) (4e-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 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 fee.s) ______$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) ji' flJI t {O Q /H 2. 3. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1.y 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 rnap from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government CenteiC^8-32 ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensecT 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 require.ments). ____ 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 lO/fgl-grg OWNER’S SIGNATi___ The ow ’ner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property b/ City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members ^^^Pp&rposQS 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. !f 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 Serena 4605 WATERTOWN ROAD Maple Plain , MN 55350-0681 012-44B-80B2/FAX-440-0216 Internet : ooc @rrc -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 fecilities, as well as a spa and wet bar. Ihe 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 origiiial 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 forwarded with the 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 .- 3{-({8-23 ;) ,.. 4 ( . ) / / ( . 23 ( / ;' ',. ;' I I ;' / / / ( , 2 7 ( J .. ,, .. / X 978. 6 012 X 1012.9 X X 10 4.5 a X 10 5 4 016.6 X 0 013.1 0 X 1016.8 101 2.s X 0 0 1013.3 X 1019 2 X 1015 I 014. . . . . . . . ·. . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . ,.., ,f I I z, • • I /t '\:I. . . , . .. . . I • 0 . II II I I I I I -^^0 7 OJxJCtshjXJU-*^ /^cotcJ Permit No. /Q92 PERMIT RECORD Date ( 1 Type of Permit A-30'6y n/^//'/S '^7 7>/ha. J2^^. .........//-2S 7 7 /7V3 7P '7-9 7 ! A ]os^bi.^ -^..2A2J_____ ..79 7!rjuiU C^J7 4^L^J ____ . .,/A-7-i70 C^<2LOl^ 7-9-S-^M ^ U9s/... __ __ ^933 ,._-0-^3'R3 /,y9<^7 -ryxidA^ HU n-ilHl i/J.# H5 yords to Votcrto^n Rood Av-r Original house on cj^istlng 8' deep concrete block foundation To be renovated Concrete Pool Deck r Swinning Pool 2A'-e Addition constructed on 8' Joist deck with slU on block foundation No ciearonce below To be denollshcd Addition 2-car garage walls sit on block fcundotlon, poured slab floor To be denollshed ii ^3'-A' 117 yords to Mulrt House 18'-8' ' r, • After noklnQ chartQes to footprint of structure, owner wishes to reconblne lot lines of No/s 4605 8. 4607 v/otertown Rood. -A ft1 cr City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 a MEMORANDUM DATE:June 8, 1998 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commissioners FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT:#2368 Kirk Otteson 710 North Arm Drive Variances-Continued Public Hearing The Planning Commission considered this application at the May 18, 1998 meeting. It was tabled because of concerns about the proposed addition to the existing structure and its impact on the ravine. Lyle Oman, Building Official, has visited the site and indicated that he does not think that the proposed addition will have a negative impact on the ravine because of the existing vegetation. He also noted that the addition is not towards the lake. He discussed his fmdings with Greg Gappa, Public Services Director, and they together determined that there would be little if any impact on the "top of the bluff" line. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2368 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION • ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 20, 1998 TO: Kirk Otteson 710 North Arm Drive Mound MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 05/18/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST i Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: City staff and engineer to review impact of proposed addition on bluff and required bluff setback. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission June 15, 1998; meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. jig ■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 (I 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 k .tchen 'vould be in the additional area. A street side deck is aiso 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 92368 KirkOtteson 710 North Arm Drive May 18. 1998 page-^l 1 I 1 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 addition encroaches into the average lakeshore setback and moves closer to the top of the bluff. Structural Coverag e 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 totd 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. # 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 tlie south east of tlie ciurent structure and remodel the existing house. The new addition would not be going any closer to lake Miimetonka but paralleling the shore line approximately 85 feet back. Unfortimately the house is positioned close to a bluff on the south east side of the lot. The bluff descends any where from 6 to 8 feet vertically on the soutli east side of tlie lot. The south east side of the bluff appears to be man made to accommodate a small road or patli for 740 Nortli Arm Drive. t Currently 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 the intenor of the house and update tlie 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 b}' professional carpenters. .1 n 2363 Kirk Otteson 710 North Arm Drive 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. 2. 4. 5. 6. The property can continue to be used as a residence. The applicant wants to add more space to the house. 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. 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 North Arm Drive A fay 18. 1998 page---4 :9 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 blttff may have a detrimental effect on the ravine. 8.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The subject property does not meet the lot area and lot width requirements. The applicant needs to explain why the addition and deck are proposed to need variances for hardcover andALS. Issues 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 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. 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. Previous additions were constructed in 1956 and 1969. There is sufficient area on the lot to add to the rear of the structure. This may not require a bluff setback variance and would not require an average lakeshore setback. 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 reconunended that this area be removed. For safety reasons, vehicles should not back up the hill out on North Arm Drive. U 2368 Kirk Otleion 710 Sorth Arm Drive Stay 18. !998 pagt—S 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. i- 9 X- Attachments A B C D E F G K I Application Plat Map Topo Map Hardcover Sewer Map Survey House Plans Pennit Record Neighbor's Letter U 2368 Kirk Otteson 710 North Arm Drive May 18. 1998 page-^ 1 lo North br. m m m Jit:r . .v .'■■1.A.4 Application U Date Received Amount Yald^3^3 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 ~7/o Dt. /\/ioorvg\ AA a / Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Proper^ Acquired flpa\\^__________________^(month/year) I (do) ^o no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V residential Zoning District: I other (specify^ APPLICANT Name Mak Address: ho Do. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_jt£2SIi3JL5II2_____ _____ Phone (work ) '/S"/ ?______ City: A/ig><^Ac\__________Zip:.sy.^^*f Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: See. A44^We^_________________! (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' COMIITIONS Describe imdue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: See, _________________ - A T ^ ■nf p / V; |-V i c ■ f%J ■ O •i i.*' (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date iq 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 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 SYz" 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'A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital stato) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 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. 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 <fc Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 c F._P=v4\o/Dcc.k -__________ 9.3' X iz.e' -t s' X 2&.1S' “ J.l \-3s r. I HI. IS' .sr = MZ.XH Sf ZH-O 5F 321,ZH SF D«ck ©:7- F X 7. i ..= . £±l _____.SP ~?._A______________!7__Z L o• o 75-J&.....-5f I X 2,6 M • 6>Sf ja:•r-y-.v.. ------------------------------------------------------t...V — ...........-----------------------------------------i ■%k ^ ----------------------------m. % L L» <xi\ ^»ol<,EitWy- SIa ^I 2.*== e 5f/ R m jrfu«. ^am Js<v * X 9'= /3.5 . Afl. .RcouAvv»i«,l.OeA\ ^qS M.2' *5.2^'^ 2l.'T __^lLI W-Kl^-' '^.> R - l\*S' iq»;^<i^il.gV = ^IS*____S£ X-------- (C? -JC::----- __/_z._m'_'l51.5:1. ■■> D»^‘________ if'^ —^ - - 6.a.2 SP ‘7 *’ ‘1L^iJ^ _7 _________________ .( /^______ •7X^«- 7.s‘ : :r /2 o6>s/' r 4W.O Sf .............................................................■■::)C 3 •/ __________________________________'■ '•* & -/^/c...-...../‘^/c X 2.Z_______ bc\iJ&/ Hqjp 110 NioHh tu. ■; p i4- Jir ir m id ^-, * J'.:, •oS:-^'*- ‘A -J-t , .y.^..v^.' ' V C M --V t2! 'Xif.n-- n ;f .■» r K {*i IpfP"\ j •- )^ H u J I :> CAfi 0X0 4 does ni^l- CuurveAAl- dr- dn\^6^ SOBjtCT Pi2ope.jt.Ti^ k ' *<5^ :'U‘y. r^T^. . . f... •.’* •’.'n •■ / 't. • .•*•’*■ •• • • • .... - •• • P'(:>c-!r.. U**.T" ?.. %'.'.• *■ i i ‘r:>hr % -• • ••’% ‘ .. ■ '•fc i7 yt; i J*. '%« -V • v‘ •'. ■ - •-.-y. .• i •» • : .. .^ •; . • r • "^ *: fs ’ ^ * * * • *V* •, • * *• •*’■.•***.''’. '• V- •* I *. . ‘‘fc . •••. 0. . r^ .. • ’ • -. •■ ,- .. V . :.. ;• •• •• . ; •:••.,■ .* .* >v •'■••;'>• ‘it.*' « .f :i Mm.- Ipl * \ y f- *. '•••*< - 1‘ ' ,• -n • . •■. # • »• ’ > f,• . ,.v ^:. iV*MC I • i I. •A I__y ^ ■ -'T V. K <0 v.»l ......I \« » 1 COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION ORieiNJiL DOCUMBNT OP POOR oujimir ||[||||||BI32iQC3!Z!IS3uK3!ICI!!IE!X313i3!ZIZC]Q[[HIHil '• ••:- •-V pr.AO - Vl^V ■AC&-.t^4-'-->'o ___ ., iM(i‘ rs}:-a“s M' :7ti^ .■> -’5 {...;;—p^-* KJ\ ' TP AK'i ROAO 7/0 A)or^ 4rrv\ Qr. PERMIT RECORD 1 Permit No.Date Type of Permit ^dd. <^9^/Siz^d=d7J2L yy/3 vS* - ir- n //- /V> S‘9/3 .idP.^lkS^.ZjSdl./j h igj-7.y./A ••>• ••.. •j . •• SLi^'£>i. h)sy-1*^*2- (hjJ^.Q ^ ^LicJ ^ (hiJq <3o^ (^2^- I f^CcirJ^ cn McJ n&t^ 601^ (]^i^^>yryyy>r\SLAj iw i 30— ‘^r; ■fcf Qjl'lit^k^ ^^&y\ ttA^ JL m>T oC' ^OvCjo] ^ • * A r:^ r To: From: Date: 1 Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator June 11,1998 Subject: #2370 Gar>' O'Keefe, 1392 Baldur Park Road - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2-acre, Sewered Application: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 to replace the existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Revised site plan, floor plan, elevation view B - Revised hardcover submittal C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5-19-98 D - Memo and exhibits of May 14,1998 Planning Commission May 18 Action This item was tabled on May 18 to allow applicant to provide revised plans addressing Planning Commission's concerns. Those concerns include: 75-250' Hardcover should be limited to 40% (6,080 si) - Excavation to create a walkout will not be approved - Cutting down the top of the hill received a mixed reaction (3 in favor, 2 against) Revised Proposal .. Applicant has provided a revised site plan for a 1-story residence wdth a lower level that the plan labels as "Walkout Floor", but appears to include daylight windows rather than walkout doors. The house concept has been completely flipped, with the garage now facing to the right rather than the left. The driveway similarly is flipped and would enter Baldur Park road further to the northwest. No second story is evident from the plans submitted. The bulk of the house from the street side appears visually somewhat lower than the first plan, although no elevation view from the lake side has been provided. 1 #2370 - O'Keefe June 11,1998 Page 2 A revised grading plan has not been submitted, although applicant notes that while the walkout excavation has been abandoned, he would like to do some shaving in the 0-75' zone along the northwest side to match the neighboring elevations. Staff is concerned how this will impact a remaining 20" maple in this area. Hardcover The revised hardcover proposal includes some changes to the drivew'ay and patio concepts. A backup or parking area near the garage is proposed, as well as a "percolating paver" patio at the northwest comer of the house, just off of the kitchen and screen porch. While no detail information has been submitted about the specific paver material proposed, in all past applications the City has considered such materials as hardcover, regardless of their permeability, much the same as w'eed-control fabrics in landscape beds. Including the patio and reconfigured driveway, proposed hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 6,505 s.f. or 42.8%, as compared with 41,4% in the fust proposal and 26.2% existing. Also, the revised proposal has significantly more driveway in the south 0-75' zone than the first plan, approximately 1100 s.f as compared to just 600 s.f See the following comparison table: Hardcover : 0-75' N. 75-250' 0-75' S. Existing 496 sf (6.3%) 3985 sf (26.2%) 2284 sf (29.6%) 6765 sf 1 St Proposal Revised Proposal Allowed Osf (0%) Osf (0%) 0sf(0%) 6288 sf (41.4%) 6,505 sf (42.8%) 3800 sf (25%) 605 sf (7.8%) 1.100 sf (14.2%) OsfrO%l 6893 sf 7,605 sf 3800 sf A variance to allow 40% hardcover in the 75-250' zone for a complete rebuild is not necessarily in keeping with the City's normal practice of holding new constmction to a higher hardcover standard than when an existing home is added onto. The primary 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. While there is nothing 'magic' about the existing overall site hardcover nunicer (6,765 s.f), it would appear somewhat inconsistent to allow an increase in hardcover for a total site redevelopment when the total site is already significantly over the hardcover limits. Planning Commission's suggested reduction of the 75-250' zone to 40% could have resulted in a plan that was less than 6,765 s.f. overall if the driveway had not increased and the patio was not proposed. If there is a need to have added driveway with the current plan, that need should be documented so that Planning Commission can determine whether it constitues a hardship or is merely a factor in the total site hardcover balance. Planning Commission must weigh all these factors in reaching a recommendation. #2370 - O’Keefe June 11,1998 Page 3 Lot Coverage Proposed Lot Coverage bv Structures: 1st Proposal: 3664/30,800=11.9% (Meets 15% limit) Revised Proposal: 363^ sf / 30,800 =11.8% (Meets 15% limit) Grading The initially proposed grading plan included lowering the crown of hill by 2-3', including grading within 5' of side lot lines and within 0-75' zone, requiring a variance and CUP. The plan set submitted does not include a revised grading plan, making it impossible to determine the extent of proposed grading under the revised plan. Filling for the proposed driveway may be significant in the area north of the existing garage. No revised detail is provided for the applicant's intended grade matching along the northwest lot line in the north 0-75' zone. A revised grading plan is necessary for this application to be adequately reviewed. Because of the potential loss of mature trees in the 0-75' zone, staff has difficulty recommending approval for lowering the hill if that is still intended, although we are advised that one of the two noted 0-75' mature trees in that area (the 20" basswood) has now been removed. It is unclear to staff whether this was related to storm damage. Conceptually, plan revisions that help limit the potentially imposing impact of this residence on the neighborhood are a positive step, but doing so by changing the natural character of the 0-75' ..one would not necessarily be appropriate in staff’s opinion. A proposal to match the 0-75' grade with the adjacentproperty may be appropriate but a grading plan is needed to show the extent of w'ork intended. Planning Commission should have this information in hand prior to making a recommendation. Summary of Requests The revised plan still requires three separate approvals: 1. Hardcover variances 2. CUP and variance for excavation of portions of the hill within 5' of lot line and within 75' of lake 3. CUP and variance for land alteration in 0-75' zones to fill in existing foundation and reconfigure driveway Review of Hardships Please review the staff memo of May 14 in regards to the hardship criteria. 11 » .«( #2370 - O'Keefe June 11,1998 Page 4 Issues for Consideration 1.Have adequate hardships been demonstrated to support the proposed hardcover variances, which under the revised proposal appear to have increased in overall magnitude rather than decreased? Does the movement of hardcover out of the 0-75' zones into the 75-250' zone, provide adequate jusiification for an overall site hardcover increase of more than 800 s.f. over the current approximately 6,765 s.f. ? 2.Will Planning Commission recommend approval for grading within 5 ’ of the lot boundaries and within the 0-75' zone to lower the hill 2-3' if that is still proposed? A revised grading plan is needed to confirm that no new runoff flows are directed toward the neighboring properties; to confirm the extent of actual grading proposed in the 0-75' zones; and to confirm whether any importation or exportation of fill is needed. Stan* Recommendation 1. A revised grading plan is needed in order to confirm the extent of grading required to accomplish the revised site plan. This should be provided ^or review prior to Planning Commission action. 2.Staff recommends approval of some hardcover variance for the souther .y 0-75' zone to accomodate a driveway, but questions the extent of driveway necessary. Staff recommends that the overall site hardcover be limited to the existing 6765 s.f., allowing applicant to decide where to reduce hardcover. 3.If Planning Commission recommends approval for some degree of grade ''hanges in the 0-75' zones, approval should be subject to staff review 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. 4.Staff recommends denial of any 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; and grading should be allowed to accommodate the driveway in the south 0-75 zone. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval. Recommend partial approval or conditional approval. Recommend denial. Table for additional information or revisions. Other. s s SHARRATT DESIGN COMPANY MEETING MEMO TELEPNOr: . Date: /b J 3 ( Project: ^ Attending Initials Company Subject: Action Bv Dsts PcoX~ £)P- Uowits^ Poor- /MS iZi|.A4'0 ^ 1,00 O ftP fOPj- iop gf&op ftor PHH4T- /afs tTyui/|»- w/114 ?*-rr*“K ftP»- 151 a, ^ PE«^PATlt4f p^Mfert- VlMIO 44^ g>.gQ<C 5590 Woodside Lane Shorewood. Minnesota 55331 470-9750 Fax 470-8407 E-mail: SDe^gnC @ AOL w*.. c aXY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Gary W. O'Keefe 4075 Co. Rd. 44 Minnetrista MN 55364 ZONING FILE NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 19, 1998 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 05/18/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled to allow applicant to address issues noted by Planning Commission and provide revised plans. General direction provided by Planning Commission includes; 1. Limit hardcover in the 75-250' zone to 40% (sur\'eyor established 75-250' zone at 15,200 s.f.±; 40% =6,080 s.f.) 2. 3. Consensus (5 of 5) is that excavation in 0-75' zone for a walkout will not be approved. No consensus was reached on whether cutting down the top of the hill should be allowed (3 in favor of it, 2 against). Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information including revised plans. Deadline for the June 15, 1998 meeting is June 5, 1998. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please coistact the Zoning Department (473-7357) 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. State Law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on April 22 and the 60-day review period would end on June 22. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the June 15 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to August 22, 1998. • »D 4-/A To:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffiron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 14,1998 Subject:#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 perniit 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, 1 13' at 75' setback (Exceeds 80% of 100' min. requiremen'/ 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 f29.6%) 6765 sf Proposed Allowed 0sf(0%) 0sf(0%) 6288 sf (41.4%) 3800 sf (25%) 605 sf (7.8%'> 0 sf f0%;> 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.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. 2.Intent is to excavate within the 0-75' lakeshore protected zone to create a walkout situation, requiring a variance and CUP. 3.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 dnveway. 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 additioti to the house and basement replacement. In 1989 a variance was granted for 4,940 sf hardcover in the 75-250' zone and 1,893 sf in the.south 0- 75' zone (totalling 6833 sf) 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 Ae 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 ftiat #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 propose:, 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 1). 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 folic wing criteria must be considered in determining whether adequate hardship exists to grant variances; 1. 2. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used imder 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 uw built meeting hardcover requirements. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. #2370 - Gary O’Keefe May 14,1998 Page 4 4. 5. The magnitude ofti.e 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 huildability or uniqueness in staffs 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. None 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. 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. !i ! ? ! f • i. I :i i I #2370 - O'Keefe May 14,1998 Page 5 6. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are 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. 8. 9. 10. 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-IC district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv'ation 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 q 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 to 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)? 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 helpfol 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 thw.e 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 revievv 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 normal practice of holding new construction to a higher hardcover standard than when an existing home is added onto. The primary 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 propos?.’ 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 • nd grade it to match existing contours. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend partial approval or conditional approval. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Other. r /..i, 4 /I Application M Date Received Amount Paid -yCts"" CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ Site Address T. P POAci^ T • 8 » «S-Cu Type of Application to be Filed C lAP COon Property Identifcation Number (P.I.D.) )iT - ^ B1 0003 ^ !o APPLICANT . Phone (home) ^ 7<^ ~ X^cP/ Name if/ Phone (work)___/ Addre^ ^ 44 City OWIVER (if different than applicant) Name 4 S us>V V-iA tfW Address > 3^2^ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City Zip ( __(month/year) Lf^i -c Date Property Acquired___________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land, FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $300.00 Commtrcial/Industrial Use 7( $250.00 Land Alteration ITH Ihi ____ 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 IV VZeZ, 2. 3. 4. REQIHRED SUBMITTALS 1. X 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, 34£^327j^ 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. 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. (St' 1 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 ____ t *.APPLICANT ’S SIGNATURE The’ applicant' hereby agrees 'to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review' of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s signature Date ^ 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 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. I. li »• .1 iiFP--23-'19?3 li:24 PROn iRSMftX 01 EEFE MECHhMIChL.IHC. ' TO ' Bi« Bl*® 612 941 1391 P.03 03 ^OiSSRH M23P ^.02 SUBMHTA.1.8 1^ Con^plctci^ AppUcBtlon Foitti- 2. ^ ib^up M Ift <Jc*oil. witViln 350*. leVcjT *”**P>• sr;tr.?ssr-:r:-«...«« , „x. “ ""•’ J. AHoch Iceai dcscripliOii to *J? ”,4 euUtions' involv* 0. 3?" Toroarophic lorvoy (citU«f.|. «n« ptoposcd eonloura) » In clcrtiUvu (eradca). ' uoi^ons with nn Interest in 7 Lisi of the Jcgul name* (Jnciwdc ^ ' RnollcanlW if nol current ownerCs).* -----^w- oropcfiy. llti? wnuia lucluJc nome($) &' BppUcanH > g Construction pii^n, if fippllcoble (see Ust o^‘°> I ------AS an addcudujii to this application, plo«e attpcli a »cpa ’ ■ ppn>on» you wist' notified of IhU eppHcftlion. 0 ppicvn* JVM ------------- . - - YOU ARF. WiQWUKD TO SUPPLY 30 for RKTRODXJCTJON (U" X 17“ OR Sooi^m.nW. pWn.. .«. t» ba SUIIMITT LI). (StoIT will »^<)aliv w a'*'' " eubmittod.) ' * ^if • *.e :sn • ‘ I i ■' ■ '■•> ) I ' V •• •.. ccrtlnv.rt,m by Clcric.1 ucpartm.«. A.t I..n<> Uae ApplMon b con^ InUii»l5 6fC)«lM'S'“'-- --------------------- AdniWsbrt r, #sr«. to p»y «<10.wnol f«« (t«Jt Urn; „a certifies Hat th= Applicant'o ol£nutm«j . • 3.OWNER'S SIGNAl URL ^ „„)ic*r,oi. end fiatlici «uthort»cd ’ The owner hereby b^a^etf consult^^^^ .ensonawe entiy *n«,„J vepfieMi«. of this request, end council rneinbors lo. ^oses^w.geuo^ <p f Ownet’B eignnturo ^, • • . Y««^W||C| d - -- «- - ....................... ApyllMoi muu he-* >...oi h« "uSokrtr»L“m«‘^^^^^^^ the P>«”' “ rbppi4w»nv» r — THTOJ P.M.S TOTOL P.03 ; A \ \ north arm \ \ \ I V K v/j2)\ _(n-Z3-3( (V*C NSI) \ \ \ \ \ \ 4 ! lOpy aTTc TSo ... J.. I Wmwx^■'- ''^ A AUD Slat KO 273 V \ \ RUN DATE OA/23/98 BATCH 503 PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OM4ER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR r>T{ER NAHE V^XPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER ‘ NAME/AOPR PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR »MER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 31 0001 01400 BALDUR PARK RD CHARLES B REID CHARLES B REID 1400 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0004 01384 BALDUR PARK RD M D A J A VERSTEEG MARK D VERSTEEG 1384 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASS16NED WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN WILLIAM J H FRANKLIN BROALNAY SALES 1000 W BROADWAY MPLS MN 55411 38 08-117-23 31 0010 00038 ADDRESS UNASSI6t4ED WILLIAMJ H FRANKLIN WILLIAM J H FRANKLIN BROADWAY SALES 1000 W BROADWAY MPLS MN 55411 38 08-117-23 34 0016 01412 BALDUR PARK RD C C HAGFORS A K E HAGFORS CURTIS C HAGFORS 1412 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 8402 BURROUGHS RD W DEER PARK WA 99006 38 08-117-23 31 0002 01396 BALDUR PARK RD R J « M A WETT TRUSTEES RICHARD A MARGE WETI 1396 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA m 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0005 01376 BALDUR PARK RD J WANG A D L B0THWELL-WAN6 J WANG A D L BOTHISELL-WANG 1376 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED WILLIAM J H FRANKLIN WILLIAM J H FRANKLIN BROADWAY SALES 1000 W BROADWAY MPLS MN 55411 38 08-117-23 34 0014 01420 8ALDUR PARK RD C M JOHNSON A K M F C M JOHNSON A K M F 1420 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 JOHNSON JOHNSCPi 38 08-117-23 34 0017 01408 BALDUR PARK RD JAMES P WERNER JAMES P WERNER 1408 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0029 00038 AODRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 8402 Dt:7R0UGHS RD W DEER PARK WA 99006 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 6 38 08-117-23 31 0003 01392 BALDUR PARK RD R C A J E KUHN ROBERT C A JUDY E KUHN 1392 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN WILLIAM J H FRANKLIN BROADWAY SALES 1000 W BROADWAY MPLS MN 55411 38 08-117-23 31 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED WILLIAM J M FRANKLIN WILLIAM J H FRANKLIN 8R0ADHAY SALES 1000 W BROADWAY MPLS MN 55411 38 08-117-23 34 0015 01416 BALDUR PARK KD J C ULKU ET AL W/L EST RUBY E t JOHN C ULKU 1416 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 im' V 38 08-117-23 34 0018 01404 BALDUR PARK RD CHARLES AFFIAS CHARLES AFFIAS 2634 JERSEY AVE S ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426 '2% . • 38 08-117-23 34 0030 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 8402 BURROUGHS RD W DEER PARK WA 99006 * • 0 r, .J- . i ■ I*! ‘"■T ' RUN DATE 04/23/98 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST BATCH 503 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 34 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 6402 BURROUGHS RD N DEER PARK NA 99006 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 34 0034 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 i'V;3 frl) /fr- N tiiv ■ tUb. i ' ■ •> •« ■5» REPORT NO. PZ435401 PAGE 7 38 08-117-23 34 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 8402 BURROUGHS RD H DEER PARK WA 99006 38 08-117-23 34 0033 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HAROLD R KITCHEN HAROLD KITCHEN BOX 418 NISSHA MN 56468 38 08-117-23 34 0059 01428 8ALDUR PARK RD THE HELI ROTH TRUST GUENTHER A HELI ROTH /TRSTES 1428 BALDUR PARK RD WAY2ATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 503 00023 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT ..PPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAHON* TO THE BEST OF MY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. <p , ^ dDATE V V ■■ •/ . f i t I.' »'Z CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR- GARY O'KEEFE OF LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 1, BALDUR PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lots 17 and 18, Block 1. Boldur Pork This survey Intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of on existing house, garage, and oil other visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements-or encroachments. o : Denotes iron marker Bearings shown ore based upon on ossumed datum Caluiii: Meui't sou level 0-75 FT. ZONE AREA: 165704- S. F. > 75 FT. ZONE AREA; 151904- S. F. !''c.UL i C < C mi 3 9 I S B 9 less III IIIVXN013NNIW 3>V1 - «tfc esfc' *<n»6UyM TyWbON .KKfc ♦Si-*'OOOOi — . I -----------------^ f * •' ; \ \ / '"v • ''v ^ : I XJ l\ A -------------------- f 1 -If--------- ***. **:j .1 V .• • > •■ JV->‘V-- \l vj\ >1 1 1 I ^ I I • ! ■ -K <: if^---:-:- •I •----------I 1 CP 9- ■K ^ i / / / / • / ________^ . ’// i-'---H— \ I 1 / / • I ----/f""" • . \/ / / / / ________/ / «11 •'—Hv . •* M /\* / j.___ • X / / '“7—1 ■"—-•- -f—^ . f \. ------------------------ —A-'"^ L ^''• \ ---------- ! It •» \ .—^ ! *.« I a III '9^ i \\ V**'% . . *•• ■ .• • • / H* i- •• **/.*.”*•. . ••• •• •.. ■ :•*.•• *• • •• • • - •* vV-•••!.*: ..V- *;.' :• f • r. A.» *.' •* - ••.* ‘a..’*'* •>/ . -.* 2^ --------------------- *TVWUON .KkTb vl •>""'T"'-,, "\ ""---I / 'k N if . •• i. ..•ii__ -It- '• • •_ J>ii. 4^. *1*—.•r^:__ __^X-V---- ; Scfa'-itill!i-:* -..• drmi ffilSSImil feirfSSii '•Mfr" V' rrSHHji 'I it , r 1 i.'lili -i-' |fe={5' r u • 1i*u' 1 Cl l.:;-f I ETP ^ Ht.-\‘f".T^ *-'!-li \ •f; S5S-:' •^j“- : -I'rCf^T^I \% .1 >.:■:■■ m• ::*Am pir^iT-1- I • ■\:c:^U.X4. i .• •‘Dxy- ' TrK '-t ? ‘ I'! L • *. f»I • i. I ' •• • * ■ ^?vrtr?i ■ S. ::* 2*i .’. ‘V • '.» r*. •• •. * ■ ••• >, . •■ i .: it'.- ' ••• ‘ V*-•■ ■‘■••' V /•.■ X < • /T’ •*“ •■ •"*'• I*')• * •.* ‘ • i’* *. . . /. ‘•»Nj • II li ■___-Ji ■" •■• • .• - v. '. '.c=5=5-TrS===^ . .•' -V-^- ! •••• M ;. • •• rvX ]£F“ I - I •.‘•^••■■ ■. ’■•'Vi ).• -. •••. -.i ** .f • • • I * ;.. i- • • »• V.* .•••r.i.' ' : ii!.V/. ^ ’ ••• -'.XN • •.. ■' •.- • • •; -. • >• •.:- v ;v\. •>• ^ ■^ - J >ii^L ••• •'• A -. -"~; •■tV./ •••■,' •V'*-:' .^mm • ...^ .'i| U ■ • • !•••».• .. . • :iiv: ••5P* •" • •• • *V -V*', ■***•'*.*/ **■ '*** * • •• ..*;•• ‘ ''J. ■ . ••• " --V J/ • • i •. «k .• N . • • l\ »;V/‘ •. ^ *• . . * . » , , * • • ». . ..........* •.. .*•« .• /* HARDCO\TR CALCULATION WORKSHEETSETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)F.XTSTINO HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________Length 75-250’250-500 ’ 500-1000'SourvW» '3?)4 . S.F.Width S.F.B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plaistic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE vJoa.TV\ A ^ol;xh 4^-0 + B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ 5c Length S-2.56 Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X *S>OUT^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE > + B ^ X 100 <a>8>c> 11 ''V HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250 ’250-500 ’500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway X X s= r: S4 S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X \<hO E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -4o|^ + B ISIS'? X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___ X Length Width X X X B. Garage X ftS'4 C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk • X X t 7g E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TO"^L ^OPERTY AREA IN ZOI^^^^ X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. = S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.'ah. S.F.a S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. . > >f •xv, •S.F. S.F. \ ~ S.F. ^ % A B yi. i LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, HARDCOVER - 1392 Baldur Park Road (^TAFP v H" ^ 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-1C 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) 384 sf 112 sf 496 sf / 7,875 = 6.3% 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) 718 sf 488 sf 2,465 sf 264 sf 50 sf 3,985 sf/15,200 = 26.2% 0-75' South: Part Garap.e (4x24.1) Gravel Driveway (112+660+220+1056) Timber walls & borders (280x0.5) 96 sf 2,048 sf 140 sf 2,284 sf/7,725 = 29.6% PROPOSED HARDCOVER: 0-75'North: NONE 0 sf = 0% 75-250':House and Garage (See sketch) Pat’ IS and walks (See sketch) Driveway (See sketch) 3,364 sf 896 sf 1.728 sf 6,288 sf/15,200 = 41.4% 0-75' South: Driveway (See sketch)605 sf / 7,725 = 7.8% Total Existing Hardcover = 496+3985+2284= 6,765 sf / 30,800 = 22%of total lot btal Proposed Hardcover = 6288+605 = 6,893 sf / 30,800 = 22.4% of total lot . • V •». 1 «.•U--Ji / •---- ** * ---- I* •X ! \• \ *xv. ' “'x. |o»vfe “rrq \y 1 1 1 N r \ \ <» m M ^W/ BTT^^r ^ B^ 1 / ••• •: # ■ • ?■ A* > * / 11 / I - - \t/ 1^ -* I L-—r• •*ix. ✓ avoa >avd anoTva *<n UaiVM TVMMOM .KfcCfc C-Vl^ b ='St>‘ _________ P 5’/4,X/ u \ I \ " 1 x^ %D 3- •cn ^ p/^ofost'-i bY (?r Wel($.|'(/So6.Mc>ob> 'BAze JD^TA / “? 1 Z- 5694427 City of * 5'% RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2831 A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL VARI7JJCES TO MUNICIPAI. ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 6 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 PILE #1544 TftAliSFER fNTEREaes/f wifunxmxiifsa .^UG 21 1990 CO MINN. -DEPUTY 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 i MS pill ms City of OHOrVO „. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI *5 .*. .. ^*r t-^ u> V*\ 2831 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 i City of ORONO ^v:!^ U;"i m llUf;RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIt * - - NO.2831 iV?U 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 necassary to provide a safe and low-hardcover <_ ,cess 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 -•j.* '§M City of OKOrVO r. "i.v w* RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2831_________ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS \ -*'\ " ' •’ "'J W«''- 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 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. Jn 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. -. 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 excavation remaining from the removed residence back to pre-existing grades conforming wiuh the 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 southerly 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 required by the City. Page 4 of* 6 ■»> City of OR,OIVQ. vi - % i>\ >' ' < ••• V. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI LrA\??A>'i V^'AAAt J- . ' A*. * • NO. _ 2831 h applicant is advised that no additional hardcover ®3^3^be allowed on this property in excess of that granted with the 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 txtle of the property. July, 1990 ATTE ST; Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of 'b&^thy yjf^ Property Owner( _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City ClsrJc Page 5 of 6 City of OROINORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2831 .v;•V rSTATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN } ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of July, 1990, by James R. Gra-c. 6 Dorothy M. Hallin? Mayor & City Clerk of the City of V municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Cib STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 0,THERESA L. NAAS NOTAAV puBuo - Minnesota .HENNEPIN COUNTY s.» yir My commission expiros M.92 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) }ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ... /j-v of f 199 » before me a Notary%ublii-^ithin and for said CountTTpersonally the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of "6 m <— tjz---------------- ^' ^ i0O.CO^ ... - - -''•s* * 7p...................... ......................................................... . \ ! \u-*-* -^ — .va^' \ I •B)tHi&[T Al^esst, A>«. ZSB",jCes^OZ-. AJo / ^gB / ..<-j^.; ••,^.viS .Wl4i. uoJ<.e> - 4 ooO£^ • lo* M* ri* • ^ -S *. ca^o •• - # •• •' # /*>^'^ Ty ^ - '''•^<5.:,. *~ ?J».y — — ^ ’ \ PZA^J To:Frosa:Date:Planning Commission Chairman Kelly Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron# Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator January 11, 1989 A-/Subject: #1363 Roger & Becky Berry, 1j92 Baldur Park Road -Variance/CUP - Public HearingZoning Districrc - LR-IC, single family, 1/2 acre, sewered Application - Request for variances for hardcover, lakeshore setback, an average lakeshore setback. COP/variance for grade changes in 0-75 lakeshore setback zone. Xtiot of Ssiiibitc Exhibit A ~ Exhibit B ~ Exhibit. C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exh-ibit K - Exhibit !• - ■pertinent Pacts - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Neighboring Property Owner Acknowledgements Survey With Existing Site Plan Sujrvey With Proposed Site Plan Preliminary Elevation Views Prelisdnarv Floor Plans•Jk Proposed Grading Plan Hardcover Calculations Submitted Hardcover Review by Staff Baldur Park Area Variance Listing i.The property is bordered on the north and south ends by Lak<i Kinnv^tonka. Per staff calculations, hardcover in the various zones i.z summarizec*. as follows: • is) ••*v2!50' r*-75 • (N) •OTAL 0-75’ {N ft S) Existing 1,093 s.f. (25.U) N,n0 i{.>:. (26.0%) 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 7,5,8 s.f. 15,500 s.f. 7,950 s.f. 2,255 s.f. (14.6%) 15,498 s.f. IJT the 0-75' zones, there is a net hardcover decrease of 335 s.f. Tl 75-250' zone, there is a net hardcover increase of 1,933 r.' Overall, there is a net hardcover increase on the property of s.f. Please review Exhibit K for a more detailed layout of hnrdr'^”* on this property. In t!ie north 0-75' zone, the existing house encroaches J9* in?r average f o t b a c k zor>r. The p r o p o s e d re s i d e n c o w j ] 1 »■' r ' apvroxi.r.**to 3 y ‘V into the average setback zone, with decks ' auoroxi rav.ol V j i ' into ti>at rc-no. am p si ?f/idi«. m ■'■M ".'^it;'^ -- *. *tf;-■‘•v'*)Jc-v .v.-lMi ronir.a F:lo il?63 J*»ru.iry 11 » rD<;r r of 4 3,T„o c.,Mir.M rosyVnrc ‘-r r.cM-s lnv.r5hnrc JJ:' " f"’U • fl oi' . be o 1 i no. Tho ^rotosed j;h. roltro, with n clr^ shcrolino, with n dock arm brv:.'50 nt ifj' ^‘,V',^f' i ,»« e)ii>to1ifo Tbo iroios*'«l bo»i:-o construction :SL.r/;:’^"n^’.//c';;.';^fsr,l:;Vr,.\n ,‘h/..o.... o-.^- .on,. rn., ,vH><on<.n nro Vj*; Mn'r'iUrrVcr'r.ntcK Mructurt-F .o '!'*‘J'* j„q .[... l.nk.^nhni*- r-rtl-.n-V ..^linncc in {•ouovor, Vlnr roc’ nX tiro .it tho sruthrnst cornrr of the in. {..ttoeVr. would likrly result in cW-st ruction ol tliat tr . .• .... craTf , oouo* * 0(1 .1 dot o i 1 oH I I c I Msec! <ir.icl i Ml I 1 an for i»r*Tc^irn ^ r»^ nil of til*.* heIIso# to tl'i.s I topi tv, '■’1'Y • ‘ ^ \ rosil’onco will bo nuct. ver; (': now n:..clrs w. I I 1 r .1 . .pho .^v^ 1 icnnts •ntqrr and s{.ronn cut t "'’** *'' ,ir ohiiuio* r.mr t lio bouse ami in the .iro |.rci.osiro to nnkc ’''’.Y', ?, «,'ou«r laveut. The driveway .Trr.i ill i -esay area t c .tecon noc.y o th( i “.r, ,L / to oven out the slcn' of will he r i 1 Ird wi t h 1-. Y* o-i*'* -one, the (ii.idino consists of • be driveway. Tn t»'t' ° ‘ ‘ " V .,cb as V. rat or i mi down • o filliro above the ox i s'i no ' | \'V’t n ‘bo nottb n-7..' rone, triqiial qradr abo'it f>f> fto” \ jj. ,,, .^. ._j. pt-.iuinn about • ^1* iiL I 1 1 i‘*'s :»!•* roj. c»5 1 in lu.s *l I v.i' - >i#' i to 4V ?fc-n. the sborrMne and wo,Vine i-- | "f ^.a-’N ,.roat.> a walVcut level. A Vb " ict r "r ouu* of di.t to irM.'":’ •:n7bo^o;tb V/t’^.^o;::" sVMirotod in sta^f ... botw,or. TS Mu\ 100 riil'if Thi* C:*\ Fr:<nriMT hos ' •** r j '>:»*« 1 t • rr* is .i!«- • *!••.•!? i vn. t « *1 11 >I • i** r 1* t • • 1 • : •*•. HU * # f« i * «•' • h« I I f *1 ^ I t M I b . • 11 \ 111- 1 i % Discussion - Ar.»*>i: u.'hn\ •• 5^*f rt •' u i^t it •! hoi.T.**o('nst I ur t i on ,...,..r.. t,-. .‘.T-. 1 i • i'!> of "V .-istit.i sr.-.i :,m! lain. I t .•• . d.-m- on ?Ml.U.i IMiV -load !.al.*u? l-aii I or •: I •(,. 1 a ‘ ar b('* n .M-euiimt .t .> »*UI ? • ».. •;*% I »Ui ? r.*» I ^ I ''.V no * fm ',»• i m ■mhn&H m ■; rn»j • / * ,».•■ '.♦V-.** V< * * * • IIlIiT*«. t-'UV rVr^is.- . .. ;y*5i«Ks#^ V- •■ ..-•^ fr^ , r:v* - •'va’/.V-’ V^-'-Vi ... A’-- ''•* •? r. vm Vftna tVa fill to accoaxodato tho rcviocd diivway Sr°io;ro*i«=i«at«ly «» »*"’* “® *'"’^* gara^d uccesa oituatioa aeoxs rathar quaationable. .* Ba..d cn .!». l»catio» oi &«TroVo.“a'ricr«nd*SS ir.^SKca ‘« r..trlet.d by con.tructlon of tha no«f houoe. Bogorolnj hordcov.r, th. »' hardcover on the property ere ♦•©nd to nake the hardcover Increases the projorty, bet the ‘•"over.?* hardcover oh the propertynore significant than on flat lots. o o»ount of structuralKcroauoo from 6,700 s.f. to ^,300 a.f. hardcover on the ^ ®°Wgvtiy towards the high end of what has 250' aone frora 26.5t ^®. p\rx. The total proposed hardcover, typically been ®\®ti?“iot area in hardcover, is proposed at fihown a« a percent has occurred on Baldur Park (see26.8», which is very typical of what has occj Exhibit L). ^:s :-4 if 1 • f i ■■§ t V ?! c^<• *'■ *^ * V. M 05? WAVS to irofiuco ^!t£i)r<icovQir on tno «-t‘‘r^ncAhrheoaVVur’l«r'«^^^ •6hix» Vii::> ti-.e yv&:^c3c6 bouca. V :#A', ' Z<uj J:C‘^czr.-i^^A^coi •• • y'p£i; on tuo obovo iactn, ««o««b. «na obooEvatlons, atolt wooia j OX lowing rccoamanda^onai ' •' "■ V.;;-:,\.;-jV-.»- ••A.p#« . , • .**.A^ *• •■- n* • • • <•;•.>, • <-v *^..Y*>'r;... • A-i'ii-.-tv*-A-ri..,;;'-’ the If- ./■;^K,v.-,,>.rwi;; • •• r’;*’‘^-.-vv^;i ... *??-*'“*“ mm”th”«iuire?75', 5Bls xoQolroaont woula b. e.noi««nt wltb s,aat City practice io siuilor oituatlon**. ' .■" ! J. B„licor.bo Ebooia CXCC651VO J.COVO* doraso in ordar do roduco dho onount b/. ;■ :;vm| 3. V/.5 1’*“?'^“'^kavo t“'?M^e“d^/ildbVotb dbo 0' ‘“i* tdldtivoly r.Incx- coa.javtd to t.hooe other cases. ^ '*1* •. 4. projervation of Mduro “OM on ‘'jj* h<^lp\o*oofMn ’’dho “dSnuflToVdtcal h'arVhn... of dhi. conadduodion a. vl.«ad fro. across the lake. [••Id", ! W\7*'^- i -t.> *r- ;•■•'... C-T V* w- • •*' • T. .. ,.-. •- - Vr'r d .V V V. » *» n '^ • V* i J > ' /*»*■ -.* ‘ .? • J 5. The Vtopoaad ®®J°ff^\'^t^^^t'do’rai.o'd*hJhou8e^ dboraby apparendly nacoaaldaded Oy tho P reauldlnc in whad could bo f-*V - --oXVrdiiSirinr.Vtu.dr. ’ralSa^”“^«"*b.rrrtrdo«. db. lo. un.. and not on to neighboring propertiofr i^lanning Conuaission is dij^cAon to revise the request andthe City Council or to give applicants direction bring bacJc an alternative site plan. b i*^ ’ • ?=A-! . mi A v^j: •. vi‘ rVr ko'^v ; • . ‘I 1^: V- « «» q'~ 2^‘ ot^ fiULO^ Iai AUHOIAT P<tO<*oSCt» , -l,- 90^ S.5166 pp pje.oPose^ fliP/oU -3 * >£flP77f^ //M pieivr^iAY Jr /'i-zy/; t^‘ N Dec- 2c:i pl'";wluy V J » l : ;^•j L • I • Ks L. .•• • rf^. < :‘rA %*’’;V*7Sl • '• f- .>jvX ■mm'i'SIfl' ■ j •/ V^A*^i V •: V r^SVJ . KH.TO5S 07 TE piMaiiw cosoossios HESTISO * *. •sc .v-s ras «hl= propo«l »!■«> >>i“ill J apolicani is ho had ai^v.uau neighbor to nolghbors? Mr» schoonwottor explained that the . S2*tho ®no?S^bad r” o?i?ioa. mainly because he was S2i2iw Pi. « pidridd. , ^ 7.V- •! can •»roooing* circunatance was Sol Iowa ®*’^^*“^*“.‘■‘^'l^^viewi^f^*avarago lakeahore setbacks, iiypically ccaaiuosau wacn ths ^property directly north She quQStior.od w.';at tho^lakoohoro setbacks Cor the oJ lir. i.auaer‘s. GaCrrcn observed that if one were to ,..uu xu^ o« CP point, or piSilsoll’c, PC 1. tti. pPop.rty. more vor, no ecppont. f«n th. puiUc tc.rdlng tht. ».tt.r and the public bearing vas cloood. 7«c«a« xa XIqv . seconded by Planning It was ooved by Chai..nan Fell /» ae^ ooplication «1362, Co5!aissior.«r Cohen, to o?^«” troii vhatovor .oorco aub5.et to n avUasV laXa.hore sotbneXan ^;C3 KiXrilt 6 B^dCl* SSRaY i,*yj2 htu C ju CH parx koai > Ve'aiCliMJCiiS r» cr n M S.o”%"/i“v\t crtiilcpto Oi MPlUng ««. duly noted. The applicanta wore present for this natter. As ex-£)lained by i^^orler^to^denoliah Gui.'ron, the Berry's currently the hardcover onan existing residence and rebuild. ^ t.*.^ property consists of ® house. The proposal calls continues uph.it 11 to attached garage, ^ho £q- ^ nov jTOsidonco with e p » -yi^a bu^ would becoine sligi«^lyl lstJly would rorain in the sauo area, but wouao «:ao?or. It is the the n^!Vttached garage, it detached garage. ^ portion of the yard bywill be necessary to raise a P Rrtrrv's are proposing * valkfill in the south 0-75* tone. The ^rry a no^^h 0-75' out which will reciuira grading to j« preferred not to locate the 2ono. Ono of the reasons the Be Y a P ig to preserve a hou.o SaltrOT said it »oold b. n.=o...ry to wk. Ta" «t i„°«dor to .chi.v. th. v.lk-out. py.„ni„, Co™l,.loner BoUov. .xpr»..d h.r „,.r..tlo„, ot ■s ;'-■S’Vajfi/■ < . tel ;v4iC.^r. r:-;? \H\m- ‘ f'* I .f’r.,t;. 5 ^ V ' r--*r*: V-< *. . -•... - ■-.• *..: • .T?,r t* c*.<7vs^ , v^. ? «lite"- • -. ••! i- /*rA>^V^ : *.- -«i ■• »•. 1; - ^> H 'C c» ;, i *; . ^ •,;• * »r r'**' f ./1. • I. *. »^ '*5: , •* -/A' •uylyWrt^ •’•'« ■^Sv^Kp] ^ lONVmiS 02 VS2 PlMSnW CO«MSSIOH KZ27IKG JAliGARY 17 * . 1989 I -•. • re3idonco. Sho folt that a valk-out ohould only occur as a roault o2 o\^!^cra«uo fo ccMc-.vci .5 wcl"«-cut. ■ Kr. oorxy explained that tha walk-o»^ would cc^ ^hd'ti ouch difj^dironco ^4in who oitlo wxn? boooaumto ♦ ;:r. hod Lund, the r»ovoio?or for tho Borry'o# prooonted accor-jliaho Pl^innin? Cesaxaioaioaer Eanaon did not bollovo tho proposed ixouro ^?it veil with tho situ* Eaaacn niQf.tionod whether tho oaX tree would ourvivo t^ co-atructioc.* fir. Load had conaultod a profoaoional who lafojraod hin that tho trao would bond toward its roots* J??”®® aioaarod to hava its aain roots away from tho area to bo dicturboci. Eo aloo hod on estli&ato fron e tree valued cuch a tree at $4,400.00. Planning eha*^(0^ believed that any grading that occurred would threaten the oak treo. ' , Planning Coaaiooioner Brown said that tho Planning coiioiaslon hsd boon fairly coaoistont in aaking new structures coaforci. Johneon coaaaatod that Baldur Park Road urea that acuiioc to consiatently retire vuriancos. to tho 3/4 acrou that the Berrys had to work with* ho did no believe tboro should be a need for variances. ?:iorc wore no coaaeacs from tho public regarding thie matter and the public hearing was closed. lu was Bovod by Planning Coamiosioner Cohen* seconded by Planning Cooniscioaor Hoos, to table this item. sene direction for tho applicants. The not want to sao any hardcover or cutting and ^ing on the north s’do in tha 0-75'. Within the 0-75* rono on attached garage must bo offset by removal of the detached 9aj*ge. Sr! Ie«y*iy«.cd hi. ihiir. to fdetachod garage had to he removed. Withxn the 75 250 zone it was tho concanoua of tho a^^♦•h>n hArdcover. They also wanted tha applicants to aanore co SS .votoV. Soshoro .«h.=k. B.110W. 'V..VtV vo“ll that compliance with the V^® A -elle^cause a oubatantlal reduction in tho eiaa Tht '.ro5lSih'riV.tl!n^J "* p".nniS| !«t'‘ir.i“c;r'o„ t='hV ^n7r« \v\t‘«/ the 0-75' cone. The natural contours of the property must remain. Motion, Ayes-7, Nays-O, Motion passed. r-'-•v ♦ _• *?1 f i-’ .E' 1 1'^?! li'-' ••>. ‘ 'fiJ N ■ { -I fe| 1'* I*n f.i .• :: . ■ .smt-sraaco. ijsj ■ ■tiltfe''' ■ .. "'• ■. : txma ts fitssisa ccxa^ Dato of Kotictt: 1/24/39C7 059» '1 .‘if *%; >* V v-;» •p.Oo B03C 6o • A71«»*^357Ciystul 3ay. «;« __tlzZLtll ;■"••'• •••.’>;-' yo» r.o'or fi Eec'/:y Eor^y ------------- Uoodric«;o coi-pora>ii«*. :|^r\ "is3?r“ variance _____________________________________________ L-----------------------------7*#T^‘^Ia vcast 7 For 0 Againat CS7233 SOi Rod LundUoodricgo Corporatio;i ICSOO Lyndale Bioosii^xfftoaa Ha'^ 55420 • : V ''i, d ‘ • ■' rV’ f. • • .<«■■’.;•••<..• 1' 1*. •* / . ..: 'mxH-J 'I'.t., •; .■>:■ xa : •.%> t» . 'j* , 1 /n/aa V</Z3t 7 For 0 Againat*'■ •* • OATS OF X232SW»I 1/17/89 aiming Ccaaiaaioa r«coaa»ado tho «oXl«»lagi Vabled for roaaona noted below KO-fAS SF3C1AX. CCJa>IVi«3i; -------------------------- proposal. General directSnlive!. w"S?Uca^^t7"by PlwSiing"cc»®ia8ion. 1 Moriiiiorly 0“*75* iiOn6t a) EliBiinato all as necessarv to roatoro old 2. Southerly 0-75* . hnrdcover associated with detached*’ a«.ch.a with .tt.=h.a 3-atall garage. ”!”s£*H3I:v« in 75-250- .on.. c) UXU\X\» ------------- . jr 4 >? Applicor'ts* next scheduled ms" dieting is Monday. ^3-iioS‘o.- fr :r::i«.i application as formally withdrawn. ..•^t *.• • *4 ■x> > >lV» ,^r .< .» ^ •<: »% ---•“VjiVl Xlcnt no. »c«nl. o.»lnln, .adUlon.l meorr.tlcn. vU.a. the zoning Departtnent (473-7357.. the official rlannlnq Connipplon X, you dc.irc ";,Vx “j5V?ror t..o """• ^^lire nViiiintiAt. aaw S^prov^l' by the Planning Cc^isnion. :«i' :te' iVi • te ': ■' • f'^'^4 ' i ’:• HI * Xj’ '.i'.". - • < Is:; 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. LAND USE JUNE, 1980 • • 3. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. • 4. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY V7ILL 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 1,00L feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. 6. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reason­ able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 ^-3 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 • 13. 14. 15. 16. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special' fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configura­ tions, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform. City- established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density Increase. CMP 4-15 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. . I 7.PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGEWAYS SHALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OP DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. 8. rm X • PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMEN' 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. Dredginr 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 circumstanr;es only where absolutely necessary to maintain existing natural . . parian access permanently lost by something beyond the control cf the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owner's desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons for disrupting s^n.;itive lake beds. CMP 3-20 TO;Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator June 11,1998 #2383 Christine Valerius 3750 Bayside Road Preliminary / 'bdivisionA^ariance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acres) Note: A small portion of the parcel is located in the RR-IA zoning district. However, there is not enough land in this zoning district to have a buildahle pad on either lot, only the LR-IA requirements apply to this subdivision. Total Area:4.51 acres Lot 1 Lot 2 Total Area 2.23 acres 2.28 acres Dry Buildable 1.38 acres 1.93 acres Driveway Easement .1 acres Application: The subdivision proposes a 2 lot division that includes creating one new lot. A wetland credit and a lot width variance is required for Lot 1. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management, Subd. 15., Land Development and Platting, A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements, (3) Area Credit for FIoc'’ Fringe in Sewered Areas- ^ Section 10.23, Subd. 6. B.: LR-IA District, Minimum Lot Requirements Section 11.03, Subd. 2.24, Definition of Minimum Lot Area LR-1A Zoning Requirements: Requirements: Lot Area= 2 acre minimum Lot Width= 200 feet Loti 1.38 dry buildable, needs wetland credit 151' at 50' front setback \\7o easement 181 at 50' front setback with easement Lot 2 2.28 acres (conforms) 214' at property line and 50' front setback A lot width variance for Lot 1 is required because the 200' minimum cannot be met. Lot Standards The existing homestead will be located on Lot 2 and will conform to minimum lot size requirements. Lot 1 to be created requires a lot width variance because 200' is not available at the front property line nor the 50' front setback line. The surveyor calculated the lot width at the 50' setback with and without the driveway easement. A suitable building pad exists for the new' Lot 1 to construct a new residence that can meet all setback requirements. An accessory structure is currently located on what will become Lot 1. Accessory structures are not allowed on lots without a principal structure. The accessory structure will need to be removed. Sewer The current residence on Lot 2 has sewer. A sewer line is located in Bayside Road. Lot 1 can be provided with sew'er, subject to the applicant paying the sewer connection charge at the time of final plat approval. Drainage A marsh/wetland exists of the north portion of the parcel. The wetland is approximately 1.2 acres in area. The applicant will need to provide conservation and drainage easements across the wetland. The Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District will also need to review the subdivision to determine where stormwater ponding can be provided. Access The existing residence is provided with a gravel driveway from Bayside Road. The surveyor has indicated that Hennepin County will allow a driveway for the new parcel (Lot 1). 1 Engineer Review The consultant engineer has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and requested the following information: 1. Show the well location on the final plat for the residence on Lot 2. 2. Provide a utility constmction plan prior to final plat approval. 3.Provide a grading and erosion control plan for the entire parcel prior to final plat approval. 4.Applicant to consult with the MCWD to determine stormwater requirements. Final plat to incorporate MCWD recommendations. 5. Final plat to show all utility easements and drainage easements. Park Dedication Fee The City Assessor will need to review the plat and determine the fair market value. Staff Recommendation To discuss the proposed preliminary plat and the lot width variance. Attachments A B C D E Preliminary Plat City Engineer's letter Sewer Map Minutes from City Council 5/26/98 Sketch Plan report to City Council (Mil e's repoi i) 1 t APRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHRISTINE VALERIUS LOT 2. BLOCK 1. BURGERS BAYSIDE SECOND ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA trCAi DftfRPTinN Of « Lot 2. Bock 1. euRCe/IS BAYSSC SCCOfO A004TIC3N o : d«noU$ iron morkor Bear'mgt shown or« bosod upon on ostun«d dotun. strvfy Intsnds to show ths bounderi«s of the. obovs described propirty. ond Ihi location of on taisting house. sh«d, ord grovel drivowoy thereon. It does f«t purport to show ony other kr>pro«ements'or encroocfvrients. ** •* - * #• • • •e OATC <D /•X-M rtrtttf ».*r frr Mawn D€OO0 ■ COFFIN & GRONBERG. INC. COKSU.THC CNOfCIRS. LAIO SUtVtYOftS, STTE PLA^tCRS, 482 TAUAilACK AVENUC. LONG LAKE. IK 55M8 812-473-4141 That I AM A (M.Y IXt>«CO morCSSONAA. DCKCA IfCCh T>€ LAWS or l>€ STAIC Of MMCSOfA. PAtt ^•S-94 ie< LCOCt MAdCX . wrw OAt£ 3-25-98 joe NO. 98-C97 IT- Boneitroo. Rosene, Anderiik ^nd Associates, tnc is Affirmj: •/- Action/£qual Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. PE. • Joseph C. Andcflik. PE. • Marvtn L. Sorvala. PE. • Rjchard E. Turner. RE. • Glenn R. Cook. PE. • Robert G Schumchi. PE. • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W. Rosene. PE. and Susan M Eberlm. C PA.. Senior Consultants Associate Princ/pa/j Howard A SanfoiJ. PE. • Keith A. Cordon, PE. • Robert R. Pfefferfe. RE. • Richard W. Foster, PM. • David O Loskota. PE. • Robert C Russek. A.I.A. • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T. Rauimann. PE. • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P. Andersoa PE. • Mark R. Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE., LS. • Robert F. Kotsmuh • Agnes M. Ring • Michael P Rau. PE • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE. Offices: St. Paul. Rochester. Wilimar and St. Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl U'eOsite www.bonestroo com 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderiik & Associates Engineers & Architects June 8,1998 Elizabeth VanZomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Valerius Subdivision File No. 139-2383 DearLiz: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed two-lot subdivision for Christine Valerius. The site is located at 3750 Bayside Road (C.R.84) north of Bayside Road and south of the Luce Line Trail in the north half of Section 5. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: The existing access to the site is a private driveway off of Bayside Road. A shared driveway located west of the existing access serves two adjoining properties located south and west of the site. The shared driveway crosses the southwest comer of the subject property. It may be appropriate from a safety perspective to combine the two driveways and have just one access onto the County Road. Hennepin County should review and comment on the plans. 2. Utilities: The well location for the existing house should be shown on the final plans. Sanitary sewer exists along the north side of Bayside Road. A service wye will need to be cut into the existing 10-inch PVC sewer to serve Lot 1. Utility construction plans should be submitted for review. 3. Grading: grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. The NWL and HWL of the existing wetland on the north end of the property are 932.5 and 934.6 respectively. The basement elevation on Lot 1 should be designed accordingly. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the wetland and County Road. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the home on Lot 1. 4. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Stubbs Bay drainage district. The south half of the site drains southerly to Stubbs Bay. The north half of the site drains northerly to an existing wetland identified as SB-P9.1 on the SWMP. According to current Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) rules, subdivisions larger than 2 acres require the construction of a NURP pond to treat stormwater from the site. This subdivision is larger than 2 acres and the MCWD should review the plans. Phosphorous loadings leaving the site should be limited to a maximum of 0.28 pounds/acre/year. A drainage area map with pre and post development calculations should be submitted for review. _________________________________________ 2335 West Highway 36 - St. PauL MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 f.. r' f 5. Easements: Utility easements should be shown 5-feet wide along the interior lot line. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetlands, ponds and drainage ways. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono i J D ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#10) #2363 William H. Bockmann, 1130 Loraa Linda Avenue - Variances - continued Bockmann asked if they could add 1’ to the two-car garage if they have to eliminate one stall. The two-car garage would be 21’ wide. He stated that Mr. Gountanis had convinced Council that 22 ’ was a State standard. Peterson responded that she did not wish to amend her motion. (#11) #2365 CHRISTINE VALERIUS, 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD - SKETCH PLAN Christine and Gary Valerius were present. Gaffron renewed the proposal to create one additional lot from a parcel that contains 3.31 acres of dry buildable and 1.2 acres of wetland, and take advantage of the wetland credit. The applicant wanted to submit a preliminary plat application but staff suggested a sketch plan because of the following issues: 1) whether the property would be considered ’sewered’ since only one unit was assessed with the Stubbs Bay project, and 2) whether the City ’s intent with the Stubbs Bay sew-er project was to create the possibility for wetland credits in the Uvo acre zone to allow subdivision if it were not possible without the wetland credit. Since the City is proposing to take away the wetland credit, it was difficult to advise the applicant how to proceed if the credit were taken away prior to preliminary subdivision approval. Gaf&on indicated another issue is that a neighboring property on Landmark Drive was given the same credit that the applicant is proposing to use. An additional sewer unit was given to the second lot and a connection charge was paid. . Planning Commission reviewed the application and referred to Council noting concern about the width variance. The front lot lines proposed at the 50’ setback are 185’ and 214’ where 200’ is required. Options available to the applicant include acquiring additional dry buildable (but there is none available to make up two acres in each lot); asking Council to declare the lot sewered property, grant the wetland credit and lot width variance; requesting a rezoning; or selling a portion of the property to an adjacent owner to get the value out of the property. The applicant wants to proceed with the application as proposed and use the wetland credit. Valerius filed a fomial plat application on May 21, 1998. ... Council needs to address the following issues: - Is the property considered sewered, and if not, will Council allow it to be considered as sewered and grant the wetland credit: Should a moratorium be placed on the use of wetland credits, which would basically block the applicant’s request? Is granting a lot width variance a possibility? ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#11) #2365 Christme Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road - Sketch Plan - continued Gaffron added that there would be park dedication fees and sewer connection fees totaling approximately $20,000. Gaffron confirmed that the entire property is within the MUSA boundary. Christine Valerius distributed a handout stating her position and a letter supporting the subdivision signed by the neighbors. She compared her proposed subdivision to that of Mr. Evans on Landmark Drive noting that he was only granted one sewer unit; both her lots have more dry buildable than his; he had one lakeshore lot and so does she; access is off Bayside Road for both subdivisions; standards of the LR-1A zoning district are met; and she had twice as large a buildable envelope as Evans. She referred to the 15’ width variance stating that the existing driveway was the reason for the configuration. She could redesign the lot lines so that only a 1 ’ variance would be required, but it is aesthetically more pleasing to leave the driveway as it exists. She asked Council to declare the property as sew’ered and grant a variance for lot width. She expressed her concern that Council was changing the ordinance at the same time as her application. Jabbour commented that the applicant was proceeding with the thought that Council was against her proposal. He explained that the consideration to eliminate wetland credits was a result of the recent Carpenter subdivision. The City does not want to provide a vehicle to allow greater density in the two acre zones. The City was not aware that her application was coming before Council. Gaffron confirmed that discussions about the applicant ’s proposed subdivision had taken place prior to Council ’s request to look at eliminating wetland credits. Kelley asked about the hardship for the width variance. Valerius responded that she wants to be able to sell the property and not have to change the driveway. Kelley stated he was not in favor of the subdivision and was not on the Council when the Landmark drive subdivision was approved. He did not feel the present Council was bound by decisions of past Councils. Jabbour stated that the applicant has the right to proceed with the subdivision under the existing code and she should be allowed to proceed and get the wetland credit. He added that proceeding with the application did not mean the subdivision would be approved. Peterson agreed that the subdivision request should be considered as an application prior to any code changes. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#11) #2365 Christine Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road - Sketch Plan - continued Flint questioned if there "vvere other subdhision applications in a similar situation. Gaffiron responded that the only other application he was aware of is the Brook P'rk Realty proposal. Flint indicated he would not oppose this proposal but did not want a precedent if there were more applications before the City. Gafifron reiterated that staff had advised the applicant to proceed with the subdivision as a sketch plan to proyide direction to the applicant. A public hearing would be held to address the lot width variance as part of the subdivision process. Jabbour suggested that the applicant proceed with the proposal and attempt to do whatever is possible to have no variances. Valerius confirmed that the next step was to meet with Gaffiron to continue with the preliminary plat application. (#12) #2367 LAWRENCE GLEASON, 140 HACKBERRY HULL - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4082 Mr. Gleason was present. Van Zomeren presented pictures of the house and reported that the property is in the R-IB, 'A acre district and conforms to the lot area. The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add 6 ’ to the existing house on the north side, which encroaches 2’ into the 10’ side yard setback. She noted the house is on a slope, and the proposed addition is in a logical place. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0. Flint asked if living close to the park was a problem. Gleason responded that they love the park and enjoy the children and families who use it. They see the park as an asset. Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4082 granting a side yard variance of 2’ for the property located at 140 Hackberry Hill. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.' •Zm •• Gleason asked if he ever wanted to sell his property if the City was interested in purchasing it, Council confirmed that they were very interested. £ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 21,1998 Item No.: fj Department Approval: Administrator Approvai: Name: Michael P. GafTron Titie: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2365 Christine Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road - Sketch Plan Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre Application:Sketch Plan Review of proposed subdivision to create one additional building site from this parcel containing 3.31 acres of dry buildable land plus 1.20 acres of wetland. Each of the 2 resulting lots are proposed to take advantage of the wetland credit per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subd. 15(A)(3). List of Exhibits A - Memo and Exhibits of May 11,1998 B - Plat of Bayside Landing Second Addition (1992) C - Petition of Support Submitted By Applicant 5-18-98 Please review the memo and exhibits of May 11. Applicant was advised by staff in early April to proceed with this proposal as a sketch plan rather than as a formal preliminary plat, given the issues of: 1.Whether the property is considered as 'sewered' given the fact that only one unit was assessed as part of the Stubbs Bay project, for the existing house; and 2. Whether the City's intent in sewering Stubbs Bay was to create the possibility for wetland credits in the 2 acre zone to allow subdivision of properties which are not subdividable without the wetland credit. The fact that the Council is concurrently reviewing a zoning code amendment to eliminate the wetland credit makes it difficult to advise the applicant on whether she should proceed with a formal plat application. Staff does not wish to be in the position of having potentially usurped an applicants rights to come in under an existing code section by our recommendation to start the process with a sketch plan rather than a formal plat application. The issues noted above are perhaps somewhat muddied by the fact that virtually the same type of #2365 - Valerius May 21, 1998 Page 2 A request was approved for a property in this neighborhood in the same zoning district in 1992, for a propert)' which was only assessed a sewer unit for the existing house as part of the Stubbs Bay project. The only difference between that application and the current application is that the current application requires a lot width variance, although the proposed division line could be moved eastward to make the width variance very minimal. PI''lining Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this as a sketch plan on May 18. They referred it to Council for consideration in light of the concurrently proposed ordinance amendment. Some members expressed concern about the width variance, noting that we attempt to avoid these where possible but do grant them occasionally for cul-de-sac lots and in unique situations. At the Planning Commission meeting applicant presented a petition of support signed by neighboring property owners. Staff Recommendation . w- Approval of a lot area variance is not recommended due to the precedent that would set. The applicant's options absent such a variance include: 1. Acquiring additional dry buildable (none appears available); 2. Prevailing upon the Council to declare this to be sewered property and grant the wetland credit and lot width variance (as requested); 3. Requesting a rezoning of the site; 4. Selling a portion of the property to an adjacent owner (lot line rearrangement). Applicant wishes to proceed with the subdivision as proposed and on May 21 filed a formal application for preliminary plat approval. Council is requested to provide direction regarding whether this subdivision should proceed. City Attorney Tom Barrett has been requested to review the legal issues surrounding the concurrent and conflicting requests for use of / elimination of the wetland credit. Council should address: whether the property is considered as sewcfedanai^ot, will Council allow it to be sewered and the wetland credit granteil whether the issue of granting wetland credits is so critical that a moratorium should be placed on use of the credit. A moratorium would have the effect (^"Blocia] approval of the applicant's request if Council feels that is appropriate. whether the granting of a lot width variance is likelyf /V)0 To.Chair Smith and Planning Comii.ission Members Ron Moorse, City Admi istra. 'rMichael P. Gaffron, St J.or Planning CoordinatorMay 11,1998 #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 buildab’e 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 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 existing house was provided with sewer as part of the 1992-93 Stubbs 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 subdividablc. Only a stub to serve the existing house is shown on the sewer As-Built plans. The applicant had her surveyor 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 *>0' front setback line). However, the functional width of Lot 1 as measured perpendicular' 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 ana ^he Council found them to be justified. In virtually all other residential subdivisions since 1975, the City has held strictly to tlie 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 effect in 1970. It has also been used for at least one identifiable 'existing lot of record’ (West Femdale 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 system problems, must not be construed as an intent to suddenly allow the subdivision of otherwise 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 dry buildable land, of which 0.10 acres is a driveway easement serving homes at 3770-378U 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-1 A .standards, unless o *e of the following occurs: 1.Applicant acquires additional adjacent contiguous dry buildable land {however, there does not appear to be excess dry buildable in any adjacent property). 2.Council agrees to grant a second sewer unit and grants the wetland credit {which Council has indicated is not their general intentfor 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 scheduledfor the May 18 meeting).). 3.The Council finds there is sufficient justification to grant a lot area variance (which is unlikely because there is nothing unique about this situation as compared to the two cases noted earlier). 4.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 sewer is provided). Other Subdivision Issues/Factors The site is served by a single driveway within proposed Lot 2, which could function as a shared 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, but 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 ’and or a park fee of 8% ofthe fair market value of Lot l.Ifthe 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 Approv of the lot area variance for this new subdivision would be inconsistent with the City's past practice and is not recommended. There are no unique circumstances here, and no hardship making it ir .possible to use the land, since the land is being used for an existing residence. Approval of the lot width variance is a secondary issue. The City has granted lot width variances for subdivisions where additional land is lacking but a home can be built 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 sketcl. 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 his 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. CIT INO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Application # Date Received Amount Paid ^^fTr.erz) A PROPERTY LOCATION . . ^ Site address 3^^^ ^O/ 0^ o /Oo Property Identification Number (PID) '"2.1 ^^O'2-O Please check one - Property K abstract or____torrens? ^ Attach legal description to^pplication. APPLICANT Name Cf\£.(yh.o^ f)r\. ______________________ Address City__d (2.0/On./y\/^ _______Phone (home) Zip5S3'q Phone (work) OWNER (if diflferent than applicant) Name Address City__Zip Phone (home) _ Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District / r s/ /. 2 ^.s-/ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ * A< - /A PROPOSAL _____ Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) X Subdivision for New Building Sites / Existing Units / New Units •2. Total Units Number of Building Sites r •.. % I- C":\ . • •V ' . * •• •' '•V"'•o.* / •• W ^*1 Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Z____Units per ±__Acresuxul:> pci ___i-kvico j Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land ^, ^Sf 2.^ Z ^ Ax. Residentid —-------------—. Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment offees (refer to "application fees" listed below. , . • , ^ Completed application form. ^ Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. ^ ---- ^ ^ Hmnepin County Department of Finance fim Lntag OfficS"'sSi*a°nlI'f “ separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ' ’ — Dfltc MLNIMUM 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 __________________________________ 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 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 -------- Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) • _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) -------- Renewal of Class I an d 11 Subdivision Application $200.00 (Np change fi-om original application) -------- Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) Totals B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft; Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub lin. ft. X .50 “ S lb. ft. X .50 = $ _____Proposed Watermab Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ---------- _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excludbg 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 agrewdojiroj^e all bformation required or requested by the Zonbg Admbistrator, City Engbeer, City Attorney, Planing Commissiot^ffad^un^^ecessaty to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Applicant'sSignatureV^"*^^^^^^^ ' _____________________ Date _____________ Owner's Signature V^/' Applicant must have ail submittals bto the City Office 25 days before the Plannbg Commission meeting. Plannbg Commission meetbgs are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetbgs of the Plaimbg Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetbg, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend b your place and to advise the Buildbg & Zonbg Office of this change prior to the meetbg. 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATE DF SURVEY FOR CHRISTINE VALERIUS OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1. BURGERS BAYSIDE SECOND ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA irfiAr nrscRiPTioN or pr^mis^s i Lot 2. Block 1. BURGERS BAYSOE SECOND ADDITION 0 : denotes iron morker Beorin9S shown ore bosed upon on assumed dolum. This survey intends to show the boundories of the above described property, ond the locotion of on existing house, shed, end grovel driveway thereon. It does not purport show ony other improvements or encroochments. \ •* . ^ S 89*40 ‘35'* E 176.76 PRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHRISTINE VALERIUS OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BURGERS BAYSIDE SECOND ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I-t>M N 89*44' 16" W 149.05 /3> Q.3>:> 2.2,2> ^<5- \ \ roCC OF VETLAfC /iA \/ \>/ / \/ / / /< 0 ,%< X v> // \* /'/ fi \ i z' £.Zft4C, A litd€. 0tf t ( X Jt.ttiMe. s 4 I C3 .4 \ \ \' ^ j/uct-. (?AS»ut-. r>^ ^4-. 1/C^' «?AS»V v T'. 6 - ArtS- ;«\ / / / ^____1 Ul » I ' Y: ---------------------f__________ i, I S 09*44'16"E 148.50 \ ....7/ ~ r 84^ I Tbayside roadi -N 89565 ’41" W 236.71 ClAeCt^ Ci2^i:.vr <«<? e«e^=w7 Ipr.Ai nr<;nBPTioN OF premises : Lot 2. Block 1. BURGERS BAYSDE SECOND AOO'TION o : denotes iron morker Bearings shown ore bosed upon on ossumed dotonx This survey Intends to show the hntmdarics of the obove described property ond the locotlon ’•* existing house, shed, and grovel drivewoy thereon. It does not put port > *^how ony other improvements or encroochments. 7>r>d 4//4 ^ 4,SttJc*€f jo f SvCi2.r> / ^ § 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 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. 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 sev/^r 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 ORONO CC 371 (4-1-84) q 1 3 3 3 a 3 Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover, Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). § 10.23 and Tree Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "LR-IA” 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-IA” 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-lA" 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-lA” 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 Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street Rear Yard 2 acres 200 feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet 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) 1 ' ji s 11.03 21 ''Inprovements, Private" Any improvement, 22. "Improvements, Public" - Any improvement, reauired by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider shall construct at subdivider's expense and for which the City will ultimately assume the responsibility for its maintenance and op a- ?ioi upon issuance of the certificate of satisfactory completion. 23. "Lot" - A tract, plot or portion of a i-ji rt»-hor oarcel of land intended as a unit for the ^S^p"o«?Xther°im“ed?at%' « future, or /rbuUdlbU for^building development. Every platted lot shall be a buildable lot or an outlot. ' 24 "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the • •».,«, ro^iiirad for each proposed lot as prescribed in the of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary se^er, each lot must contain a minimum of two rontiau^ous^ry 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 frea- at or below the’' flood orooertv All rural lots must comply with the City s on sit- septic /ystem provisions of the City Code. In sewer each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal’to the minimum areas as prescribed in the of the Cl tv code or half-acre, whichever rs 1®==, (exclusive^of pubnc and private rights-of-way, vehicular m^ni-s surface areas below the ordinary high water mark ot any surface wate? we?JInds or areas at or below the flood plain eleya- tion for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or flood plain area. or outlets whil^ meet°lll®of thf ?equl?ementr cLp?er of the City Code and this Chapter for the intended purpose. 26. "Lot, Outlot" - A lot which is intended only for public or private roadways, open space or °thet dse, which use must be' restricted by the appropriate easement and which use mu approved bvf the City at the time of final Pl^t approval. The use of^the outlot will thereafter be restricted by the appropr ji^0stict iV8 covGnant or open spac6 6as6ni0nt. 27. "Lot, Corner" - A lot situated at the intersection of two (2) streets, the interior ang e p intersection not exceeding 135 degrees. ORONO CC 419 (4-1-84) [. [ r r [ [ [ i [ [ [ r i I i \ I 0 0 May 18,1998 City of Orono 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 V 4 This letter is regarding the property we own at 3750 Bayside Rd. We purchased this properly 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 1. / 3. 3^ 4. Tbcfci 6. ^ ^-7-70 3 "70 ® J.775' ficufxJju/lJl 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Thank you for your support Christine & Gary Valerius if t «r» To; From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator June 11,1998 #2361 - William & LaWayne Yaeger, 310 Big Island - After-the-Fact Variances Public Hearing Property Legal Description: Record Lot #15 Legal Description: Lot 64, Morse Island Park Lots 64 & 65, Morse Island Park and Lots 8, 9,10 & 11, Morse Island Park Second Addition Zoning District: RS, Seasonal Recreational District Application:1. 2. Request for lot area/width variance and City designation of Lot 64 as an independent Record Lot in the RS District. Request for after-the-fact lakeshore setback, side setback and hardcover variances for construction of a new seasonal cabin to replace a pre-existing seasonal cabin on the property, and a side setback variance for a gazebo; both cabin and gazebo were constructed on the site without the required building permits. <10' A' C->o-ft- List of Exhibits A - Application & Hardship Statement Addendum B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Neighbor Acknowledgements F - New’ Cabin Floor Plan G - Big Island Map Showing Record Lot Designations H - Violation Citation: Staff Letter to Applicant 7-31-97 I - Record Lot Designation Background Materials J - Photos RS District Background In 1983 the City rezoned Big Island from LR-lA-1 Single Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict to RS, Seasonal Recreational District. The rezoning included establishment of comprehensive standards for development and use of the island. 0. .V * > #23' 1 - Yae^er June 11,1998 Pa^e 2 A key element of the rezoning was to designate individual lots or groups of commonly-owned lots, as "Record Lots", based on historic ownership and use patterns. Each Record Lot was numbered and categorized as "Subdividable", "Conforming", "Substandard" or "Substandard Unbuildable", based on acreage and on whether the site was currently developed. A total of 69 "Record Lots" were so designated, and automatic lot area variances were authorized for those that were considered as buildable Record Lots. Record Lot #15 Background Lots 64-65, Morse Island Park and Lots 8-9-10-11, Morse Island Park Second Addition, were designated as Record Lot #15, by virtue of their common ownership by Roy Ahem as of November 9,1981. Record lot #15 was categorized as "Substandard - Buildable" with a combined acreage of 2.5 acres. Ahem protested the Record Lot designation in 1983 and subsequently sold his six separate tax parcels to six different persons. Since each of the six parcels was (and is) considered individually unbuildable per the RS District ordinance, staff is not authorized to issue building permits until the six parcels are legally combined, or until the Record Lot designation is amended. Ahern’s six tax parcels have undergone a number of ownership changes since 1983. Currently, Lot 64 is owned by Mr. & Mrs. Yaeger, and Lots 8-9-10-11-65 are owned as five separate tax parcels by Nancy Lee Fames. Staff is advised that the Yaegers have discussed their dilemma with Fames with an eye toward poss’bly acquiring Lot 65. Lots 8-9-10-11 are inland, and would rely on City rights-of-way for access to the lake. Lot Area Variance Data Existing area of Lot 64: RS District minimum area: 10,761 sf (0.25 acre) 217,800 sf (5.0 acres) Range in areas of existing 'Substandard-Buildable' record lots: 0.18 ac - 4.3 ac Range in areas of existing 'Substandard-Unbuildable' record lots: 0.18 ac - 0.35 ac Number of'Substandard-Buildable' record lots 0.25 ac or smaller: Number of'Substandard-Buildable' record lots larger than 0.25 ac: 4 51 Average area of all 55 existing 'Substandard-Buildable' record lots: Mean area of all 55 existing 'Substandard Buildable' record lots: 1.12 acre 0.68 acre Defined width of Lot 64: 49' (The RS lot width standards. Section 10.31 Subd. 7, do not require a lot width variance for existing lots of record, but w'ould disallow subdivision to create a new lot less than 200’ in width, and would disallow a lot line rearrangement that reduces an existing lot to less than 50' in width)I #2361 -Yaeger June 11, 1998 Page 3 Potential Combination of Adjacent or Non-Adjacent Record Lots Applicants' attorney and a neighboring property owner have contacted staff regarding the possibility of combining adjacent or non-adjacent properties with applicants' lot, to result in no net increase of Record Lots on the island. One suggestion was that applicant acquire Lot 65, leaving Lots 8-9-10-11 as a separate Record Lot which would not abut the lake. This may be reasonable, and would be more attractive if 8-9-10-11 could be combined with another adjacent Record Lot that abuts the shoreline, but this appears unlikely so far. A second suggestion w'as that applicant acquire or gain certain buildability rights from some undeveloped Record Lots located some 600' to the northwest. These two record lots (#63 & #69) are individually unbuildable but would become buildable under Section 10.31 Subd. 6H if legally combined, because they would total more than 0.5 acre. The RS District standards do not provide for such a 'transfer of development rights' as was contemplated by the proponents. This would have to be the subject of a zoning amendment in staffs opinion; but it has some merit in that it would ultimately further the City's goal of maintaining low density on Big Island. In reviewing the 1982-83 documentation surrounding Ahern's dispute of the record lot designations, it appears that the City did not close the door on the idea of redesignating the Record Lot-status of individual lots or groups of lots, especially if the end results are no net increase in the number of building sites, and building sites that have septic capabilities. Recent Construction In July 1997 staff found a new cabin nearing completion on Yaeger's Lot 64 (see letter of July 31, 1997). A stop work order was posted and a violation citation subsequently issued for work without a building permit. The new cabin clearly was in violation of lakeshore setback and hardcover regulations. Tlie cabin also is missing a full perimeter foundation which is required under the RS ordinance. A gazebo of apparent recent construction w-as also noted on the site. (See photos) The new cabin replaces a pre-existing cabin of approximately the same dimensions and location which previously existed at the site, and which was apparently removed shortly before the new construction began (debris from the former cabin was noted to the rear of the new cabin - see photos). #2361 - Yaeger June 11,1998 Page 4 The new cabin as constructed requires the following variances: 1. 2. 3. 4. Lakeshore setback Side setback 0-75' hardcover Full perimeter foundation Proposed/Existing 35’ 4.3’ 486.7 sf (13.5%) Absent Allowed/Required Variance 75 ’ 40' 10' 5.7 ’ 0sf(0%) 486.7sf(13.5%) Required Required Average setback is defined by the adjacent cabin to the north. The adjacent cabin has not been surveyed but appears from City topography to be approximately the same distance from the lake as applicant’s structure. Based on the survey dimension, the gazebo is located 6.5 ’ from the side lot line where a 10 ’ setback is required (variance). Lot coverage by structures is 6.6% (No variance required); Action on the violation citation is currently under suspension, pending the outcome of this proposal. Applicant was required to pay $200 prosecution costs to the City', and has paid a double fee on this application. Sewage Treatment Needs The submitted floor plan for the cabin includes a bathroom and kitchen sink, both of which would require installation of a new conforming septic system. No septic system site evaluation information has been submitted to show what sort of system is contemplated on this extremely narrow lot. It is unlikely that any system could be developed without the need for significant variances. The RS ordinance allows a cabin of this size to be constructed without plumbing and hence without a septic system. However, if plumbing fixtures are installed, a conforming system is required. Hardship Statement Please review the applicants’ hardship statement. This was drafted prior to completion of the survey and docs not discuss the side setback variances which were identified after reviewing the survey. Staff would note that the complete replacement of the pre-existing cabin eliminates any ’grandfathered’ status that the old cabin may have enjoyed by virtue of its construction prior to adoption of ordinances that made it non-conforming. The applicant abandoned any such ’grandfather’ rights when the old cabin was removed. #2361 - Yaeger June 11,1998 Page 5 Issues for Discussion 1 . Should Lot 64 be designated as an individual Record Lot separate from Lots 65-8-9-10-11? 2. If so, should the after-the-fact variances be granted to allow the new cabin and gazebo to remain in their non-conforming locations? Options for Consideration ISSUE 1 - Record Lot Status A. Recommend denial of the lot area and width variance, concluding that Record Lot # 15 must consist of all 6 separate tax parcels. [Implications: Lot 64 remains unbuildable, and it follows that the cabin and gazebo constructed without permits must be removed] QR B. Recommend approval of the lot area and width variance, concluding that Record Lot #15 should be separated into two individual record lots (#1 5A and #1 5B). [Implications: Lot 64 gains Record Lot status and the variances for cabin and gazebo constn. Mon ran be reviewed on their own merits] QR C. Recommend approval of a lot width and area variance conditioned on applicant acquiring some specified additional adjacent (or non-adjacent?) land for combination (or special lot combination?) with Lot 64. [Implications: Lot 64 remains unbuildable unless/until additional land is added to it; cabin and gazebo variances remain in limbo for a limited time until applicant can acquire additional land] QR D. Other, or some combination of the above. ISSUE? - Cabin and Gazebo Variances A. Recommend that the new cabin and gazebo be relocated to meet 75' lakeshore setback and 10' side setbacks, which would eliminate the hardcover variance; and that the cabin be provided with a continuous enclosed approved foundation to frost level. QR B. Recommend that the new cabin and gazebo be allowed to remain in place, that lake setback, side setback and 0-75' hardcover variances be granted (specifically define the hardships that support such a position) but require that the cabin be provided with continuous enclosed approved foundation to frost level. QR #2361 - Yaeger June 11,1998 Page 6 C.Recommend that the new cabin and gazebo be allowed to remain located as constmcted with no changes, granting setback, hardcover and foundation variances (specifically define the hardships that support each variance). QR D. Other, or some combination of the above. Staff Recommendation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The best option would be a combination of 1 A and 2 A: Applicant should acquire Lots 8-9- 10-11-65 and combine with Lot 64 per Record Lot #15, and then move the cabin and gazebo to conforming locations at least 75' from the lake, providing cabin with a conforming foundation. However, the reason for the variance request is that the above may not be feasible. In that case, staff recommends options 1C and 2 A: Applicant should acquire Lot 65 and combine it with Lot 64, then move the cabin and gazebo to conforming locations 75 ’ from the lake, providing cabin with a conforming foundation. Lots 64-65 become Record Lot #15A, Lots 8-9-10-11 become #15B. If applicant cannot acquire Lot 65, staffs third choice would be options IB and 2 A: Designate Lot 64 as Record Lot#15A, designate Lots 65-8-9-10-11 as Record Lot #15B, and grant lot area/width variance for #15A, plus require that cabin and gazebo be moved to conforming locations with cabin getting a conforming foundation. The transfer of development rights from one record lot to another may only be appropriate for lots which are adjacent or separated only by a right-of-way; this would require an amendment of the RS District standards. Staff feels it is probably not appropriate for such transfer when lots are widely separated. Staff recommends denial of the request to allow the new cabin to remain in its current location entirely wdthin the 0-75' lakeshore yard. Although it will be difficult to relocate it, this problem would not have occurred if the required building permit had been obtained before construction. The owner has created his own 'hardship', not a valid justification for variances, especially when it is clearly possible to meet the required lakeshore and side setbacks. Planning Commission should suggest a timeframe for relocation of the offending structures. All plumbing fixtures must be omitted unless/until a conforming septic system is provided. 1 i M O.tf t^ ^ o 1 CITY OF ORONO - VARI^G£>^PLICATION Initi^LApplication Fee (^SO.OQ^er each addilio^ variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees^^^oubk^plication fee) Application H E I Date Received R~z^-?g Amount Paid ~ S o min 8 ea»O. o ie ro<=>PROPERTY INFORMATION _ SiteAddress 310 Big island (Lot 64 Morse Island Park, County of Hennepin, City of Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)23-117-23 32 0028 Orono) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired March 1992_______________________ I (do) (flo^^) also .(month/year) Present use of propertj’: Zoning District:______ residential x other (specify) seasonal APPLICANT Name William J. and La Wayne R. Yaeger Phone (home) 936-0473 Address: 15694 Sussex Drive _ Phone (work) 851-6031 or 728-8318 City: Minnetonka______2ip: 55345 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name same as above Address: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City:. Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 25,000 ‘ Describe request in detail: rebuild existing cabin on same location without any increase in size or use — approximately 400 sq. ft. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage X_Setback: x Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: see attached Addendum "A”____________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #23""REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All Qf following information must be submitted hv the application Headline date in order for vour application to be consif^rred 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 rnust obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of 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'/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views Qjrovide one (1) copy S'/a" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. .A.dditional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature // OWNERS ^ 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. Date J-X ^ - '(S' Owner’s Signature I- ^t (✓/ ________Date 3'A¥-fe 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. William J. Yaegcr 310 Big Island Lot 64, Morse Island Park // ©aA Addendum "A” - DESCRIPTION OF HARDSHIP The Applicant is seeking a variance for the lot area and front setback restrictions. As to the lot area variance, the Applicant ’s property is one of six tax parcels constituting Record Lot Number 15 (the “Record Lot”). The record lot was established by ordinance on December 30,1982. Section 10.31, Subd. 6B of the Orono Code now prevents the Applicant from obtaining a Building Permit until the Applicant receives either a lot area variance or the Applicant achieves common ownership for each of the six tax parcels comprising The Record Lot. Unfortunately, the Applicant owns only one of the six tax parcels, the other five being owned by another party. Prior to December 1982, the six tax parcels had been owned commonly by Roy Ahern. Prior to the effective date of the ordinance establishing The Record Lot, Mr. Ahern sold each of the six parcels to separate Individuals not Including the Applicant. Presumably, this was done so that each of the six tax parcels would constitute a separate record lot upon adoption of the ordinance. However, the City retroactively applied the ordinance to November 1981. Following the adoption of the ordinance in December 1982, neither Mr. Ahern nor any of the other owners of the Individual tax parcels took action to establish that the individual parcels constituted Individual record lots. The Applicant purchased his tax parcel from Mr. Ahern with the understanding It was a buildable lot. The other five tax parcels have been resold and are currently ov/ned by a single other owner. The Applicant is now in a position of having to acquire the other five tax parcels or be prohibited from maintaining the pre-existing structures on his single tax parcel. The Applicant is not in any position to purchase the other five tax parcels. Because the intent of the 1982 ordinance was to limit the number of buildable lots on the Islands, an alternative to the Applicant acquiring all of the Record Lot parcels would be to reconfigure the ownership and use of various tax parcels to allow the Applicant to maintain or construct a structure on his tax parcel while not increasing the net number of buildable lots on the island. Any such alternative, however, requires the cooperation of the other property owners. Although the Applicant and other property owners have attempted to present a feasible alternative to the City, their efforts have been rejected. The Applicant, therefore, faces a hardship in that he cannot acquire the other five tax parcels in The Record Lot and cannot control the use of those tax parcels by the current owner. As a result, absent the lot area variance, the .. 1 - William J. Yaeger 310 Big Island Lot 64, Morse Island Park Applicant ’s parcel v'ill be worthless for himself and will be unsaleable to any other party, unless that party can purchase all of the parcels in The Record Lot. As to the setback variance, the previous structure was located on cement blocks which was permitted by “grandfather ” rights, even though it was within the setback area. To require the Applicant to relocate the existing structure would constitute a hardship In that is would force the Applicant to abandon existing Improvements for which the Applicant had "grandfather" rights. ! -2- : .• **... ^ •• . • «V' **M-‘ '• • • • . -J;.;. •• *• * ■-. .•.■*, . ■ ■ v; i,V* Parcel Infonnation Parcel ID 2311723320028 Houm Number 00310 ,Street time BIO^ISLANO . , «•!• .*\ •.•*** * , . • r;. ■ ■ V -V^ . ■ i?':. '■'■ ■ I ■'■■•:. 1 . r ..'•rV -• V V •» ••: . * -• *• '... • .* / V.?' •■ >*V *.'.4 ••».'•*.*■ • -. ..^V v«.i sy.. ' '■* •'>v • 8 PROP ADDR OWNER NRMB TAXPAYER NAMB/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMB/ADDR # * HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 23 117 23 32 0027 300 BIG ISLAND JOHN D URAN DANIEL A KELLOGG 20300 EXCELSIOR BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDm # 38 23 117 23 32 0048 310 BIG ISLAND NANCY LEE FARNES NANCY LEE FARNES 4379 WILSHIRE BLVD 8C307 MOUND MN 55364 CONDMN « 38 23 117 23 32 0061 320 BIG ISLAND JOHN S DEAN JOHN S DEAN 837 N 63RD ST WAUWATOSA WI 53213 CONDMN # ff n 38 23 117 23 32 0028 310 BIG ISLAND W J & L R YABGER WILLIAM J & LAWAYNE R YAEGER 15694 SUSSEX DR MINNETONKA MN 55345 CONDMN # 38 23 117 23 32 0029 310 BIG ISLAND NANCY LEE FARNES NANCY LEE FARNES 4379 WILSHIRE BLVD IC307 MOUND MN 55364 CWDMN i i j 38 23 117 23 32 0049 310 BIG ISLAND NANCY LEE FARNES NANCY LEE FARNES 4379 WILSHIRE BLVD 8C307 MOUND MN 55364 CONDMN 8 38 23 117 23 32 0059 290 BIG ISLAND W t G FINK WILLIAM & GLORIA FINK 6512 VALLEYVIEW RD HAMEL MN 55340 CONDm • ,3 3 \ JL I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE 2-3-5>g n 0 V ff i' 0 n 1 = > o C ® •c •> > •cO -2 « o 01 •'o cO o m 01 T3 ® 0> ® n E O 3cr 10 3 ^ 01 g ^3£g °b k.o» <o 1^ <301 w •m »” i! Q> ^ Coo §523 c O 0* E&sZ o Q. «1ul I © >\ £§ CO h. ° csi iS T> © JO O © © *D « «> JS © © © *41 ^© S ^ O 5 c 2O «C >%© 2 o X5 « 3^ ^ rjJS «*'o « « k. O » s O Sg8 3- *> «E O « 3iS s 2 c> o o •O *Oxr8 5^12 •> <o -i c|*5" C S*'‘o K «T>i! x: w F o ® a ^ £ ■M O o © zx* o. « W £ ©© » 3 •>< O Ul X © 5? «S;: *■ D II S* O' »-"" s ci • ^ s2 cd a $ S-* • c(n yf §s |i^oz -^5 obUJ |2 m z h. S ■oz Is 20 ox UJCO ll z <oLU ‘1 ■i 4 A \ I ! Ji# ^ o Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we)^ of ^^6 ^Aps^J [print name(s)] [print aci^ess] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 310 Big Island a|5o referred to as Land Use Application No.________ Lot 64 Morse Island Park I (we) imderstand 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 (S' Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the prope»iy located at 310 Big Island ^Iso referred to as Land Use Application No._______ . Lot 64 Morse Island Park I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ^ o • \ Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we) O //hn n [print name(s)] «*> Cy ^3i o I, S I Cl )'\c- [print addresi] / r^.s.:r Lot 64 Morse Islcind Park igiis=~frs3 A Prroerty Owner UL —?F Date Property Owner Date ****************** I (we) [print name(s)][print address] I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. -n) ^ 'i^ Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form ■ M 5.r)P^« 0, Sy ■ [print name{s)] c>%A f print add. .rocrT woo• i‘!iSrriS"''" ;Kiti':TLru” T5S,r £*■Lot 64 Morse Island Park I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to ec are 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.I, Date Property Owner Date ^ -r^ A' ($3s^ S7T^ (Ti7 A" (o3s‘ s?T UC>HK 0-JJ)?^yW ofU// ^-----^ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 310 Big Island a|gQ referred to as Land Use Application No. Lot 64 Morse Island Park I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (w'e) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Date Property Owner Date If you have ‘any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. t \ 361 ti A OFFICIAL RECORD LOT MAP \NCE NO. 246 - DECEMBER 30, 1982 ;ONAL RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT NOT TO SCALE X' HPRV * . '> • *■ ■* ) ••• V m V. i *V . *• >= V » "V> 0/BIG ISLAND 39 Vi » V yKtu»k%$9. V- V. V » .• Heiinep-cn Pa^fe RcieAue i7^1t5i2cC Pa. KtXhvJL WUdU^z Refuge •V V ..^*. 7'^ ^ <r<« •*•• • ••• •:-«r>7, • ,fo»ifea •i>2A SquadAcn Vr-i: 44-*^ • \ •\ . Stcutz 0^ f B^g l6tand [30] POINT COMFORT 41 CROWN POINT poi: NORTI i i fl GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orotio, m 55356 Mailing Address: P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 July 31,1997 William J. Yaeger 15694 Sussex Drive Minnetonka, MN 55345 Re: Construction at 310 Big Island (PINS # 23-117-23 32 0028, AKA Lot 64, Morse Island Park) Dear Mr. Yaeger: During an inspection of Big Island on July 30, 1997 it was discovered that a new cabin is under construction on the above referenced property. According to Hennepin County Tax Records you are the owner of this property. This construction is in violation of a number of City ordinances, and therefore a STOP WORK order has been posted on vhe building. This building must be removed and the site restored no later than September 1,1997. _ The construction of this cabin is a violation of City ordinances for a variety of reasons, including but not necessarily limited to the following:. 1. 2. 3. 4. A building permit is required for construction of this building. No building permit has been applied for, and none has been issued. The building is located less than 75' from the shorelin'^ where no construction or hardcover is allowed per City Ordinances. • • • The property in question is not considered by the City as a buildable lot except in conjunction with 5 additional tax parcels (23-117-23 32 0029; 23-117-23 32 0046; 23-117-23 32 0047; 23-117-23 32 0048; and 23-117-23 32 0049) which in combination with your parcel constitute Record Lot #15 per City of Orono Ordinance #246 adopted December 30,1982. Your property as a separate tax parcel has not been granted the necessary lot area variance which would be required for it to be buildable. The issues surrounding the buildability of this parcel date back to 1982-83 and likely will not be easily resolved due to the many property owners involved. Roy Ahem, from whom you purchased Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 William J. Yaeger July 31,1997 Page 2 the property, is aware of the buildability issues as evidenced by correspondence in City files between the City and Ahem and his attorney. The primary buildability issue is whether Lot 64 should be granted a lot area variance absent legal combination with the 5 additional parcels. A secondary buildability issue is the location of the new stmcture within Lot 64. Any 'grandfather' rights that may have accmed to the old cabin are no longer valid given that it has been totally removed. It is unlikely that the City Council would grant an after-the-fact lakeshore setback variance for the new cabin given that the 'hardship' is entirely self-created. A violation citation is enclosed requiring you to appear in court. It is the City's intent that the offending stmcture be removed. If it is not removed by September 1, further legal action will be taken. However, if you wish to apply for a lot area variance and would consider moving the cabin to a conforming location if a lot area variance is granted, then there may be a basis for delaying removal. To discuss any of the issues outlined in this letter, please feel free to contact me at 473- 7357. ’ •Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator end. cc: k ■ . Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Lyle Oman, Building Official Ron Moorse, City Administrator Desyl Peterson, Prosecuting Attorney Thomas Barrett, City Attorney Roy E. Ahem i r GlTYof ORONO Municipal Ofllces Street Address; 2750 Kelley Partway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 August 29, 1997 I: Win Curtis 1011 First St. S. moo Hopkins. MN 55343 Re: Wm. Yaeger, Big Island - Building/Zoning Violation Dear Mr. Curtis: Attached please find the following information from City files which may help you understand the history of this matter: June 11.1982 December 30, 1982 Undated February 15,1983 Mays, 1983 May 16,1983 August 23. 1983 September 23, 1983 September 28, 1983 November 22,1983 1997 Site inspection report and photos by A.P. Olson and M.P. Gaffron Council minutes/ Adoption of Ord. #246 City notes as to Roy Ahem ta.x parcel areas Package of information sent to Roy Ahem re New Ordinance City notes re: Contact from realtor re Ahem properties Letter from A.P. Olson to Roy Ahem re Record lot Designation Letter from Ahern’s Attorney Seymour Mansfield to A.P. Olson Memo to staff from A.P. Olsor D!; Island "loose ends" as Olson had resigned to take a positio.. in another City Letter to Mansfield from A.P. Olson Letter from Mansfield to A.P. Olson including copy of November 22, 1982 letter from Herbert LefTler re: Roy Ahem Staff notes re staff search of ownership of Yaeger parcel, 1980-1997 per Hennepin County Tax Records Also enclosed is a copy of the RS District code sections, and a variance application packet should Mr. Yaeger choose to apply. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have additional questions. Senior Planning Coordinator end. Telephone (612) 473-7357. * FAX 4734)510 r I M \>rn'-> J r S : ^ . •■ >~y/r^ ^ ‘i- •m-m- ' *.' '»*• * ■»^•‘'"J \ s •• U' ' E •A ^■ see <51^<5 ^3^'5^7.'- 6y /^OCO 41.«y* I3>P Oxlit^ /Cw Q/p4^^^.£^ Mi <Br;*7:->-- V. S' ;i’ IP?jirvi- i. '*S ^r ■%<$. -1-.iv ^p- ^^ ^ i'V^v?^^''oJ-' • '. ^ 'l*v V - • * ^MS .:r •:,'. ~. :y^i' >":..• -r-kr‘‘ - 'Is: =. ^v/.. •M'{ .'jj< ■ •'V CITY OF ORON'O X2- BIG ISLAND PHOTOS"^ Date Ji/4'g: //, /fc5^ y ■ ■"" by A.P. Olson - M.P. Gaffron P.I.D. Owner /^o\f <^» /4/ie.^in - 4lC ^F #2 §3 /aZ/jp/} fl/rhff I'dpOyicfcU^ MAIN BLDG Bit. 113Z Excel. Good Fair X. Poor Sleeping Only Kitchen ’tdrn ow't Viinterized t^o 'I No Foundation__ ___^Crawl S; ^ Footings Only Bs^it Toilet Drainfield Out House None CesGpoo X^ell No V7ater Lake Pump From Neighbor Accessory Bldgs Excel. Good Fair (fiA <^LoJI Ao hi X" Poor U\ L^iXa/^ Jl flrrpy^.-W \/j/f<yQ^ r€A^&y io C>A/C::Ut y 'f^U<P L<J / I .—/• city of Orono 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting of the Orono Council, December 30, 1982 CONSENT AGENDA* The Orono Council met on the .above date with the following members present: • Mayor Van Nest, Councilmember Butler, CounciImember Adams, and Councilmember Hurr. Absent: Councilmember Frahm. Also present: City Attorney Malkerson, J. Diann Goetten of the Planning Commission, John Hammer el of the ' PI a ,'iT Commission, Charles Kelly of'the Planning c. ’ssion, George Rovegno of the Planning Cbmmisr>i.cr , Ed Callahan of the Planning Commission a- .* Mr • Bill Sime newly appointed Planning Commission member. City Planner Alan Olson, and Deputy City Clerk Sandi Woytcke. Councilmember Butler moved, Councilmember Hurr seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda* as presenced. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (G) . PUBLIC HEARING - LAKE MINNETONKA ISLAND ORDINANCE Mayor Van Nest opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. explaining the circumstances of this meeting being rescheduled•because of the blizzard of December 28. Cit-y Planner Alan Olson then reviewed the Ordinance explaining that since October 25, 1982 the rewritting consisted of changes that were suggested by the public . Mayor Van Nest then asked if there were any new comments frora the Public regarding this ordinance. V/illie Crear 56 V/estwood Drive, Long Lak-e stated he is a new ov/ner on Big Island. He purchased his property from Mr. Hoy Ahern who is a long term property owner on Big Island. He owns 3 pieces o prope»-ty on the island; the house that is his current summer residence, identified as parcel 558 what is called the Snyder house, identified as parcel U5 and also behind the Snyder house on the other side of the road right of way there is another piece of property. When this ordinance came up those two pieces of property were !! 1 R f;l£.ETING OF THE ORON'O COUNCIL, DECEMBER 30, 1582 PAGE -2- ORDINANCE CON’T.separated by a road right of way identified by the City of Orono as one building site, when in fact when purchased by Mr. Ahern were two differentv sites. For reasons I don't understand, under your new ordinance, these were combined as one building site even though they were divided by a plated city street. It appeared the ordinance intended to take all individual lots and cause then to be buildable wi th exception of the ones you talk about. In response to that it v;ould appear the ordinance would cause that a number of lots would become only one lot. Roy sold the lots before this ordinance went into eftect. The new copy of the ordinance shows you have made changes, that changes the time of the ov/ners of record for these lots, and it is that portion of the ord inance (the owners of record) that I would like to take this opportunity to object to. Can I ask why it v;as done? Mayor Van Nest then asked Mr. Olson for the facts on these lots. Hr. Olson stated the facts of the matter: are that he has two separate holdings.The way the ordinance is v/ritten. One is number S53 and that lot is approximately .32 acres, completely separate from the other holdings Hr. Ahern had. This was declared buildable because it has a house on it. Second part is properties that we have combined as #15 slightly north of the first property(separated by John Dean's property). Parcel #15 combined on both sides of the right of way totals 2 1/2-acres. Neither piece is 2 acres by itself, and so under the current code,the 1974 code,it would be one site, or would not be rebuildable. The cabin that is on that property is completely deteriorated and is in hazardous condition at this point. There was a permit issued at one time to rebuild it but v;as never acted on, it is not being used and is not habitable at this time. Mr. Olson stated that he has talked to Mr. Ahern and Mr. Creer on this natter in his office. Mr. Roy Ahern stated that he had taken out the building permit and had been doing some remodeling in the cabin up until the time he sold the property. Mayor Van Nest asked Mr. Ahern v/hat had he sold, and Mr. Ahern stated that he sold because of the ordinance being passed, and he was not going to be able to use any of that property, he sold all of it. He stated he sold all of the parcels except for #58 because I was not going to be able to use any of the property the v/ay t wanted to under the ordinance. meeting of the ORONO council, DECEMBER 30, 1982 PAGEr3- ORDINANCE CON’T.M.nyol* Van Nest asked at this tiwe who he had sold the parcel to, Mr. Ahern stated he sold it to various people. Mayor Van Nest asked hov; many people, Mr. Ahern stated he sold 6 lots to six different people. Mr. Ahern stated he had no use for the property so he sold it. Mayor Van Nest asked did you have knowledge when you sold them that this land was not buildable? Mr. Ahern stated his attorney said they were buildable as a seasonal dwelling under the terms of this ordinance the way it had been written. Mayor Van Nest stated, "it would be one building site. There is not enough land there for two parcels on that piece of land under our present code". Mr. Ahern again stated under the new ordinance, those are over 1/3 acYe, they are all approximately 1/2 acre and the new owner should be intitled to building rights just as Mr. Bacckus should be intitled to building rights on his 1/2 acre. Mayor Van Nest then stated, that he heard what Mr. Ahern was saying but that he was not getting a sympathetic ear from the City because he had plenty of knowledge knowing exactly what was going on when he sold the parcels of land. The City is going to be extremely resistant to issuing o different building permits on those parcels. Mr. Ahern stated that was between the new owners and the City that he did not v;ant to get involved. Mayor Van Nest stated that he felt Mr. Ahern was involved, because he had good enough knowledge of what the situation was.‘ Mr. Ahern stated he was upset because he had to sell the land at a discount to get rid of it becuase it is not worth as much now with the new ordinance pending. Hurr stated that of the six lots v;ere sold as buildable why did he have to take a discount? Mr. Willie Crear then stated the timing of the addition of the language to the ordinance appears to be designed Specifically to prohibit anymore parcels in this piece. Mr. Zane Scheftel of Excelsior, also present, commented that he wanted his year round residence grandfathered into the ordinance so that he would not have any trouble continuing to live there full time. ! pI There follov/ed discussion about the reasons for MEETING OF THE ORON’O COUNCIL, DECEMBER 30, 1982 PAGE-4- / j^liE ORDINANCE CON ' T requiring Cull-tiine residence to have a conditional use permit, including the higher standards required for Septic Systems, private, fire protection, etc. Olson stated "that the Sheftel property is knov;n to have been used full time and that except for being 4 acres instead of 5, the property should now meet or is capable of meeting all requirements for a principal ' residence Conditional Use Permit. Olson recom­ mended granting the Schefetel property a conceptual conditional use permit and variance with final approval awaiting completion of an application form and preparation of the required resolution to be recorded in the property title. Mr. Roy Ahern, Barrie Road, V.'ayzata stated that he felt the ordinance should be held over until another meeting. He felt the people concerned were not given enough time to be present at this meeting. The Deputy Clerk then presented to Mr. Ahern a record of all the owners that were notified of the change of the meeting. Of 77 names on the list, 4 2 were contacted directly and messages were left for nine others. There was no answer to repeated calls for nine persons, nine others had unlisted numbers (or could not be located by the mailing address), and five out of town long distance calls were not attempted. Thus, <S9% of the owners have received telephone notice of the meeting change. Mr. Roy Ahern requested a Principal Residence Conditional Use Permit for his parcel S58. The same as Mr. Scheftel. Mr. Olson stated that the house on that parcel certainly appeared to qualify but that staff hod several questions about the location of the drainf ield to serve the house; we think it is on the neighboring property. V/e would not thus recommend a Conditional Use Permit at this time until Ahern can provide more information to staff. Ahern had no response. Councilmember Butler moved. CounciImember Hurr seconded to adopt Ordinance IJ24S An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of Orono By Changing the Zoning District Designation and Performance Standards Applied to Big Island, Mahpiyata Island, and Deering Island, draft as amended in Section 34.363c regarding occasonial overnight camping in a day use recreation area. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). I ] . 1 *I I r *• ^ 7 6 23--J2 OOZ9 CCZfi »'54 Ac •70 ^47 . ^7 .19 4 'i K ^ :Ji ■^iiWSi CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55373•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka I r February 15, 1983 i'Record Lot S15 S'*‘S'S Roy E. Ahern 6449 Barrie Road Minneapolis, MN 55435 Dear Island Landowner: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information regarding the recent zoning changes on Big Island, and how these changes nay affect your property. The new RS Seasonal Recreational zoning regulations were established by City Council adoption of Ordinance f2A6 on December 30, 1982. This action also ended the development moratorium that had been in effect since November 9, 1981. A summary of the ordinance is attached. If you are interested, a complete text of the ordinance is also available for a nominal charge of $3.00 to defer printing and mailing costs. ^ Your property is identified in the ordinance by the Record Lot Number shown above and on the attached blue page. This identification is part of a special section that inventories lot by lot the ownership patterns and existing uses of island property. Based on this record, the ordinance then "grandfathers" building rights for these Record Lots by making them eligible for lot area variances. This means that for the first time even if your lot is- less than five acres (or two acres under the previous ordinance) that you raay'now build a new seasonal cabin, or if you already have a cabin, that it may continue to be used, improved, added-onto or replaced with a new cabin, subject to building permits and sc?tback regulations, etc,, but without questioning its use for building purposes, and without requiring any special City Council review. In order for you to automatically receive the benefits of the. lot area variance, you should review and complete the following before July 1, 1983: 1. Please verify the Record Lot information on the attached blue page and notify the City if there is a problem or a change. I (ove r) BUILDING & ZONING - 473-73S7 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION L FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Island Landowners February 15, 1983 Page 2 3. 4 . requires that all zoning variances be recorderiith thr^o pJan^^o%o fnrbiildinron theroperty^^here^'r^ if'^you%ier this automatic variance recorded at this time. ^ having If your Record Lot consists of two or more separate t^v «« -i green form for reauestlne a separate tax parcels, a sign and return this to the Citv ^o enclosed. Please \LirAitu a) If you use or have used your cabin FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS/YEAR. b) If you have MORE THAN ONE CABIN on your property. Refer to the enclosed yellow sheet for a definit^nn .-v. including a description of when a special permit is or . to the City. We will cphH I ^ ^ yellow page and return it return naiL you.the appropriate application form by the above Alan Olson or Ja«na L^°sM:"t ““ to'^hf:r:a\\%""d""^"""''* Con.lsslo„, I „anr co cake participation this pasr^^rJarLln^d"""' = ' interest and this planning proceL Thlup ^ helped so much in the completion of learning so nuch about your island ?b enjoyed raeeting all of you and as simple as possible 0^0^. : ®tep can be kept recorded for Ur fuUe bUfu“' P^Pt^^^ty rlgnts can be correctly Sincerely, ' Alan “P. Olson City Planner Enclosures • V I »u*.. •* •• J CITY of OROS Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices ^73 7337On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka ORDINANCE NO. 246 RS SEASONAL RECREATIONAL ZONING OFFICIAL RECORD LOT NOTICE FEBRUARY 15, 1983 This notice is provided to the otv*ner/taxpayer of record according to Ordinance ff246, Section 34.336. The following Record Lot classification will be considered accurate and final unless you have some reason to dispute the facts used to make the classification. Record Lot identification fonns the basis for the granting of automatic lot area variances that "Grandfather" existing properties of less than 5 acres in area. RECORD LOT means all the contiguous or abutting land ovmed in common by the same person or persons as of November 9, 1981, (the effective date of the island moratorium) or at any time such commor.-ou’nership may occur thereafter, including one or more separately platted lots or unplatted parcels of land, and/or one or more separately identified tax parcels. Because of the unique circumstances and actual use patterns existing on the islands, also included within the definition of a "Record Lot" is commonly-owned land that is contiguous except for being separated only by platted unopened public right-of-way. This RECORD LOT consists of as follows: tax parcel(s) *^Record Lot 015 Roy E. Ahern 6449 Barrie Road Minneapolis, 1-2^ 55435 APPROXIMATE S12E.^5l.ACRES 6 CL?.SSiriCATIO:J: (site is exclusive of eny vetle.-ids) OVER 10 AC.^^ES, (may bo SU2D1VI0ABLE) OVER 5 AC?J:S, but LESS THA.N 10 ACRES "(co.nforning but not SUSDIVIDASLE) .S'JBSTANOARD/BUILDABLE (less than 5 acres; *0 nev sc a so." a 1 cabin may be built, or an existing scaconal cabin n;ay be inproved, added-onto or replaced, subject to setbacks, pcrniits, etc., but without requiring further City Council review) ^L*NaulLDABLE (ceans a vacant lot of less than *1/2 acre; nay be used for recreational purposes without a cabin, but requires a Council approved variance to be built on) JP7'-//7-23 OOS.9 21- //7'23 • 32 oo47 23-N7-23 IZ OC4S E.XIS7ING USE CLASSIFICATION RECREATIONAL USE ONLY (without a cabin) SEASONAL CA31S, used 180 days or less/year ^ (if your cabin is used more than 180 days/ year, please co.T.plcte the YELLOW application) ____Seasonal Cabin plus a PRIVATE GUEST CABIN Other CONDITIONAL USE PLEASE VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION. If there is an error or a change, please mark the correction and return this page to the City in the enclosed postage- paid envelope. We want this permanent record to be correct. IF YOU WISH TO CHALLENGE THE RECORD LOT DETERMINATION AND/OR THE CLASSIFICATION OF YOUR PROPERTY, you must file a formal written appeal before July 1, 1983 , or the record lot will remain classified as above. Sign below and return along with a separate letter stating the problem and facts supporting any change. Additional information may be requested to verify any challenge such as surveys, utility bills, copies of recorded deeds, etc. Owner/Taxpayer Date Phone ■i- ,. >v‘. :::v-••■■.;? © City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPROVING A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR RECORD LOT NO PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO.246, SECTION 34.366 ’ “ BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota: FINDINGS C!TY4a ®5so?iiI'PJPNpS /r 1. That is (are) the owner(s)/taxpayer(s) of record of the following described property located within the RS Seasonal Recreational Zoning District of the City: Lots 64 and 65, Morse Island Park, and Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11, Morse Island Park Second Addition; Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. That in adoption of Ordinance No. 246, the City Council reviewed ownership, development and use patterns on the islands and has determined that all the above described property combined is and shall hereinafter and henceforth be one "RECORD LOT" as defined in Section 34.366 of said ordinance;; 3. That all the above described property when combined as one RECORD LOT is still less than the minimum lot size required for new lots in the RS District, but that this. RECORD LOT- is being used and/or may be used in the future for any permitted use i-n the RS District without adverse affect upon public health, safety, or welfare. CONCLUSION The City Council of Orono hereby grants a lot area variance to the above described RECORD LOT based on the above findings and subject to the following Conditions: 1. This RECORD LOT Including all the above described property combined shall henceforth be continued in common ownership by the same person or persons even if recorded as separate lots or tax parcels, and it shall not be subdivided, sold in parts, reduced in area or otherwise separated without application for and approval of a subcilvlslon by the City. This condition shall not preclude future sale or transfer of the complete "RECORD LOT" as a single unit. # 2. Granting this variance means this RECORD LOT may be used for one- family seasonal recreational use without a structure; or a single new seasonal dwelling may be built; or an existing seasonal dwelling may be used. Improved, added-onto or replaced; all without requiring further City Council review of lot size, but subject to strict comp­ liance with all building permit, setback, hardcover, on-site sewage treatment and other performance standards for development in the RS District. PAGE 2; RECORD LOT NO. /5^ ; RESOLUTION NO.k 3.Granting this variance shall not vest any rights in the property other than as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 246, and shall not preclude a future City Council from amending, modifying or other wise limiting development rights and/or performance standards in the RS District. ♦ I il 4.The undersigned has read and understood the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, agrees that the above described property constitutes a single RECORD LOT* agrees that the RECORD LOT use may be so limited by the City; and* agrees to the recording of this resolution in uhp chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the_ _ _day of , 1983. ATTEST:CITY OF ORONO City Clerk Mayor (1) Property Owner(s) (2) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ^ s s • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of and for said County, personally appeared , before me, a Notary Public within known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing Instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES This document is being recorded for the benefit of the City of Orono per Minnesota Statutes 386.77; State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exempt I This Instrument was drafted by; City Of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 473-7357 i I © iClTYof 080N Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offic On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO THE CITY OF ORONO in the attached postage-paid envelope. Doing this will result in combining your separate tax parcels into one parcel for assessing purposes consistent with the current RS zoning. TO:Vernon T. Hoppe Finance Division Director 603 Administration Tower Government Center Minneapolis, Mn. 55A87 (please date) .1983 DEAR SIR; I HEREBY MAKE A REQUEST FOR A COMBINED ASSESSMENT ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND (all of which combined are identifed as Orono Record Lot No. /y ); ■t r tn-23 lrZ0o^7: 2-^ 7;? 'Tf?f cm NO. 38 FOR 1983 TAX YEAR Signature of Fee Owner Signature of Taxpayer (if different) Taxpayer's Mailing Address (OFFICE USE ONLY) COMBINED CURRENT VALUES H OR N. H. AGR EXMP.■ • LAND BUILDING MACHINE-TOTAL FULL AND TRUE TOTAL ASSESSED • •• BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Telephone 473*7357:r-7 CITY of ORONO I’osl Office Box 6G»Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka May 16, 1983 Mr. Roy E Ahern 6449 Barrie Road Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Re: Big Island(Record Lots Dear Mr. Ahern: “7l^ Enclosed are separate information packets on your two Big Island lots and their status under the revised zoning ordinance adopted last December. ' • I recommend that you consider completing and returning the variance resolution forms (#2) and the lot combination forms (#3) for both of your properties. Doing this will ensure that you receive the full grandfather benefits of the ordinance designed to protect building rights on those properties with existing cabins. ( RECORD LOT #15. .^^ If-you’"still have a problem with the record lot designation for Record Lot #15, then you should not return the variance resolution, but should instead return the blue form (#1) and whatever other factual data you believe will support your challenge. I have talked to your rnau.t:or, Judy Frommes, concerning these properties and the City's position classifying these six lots as one building site. As I have said to her and previously to you, I believe you have the following options available: ... 1. 2. Accept the City designation and retain all six lots together as one building site. You coUld rebuild the existing cabin (?) or more likely, replace it with a new cabin located either in the front or to the rear. In this case, I suggest you sign and return the variance resolution to guarantee the automatic/no fee variance. You could sell the back lots to another abutting property owner who could then combine them into his property without creating a new building site. In this case, to rebuild the cabin on the front lot, you would have to formally apply for a change in the record lot designation and for a lot area variance, and perhaps for other variances. Such variances would most likely be approved but the burden would be on you to: Mr. Roy E. Ahern May 16, 1983 Page 2 3. 4. a) show that the record lot split/sale would not create another building site; and b) show that the resulting smaller front properties would, indeed, support a well and septic system. Finally, if you wish to challenge the City's position and apply to divide this record lot into 2 building sites, you will have to file a formal variance request to be heard by the Planning Commissior and City Council with supporting data about ownership history and usage; you will need a plan for providing access to the back lots; and you will need surveys and soil testing to demonstrate that both sites can support private wells and septic systems. This option is not the intent of the new ordinance. Hov;ever, you may have valid reasons or hardships enough to justify the variances. The burden will be on you to demonstrate these hardships. The City Council may approve or deny such an application, but you do have the option of making the application. If you choose to do nothing, the record lot designation in the ordinance will stand, but any futu-e building on the lot will not be permitted until the same or similar lot area variances/lot combinations are formally applied for and recorded at that time. I would suggest that you complete the process nov; to avoid this potential cost and delay. RECORD LOT #58 At the December 30, 1982 City Council meeting, you asked about a conditional use permit for year-round use of your cabin on this property. I have enclosed the application form #4-1, which needs to be completed and returned along with the lot combinatiion form #2, if you wish to have such a request considered by the Council. Our major concern with your property is sanitation. Please carefully complete questions 13 and 14. We will have to see a site survey or at least, a scale drawing of your lot showing where the house, well and septic system are located. Vihen you return this information to the City, we will review it and place it on the next Planning Commission agenda for formal review and recommendation to the City Council. I apologize for the delay in getting this information to you. You will note that the ordinance and attached forms include a July 1, 1983, deadline for your response. I would appreciate your response by that date, but because this notice was delayed, we will extend the actual deadline to September 1, 1983. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Alan P. Oison City Planner / Enclosure • • t:-s LAW OFFICES SEYMOUR J. MANSFIELD ATTORNEY AT LAW 850 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 609 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 (612) 339-4295 CITY OF ORONO OF COUNSEL VANCE O.BUSHAY STEPHEN H. PARSONS August 23, 1983 Mr. Alan P. Olson City Planner City of Orono P.O. Box 6 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Island Record Lots Mos7i^& 58 Dear Mr. Olson: Please be advised that this office represents Mr. Roy E. Ahern in regard to the Ci^'s classification of the above-mentioned lots. With regard to Record Lot No. 15, Mr. Ahem, through his attorney, Herbert P, Lefler III, informed the City in his letter of Novenber 22, 1982, that Mr. Ahern was no longer the owner of the six parcels which the City has purportedly combined under Ordinance No. 246 as if these parcels wer^“still owned by Mr. Ahern. Please note that all six of the parcels axnbined in Record Lot No. 15 were conveyed to the following persons and appropriate instruments of conveyance recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder's office, on Novanber 19, 1982: Grantee T/rt No. Joe H. Canpe III and Joan B. Cairpe, husband and wife 15550 Scenic Heists Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 8 Ronald M. Schumeister 4921 Trilluim Lane Edina, MN 55435 Robert Douglas Cox and Barbara Elizabeth Cox, husband and wife 3947 West Broadway Minneapolis, MN 55422 Mr. Alan P. Olson Page 2 August 23f 1983 Thomas N. Traff and Janet L. Traff, husband and wife 260 Inland Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 David S, Steingas and L-ane M. Steingas 3825 Virginia Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 64 William Crear III 56 Westwood Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 I would suggest that you contact each of the above grantees to determine what their desires are with regard to the above-described lots. If the City's position is that the ordinance voids Mr. Ahern's sale of these lots retroactively and after the fact of their having been conveyed to other persons or restricts the rights of the new owners with regard to their use, building, and future transfer of the lots as separate parcels, it is my opinion that the ordinance is unconstitutional as retroactive legislation, an unreasonable restriction on an owner's ri^t to the use of and the transfer of his property, and the "taking" of property without just coiipensation, ^c ordinance also exceeds the authority given - to local municipalities with regard to zoning and land use by the Minnesota Statutes, in so far as it purports to bar the sale of separately owned parcels and force the combination of separately owned parcels into one record lot, resulting in restrictions with regard to the sale, the use and building on those lots. Regarding the unconstitutional retroactive effect of the ordinance, it is significant that the moratorium ordinance (No. 238) and extension thereof (No. 241) did not bar the sale of these lots, and accordingly Mr, Ahern's conveyances were entirely valid under the then existing laws. On the other hand, if the City treats these lots as separately owned parcels, as it should, each one • of the above-named owners should be notified and offered the various options with regard to their separate properties, I assume these owners will be given extensions of time for filing as they have not been previously notified and sent forms. Mr. Alan P. Olson Page 3 August 23/ 1983 i-I 1 September 23, 1983 Page 2 -TT'9 RECORD LOT #15, Roy Ahern. See file See September 22, 1983 letter in file. This is listed as one record lot but he "sold” it in six pieces. So each piece is now unbuildable. No permits even, to "remodel" the vacant cabin until this is resolved. It may be reasonable to divide this record lot into two buildable sites, one with two lots and the cabin on the shore and one with four lots on the back. But the inland lots have access problems and any such determination requires a formal variance application and review. The ball is in their court to make such an application if they want to. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Go thru Planning Commission & Council, a) R-i #10 Scheftel: This is year-round property and homesteaded. *-'al use Conditional Use Permit; He has animals. See commer ‘ '*in (1)Proce shou / (2)Pro the '' \ (3)Pr w (4> b) F ret-, and sepw'i':. • *-'nal use permit: note 'ned about the goats. of right of " store He old jack ed. (1) Process ^ This should be ^ perhaps for continut.. / deadline for installation of .. Planning Commission wilx // s. ar 'en if new house not built by then? (2) Include automatic lot area variance with ^ nditional use permit resolution. is 5*^ CITY^M,rjV> ;OROI)lbf CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka September 28, 1983 Mr. Seymour J. Mansfield, Attorney At Law 550 Builders Exchange 609 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Re; Roy Ahern - Big Island Record Lots 15 and 58 Pursuant to RS District Zoning Ordinance No. 246 Dear Mr. Mansfield: This letter is written in response to your letters received August 28, 1983, regarding Mr. Ahern and his Big Island properties. Regarding Record Lot #58, we have received and are processing Mr. Ahern's request for an automatic lot area variance for this property that contains his habitable dwelling, including comb)ination of the existing tax parcels irto one parcel for assessment purposes. Regarding Record Lot #!.5: Your letter is the first written notice the City has received which states that Roy Ahern sold portions of what Ordinance #246 det.cribes as record Lot #15 to six separate individuals, and provides any notice to the City who those individuals might be. ^ v At the public hearing held December 30, 1983, Mr. Ahern and Mr. William Crear III stated in the record that Ahern "owns three pieces of property on the island..." and went on to describe record Lot #58 as one piece and record Lot #15 as two, pieces separated by the undeveloped road right of way. Later in the meeting Mr. Ahern then stated he had sold parts of record Lot #15 to six separate individuals, but that he had to sell the six lots at a discount because he felt :hs new ordinance made the lots unbuildable. The interesting thing is that on May 5, 1983, realtor Judy Frommes .called me to say she was representing Mr. Ahern and she was trying to sell these same properties for him. She identified all 6 parts of record Lot #15 including prior platted lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 64 and 64 and said she wanted to know the best way to sell and develop them considering the new ordinance which she knew had been adopted. BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 September 28, 1983 Page 2 Re: Roy Ahern She asked about all the various development options available including combination of Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11 into one buildable piece and Lots 65 and 65 into a second buildable piece. She was advised at that time to have Mr. Ahern make a formal variance request of the City for that possibility so that the Planning Commission and Council could decide the question. My letter to Mr. Ahern dated May 16, 1983 (enclosed) relates that conversation and goes on to list all the options available to him under the new ordinance. At no time, either in Ordinance #246 or otherwise, has the City ever said that Mr. Ahern could not sell each of the six parcels separately as you now state he has done. What the ordinance does say is that by separating these lots they will each fall into the category of a vacant, unbuildable parcel that can only be used for seasonal-recreational use of land without structures just like seven other similar properties on the island. I think Mr. Ahern and/or the other individuals involved could work together and with the City to remove the deteriorated structure now on Lots 64 and 65 and to combine the various lots into one and perhaps even two good building sites in keeping with the way they have been owned and used in the past and with the intent of the new zoning ordinance. As to the question of "a taking" which you raise, please remember that these six lots were never individually buildable, at least not since the 1967 or 1974 zoning codes became effective long before Ahern purchased the property; that the four inland lots are not accessible to the lake except through the front lots; that the four inland lots together total about 1.7 acres which did not meet the minimum two acre requirement of the strictly enforced 1974 zoning; and that the cabin on Lots 64 and 65 is not in a habitable condition and requires substantial structural and sanitation improvements. This new ordinance has not changed any of these facts. So there you have it. This letter is saying exactly the same thing to Mr. Ahern that has been said in many public meetings and in other meetings and calls between he and I since last fall. The options are still open for him or any of the other individuals to pursue. However, these six lots will be unbuildable and the City staff will not be in a position to issue any building permits or other approvals unless one of two things happens: Either 1. 2. All six lots are combined as per Ordinance #246; or A formal variance application is made to the City and the Planning Commission and Council approve of something other than what Ordinance #246 already allows. r September 28, 1983 Page 3 Re: Roy Ahern X- // LAW OFFICES SEYMOUR J. MANSFIELD ATTORNEY AT LAW 550 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 609 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 ^0]/ 2 81983 (612) 339-4295 QEM o • ; • V u OF COUNSEL VANCE O.BUSHAY STEPHEN H. PARSONS November 22, 1983 Mr. Alan P. Olson City Planner City of Orono P.O. Box 6 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Res Roy Ahern - Big Island Record Lot 15 Dear Mr. Olson: Mr. Ahern has asked me to respond to your letter of September 28, 1983. First, contrary to your statement, the City had written notice that Mr. Ahern had sold the six parcels and was no longer owner of those properties more than a month before Ordinance No. 246 was enactedd by the Orono City Council. The letter of Mr. Ahern's attorney to your attorney, Mr. Bruce Malkerson, d«;‘.r.ed November 22, 1982, is enclosed. Second, Mr. Ahern informs me that he has never made statements to the contrary as to his no longer being owner of the subject properties. Neither Mr. Ahern nor I have seen the transcript of the public hearing held on December 30, 1983, but suffice to note that Mr. Ahern denies that he said that he was still owner of the six parcels constituting Record Lot 15 on that ^ate, and your letter specifically notes that he ®tate that he had sold the parcels to six separate individuals. Further, Mr. Crear informs me that at the public hearing on December 3 , 1983, he said or meant to say that Mr. Ahern had formerly owned -thrU pieces of property on the island," and specifically notes that he did say that he was now the owner of Lot 65, which had 1 Mr. Ala* P, Olson Page 2 November -S, 1983 been conveyed to him by Mr. Ahern. Since you have quoted from some sort of "record" of the hearing, I would specifically request access to the record of this hearing to confirm what statements were or were not made by Mr. Ahern, City officials, and others. As to your reference to Ms. Frommes, she informs me that she was making an inquiry for a potential b*jyer as to whether the cabin on Lot 64 could be remodeled or other building could be done on the parcels. V7hile she had been in contact with Mr. Ahern and may have made reference to him in connection with the properties, the fact is that as of that date Mr. Ahern was not in title to the property. Third, contrary to your statement. Section 34.366 of the Ordinance clearly does prohibit the division and sale of record lots without City Council approval. In pertinent part, it provides: "All record lots...shall be continued in common ownership and shall not be subdivided, sold in parts, reduced in area, leased or otherwise separated without application for and City Council approval...." Section 34.366 of the Ordinance defines record lot for this purpose as "•'.11 the contiguous and abutting land owned in common by the same person or persons as of November 9, 1981...." Please advise if it is the City's position that, despite these provisions, the individual owners of the six parcels each may sell or transfer ownership of their parcels separately. Mr. Ahern was never barred from conveying these parcels to other persons prior to the enactment of Ordinance No. 246. Your previous moratorium Ordinances Nos. 238 and 241 barred the granting of "building permits, land subdivision approvals, rezoning approvals, conditional use or special use permits, variances or other authority for additional development." These ordinances did not restrict Mr. Ahern's sale of the individual parcels. Yet, even though these parcels were under separate ownership prior to the passage of Ordinance No, 246, brono continues to treat these properties as though they are under common ownership. The fact is that as separately owned parcels, four of the six lots, each approximately 1/2 acre, should have been treated as separate parcels and classified as suitable for the building of seasonal dwellings. The Ordinance at pages 17-18 so classifies at least 18 similar individually-owned parcels. Whatever the Mr. Alan P. Olson Page 3 November 23, 1983 prior zoning law permited. Ordinance No. 246 granted such seasonal dwelling classifications to individual owners, as it should have to each of the individual owners of these subject parcels. Further, the four inland lots are accessible to the lake by road through the two lake front lots, which constitutes an easement of use for the owners of these inland lots. Mr. Ahern is not in a position to speak for these six individuals. I again urge you to communicate with these persons separately and to accord them fair and equal treatment with those owners of similarly situated lots who were granted permission to build seasonal dwellings. In conclusion, I believe that it is appropriate that the City of Orono reclassify each one of the six parcels as separate record lots, and reclassify Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 as buildable lots for seasonal dwellings, in accord with the classification of other individually owned lots under the Ordinance. If the City is not prepared to do this, then it is my opinion that the Ordinance as applied to these properties is unconstitutional and invalid in the respects mentioned in my previous letter. I trust that the City having been provided with the evidence that these parcels were in fact separately owned, should have been separate record lots, and should have been classified for sea^nal dwellings, will act in a fair and equitable manner >or'''€hat^his matter can be amicably resolved without litigation. SJM:dw cc: Camp Roy E. Ahe-n Joe H. ( III and Joan B. Ronald 1-. dchumeister Robert Cox and Barbara Cox Thomas N. Traf and Janet L. Traf David S. Steingas and Lane M. Steingas V7illiam Crear III !. . • »* • • % •• • »- . • • • • f% T^llOgDWd NOV 2 81983 CITY OF OROMn r D\ ,\f' ,4;A’/ • • •w •• ,4 KovGrJ:o \V. V ■; 22, 1982 *1 I^r. Bruce Kalkersor* Popham, Kaik, Schnobrich, Kaufman . .. . 6.Doty, Ltd 4300 IDS Center Miiinoapolis, iiinnesota 55402 •• V * • . .>• .4«.-.it * • # ^ • • • Re: Zoning Ordinance ArxTndinent for"^Big Island’’ . ^ • - • « A. . . • •• • Dear Mr. Malkerson: It is ny understanding that at tho Orono Council meeting to l5e held this evening an ordinance concerning tlie zoning district designations and perfornuxnce stjihdards 'for Big • ' Island will be considered. A client of ours hao brought a ■'' ' ’ copy of that ordinance to. o]ar office, ^We reviewed-it and v;ould suggest that entry number 15 on page 11 shbuld be • ' arondod. property which is described at that point V/.3JJ ovni'id by Mr, P.oy Aliern. llowavsr, Mr. ?ihern has conveyed each of those parcels and so they are nov; uj:dor individual ownsrship. Documents of conveyance v;ore recorded *.;ith the L’ennepin County .Recorder's office on Hpyoniber 19, 1982. Based on ny reading oi the ordinance, it appears that each of those parcels should now bo listed as a separate buildable parcel. . Should you need any additional information concerning this mattr.r cr have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact mo. V • . 4 • Yours very truly. Herbert P. Loflcr III HPL:np cc Mr. Roy Ahern I • %* • i#• • • • ^ • • . r /. *• • J'* •1 * •% :.• • . •. * • *v I * * . • • • • * • •••*,• i . '•.I** . • • f* * • . • , • • h.*. * • • . n > * ^"a yc ■ • •; •• •. • •« .. •• »• • • • •» TO: FROM: Bruce D. Malkerson, City Attorney Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: November 2"), 1983 SUBJECT: Roy Ahern - Big Island Record Lot 15 Bruce, I am enclosing a copy of a letter from Seymour Mans­ field, attorney for Roy Ahern. I am also enclosing previous letters exchanged between Alan Olson and Mr. Mansfield. Please inform Mr. Mansfield that Alan is no longer with the City, and respond to his comments. MPG:jl enc. « * t J\ - V/gT^ OF k-M^ ig> - (//gw OF PF^OF CA€/AJ ^ _ 0<^\> \jie'^ ot-cM/aJ e ~2- f-;r^ O t - pfen3/2•^S ^ CA&>Ai \ ( .J *iiiiK'ffislh'. •• • ^ ^ • ’ / * .**. ' • < ?^.••^■ Si i i‘V>^ iil ' ’ 4. J PS .y r* ^ itt - ^ ^;5s3?^.’iF^ i Mfy- I ! 1'^ •*' T/^*• tfef' '.? ' -i. :- ■ .'v -■ I * • •/ • ! / C * * ’ '*• * • • ■■- &f'-??/>-.'’ ■ f'->; — \\ i '■ ■^ ■Sf^... V I •i. : |pii:^l ■ ; • \ ■ ■•-■';v -• ■' : /4<j>6.’.- /fFjf' l:> '.* , r.:.... i=* :*_^ A*' •* • f '< * ■* ■ ^ * . ^ ^, • ''^. - i' • *y' ’ ‘ . . ' * ■ • ' ' r' * ■ . ,^r *., .\ .... • » •> -• •. ^^v.r « : •, * . * *C '■■ ■ ■ **^ ■•' ,*•'V.J>‘I ■ '^•i’.,■ -■* • <» «.- t ' -O - T' •’■ —/.■>< ■ •;■ ■ , r-J ., -. ■ ■• •: ..."f:. ’ //:"•■-iv'^; ;‘.Jrr^'' ... . ■: I ' •• ‘ I *' * K..'*I.r i/’ ^_!_____V jf! 1 i v/^.r-vv: f - , - j * •^ •*r?••:'/.v:-;m. ‘ ’ * > • •■•‘‘ . •’. • >■ - -■•‘Jii - , ••■ ■■'■:• ■ •• ■■ -•• *• :/s: -VT^t' '• '“'-^r--•■ ^'•- ‘ ' '=^ ••:;•.?•<". ^'*4 t-. •» tic 1 r -* art? ii.' » niM"fcgiTr*s*^» 4T»^w 'rvt. .v.‘V •*Jvl •: ?1 ‘ * ^•v; ^ ■ •.r- 2 ' '’f r^' ■■ '* ^;r • ' » '■ C' - Y '* '' ^ * • I. *•. " * ‘ JlT* •, -'‘t *'» i , » #' • 4 • .>•'•••, .v: * I ^ •’ *0r*■■ 5v--tJ Jb ' 3*^ V ®i < ^i i >' ■•:« *'} ■“* ■;f »..‘ '«v 8tg^:JS%PS* ’5:> ..'. i •C. '. 4 s ^ - <• , r. mIp %'Vsi *. . •'• .« -. ^*' ». •4 *JS • ^:mmm ^,' i < '•’ . '. '•* .■ r=is.- >>•st*#‘ • •t»J ••r'lrv » " 'i-ri v- . 1 , ' X Kt ^-'. A*. * V\K * ' S'SPi3 -' "''-iiai?'VI ■ ■' .■1..: i,. , -• y-WL?- .V ;’■■ ’i m wm. X* . ..•• .• :VV- ’■- ' i?3«. .I#Ti :: %>*¥• •" '* r \*■ w P N': ■- ‘ ^ ^ fr*^: ■;?;■■■ 1•> * • »« g» '.'r- ' ' •<. A ■ Vv< • -« : ^r-' • k >■A* i' iV)? .r. 'ii' ffe '0i:m '.r^^ - ■. "i H,iV.U,f Vi;! I ^ # 1 % A- B ' .• C r.i , / l> }:i^- c w ^ f'cr^Z^irWrO (^4-i^ Ov4/AJ TO: FROM; DATF- Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commissior' Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger. Assistant Zoning Administrator June 5,1998 SUBJECT; #2376 Richard W. Brown 2376 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Permit --Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Size:5\jn sq. ft. (1.18 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to work below the Ordinary High Water Level for improvements to the boathouse that exists on the property. The project includes adding 4 new wood posts to' raise the lakeside boat entrance to level the structure, and add a new beam along the bottom of the structure for support. • Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.09, Conditional Uses Section 10.56, Subd. 3(29), Water Oriented Accessory Structures Proposed Project; The boathouse has been located in its present location for many years. The applicant has proposed to do some structural modifications that would level the boathouse. The applicant has indicated the boathouse is in good condition. The modification would include placing new wood posts under the boathouse with beams above the posts to support the structure. City Code states any work done below the Ordinary High Water Level requires a Conditional Use Permit. The extent of the work will have little effect on the structure. §2376RichardtK Bro\m 2635 Shadywood Road CUP 6/15/93 page-1 Findings: 1.That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with tiie objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 3. 4. That the proposed use of the strucfare would not change from the existing use; That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions! 1. The exterior of the structure shall not increase in size. 2. The construction shall be in conformance with the Building Code. 3.The construction shall be completed substantially similar to the plans, submitted by the applicant, on file with the City's Building and Zoning Department (Dated May 15, 1998), subject to review by the Building Official. Attachments A B C D E F Plat Map Site Plan Topography Application Construction Plan Permit Record §2376 Richard fK. Bro\m 268S Shcufyvfood Road CUP 6/15/98 page-2 ■ 2S (10) •ffTff.* *»9^ I I ; JSa.ra"' I ^St>/ '*0.72 ^_-- l...> (5, 3 '4 9 (7) .*• -J. « ^' V ^ -1V V V. X <p (5U ........................ \ \ (24) .‘-- i« PT CP LOT 10 (25) 104.34 I’ 8 4!3r?r ^9 .m ';%r/. '•••...V •. (4) V/'^“ 1 \^ \ \>^ fari cf LOT 10 (I) SZ.6- 5£> 54* EXHIBIT A ' X a Ahp /cA /■// ?la L of Survey for Hichard H. Rreustcdt in Lot 24j Phoaeant J^wn Hennepin County, Hin'ncsota / \> Certificate of Survey; 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a sux’voy of the toxmdaries of that part of Lot 24, Pheasant Lavn, lyinf, Horth- westerly of a line drawn parallel with and 130 feet Northwesterly .from th^ Southeast- erly lino of said lot, the location of all existing buildincs thereon, and -tte shore^ne as of March 9, 1977. No monximonts have been placed to estabUsh lot linesA»* co^^rs^ EXHIBIT B forcon Fi, Coffin Re 6064 *■ Land Surveyor and Planner Long uike, Minnesota Scale: 1” = 60* Dute ; 3-9-77 EXHIBIT D Application # <^3 7 Date Receiyed \ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION . Initial Application Fee $250.00 . . ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION f Site Address 2-CoPi^ “PoQrl ________________ Property Identification Number (PXD.) 9>ll I 1~1 3.-=^ OOSO__________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required sun'ey. Date Property Acquired.____________________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Pre‘ ent use of property: ✓ residential other (specify) ZoiiingDistrict: \ g.- IP>______________________________ > V ^ .J \ /y I' APPLICANT ^ Phone (home ) ^ y ^ _____ Phone (work ) Addressi^/^J?-^ CityV> Zip:, OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ^ Estimated Construction Cost $ _____' Describe request in detail: c (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ‘ ------Lot Area ____ Lot Width * ___‘Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear • •.i Average Lakeshore -----Other (specify) -Tl? <L a. Saad HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL Pj^OPERTY COIWITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty^or 'jpnusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: . ---- - / ^--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------———■ (attach additional sheets if necessary) • EXHIBIT E page 2 of 3 (2^ 4 ” wood post .16" da concrete Gatvarized steel cover Typical ex)s6ng post -V E)dsting post number top to water v/ater to boat house condition of post 1)3.25"9"poor 2)1"10"poor 3)3.50"10"good 4)5"12.5"far 5)6"12.5"far 6)8"14"poor 7)10.5"15"good 8)12"14"far 9)12"12"good back end or page2of3 BOAT HOUSE 2685 SHADYWOOD RD. CONOmONS AS OF 5A1 5/98 By RW.Brown P.E. ph 479«)97 IL EXHIBIT E page 3 of 3 1) Raise back end of boat house to the level of post nu. 9 add concfP‘e pads under beam. 2) Place 4 er i6' x 30' post to solid bottom using barge. 3) Move cross beam forward under the back frame place on top of new post 4) Place barge in boat house and raise under roof beams to allov/ nev/ 8x5 beams under front of boat house End of boat house rased up EXraSIT F address c3(p^S‘ permit record 7 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE:June 10, 1998 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members FROM;Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: John Chenoweth, having an interest in 3850 Shoreline Drive 3 7 7 Commercial Site Plan and Finding of Substantially Similar Use_________ Zoning: B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District Lot Size: 35,028.00 sq. ft. (.80 acres) Building Size:6,720 sq. ft. Required Parking:6,720-500 = 6,200 6,200/500=12.44 Twelve (12) parking spaces are required. Application: The applicant, Mr. John Chenoweth, is interested in purchasing the building at 3850 Shoreline Drive which is currently owned and operated by Mr. Steve Katainen as "Bay Furniture". Mr. Katainen has operated the business at this location since November 1987. The property is zoned B5, Limited Neighborhood Business District. A furniture store is not listed in the B5 district as either a permitted or conditional use. In April 1986, the City Council determined that the proposed furniture store was compatible with the other uses in the zoning district and would operate substantially similar to a "gallery". In October 1986, the City Council approved the commercial site plan for the furniture store. Mr. Chenoweth is asking for the same consideration that was granted in 1986, noting that his proposed business is to continue to sell furniture and add home accessories such as lamps. pictures, mirrors, glassware/ceramics, and artificial plants and baskets. He also proposing to paint the interior and exterior and remove overgrown shrubs and bushes. He has indicated that signage would be in conformance with the Zoning Code. Staff Recommendation: 1.To recommend that the proposed furniture store with home accessories is substantially similar to other permitted uses. 2. To recommend approval of the commercial site plan, subject to the following: a.The applicant is to provide a plan for removal/replacement of plantings to be reviewed by the City's consultant to effectively screen the use along the east property line. b. Applicant to restripe the parking lot to so that each stall is 9' by 20 ’, with at least 12 parking spaces. c.Applicant to submit signage plan that is in compliance with Section 10.61, and obtain a sign permit. Attachments: A B C D E F G H I J K L application Applicant's letter Elevation Survey Floor Plan Zoning Map B-5 District Zoning District standards Staff Report from April 10, 1986 Notice of Council Action--4/21/86 City Council minutes--4/14/86 City Council minutes--10/27/86 I i n • \ Am A Application # 1 Date Received S - / V-*? ^ Amount Paid ^.C7) .oo CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siie Address ^DTH- . Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 1^— I I "7 ~ *^3 3'^QOQ<o applicant ;^ ^ phone (home) >ii^ L A ddress //^6^ Name Cixe.nouf^J^ ^ Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name rv^<€L /O Phone (home) T f ^ ^ ________ Phone (work) ''^'1 ^ ^ ^ Address 2^Go Dr A- i—- Date Property Acquired f^D\J I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. __City ^tJ ■ Zipj^SlLLI^ ^ iq's7 (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 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 C"‘ OTHER APPLICATIONS X $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 SlKILW- \J>€ i 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS _____ Completed Application Form. _____ Describe request in detail. ------- Certified Propei^ Owners List of owners within 350*, labels and plat map (you rnust 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 surv'ey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). ------- List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the prope^. 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 (ll'» X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staft will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Ov\'ner 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 ^e and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.I me and correct to the best of hLl 7ii.DateApplicant's signature 0\YNER'S SIGNATT0 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 member^^foi; purposes of irw^sti^tion and verification of this request. Owner’s signature ^ -----—» Date r//3/%/ 7 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plamiing 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. 06/05/9S FRI 12:19 FAX 6128821167 CHENOWETH BUIU)ERS Bay Home Fumishings 74 j5 J-nncc Avc Suite 2S5 Fitm:i Mn >5435 710-7.14 June 05, 1995 Cit>- of Orono P.O. Box 66 Ctysial Bay. Mn 55323 Liz VanZomeren, 1 am writing this letter in reference to my coversaiion with Steve (Catoinen on June 5.199$. The changes I’m planning to make arc 1) Paint the exterior and interior. 2) Remove overyxown shrubs and bushes. 3) New sign (follow local code). My goal in this business is to continue with iiimhurc but 1 want to diversify* into home accessories which includes ligltting(lamps), pictures, mirrors, glas$ware(bowls,vases,&other glass items), ceraniic(bowls,vases.pots), and green.^ which include artificial trees and baskets which will be pre-madc or custom order. If there are any questions or comments please contact me. Sincerely, John Chenoweth b_____ © 002 i • » • • n: rz. sis 3out(h £leva(t(^ -o.c»i -j. a*.. ^ 0\ to 5 I — 'Ju n S3 ^ S3 t 4 4 r > T) V/fc'^T e West 515.00 feet of the South f Coveitwent Lot 8, Section 17, !3 West of the Fifth Principal • '’"..qt of SnT*inw r HjDOP- PlAk/ oo L 4 1 ' ■ r i * . f. ■ *.• . •. .. *v ’•.;r- I .- r* • I .•.:• i . . • ' ••• ,•'» 5*' 4-.* •* ♦* •. *___^ •, •’.I.'. ' .”2criin^ ,I'S*4 m rf -ggs^y gt 2 ^ C* VF ^ »l J\l ^ _ /•Ttl iW _Itf ■ r^ !' ^ a?* ^s"*"-) - ;^x......1 : I ?%-H ■fy^n n k. » • 2 % ^ ^7V ■3C, ~_ •^ * ' F 1 KJ •\*ir :Kl_2i T*-*? c« r*e I* »! i C ^ w "iti^ St '• 'I *w 4f*Kr^^ <C^j ?i^4^ \ 'Kf=a V-11 *5 -t tl't t ^ * “ VP-i» o \ - 3* f Ki r I *iA (f* .• A .X^M-----^i\^ 0^1 Ct !v 1 )orrj*t!ooc 9Ht^ H .'<•*»■ »»t 10 ’ll* I^J m. f % %1-’ ■•. c. 4 -« •'* S> “■'iUl » 3! ■♦. r**M» 0|| g\H ft^M m - /S5 iO. 1 \5 S CL- •• - o vTE ■M'\iZ o^ S (§® •KSvs^ 1 -t;’' '« \, 1 III t? JO A 111 I »l OiC • »f.Oi E't -A « J « jsr UL III • w 2 yi Si ;a«;:iJ ft 5ft # ••• I w j ^ ^ .r../ n •<V P 5W ^ I «t at s «, O' »♦«•••••••♦••••••••• ts......f-x<........K Kt S 5T “ r S W • W • „. X :: % X t ■) T ou 1 t b»t oV llW T tmuit[ »*M .! o*!.A i A i'5 LlHlteD NiEIGrrl-‘BO|2-lrtoC)D H "P/5T2.I Cr § 10.44 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any ''B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-5" Business I District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the \following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. B. C. D. E. F. Municipal buildings. Offices. Clinics. Art and school supply store Book and magazine store. Office supply store. estate office. G. Banks, loan company, insurance company, real H. I. J. K. L. Barbership, beauty shop. Camera and photograph supply store. Locksmith. Hobby shop. Gift store. M. N. O. P. Q. R. Glassware and pottery. Antique store. Jewelry store. Watch repair. Library. Museum. S. T. U. ^ V. Record shop. Music store. Tobacco shop. Galleries. W. Pet Shop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A. Within any "B-5" Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the followino uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. Drycleaning store. Tailor shop. Pressing and shoe shine shop. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. 3. 4. 5. 7. Veterinary clinic. 8. Kennels. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) J i 9. Coffee or bagel retail stores, subject to the followiowing conditions: a. devoted “y single building shall bedevoted ,0 coffee and/or bagT^t^” b. floor area, “a combineSet md f f 4,000 s.f. of gross floor a^ea ® ““ “o' ««'ed c. Standard for restaurant uses AnnlicaJ^fh^n f requirement needs for the site will be met.^^ demonstrate that the total parking d. a maximum of 60 seats!* ^ >» ’“iled to .1 ro:Mayor Butlor Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Orono Council Members C l' ‘V PROM: DATE: >OBJ: Jeanne A. Mabusth» Zoning Administrator April 10, 1986 #1013 Furniture Minnesota, 3850 Shoreline Drive Comrrercial Site Plan X Zoning District - B-5 Area - 40,808.81 s.f. or .93 acres 20,000 s.f. required Application - Commercial site plan review for proposed 80’ x 84’ structure (6720 s.f.) to house furniture sales/storage operation. hist of Exhibits - A “ Application B - Plat Map ^ ; C/- 'City Engineer Cook’s Letter r;Vp - Minnehaha Creek’Watershed District Report '^E - Planning Comrais'sion^Minupes'3/17/86 F - Drainage Study vl; ' G - Landscape Plan . II - Site Flan I - Watershed - local J - Building Plans & elevations % ^ I .»«-»v ♦•ove Katainon, owner of Furniture Minnesota, has purchased th< *' “nstruct a -gallery furniture store - -gallery" operation has he- .efined U Katainen as a satellite store handling limited lines urnituro. The furniture store would bo operated as Katainon s ’ store in St. Paul but on a much smaller scale. The store uoul car limited brands or special linos in limited quantities , iuch determinations ns soon as the needs and tastes of ro determined. urnituro sales use is not specifically addressed skod the Planning Commission to ■ proposed use in relation to the intent of the B a zon ] pattern of surrounding existing commercial development. •he intent of the district is to provide w!':” upply comn.oditios or perform a service ' ot glnerate high traffic and excessive amounts of hardcover. •lanning Commission found the proposed use -.pocial zoning amendment. The use trols The proposed u • -or hardcover the B-5 district has no hardcover ^ f... .ill generate less hardcover than the maxed “so ^aciiirj m „ .owell Zitsloff in 1979 on the same site. an.l rotenti.-. • there is adequate green area around the building, scruuuu 'ond. J CITY OP OROUO ‘^0. Lex CC 55323 -173-7357 COPIES: ZOniKG PILE NO.1013 notice of council action _ _Notice: V21/S^'0: Stephen Katainen 0/1 Payne Ave. _ _ _^5* NN 55101 - - - - - - - - - - - COUI.-CIL ACT-IOM - MOTION: ' ■ •— -i5ht-of-way o5 Cty. 15 .0 H-...peo /^^enced landscano rsi ^ --nep P-tving, ground cover^a^ ^ cover-,,a ... or bond. . - in addVtiin loiter "i ««sen,ent over retention pond Ip^Uc^tio^fe^ -«view o5 C-":*'-- with bU’’rHr0— i'ay 2 *^7 I* • a. . ‘J'J-.iCiin * ^ • V *5 j • * * • * ^0 CC* 2* t* * ^ r 1 • — — — —. •"-’/ ...1; nvai' • ‘ ir c.)pic'£ of the i ->» ••'•• ^‘r.prcv:. : l»' ^ v.. A" .. Necorcl^.r or r«*v -' V‘ ” '-riv. C7.ty Council. ‘ ' ^ < MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986 • #1010 DUANE H. HALL 1860 SHADYWOOD ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained the request for a subdivision and variance at 1860 Shadywood Road in which properties are legally combined. Applicant is requesting to a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement to create a new building site and variances of lot area, lot width, and hardcover. Planning Commission recommended denial of this application. He noted that Mr. Hall has notified staff and Council in his letter (attached to memo) that he would not be able to be present at this meeting but requests Council to act on his application in his absence. Mayor Butler asked Attorney Blatz her opinion regarding action on this application without applicant's presence. Attorney Blatz stated her recommendation would be to defer action until applicant and/or a representative for applicant is present. Based on Attorney Blatz's opinion, it was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to table this application. #1013 STEVE KATAINEII 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIE17 Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained the application for a commercial site plan reveiv; for proposed 80'x84' structure to house furniture sales/storage operation. He noted that the furniture store use is not currently addressed in the B-5 zone, however the Planning Commission has found the use to meet the intent of the B-5 zoning district. Applicant has provided all necessary information and has agreed to enter into a developers agreement to assure-, completion of certain site improvements. Steve Katainen was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the City Engineer and M.C.W.D. has confirmed that the property will have no drainage problems and are satisfied with the hydrolic information submitted by applicant's engineer. Mr. Katainen indicated that the proposed building would be finished on all four sides with brick & wood siding, however the actual building drawings have not been finalized. 8 MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986 ^1013 STEVE KATAINEN continued Because Council would like to see the final plans before giving final approval, it was moved by CounciImeraber Frahm, seconded by Counciimember Grabek, to grant preliminary approval cl the Commercial Site Plan and upon receipt of the final plans for signage, lighting, landscaping, and exterior finish of building will grant final approval; and developers agreement to be provided before issuance of building permit. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. ’ j •'I 1986 JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE* SANDY BEACH PLACE RESOLUTION #1980 It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Hammerel, to adopt Resolution #1980 approving a Joint Use Dock License to Sandy Beach Place for the period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. ENGINEER'S REPORT: ORONO MWCC INTERCEPTOR UPDATE City Engineer Cenn Cook introduced Michael Lynch of Bonestroo & r^ssociates who is working for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission on the Metro Waste Interceptor in Orono. Mr. Lynch reported that the infiltration/inflow study done in 1981 indicated that it would not be cost effective to eliminate the infiltration/inflow to extend the life of the interceptor system. At that time, Orono told MWCC to increase capacity or there would be a problem in the near future. He noted that in April 1985 they reached capacity in which 15,000 gallons of sewage overflowed into Lake Minnetonka. At this point, he was hired by MWCC to study the system to determine the areas that were under capacity and present a preliminary design report. Upon approval of the report by MWCC they anticipate improvements to begin in Spring 1987. Mr. Lynch explained the findings of the study which contained present and future daily wastewater flows, future flow summary, and lift station & interceptor analysis. He pointed out that most of the lift stations were currently over their respective rated capacities. He presented three alternatives to improve the system taking into consideration cost efficiency and causing minimal disruption. Because this project is only at the preliminary stage. Mayor Butler requested Mr. Lynch to keep them informed on this matter. L. ^•i*‘X *1 >*: —• •-•' • *•'*-^* '• •'■ * • '**■“' MTyiiTOfi OF THB RBGOLAR ORONO CODIICIL MBBTING BBLO OCTOBER 27 r 1986 mOlVSTBVB KATAINBN i^Btr^HORBLXNB DRIVE PINAL APPROVAL O? COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN Steve Kateinen was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained the plan whic was conceptually approved by the Council on April 1 •; 1986. Applicant has fulfilled all requirements. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the on L outstanding concern was the type of outside lightin* proposed. Mr. Katainen stated that he proposes a light above cac; of the 3 side windows in the portico^ 1 coach light c; each side of the door and a light above the door^ sp» lights on the building facing the parking lot. I. stated the type of lighting for the sign has not yo been determined. . i s. ; • • i' •. • ‘ • . S.;.* . I ? : .• V* . Zoning Administrate!;’ Mabusth noted that the spot light should be directed’.to shine down. She stated that r.h feels assured that staff and Mr. Katainen can wor together on the appropriate lighting. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded 1.‘- CounciImember Adams, that the Council approve the fina and amended commercial site plan and preliminar*. building plans for Stephen Katainen for a propose*; furniture store on the property located at 3 0f»f Shoreline Prive, subject to staff approving th • lighting. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. #1064 CITY OF ORONO SPATES AVENUE - LIFT STATION CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the regarding the requirement for conditional use pormxt for lift stations, an ordinance that has boon cn ’ books since at least 1968, however the City- has nev^-r previously filed a formal condtional use permit application for construction of a lift station. When t*K* issue was raised this year, staff had two courses action to recommend to Council: a) obtain an after-the-fact conditional use permit; b) request an ordinance amendment to- delete requirement never utilized. Staff chose the former as it felt that location revi<'v of such facilitieji is appropriately a land use issi;*'. TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Admimslrator DATE:May 27, IS'PS SUBJECT:#2378 - William Z. Memik 1840 Lakeview Terrace Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area:43,328 square feet (.994 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4’ fence to enclose the entire back ywd of the property. A variance from height restrictions for front yards is required for tlus particular property as it is a ’’through lot". Through lots are defined as lots abutting two parallel streets. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 15(C andD) ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-1A District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200 ft.50 ft.30 ft.50 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Side Yard .994 acres 290 ft.114 ft.- existing 80 ft.71 ft. 32 ft.- existing Lot size does not meet the zoning district standards. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP A hardship does exist on the applicant's property due to streets abutting both the front yard and back yard of the property, thus resulting in the lot having two Code defined front yards. This condition restricts the applicant from constructing a fence to enclose the back yard over the minimum standard height of 3 1/2 feet. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can be put to a reasonable use as it exists. Although, the applicant has indicated a 4 foot fence will provide more protection for his children and family pet from County Road 6. The Zoning Code requires a maximum height of 3 1/2 feet for that part of the fence encroaching into the setback distance. U2378 William Z Mernik 1840 Lakeview Terrace Variance 6/15/98 Page2 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The property does contain a unique characteristic as it is located between two roadways. The south side of the property is Lakeview Terrace, where access is available to the property. The north side of the property is the back side of the house, and is abutting County Road 6. The Code designates any portion of the property abutting a thoroughfare to be considered frontage, thus creating a parcel with tw’o front yard setback areas. Back yard eind side yard setback areas allow for a fence to be constructed to 6 feet. The applicant has stated the location of the property, between the two streets, has lur 'Cci his ability to construct a fence that would provide safety for his children and family pet firom County Road 6. 3. The veuiance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for increasing the fence height by 6 inches will not have any altering effect on the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Fences are permitted within encroachm:nt areas in this zoning district. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. »2378 William Z Mernik 1840 Lakeview Terrace Variance 6/15/98 Paged i 8. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Only a few properties exist that are located directly between both Lakeview Terrace and County Road 6. 9. TTie conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most properties in the area are located abutting only the road by which they utilize for access. This property is bounded by County Road 6 and Lakeview Terrace. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial prpperty right of the applicant. It would be possible for the applicant to construct a shorter fence, therefore complying with the Zoning Code. However, the applicant has requested the larger fence to provide a more substantial barrier between the property’s backyard and the County Road. 11.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. 12.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 Code defines "through-lots" as lots which have two opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets for a non-comer lot. On through lots both street lines shall be front lot lines. The applicants property, therefore is suffering a hardship based on being subject to two front lot lines. This restricts the applicants ability to have a fence that is normally permitted for enclosure of a back yard. Fences are permitted in the front yard, but are restricted to 3 1/2 feet in height. The applicant s back yard is not visible from County Road 6 as a thick row of trees exist between the road and the property. The added fence would then not interfere with any sight lines. #2378 William Z Mernik 1840 Lakeview Terrace Variance 6/15/98 Page! Issues 1.The lot is a through lot making it difficult for the applicant to construct the type of fence he has determined is necessary to provide protection for his children and family pet from County Road 6. 2. The variance from feiice height standards is only for an additional 6 inches. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance from height standards in a front yard to allow a 4 foot fence to be constructed. > 1 Attachments A B C D E. Application Plat Map Location Map List of Adjacent Property Owners Survey U2378 William Z Memlk 1840 Lakevlew Terrace Variance 6/15/98 Pages EXHIBIT A Application U Date Received 5^ • ZQ •^'3 Amount Paid 3*^0*“ CITY OF ORONO - \^ARIANCE 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 /^fcg.V>p.(J Property Identification.Number (P.I.D.) QCMO__________ Attach legal description to a^l^ation if not included on required survey. 3Date Proper^ Acquired I (do) ^o not) also own the ad acent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property; )( residential Zoning District: / 1?- ( |\__________ other (speciiy) APPLICANT Name lj,1 harry ^2-^ ftlorr\ : \r Phone (home)AI^^ '■ _______________ Phone (work) ^ City; OnyrsQ Z\xi: S’SS^ 'V i' —rv•1 '.'w) OWNER (if different than applicant) ‘ Name Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ •-JT Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST . Estiraate^Construction Cost jS_______. Describe request^iudetail) CL M (amich additional s IP f\PPj20USt) H>V FC 00 VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width ■MCX CA. CVjp *v:r' if necessary) Tvi CC OM (o- Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore X- (specify) _yAvrAvY.p 4p.\YP. nn -HvniA^ lc>4- hardship /description of UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or unusual property conditions preventing comnliance with Zoning Code requiremerits:^ /Htj-. O^. ^oinphance with Zoning Code requiremerits: l^iy, U^f r^Kcrttj[L l<r)T ^ da^ c\ £^r<7 ^ ^ <yc^RD( -6 ^5^ c<L T (attach additional sheets if necessary) S'a •5ie. 3 EXHIBIT B ^.......• rji.^i i«rjr « LAKEVIEW' j ..•r.26 VLU hAl im 430 (14' 1,^ ^ COUNTRY CLIJR RQ iLO' (15)1 (10) S Xrg) Jt*4| 7?^ (M) (17) ■*. S <JVr. Sk' (25) • •.** 43(3 M7*\i»53*1 ^ ouTiot (2) " W vsr'X ?ir * 30.66 SD'C 196.62 I ■•••*.C6 ^6.6j -7 w v4»J/5 ounoT 2 • (9) Ci)(^. *^^*30 *7Vt 9 _• 8 >•0 S47*J9'||.{ s (21)(19) Tfrs (J5ls) 440 n crp W EXHlBl 1 C r- 376 Vo. ^S. 16a. 5 5-a*a’ i6*£ (22) ,r'R%K-05 77-;/S-23-4Z.27-/'6 '23'4; in fNJ § lO 1 y"- RD t -------------©TO (18) mLSFSL& LMl ((>) V (5) ©i ii «/'gr/i3. 8 340 S57*5&'|l*£ S (4) OUTLOT A ‘^2Cv'v _2I7«4 *«- * s. / RUH DATE' 05/05/98 . BATCH SOS PROP ADDR OtfNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR .PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 27-118-23 A1 0002 01805 SIXTH AVE N RAYMOND R OLSON RAYMOND R OLSON 1805 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN S5356 38 27-118-23 42 0010 01840 LAKEVIEW TER W Z i L J MERNIK WILLIAM Z t LISA J MERNIK 1840 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE MN . 55356 38 27-118-23 42 0016 01845 LAKEVIEW TER JANET K ASKE JANET ASKE 1845 LAKEVIEW TERRACE LONG LAKE MN 55356 • I « 38 27-118-23 41 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA 38 27-118-23 42 0011 01830 LAKEVIEW TER LORRAINE OWINGS LORRAINE OWINGS 1830 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 42 0022 01870 SIXTH AVE N P G t H H HERNANDEZ PHILIP G 8 MARY H HERNANDEZ 1870 CO RD NO 6 ORONO MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 13 38 27-118-23 42 0009 01860 LAKEVIEW TER D 8 B LOHHANN DAVID 8 BARBARA J LOHMAN 1860 UKEVIEW TERRACE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 42 0015 01865 LAKEVIEW TER K R ASKE 8 S K ASKE KARL R 8 SHERRILYN D ASKE 1865 UKEVIEW TERRACE LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 505 00008 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPE^Y TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE Q s^Q 1 « • j ! #«t^Sl • h K : CiAPPr:OVF.r • co.sArPao JEXHIBIXJE^ f-’}VV nvO'^n•'.M j • m '.»;•■•! 1 Certificate of Survey for Hartmut Ginnov/ Merkert ^ of Lot 5, Block 1. LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota /?{•; T ft? ^ \ A?'Vi. .V5V^. ► '^O'Z A^Ajuuu ^3.l~-jLdbi 7t 7 3z. / ~ ^'1 <rv- 3^^ ;vV.^,r- • « * ' . l •• %• • *. . ' • ♦• 75-12-87 V:7> Iron marker * ‘ *' ' •'% • • •• I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 5, Block 1. LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION, and the lo­ cation of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other im-r provements or encroachments. COFFIN & 6R0NBERG, INC. • •* • « * Tic7Hark S. Gronberg Cic. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors & Planners Long Lake, Minnesota ? TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator June 2,1998 #2379-Deborah Sholl 4100 Watertown Road Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-1A One Family Rural Residential District (5 Acres) 1,326,837 square feet (30.46 acres)__________________ Application: The applicant is proposing the new construction of three season porch to be attached to &e principal residence. A front setback variance is required. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.27, Subd. 5(B): RR-1A Lot Requirements ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-1 A District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard RR-IA 300 ft.100 ft.50 ft.100 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 30.46 acres dry 1,170 ft.55 ft.190 ft.177 ft. The zoning lot does not meet front setback requirements. §2379 Deborah Shall 4100 lyalerlOMTt Road Variance June 15, J99S Rage 1 Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application as tlie lot exceeds the 2 acre minimum lot requirement. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application as the subject property is not located within 1000' of a protected body of water. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The residence was constructed 55 feet from the front lot line, in 1900, well before the zoning code required a 100 foot setback in the RR-1A zoning district. This condition has resulted in the applicant’s inability to improve the structure by constructing a three season porch. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used in its current state. The addition will not alter the use of the property. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. T^e existing residence was constructed prior to the current requirements of the zoning district. The residence encroaches into the 100 foot required front yard setback. All other setbacks are met by existing structures on the property. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The surrounding properties consist of residential properties. The use of the applicants property would not change if the proposed variance is approved. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable Uf.e for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. U2379 Deborah Shall 4100 IVatertoym Road Variance June IS. 1998 Page! 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access ’« not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The existing use of the property as a single family residence is permitted by the zoning code. The proposed three season porch addition to the residence will not alter the use of the property. The Board or Couricil may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The residence was constructed 55 feet from the front lot line, prior to current zoning code requirements. The zoning district requirements have been changed to require a 100 foot setback. The requirements have created a previously conforming situation into a le^al non-conforming structure. The revised zoning has made it impossible for the property owner to improve the residence without a variance. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most properties in the area conform to zoning district setback requirements. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment , ^ of a substantial property right of the applicant. Due to the location of the existing residence within the required front setback, any addition to the residence would require a variance. H2379 Deborah Shall 4100 lVour:o\m Road Variance June IS. 1998 Pages i 4 11. The granting of the proposed variance uill 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. 12. 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 entire existing residence is located within the required front setback. It is impossible to expand the residence without the granting of a variance. Issues 1. The existing residence is located 55 feet from the edge of the street as the property line is located in the center of Watertown Road, which is unplatted. The residence is also located within the required front setback. 2.The addition of the proposed three season porch would not further encroach on the required front setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a variance from front yard setback requirements to allow the addition of a three season porch to be located attached to the residence, which is located 55 feet from the front yard setback, where 100 feet is required. Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Attachments A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Front View of Proposed Porch Addition - V U2379 Deborah Shall 4100 Heater town Road Variance June 15.1998 Page 4 I EXHIBIT A Application # ^____ Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF OKONO - 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 H\D0 /{dA^ 000^Property Identification Number (P.I.D.).________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired__________b(\o^ ^ ^_______________________(month/year) I (do noO also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present lisT^f property: residential ___pother (specify) _________________ ZoningPistrict: _________________________________________________— APPLICANT Name A). SMoU. Address: SfOQ uIa-TFI^tpu )/V ■ Phone (home)_tUt}lzJI2d — _____ Phone (work)___________ City: OR oi O d _________Zip: O^VNER (if different than applicant) Name _________^ Address: Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City:.Zip: Estimated Construction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST __________ Describe request in detail: |S3ioa/ ^ (attach iiieets if A?cess^) . RtGiUfeSriK3fr Cocwa^ OM ‘jaMcS- VARIANCES REQUIRED ... Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover ___Lot Coverage iif ^12) i) * cJ It Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSfflP/DESCRIPTION OF UNTJSUAL PROPERTY CONT)ITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or imusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_________________________________— (attach additional sheets if necessary) ns-a?? / "Tr^Vt'^' —2—i—n-A— " ^ S S --------------------------- _ t^ u r^iirv %»:i«» • *N 3'* iiiiiiiiiiiii; SKI >f4! 3Hi^:ra \* ^ •• '^•* tr.n fT * ^TT't Oj t*T <>/ iB UI lIi 1 ia.il . /CHIffm tt * » CiO) £(.’.; 1 V,\ <•» / 1 (mn ---nVn- Z n AvA ’4v :l"y / Sni?-a3 ~ »a — I I ,n \ t06.il ?B*«Tri » HOntZONS. /MC. M»U » W»>»»<«««>»• Homiows* fuc EXHIBIT E PERMIT RECORD '^/oO 7r^ Permit No Date Type of Permit ' /nxiR' 6o’ /.J^O-ra U7^'^--<JZ/'IC7UL^^ 'H^yy\f'nJl /hru^ JISIO ri>k69 //-3^-7f (Or-PrUj^. 3/^6 T'lbC}.. 3r>V9 S- 5"- 7t>'/^CLA>n S/^/f-y-7S-S:x^uO 3773 6!-?-3?'/{nyun 9-7-77 fi:337 7i-/o-7/ 3V39'(0- 7-79 ■AcLr^ d2^ ^ -^(sn 6'- 13-^S 5"7Sb io-s-?s>..Su\i^'nQv ‘Sifb iO-S-Sb 3-6-S6 /,^/rx<( GfmgjtH ^99'i \u7£ /CQI 'o?l Sihi^JL^U «o~L, '7^jd/SiAirx^ , _ l/-/o-^7 ^7 /U :i.3'^7r ... ---------^ 9 7 U9 97 97 37^J7X ____________________ -----r—t --------------------------——% • . ^ •• ••• • ♦ J M6 • % 2 «. «IU fiitlftf * 1 1* 5 »rs» ia-s ill 4;\-.r-‘'‘s i9-.HM4-g < ». ,, ».• ■ f• «* 11.69 ACRES I c>< •.'Ck w* «■ «i> *« w .* M****. • 4V»t P F i '*r B 10.36 ACR:2S I • I iitmMf itif llii ( 4 t 1 : J • : •L']i »» % • 3 4 %w i t • J* I? !! — -• o; V - i: 2 .»'• ft*' 4' “ * at •p •,S»r*«f^s 2-; J -*4«c • h«tik !••• «f f%« 1, f |/| Af*«« •« Ik* I. I«« •! Ik* ». I l/« •§ ••«ii«« 11. S •5*45*44*E 651.13 ' A •W* •••^ .>• ••. ‘W-*. _ I •/^k***l4^* , f \ ProfSi-l **''* : &• r~ 9.91 TOTAL ACRES I \ DRY ACRES V*» ' I'I • 1 *^1 * V •• • / V •. • ^ • • i; I HfTlAW *1: Uiio'Kn\ xe.% I • ! f « \ : •• 4 ' •\ if \ o ! M4X* KkllV.IU^t* }0K— ri 5&*4S’44*V 545.0» *• . > m A fk. f*.«w i.M •» '•!: ^ • l.'i *1 !.••••• **•• •*• TO;Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE:June 3,1998 SUBJECT: #2380 Bruce W. Schmitt & Assoc, for Richard and Kathy Kyle 1140 Tonkawa Road Variances—Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakesnore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:27,186 square feet (.62 acre) Application:The applicant is requesting variances from average lakeshore setback requirements and the 75 foot setback requirement for lakeshore property to add a second story to their home. The new addition would be placed above the existing structure which encroaches into the setback requirements. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback Regulations U2 380 Bruce JK Schmiti and Assictates I!40 Tonkay\xt Rc;:d Variances 6/15/98 Page I j k I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard LR-IB 1 acre 140 ’75'10'35' subject property .62 acre llO’atOHWL 110' at 75' Setback 36'-existing 36'-proposed 12 ’North 15.1 South 104 ’ The subject property does not meet lot ores or width requirements. The Iskeshore setback is slso not met as existing or proposed. Lot area and width variances are not necessary for this application. A lakeshore setback variance is necessary, however. Structural Coverape Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 27,189 s.f.Existing; 3,136 11.5% The lot does meet the 15% structural coverage requirement. The applicant is not requesting to change the coverage on the lot. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0 ’’75'8,300 s.f.3,189 s.f (38.42%) none 3,189 s.f (38.42%) none 75'-250'18,780 s.f 8,163 s.f (43.47%) 4,695 s.f (25%) 8,163 s.f (43.47%) none 250'-500'106 s.f none 31.8 s.f (30%) none none The applicant is not requesting to change any hardcover on the property. 92380 Bruce IK Schmitt and Asslclates I NO Tonkauxj Road Variances 6/15/98 Page! i . \ t STATEMENT OF HARDSHIPThe appUcants’ statement of hardship is included as Attachment A. They should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. r^tpria 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. Hie exisUng residence and deck were built prior to current zoning regulations. Any proposed improvements to the residence may require variances from lakeshore and average lakeshore setback regulations. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The house and <ieck were also constructed before the current zoning requirements. This condition has resulted in the lot encroaching into the 75 foot and lakeshore average setback distances. 3 . The variance, if granted, may alter the essential character of the locality. The structure currently exists on the lot within the average lakeshore setback dis^ce.^ pie variance for encroachment into the setback applies to the 2nd story addition over the existmr, structure. A variance from this requirement would not alter the residential character of the neighborhood, or would it alter the use of the property. 4 The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a vanance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property m the zone wnere the affected person's land is located. Single family residential use is penrdtted in the LR-1B (One Family Lakeshore ReqidenUal) zoning district. U2380 Bruce »K Schmitt and Asslctates I NO Tonkau a Road Variances 6/15/98 Page 2 5.The special condition! *t iplying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or imn. liately adjoining property. The structure is currently i .cated within the setback distance. It would not be possible for the applicant to place the addition over any other portion of the residence without a variance. 6.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Generally residences will meet required setbacks in the zoning district. This property does not due to the original construction occuring prior to the current zoning regulations. 7.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of the variance is not necessary to enhance the use of the structure. It is to create more living space within the residence. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The appicant has proposed to increase the size of the residence by expanding vertically. The building footprint and hardcover on the property will not change if variances are approved. Issues 1.The 2nd story addition will be placed directly above the current structure located within the average lakeshore setback of the adjacent properties. 2. The proposed project will not increase or decrease the structural coverage or hardcover on the property. §23^0 Bnici W, Schmitt and AsslclaUs 1140 Tonkawa Road Variances 6/15/98 Page A i r STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of variances from average lakeshore setback and 75 foot shoreland requirements to allow the construction of a second story addition to the residence. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application and Statement of Hardship Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Hardcover Calculations Architecture Plans’ §2380 Bruce W. Schmitt andAssfelates I NO Tontmv Road Variances 6/15/98 Pages EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Rcncw-al Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforraLjg structures $220.00 Afrcr-thc-Fact Fees'(Double application fee) PROPERTY information Site Address-----1140 Tonkawa Road, Orono. MinnPfinra Property Identification Number (PJ.b.) 08ii7?^nnnnfl • C • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 _ J ■ J ■ ■ ■ f ■ ■ j ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired------December. 197» fmrtnth/v^or\ I m (do not) also ov^TUie adjacent parcels ----------------------__(month/year) --------------^---- Mm • - *TPresent use of property: x residential ZoningDistiict: other (specify) Frank Kyle and Kathy Kyle (bome)_ 471-9533 —CHimhnnd and Wlfo) ______ Phone (work) 47fi-no42 , Address:.,U4Q Tnnkava Rnad___________City: __________Zip: 55356 Ur/o -/o t :nWWER^(if different t^^appHcant) ^ ' phone (home) Ooh^. CL Phone (work) ~~ Address:.c^/> Avt. 3. City: tdi^^ur.jrhL______Zip: ) D^CRffTION OF REQUEST Esthnated Constniction Cost $ 300.nno on D«cribe«qu,st in detail: _Exisem,. hone u a n.rM.i ----------nZZ; con.etrnee flrrr floor epee. • I .* V VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ____Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage 1 k5 \t 9^ I I>1^ y Average Lakesbore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with 2^ning Code requirements: As a portion of the existing, home which - —^?akiP.R approval to add a second floor onto presently Infringes_ _ _ _ —setbacks, we are requesting your approval for a variance on __the setback requirements for this protect. (attach additional sheets if necessary) .Exhibit b RUM DATE 04/21/98 BATCH 502 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 6 PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 30 00-117-23 13 0006 01160 TONKANA RO R E EN6EBRETS0N ET AL RICHARD E EN6EBRETS0N 1180 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 00-117-23 13 0007 01160 TONKANA RO P T A S K STEVENS PATRICK T A SUSAN K STEVENS lltO TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0000 01140 TONKAHA RO J ROLAND PAVEK TRUSTEE J ROLAND PAVEK 17610 19TM AVe N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 U8-117-23 13 0009 01120 TONKAHA RD J A A BENDT JOHN 6 A ANNE L BEM)! 1120 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN ' 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0017 01165 TONKAHA RD M T RENARD AOS RENARD H T RENARD ADS RENARD 1185 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0010 OOnO ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MAHVIN BORMAN ETAL MTJtVIN BORMAN ;300 NORMEST CENTER ;1PLS MN 55402 38 00-117-23 13 0010 01205 TONKAHA RO THOMAS H SMITH A HIFE THOMAS H SMITH 1205 TOTKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0016 01145 TONKAHA RO D O ADAMS ARK ADAMS DANIEL OSCAR ADM1S ROXANN K ADAMS 1145 TONKANA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH-502 00008 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE ^-2^8 ,, fii c/■ Itic H n • • • • EXmBIT F PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date 996 e-fcO S'lOX ^(2:1. ^‘f>7Sr V'/e?'"*: J£7J2^JSzSz^ Type of Permit /?«3 /^CfA/OyAUg- <qr?<p - • * COFFIN & 6RONBEKG f K-^THY 1<yi-£1 of ^ • ' hardcover calculation workshee j HARPrOVF.R IN ZOISE 75-250*250-500* PAGE 02 m Lot 2-17 ? •'97 500-1000 ’ A, House ■SHfO tcn|:lh ^.3 •rnfm mmm « ••< X X WuJth 6.5 mc. ‘^'reppiHCs ~ B. Garage _ C. Driveu/ay „ • • • •••« • • • • • ••X X ts. Zm D. Sidewalk P^iXiO ^^x Hd. OH 9»d£ r/?.V^ * ^ SK*1^ANb7ii^!. pSLld QY..tri^£. F. Landscape ___PLAST<C—0^^) Underlain ^ ------------—---- By Plasilc m mm • X 0. o.h«TW(>. ■ jN6 vv^i-i-?_ total hardcover in zone tota : property area in zone •f B X 100 = TOOPQSED IIARnCOVER IN ZONE A. House Zi m9t II • •• •• J.CT^n» • > —*■» •• •• m • •••• • • •• • • • • B. Oarage ___ C. Driveway___ D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck __ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other I • • • • Widih X X X # • mm m* m • • m • 0 m» • 0 X X X A X X X X X C5 8S TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY APEA IN ZONE •r B noz±S.F. S.F. n S.F. S.F. S.F 9 S.F. S.F. 20 S.F. S.F. IF63 )5Z Total oP S.F. Cr OfC^$ S.F. 137 S.F. S.F. •S.F. ef,S.F. 3l8q± filooi __3B. 4Zt S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F S.FiO X 100 = S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B JJ 473-4435 ^ COFFIN S GR0N3ERG HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET (75^2^SETBACK ZONt: (f lRCl.E ONE) 0*75‘250-500* page ; 03 . Lor /0‘L 500-1000*n fxisting hardcover in ZQ14E A, House_____________X eP5• jT(?p9-.*^ortcc.*. Ml of xx BoRDEK ................. - width >NC.^TEPP)M<Sr<>Tortf$ _ ; L.77 B. Garage C. Driveway 090 EO&E5 • ••• • • • X X D. Sidewalk OH Kj^RTlI 5iOc jO.J<£, E. Patio/Dcck._....... X X X X F Landscape Underlain .............. ... By Plasilc G. Other total Ha RDCO\'ER in zone TOTA! f*KOPERVV AREA IN ZONE •i- B X 100 PROPOSKH HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Si I cn^U:Widih X X X B. Garage ___ C. Driveway ’...........X X D. Sidewalk , , • • • • • • m* X X E. Paiio/Dcck^ • • • • • •< • ^ • • mm m #4 X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100• # • •« ONx P lastic (p /p X _ Zo?4-i .S.F. I4--7 S.F. ?4'Lb S.F. S.F. S.F 3<^zot S.F. 1 \D S.F. S.F. .. Zg—..S.F. S.F. S.F. .1SQ6 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 8I63±S.F. mt'jeKSMi S.F. i S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % »^ A B 11 •1 A B COFFIN & GR0N5EF.3 • •. 3 of 3 hardcover CAl.CULATION WORKSlIEKl* setback ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ p,yisTiN<7 hardcover in zone A. House _____...------ * 75-150 ’250-500 ’, l.rr.il UidlS X X X B. Garage • • • C. Driveway .X X D. Sidewalk m * • w •• • • • • • E. Patio/Dcck________ F. Landscape _ Underlain By Plastic «• ^ X A X X X G. Other ss B. total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTM PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -i- B X 100 *» PAGE 04 IH LC>T 'I, Su^.Hzr/ /O-l;.., 500-1000 ’ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % o ppopnttKn ITa RDCO\:ER IN ZONE A. House • rryi: »• m •• 0 • Widih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk • • «•**••• M •• E. Patio/Deck ____ !• • •• • • • • • F. Landscape____ Uodc-lain ............ By Plastic „,•• • • • G. Oihcr X X X X X X X X X • • • •» # #« total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -r B X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B c'W. a. If ■Y ' '* f 1.•V A 8 # •' .5 • V ••X: ' , < vayV^''-' :sljftWMt Bn$PUu Va |tof 4c r fK?ft^ jApDItW CeOAi*. 6MIM4 ^ MK|MBVT6A«J5. uiM^,Vx^g>T El<eyAT|g?M ^LE:Vt.**|'-o‘ "rr.;.^.a.i..-.v».Trr* ..•.•••w -f'21-^ r' , V, -i. 'A'A • I ^tWt. JJt...... iHOlMtl I I ii V 1 'v MU, Ulft i\‘'exiiTiiJt. ivm tfttu fV«TPas?' , ^ . ^JOf^H gLCVATIOKl _ ' '''►'• f ' w: O i-b Ol ^ HH H HH ^o%lC ^K(? F ^’s ^ M c> & U V. KY P\JYY ^ ^’HUO'S-\i/. 6^WiA XT ‘ Jl 1 n/^>^ l^pt>l•po^ \ • ♦ ,. ■■■> iiAw?fin.»r *N, CXOr^ ^IVjLiLC lav K'Ut fxuu^c»r/i>nau» \ vrur««.Q MSTUu pfcCfC C#uiMkJ4»&A6T ^UBVATIi^M KY Pg-N ^ ^UAMS •3?KU6^ W- ^^HHITT \f\6t?ooW'\^ ?/■ O ^ /if <<.i O <L^*. • \ *. >• . >• / , V. ^ [{AtlOi'fVr £KWK A4<rf ____ (fPMK S^WilAt ^••,V>Ua* \ I .■V' i“V\ t!f y,.j<;),'.-S' ,•y- ••mm iinQzaf<fn^^(i73Q /7^i-.- ' : J ■ „JlB gj^VAliori ^6Ave > R.feH<7P&U|(J(ir H2 t^ivT)*Je« P6C* ew.i.MU*» *KYI Kl 01 — S 401 E- W. ^oMHirr-I A^?5iwii3^ Ar^^Hi'T^Te? 'i^\t‘^t>. w . o »-•> til ^ H liMfl'tOH AV«W«ftlC. 11^ ■«' MW( op MKlHK- hiUP ft U 1 S \h ’ff ^ ^ • ^ w (Ji ^ 0 USH01 w i-i< H ~‘.f}t£f^.’P>.,mtlfcH. ’ -peu>n»«wi PKoiseto '?S^K!8f fjmi-: - .; ir *• • •- *• ]<B/isEp j2/ye/7S // City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone; (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE:June 11, 1998 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commissioners FROM:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Home Occupation Draft Ordinance The Planning Commission has had several work session and public hearings regarding revision of the current licensing and zoning regulations for home occupations. The proposed ordinance is summarized as: A. Definition The amendment simplifies the definition of a home occupation and deletes all regulations from ihe definition and organizes them in the accessory use section of the Zoning Code. B. Purpose The amendment includes a "purpose statement" which explains the intent of the amendment and the concept that the home occupation is subservient to the residential use of the dwelling unit. C. Employees The amendment expands the number of persons that can be affiliated with the home occupation from only household members to one additional person who does not reside in the residence. The amendment clarifies that domestic employees and day care is exempt from this section. D. Building Modifications The amendment states that a property owner cannot make changes to the structure that make it look like a commercial use or so significantly change it that it would difficult to reuse the building for residential purposes. E. Enclosed Buildings The amendment makes a distinction between the use of accessory structures depending on the zoning district in which the home is located. More urbanized, smaller lots are prohibited from using the garage or other accessory structure for the home occupation. More rural, larger lots are allowed to use their outbuildings for home occupations. This would allow a person to teach riding lessons is a bam or teach tennis on a tennis court. It would also allow a plumber to store pipes in an outbuilding or an artist to have a studio building. F. Outside Storage The amendment prohibits materials from being stored outside. This will help contain home occupations so that they don't appear to be commercial uses by using the yards and open space for storage. G. Parking A home occupation cannot consume the parking needed for the dwelling unit. If a property owner decides to provide a designated area other than a driveway to a garage for parking, that area must be screened from view from adjacent property. H. Equipment/Machines The amendment prohibits equipment that is not typically found in a home from being located in or on the property. Fax or copy machines, a computer would be examples of equipment that would be typical. Home exercise equipment would £dso be typical. Machines and equipment that are noisy (audible from the property lines) or dangerous would not be considered typical and would be prohibited. I. Retail sales The amendment prohibits the retail sales of merchandise that is not accessory to a service. Shampoo could be sold with a haircut. Sheet music could be sold with a music lesson. Photo albums could be sold with a class on image preservation. Home occupations that operate like stores with customers coming and going to buy products would be prohibited. J. Visibility The home occupation should not be distinguishable from the road. A motorist driving down the road should not be able to discern that a home occupation is in a residence, other than by a sign that is allowed in the residential district and regulated elsewhere in the Zoning Code. K. Hours of Operation The amendment includes hours of operation which are not included in the current ordinance. A home occupation could be open to the public as early as 8 a.m. and no later than 8 p.m. L. Traffic The amendment provides a framework to how city staff will measure whether a home occupation is creating excessive traffic. Because Orono neighborhoods are so diverse with smaller lots in Navarre, lakeshore lots, and rural homesteads, the ordinance directs staff to consider the characteristics of the area in determining if there is a problem. M. Deliveries and Shipment The amendment indicates that deliveries should not occur at night and should in trucks and vehicles that are small and compatible with residential areas. N. Prohibited Occupations The amendment recognizes that there are a variety of uses that are not appropriate in a residence. This includes the sale, lease, trade or transfer of firearms. Please refer to the City Attorney's memo. O. Reasonable Accommodation The amendment recognizes tliat some of these regulations may be difficult for handicapped persons to comply with in the strictest sense. The person could ask for an administrative waiver from the regulations. Staff does not expect to ever have to use this section but it does provide some flexibility if there is some regulation that prohibits someone from working at home because of their disability. P. Enforcement The amendment provides a process for investigating complaints. The City Attorney has concerns that this process might not be followed and created difficulties for the City. Please refer to his memo. Q. Licensing The amendment also includes deletion of the current licensing process. There are very few people that have licenses. This process appears to extend a privilege to property owners that many believe that have an inherent right to enjoy without government regulation. The current process requires $50 for the first license and $30 for each year thereafter. This process takes time away from the Building personnel and has limited value. By adopting an ordinance that is more clear as to what is and is not allowed, violations can be handled as any other Zoning Code violation. The city then does not need to get into revoking licenses for people to work in their home which could become rather complicated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To discuss the proposed ordinance, specifically the handling of firearms dealers and establishing an enforcement process in a public hearing. To amend or adopt the enclosed ordinance and send it the City Council for consideration. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNCIPAL ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION AND REGULATIONS RE: HOME OCCUPATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 10.02, Definitions, 30. "Home Occupations" be amended by deleting the current definition and adding a new definition to read as follows: 30. "Home Occupation" - j Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only by persons « residing in their dwelling, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, « when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street. No signs other than those permitted ^ in the "R" Districts are present, no excessive stock in trade is stored on the premises, over the ' counter retail sales are not involved, and entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance of religious rites but not for the general practice of his profession when such general practice will involve the need for more than three off-street parking spaces for the occupant and V visitors. 1 An occupation which is customarUy associated with the use of a dwelling. Section 2. That Section 10.20, Subd. 4, Accessory Uses, C. be amended to read as follows: Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only. J when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street. No signs other than those permitted in the "R" Districts are present, no excessive stock in trade is stored on the premises, over the counter retail sales are not involved, and entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or a, performance of religious rites but not for the general practice of his profession when such general « practice will involve the need for more than three off-street parking spaces for the occupant and « visitors. L Hoim Occupation Draft Ordinance June 15 Public Hearing @ PC Page-1 I New language from this section forward- Home Occupations shall be allowed as an accessory use to a dwelling unit, subject to the following conditions: C. Home Occupations. 1. 2. Purpose. Home occupation regulations are established to ensure that home occupations will not adversely affect the character and livability of the surrounding neighborhood. The home occupation shall function as an accessory and subordinate use to the principal use of the dwelling unit. Home Occupation Regulations. The regulations recognize that many types of home occupations can be conducted with minimal or no effect on the surrounding neighborhood. A.The home occupation shall be an activity which is customarily associated with the use of a residential dwelling unit. - B.Only the residents of the dwelling unit and not more than one (1) nonresident shall be permitted per dwelling unit, regardless of the number of persons residing in the dwelling unit engaged in a home occupation, as follows: 1.) Domestic employees shall not be considered employees of the home occupation. 2.)A nonresident employee may include an employee, business partner, independent contractor, or any other person associated with the home occupation who does not reside in the dwelling unit and who is regularly at the home occupation. 3.)Home day care licensed by the Department of Human Services (DHS) is exempt from these regulations, in accordance with Miimesota Statutes. C.Exterior alterations or modifications that change the residential character or appearance of the dwelling unit or accessory structure to a commercial use or activity shall be prohibited. D. Interior alterations or modifications that eliminate the kitchen, habitable areas for sleeping, and bathrooms shall be prohibited. E. The home occupation shall be conducted with the enclosed area of the dwelling Hom$ Occupation Droji Ordinance June 15 Public Hearing @ PC Page--! ■I i F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. unit. In the RR-1A and RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential Districts, home occupations may use accessory structures subject to the following conditions; 1.)The nature of the home occupation and its impact on noise, light, air, odor, vibration, and traffic shall be compatible with the neighborhood. 2.) The home occupation shall conform with all other applicable zoning requirements. Outdoor storage or display of materials, goods, supplies or equipment related to the conduct of the home occupation shall be prohibited. The required off-street parking area required for the principal use shall not be reduced or made unusable by the home occupation. Off-street parking areas for the home occupation shall be visually screened from adjacent residential zoning lots. No equipment, machinery, or materials other than of a type normally found in or compatible with a dwelling unit shall be allowed. No retail sales and delivery of products or merchandise to the public shall occur on the premises except where accessory to the services provided. No home occupation activity shall be discemable from any private or public street, except for signage in compliance with this ordinance. The hours of operation that a home occupation may be accessible to the public shall be limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. The home occupation shall not generate excessive traffic that is detrimental to the residential character of the surrounding properties or the neighborhood. For the purposes of this provision, more than five (5) customers or clients per day may be determined to be an excessive and detrimental level of traffic. The number shall apply to each dwelling unit, regardless of the number of home occupations conducted in the dwelling unit. The criteria used by the Zoning Administrator to determine impact shall include, but not be limited to: 1.) The characteristics of the neighborhood, including current land use, lot sizes, lot widths, parking availability, and screening. 2.) Type of street, width, and traffic volumes. Home Occupation Draft Ordinance June 15 Public Hearing @ PC Pag^S • 4• • • t’ 3.) The availability and location of off-street parking and the extent to which thr home occupation contributes to on-street parking congestion. N. Shipment and delivery of products, merchandise, or supplies shall be limited to daylight hours and shall regularly occur only in single rear axle straight trucks or smaller vehicles typically used to serve residential areas. 0. No sound or noise created by the operation of the home occupation shall be audible at the property lines. P. Hazardous materials in excess of consumer commodities which are packaged for consumption by individual households for personal care or household use shall be prohibited. Q, Any activity or event organized for the purpose of displaying or selling merchandise shall not be held more than four (4) times per month. 3. Prohibited Occupations in Residential Dwellings. The following uses, by their nature of operation, have a pronounced tendency to increase beyond the limits permitted for home occupations. These uses have objectionable operational characteristics that adversely impact residential neighborhoods and shall be prohibited as home occupations: A. Service, repair, or painting of any motorized vehicle, including but not limited to motor vehicles, trailers, boats, personal watercraft, recreational vehicles, and snowmobiles. B. Hair styling establishments that serve more than l(one) person at a time. *** C. The sale, lease, trade or other transfer of firearms or ammunition by a firearms Need to discuss dealers. D. Adult uses, as defined in the Zoning Code. E. Dispatch centers where persons come to a site and are dispatched to other locations. F. Medical or dental clinic. G. Rental businesses. Home Occupation Ordinance PC-June IS. 1998 page-^ 5. wity ■ttorney is concerned >out this ction, see his memo Contracting, excavating, welding or machine shops. I. J. K. Kennels and veterinary clinics. Churches and religious institutions. Tow truck services. L. Ceramic studios with kilns of six cubic feet or more. 4. Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled Persons. Persons with physical disabilities may request reasonable accommodation by requesting a waiver of one or more of the foregoing requirements. The Zoning Administrator may only grant waivers on the basis of the applicant’s physical limitations to function within said requirements. Enforcement. Any aggrieved person concerned that a violation or violations of this chapter have occurred or are occuring may notify the Zoning Administrator in writing of such alleged violation(s). Within (30) thirty calendar days after receipt by the Zoning Adminstrator of the written allegations, the Zoning Administrator shall complete an investigation of the alleged allegations to determine the merits of the complaint. Within 10 (ten) business days after the completion of the investigation, the Zoning Adminstrator shall notify the following persons: A.) If no violation as alleged or otherwise has occurred, a notification of that decision shall be mailed to the complaintant. B.) If a violation is occuring, then notification of that decision and a time for compliance shall be sent to the violator and the complaintant. The notification shall state what action, if any, will be taken if compliance is not timely effected. C.) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Zoning Adminstrator may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission and City Council. Homz Occupation Ordinance PC-June 15.1998 page-5 i BueiNe^s REltULATrOhl + UCQs&fN^ ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES ATrrx ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TRi? ZONING CODE B\ DELETING THE HOME OCCUPATION LICENSING REQUIREMENTS The City Council of Orono ordains as follows; Section 1. That Section 5.40, "Home Occupations" be deleted to read as follows; SEC. S.in ^ppup^^jjQpjp €»»€odepi«ti«mHiMtb.„- i ■ ■ ' ^ ill'i fi' nniiMiiy'^ j* Rtgula lion. LiCLiucj will nnl.. Ill ’iiiiril Ifiiii^ „M,, ,1.. llZlid ri.J ^ ............we-ts Subd. 3 . Lieciiae Period. > date: home occupati on Of to tlic cxpiratiea ATTEST: n.e Laker «“eer and day of I FROM KINSHAWKULBERTSOM (TUE) 5. 12*93 ll:27/i?T. ll:26'-KO. 37600S6757 P 2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Liz VonZomeren Thomas Barrett May 12, 1998 Horae Occupation Ordinance 1. Liz, I have already forwarded to you the Minnesota Statute which allows municipalities, including Orono, to regulate the sale of fire arms in their coraraunliles. If the City determines to exclude these home occupations, it may need to amortize existing home occupations involving the sale of fire-arms by setting a date certain within which no further home licenses for this occupation will be granted, or by denying licenses to new applicants, allowing the current licensees to continue to operate until they fail to renew. 2. With respect to procedures involved in handling home occupation complaints, I do not recommend that the City adopt formal procedures for processing complaints. The City ’s size does not re<]uire such formality, and the problem is one which needs to be handled within existing City staff resources. Creating formal procedures would rob the City of the flexibility to treat complaints in a way consistent with its own judgment about priorities. As well, it is abundantly clear that the City staff may not enter a private home to search for evidence of a violation of the home occupati<?n ordinance without a warrant issued by a judge of the district court. Please let me know if you have further questions. .. : 0S2/2315S616 S/12/98 FROM (TUE) 1.20’93 14:2I/3T.14:20/NO. 3700000911 P 2 MRMORANDUM TO: City of Orono; Liz Van Zomeren FROM: Thomas DATE: January 20, 1998 RE: Regulation, by zoning, of the location of businesses where firearms arc sold by a firearms dealer. The Minnesota Legislature, 1985 removed from municipalities the power to regulate firearms except for their discharge. Minn Stai. 471.633. (attached.) By Minn. Stat. 471.635. the Legislature in 1993 provided that clUes may "regulate by reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonarbitrary zoning ordinances, the location of businesses 'Here firearms are sold by a firearms dealer. For the purposes of this section, a firearms dealer b a person who is federally licensed to sell firearms and a governmental subdivision is an entity described In sections 471.633 and 471.634. Accordingly, I conclude that the City of Orono may address by zoning ordin^ce-Lhe locaUon of businessea where firearms are sold by a firearms dealer. Such Zoning requirements would need to meet the statutory requirements, end would likely need to "grandfather" in existing dealers, Oiven the language of 471.633,1 do not believe that the City eould prohibit the sale of ammunition per sc. but could zone the location of business where firearms dealers sell ammunition. inO/98 . I i * TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE; January 2,1998 ; *• SUBJECT: Federal Firearms Licenses •1 Brad has worked with the Police Department to inventory the number of individuals in Orono that are registered wth the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as firearm dealers. The inventory has resulted in identifying the following persons: 1. 2. 3. 4. John Thomas Hallson Ross R. Repke Dale J. McCurdy Walter W. Wolfe 120 Golden View Drive 3380 Watertown Road 4041 North Shore Drive 1250 Spruce Place cc: Individual Street Files ^ J reC-23-1997 03:28 MIDWEST DISTRICT 312 353 3779 P.03/£5S "FEOERAL firearms LICENSEES" ATF IRS CIS OIS CNTY TYPE XPR SEQN UCEUCCC NAME eusiHECS NAME STREET ADPRISS CITT state -zip caot 5535600005 41 027 01 OL 22769 HALLSON, JOHN THOMAS r Alt 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE LONG LAKE 3 41 027 01 6C 22997 REPKE, ROSS R 33S0 WATERTOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 553569735 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1997-12-23 09.10.16 PROVIDiO BY THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO A FIREARMS REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT -• CHICAGO, ILLINOIS .1 R * ^ PACE 1 €EC-23-1997 08:28 MIDUJEST DISTRICT '•FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES" 312 353 3779 P.05^06 ATF IRS DIS DIS CNTY TYPE XPR SEQN LICENSEE NAME BUSINESS NAME STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE 21P CODE 3 41 027 01 8H 35073 ANDERSON, MARX GERARD NORTHERN BOUNDARY OUTFITTERS 4665 MARGARET CIR HIKMETRISTA MN 35344CCCO 3 41 027 01 9F 19831 BURGESS, RICHARD U JR 7000 CTY RD 110 EXT M?NS’ETRrSTA HN 553660CCD 3 41 027 01 8L 35219 EARLEUINS, WYNN 5585 N ARM OR MCUND MN 55366C000 3 41 027 01 8E 34869 LEUIS, GENE SELBY 2926 DICKENS LN HOUKO MN 5S3640CCG 3 41 027 01 8B 17966 MC CURDY, DALE J 6061 N SHORE DR HOUND MM 553640CC0 3 41 027 01 8J 07290 WOLFE, WALTER W.1250 SPRUCE PLACE H.CUND MN 553640000 1WM2-23 W.11.00 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROVIDED BY THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO & FIREARMS REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT -- CHICAGO, ILLINOIS PAGE \ Id)CfTY OF »-»JL onoNo ] CITY OF LONG LAKE [Jl)N. ja 1998 t • • •^ A > ^ ^ - June 8,1998 Dear Business Owner; Enclosed is the report you requested on the Industrial Park prepared by the Economic Development Authority (EDA) of Long Lake. This information is sent to you for your review and comment. The EDA of the City of Long Lake would like to receive any and all comments back by July 1, 1998. The EDA of the City will meet on July 9, 1998 to review any comments received and compile them to help them determine the direction in which to proceed on development or re-development in the Industrial Park. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Jo^ph P. Lynch City Administrator cc: EDA IV64 Park Avenue • Lonjj l.ake. Minnesota • 612-47.^6961 6I2-476-V622 tTaxt •» City of Long Lake Economic Development Authority A’y ■i. WHO WILL CHANGE THE DISTRICT? • • dev'elopmenunThe As we observed the District. First a rnaior new change inKxs" irnasH-”r~S'sir" a role for^the Oty as ft fevfefITatTsT ’’T''*® ® '° ® define ho..i»»e^£rs;~S4Ksir A. INVESTMENTS FROM OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT Market Awareness, large Industrial users iIiTusTiSTtesTn^1;p T»tT" ?' ‘^e District in comparison to other soeculaTfTnLn T ' f ®® *°'' ® S'^ale large user owner or developer of d^eveloped ilT'aTd fhe nS^e^of ^pfeTeTS Sk“T^ioTt®JnHnTT"’f®"® access highway arerihevIrTmT JrtTTTT®® V f? «’®of their nrodnrtc Tha ° niarkets to receive production inputs or for users substanhaitnnfinh also not tied to local markets for labor. The jobs are market employees from throughout the metro labor buTrnoT'likLIvr?! T' T 'uf ®''?'®'"' Alternative sites, some in Hennepin County. accessM ^ n o, and Scott Counties have theaccessibility to out compete us lor these large users. musneave 'M'Thf TH-°f T' somebody new to come in. somebody hereeave. As a built district, our competitiveness at the metro level for large \ City of Long Lake Economic Development Am industrial users is reduced in three ways: cost, availability, and image. The cost of vacant (non productive) land, even with the costs of providing services to it. is simply less than the costs of assembling a parcel of developed (productive) land. Land costs are inevitably lower elsewhere. Vacant land is immediately available for construction. Assembling a parcel in a built district is both time consuming and uncertain. Relocation schedules of affected business complicate the process further. Remediation of the some parts of the site may be required. Promising a “move in" date to the client is a much more confident commitment when starting with a vacant site. A new large industrial user would almost by definition have an image unlike its neighbors, the present businesses in the District. At a vacant site in a developing district the neighbors would probably be very similar in character to the large user. The edges of your parcel would be secure, and performance standards for ensuring the image of the development would be enforced by covenants or by the city. Last, because we are not on the limited access highway network, and because we have no large vacant parcels, and because our business and spaces typically do not use industrial brokers for transactions, brokers and developers simply never visit. We seem to be caught in a trap that prevents us from appearing on the mental maps of the development community. Our market was described as a “resident based niche market". A new user owner or the potential tenants of a new speculative development are expected to come from an owner who is a resident of our area who wants to locate their business close to their home. And, unlike many places in the metro area, this is a potentially strong market for our District. To capture this new market of large industrial businesses not now located in the District, we need to provide confidence to potential investors in two areas. First, that they will be able assemble a site of adequate size. They will not be held up by a single unreasonable or unv/illing seller. Second, the district will be stable and eventually compatible to their investment at their edges. They or the developer will have control over what their neighbors look like and what they do. This means development will be described in terms of subdistricts rather than parcels, and may involve vesting development rights in a "sole source" accountable and responsible for development of parts of the district over time. This also means direct City participation in redevelopment of the District. To capture these new large industrial users and use their Investments to transform the District the City must be prepared to assist its private partners by: * • * *. D. City of Long Lake Economic Development Authority Consistently using eminent domain to assemble sites Provide significant land cost write down again and again over time to the new Hwy 12 at Willow (which was not identified as essential in our interviews with present businesses in the District) B. New Industrial Users V^at would these new Industrial users look like? They will occupy a 4 to 5 acre sniper yield wouMbrsi^'Isto tox"eTannualll® ’°°'°°° ® S’^O.OOO C. New Retail Users to addition to the attractiveness of the District to retail uses like the new development proposals have been formally and Informally discussed the First a large. 70.000 sf. grocery with or without side stores. This type of aST4^0 per^LI demand a 4 to 5 acre site be delivered to the developer for Second, a true retail center of 40 to 50 acres. The center would have an assessed value of $100.00 per sf. providing a tax yield of $4.00 per sf. A 400.000 sf center would generate $1.6 million In taxes annually. The site would have to be delivered to the developer for $4.00 per sf. Ability of the City to Financially Intervene to Support Development The most significant tool available to the City to fund Itsdirect intervention in the oi «industrial or retail users is tax Increment financing. This tool allots the City to use the increment between the baseline of the present taxes pain in an area and the potential future taxes paid by a different development in me same area to assist the realization of that new development. City of Long Lake Economic Development _ * • This increment could be captured either by “up front" sale of general obligation bonds by the City, or be delivered to the developer on a “pay as you go" basis. City staff can provide examples of the calculations, test the effects of different assumptions about costs and benefits on the level of City subsidy, and answer any of your other questions about tax increment financing. THE FUTURE OF THE DISTRICT AS AN INDUSTRIAL PLACE Our preliminary indications are if the District has a future as an industrial place, that future will have to be sustained by the investments of peop’ .ow in the District dr people very much like them who are drawn to the District. The Econornic Development Authority asked the staff to do a series of focused interviews with business people within the District. These interviews were meant to begin to uncover core issues and ideas about the District and serve as a framework for a broader discussion. They are an attempt to get agreement on where we are before we Degin to discuss where we are going. The theme of the interviews seemed to be uncertainty: about their ov/n future as small businesses: about retail uses, especially a large grocery store or center changing the character of the District and forcing relocation: about being able to grov/ and expand in the landlocked District: and about how decisions affecting the District are made. The good news is the purpose and benefit of regulation, polices and planning by the City is to reduce uncertainty. Uncertainty about what you can or cannot do with your property. Uncertainty about wnat your neighbor can or cannot do with theirs. Uncertainty about what the City cannot, will not, or will, do for or to you. • A. Uncerlainty About 1 . About their business and their ability to plan. Most of the businesses In the District are small businesses, managed by their owners. As small businesses they are very aware of the fragility of their condition and their inability to make long term public commitments about their needs and intentions. The most useful type of plan under these conditions may provide general direction and expectations, but be designed to be implemented incrementally. They are cautious but hopeful, and described the City as accommodating of their businesses. r 2. About a large retail development changing the character of the District and forcing relocation. There were strong feelings about the proper role of government in favoring or assisting one business over another. There was encouragement for assuring an industrial future In the District. • • ' »J . City of Long Lake Economic Development Authority A binding the space on a temporary or permanent basis to allow growth, vai ability of space to grow or change is limited both within the District and in Long Lake and Orono generally. The need is probably in 5.000 to 10,000 sf inci^ments. Expansion is complicated by the necessity in some cases to acquire bom the land and the business, and the cost and equity issues that raises As we talked it was clear many busine^es are proof of the resident based niche the District has captured, and which would make moving even more difficult. % The need to ensure efficient use of sites In the District both in terms of *-rr .''jctivity (jobs, ^rvice to the area, yield to the City), and organization (recycling j assembly of sites, open space requirements) may provide direction for a jl City role. 4. About now decisions are made and who makes them. When most of the ' businesses in the District were operated by people who lived in the City or the • area there were many formal and informal opportunities to get together to resolve issues. The relationships were very often personal, and agreements could be made on intentions, or a handshake, and often v/eren ’t very carefully recorded. There truly were, for better or worse, city fathers. In Long Lake, as in most communities, these connections are being broken as a second generation assumes management of businesses or new businesses with no residential or personal relationship to the others in the District or City become the rule rather than the exception. The business of the City is also changing. It has taken new roles and become more formal, and is keeping better records. Increasingly the members of City Councils, Planning Commissions, and advisory boards are people whose connection with the City is as a resident. Their experience and focus Is on their city as a place to live. And. at least at the beginning of their term, they may not be as aware of or sensitive to the City as a place to work or run a business, and the Issues that arise from that focus. B. Issues s we talked with the business people in the District, as we hoped, a number of IsVues were rioted. They are presented not in any order of frequency or importance, but simply table, to begin a discussion of their.importance, and to encourage additional issues to be added. The issues we picked up were; Enforce the rules. Specifically on the auto auction, paving of parking lots and greening of outside storage. Comments ranged from “maybe it has gotten a little out of hand" to “this is a problem for my business, employees and clients ”. Hiding spots. This is an Industrial district. It Is well separated and buffered, except for Virginia Ave., from residences. Businesses need a hiding spot. The issue Is how big should that hiding spot be. where should it be located, and 4 City of Long Lake Economic Development should the District serve as the hiding spot for the entire Lake District? • Parking. As expansion space is at a premium, and growth occurs, parking is displaced. This may be a future problem in the district as sites are used more intensively. • Stormwater runoff management. Solutions on a parcel by parcel basis may be inefficient or impossible. • Access to new Hwy 12. This was not an issue with any of the District people we talked with. • Preserve small town, City as the campus feeling. Everyone seemed to like being in Long Lake and the cooperative feeling that is generally the rule in the District. • Employees seem to find the District. No special problems unique to the District In attracting or holding employees were noted. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? The City can make choices and pursue strategies that will reduce uncertainty about investments in the District and confirm Its future. One of the choices the City could make about the future of the District could be called the “Fairy Godmother Option". The City could contract with a developer who would v/ave their magic wand and create a new district of big box retail spaces (very feasible) or big box industrial, office and warehouse spaces (maybe not so feasible). Or, it could confirm a diverse future for the District and renounce use of its powers and financial tools to encourage a fundamental change in the character of the District. If the City chooses the former, its role is simple. With the developer it prepares a plan and goes forward. If the City chooses the latter, its role becomes more complex. The City could continue its role as a mediator. Shining its light Into different corners of the District to mediate problems (any of the Issues noted) on a case by case basis in response to some crisis. Or. the City could create and provide c ^et of rules or a strategy on how and when it will intervene in the District to assist peopU ^vesting the District This set of rules could cover when and how public improvements will be made. • It could be rules for financial Intervention. When and by what standards it will use its short term revolving loan fund, utility abatements, tax abatements, revenue bonds, land cost write downs, assessment assistance, start up grants, and tax increment financing, both up front bonding and pay as you go. It could be changes to the Zoning Code encouraging or discouraging th(i expansion of retail uses throughout or in some parts of the District, or it could result in /City o( Long Lake Economic Development Authority th6 creation of specialized zoning districts. It could be adoption of performance standards for new development in the District. Policies could be provided of. how the . standards In the District will be enforced and compliance with new standards encouraged. WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU We need your comment and advice to Insure we have the best information when we make choices about the future of the District. Right now we need advice about where we are rather than advice about where we should go. The Economic Development Authority needs your answers to these questions: 1 . Does this description of what is going on match your understanding of what is going on? Is this a true reflection of the District? * 2. Are there problems or issues In the District that were missed? Did we Identify a problem or Issue that doesn’t exist? 3. Can you help us rank the importance of any issues or problems you have Identified along with the issues identified in section B on page 7? Can the issues be grouped as "these are most important", and ’’these are next most important", and so on? Reuised 6-9-98 I]lA ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Elizabeth Hawn and Lili McMillan. Representing Staff were Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomcren, and Recorder Lauren Nordseth. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2363 WILLIAM BOCKMANN, 1130 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 6:30-6:40 P.M. Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported this application was previously reviewed at the April meeting. At that time the applicant was to have the surveyor locate the well and the setbacks. The proposed dwelling is in the LR-IB district, with variances needed for side yard adjacent to street, and lot area. The area of proposed hardcover is 3.8% over the allowed hardcover. Staff recommends granting the lot area and side yard variance. Smith asked if the located well is the reason for review, and how it compared to the review last month by the Planning Commission. Van Zomeren answered that the house has been reoriented. Smith asked about the change in hardcover to which Van Zomeren answered that last month the plan showed hardcover at 512 square feet over the maximum amount allowed and it is now revised to 403 square feet. Applicant had no comments. Hawm said it was a good design, and Lindquist said he had no problem with the plan. Van Zomeren stated the applicant’s concern is to have accessible space on the main floor and it was not an unreasonable request. Smith asked the applicant if moving the driveway added more hardcover. Applicant answered that it was about the same, because the only increase is set in an extra 12 feet from street. Van Zomeren stated there was 220 square feet proposed for the deck. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of lot area and side yard variance, average lakeshore setback and approve hardcover on the condition there is no additions to hardcover, with an additional hardship of accommodating an elderly parent residing in home. Vote: .\yes 6, Nays 0. 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 GafTron slated Agenda item U6 will be tabled. (#2) #2340 ROBERT WAADE, 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 6:41-7:12 P.M. Applicants were present. GafTron reported the Planning Commission reviewed this application in February and March, and tabled it without discussion in April. This is a 1 1/2 acre parcel, with sewer available. The back lot that abuts the lakeshore meets area and width requirements. The front lot 1/2 acre requirement is met for the duplex. The revisions made since the last review include reduction of the lot coverage from 22% to 15%. A remaining variance issue is that code allows only two units to be served by an outlot driveway, and Outlot B would serve three units under the current proposal. A drainage plan has been provided and the City Engineer has indicated a number of revisions where clarifications are required. A berm is proposed on the west property line approximately 2-3' in height and 15' in width to provide needed screening from the marina. A City sewer line below the area of the berm will not be impacted by the berm. Outlot B requires a driveway setback variance, and a variance because it does not extend to the south line of Lot 1 and therefore creates a flag lot which is not allowed by code. The width of proposed Outlot B also requires a variance, as well as that of Outlot A. The Planning Commission recommendation should include a determination whether the storm water pond can be credited toward the "extra 50%" back lot area requirement. Staff recommends variance approval for the outlot widths, etc., and approval for the berm as well as a conditional use permit for the duplex use. Gaffron noted the site is zoned appropriately for a duplex, and most of the required variances would be required even if Lot 2 is not proposed for a duplex lot. Mr. Waade noted that he purchased this property because it was zoned for multiple dwellings, and he stated that the neighborhood concerns about quality of development should not be an issue, because he intends to build high quality homes. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Smith commented on drainage issues to which the applicant replied there would be no problem with directing drainage to the pond, and he is willing to work with the City Engineer to resolve any drainage issues. Stoddard stated various neighbors had comments about drainage, and Gaffron noted it is not the obligation of this developer to solve neighborhood problems, but the developer cannot create any new ones. Gaffron suggested additional work needs to be done on the grading plan. The applicant noted he would make whatever revisions are required. Stoddard asked if the applicant could alleviate the driveway variance issues. The applicant discussed moving the drivew ay or redesigning the garage layout to avoid the variance if that was necessary. Smith asked for public comments. David Dalvey of 3230 Bohns Point Lane stated he had previously presented the Commission w ith a signed petition with 23 names of people who do not want multi­ family housing, and had a 21 name addendum to this petition. He asked that the variances that are required not be granted. Sam Marfield, 2455 North Shore Drive, stated Orono should not promote rental property. Smith asked if variances are required whether or not a single home or multi-family dwelling is placed on this lot. Gaffron responded affirmatively, noting that most of the variances are a result of the front/back lot configuration, and would be required even if Lot 2 was designated as a single family lot. Gaffron noted a duplex layout change would be needed to avoid the driveway variance. Smith asked what would change if this was a single family home rather than a duplex. Gaffron replied that the 1/2 acre area is required for either use, and a width variance would be needed for either use if the North Shore Drive frontage was considered the front. Berg said the Council needs to determine what is the highest and best use of the site. McMillan stated a duplex is allowed by code for this zone. HawTi said the applicant has the right to build a duplex, to which Stoddard agreed it is zoned for three units and multi-family. Stoddard stated his concerns surround drainage issues, but he has no objections. McMillan said the variances are due to the narrow lot, and the major issue is drainage, which can be resolved. Lindquist said he would prefer a single family rather than multi-family use of the site. Applicant replied that if he did do a single family residence, there would still be rental issues. A resident would like to see 2 single family homes and asked that variances not be provided. Smith said there is no reason she cannot approve the duplex use. Hawn said it is a permitted use and the applicant has a right to that use. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded to recommend approval of Application #2340, including: 1) the outlot variances; 2) the conditional use permit for duplex credits; 3) subject to City Engineer working with applicant to resolve drainage issues; 4) per the staff recommendation as listed on Gaffron's report; 5) height of berm to be worked out with the City; and 6) with lake access available only to Lot 1. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1 (Lindquist). Gaffron indicated this item would be reviewed by the City Council on Tuesday, May 26, 1998. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS (#3) #2372, BARRY AND JANIECE HAGLUND, 4590 NORTH ARM DRIVE WEST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION - 7:23-8:07 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Applicant was present. Gafiron reported this is a request for a 2-lot subdivision to create one additional building site. Both proposed lots meet the LR-1A area and width requirements. Both lots would be served by septic systems and wells, and both have approved septic sites. The existing home on Lot 2 will meet all setback requirements. No wetland delineation has been completed yet and no grading plan has been proposed. There are no woodland or bluff issues. The Park Commission has recommended a park dedication fee rather than land dedication. Road access is a primary concern because the 33' corridor in which North Arm Lane exists, is privately owned by the Armstrong family to the north. That 33' corridor contains a 15-20’ wide gravel road serving six houses. This road has been maintained by the City for at least thirty years. However, the City Attorney has indicated the City likely can only claim a prescriptive easement over the portion of the corridor w hich it has maintained as roadway. This leaves a potential gap betw een the maintained road and the applicant's property boundar>', suggesting that applicant needs an easement to ser\'e the northerly lot. Additionally, staff is recommending that applicant dedicate additional land as dedicated roadway for future upgrade of North Arm Lane, as well as an area for temporary cul-de-sac. A secondary question is whether North Arm Lane should be upgraded, by whom and at whose expense. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#3 - #2372 Barry and Janiece Haglund - Continued) The applicant questioned whether North Ami Lane is public road. McMillan asked if a road has been maintained, is it deemed a public road. Gaffron stated that the City Attorney indicated the City has rights over the portion of road that has been used and maintained, but likely not over the entire width of the 33' privately owned corridor. Lindquist asked if the applicant would be willing to dedicate additional right-of-way for the road, and the applicant replied affirmatively. Gaffron said an additional easement or dedication would be needed for the cul-de-sac and additional area at the southeast corner of the property where the road intersects with North Arm Drive West. Gaffron noted there are no City plans to upgrade North Arm Lane at this time. McMillan asked if the City had any plan to prov ide access to the north. Gaffron said there is no formal plan, but it is likely that a future access road would be needed to the north and west. At this time there was a short recess for inclement weather. Commissioner Berg left the meeting. When the meeting resumed, Gaffron stated the size of the cul-de-sac would be 100' diameter, centered on the 33' corridor. Only 8 1/2' additional right-of-way is needed along the east side of applicant’s property. It was noted that at some point the City should probably obtain an easement from the Armstrong property, to solidify the City's rights to that road. The applicant asked that the application not be tabled due to the access issue but noted she understood the City Council has the final decision. Smith noted that other issues such as wetland delineation, storm water and drainage and park dedication would need to be addressed. The applicant said the potential purchaser may want a pond on the site. Jim Neilson, 340 North Arm Lane, asked about easements and Gaffron replied easements are generally required from a subdivider as needed, but the City has alternative ways to obtain easements absent a subdivision. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval with appropriate conditions. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Gaffron advised this application would be scheduled for the first June Council meeting for preliminary plat approval. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#4) COMP PLAN AMENDMENT - MUSA LINE - 8:08-8:11 P.M. Gaffron reported the Metro Urban Serxice Area (MUSA) was updated two years ago, and ten neighborhoods were added within the MUSA boundary. The City Council has recently suggested that it would be appropriate to provide sewer in the future to the northeast shoreline of Maxwell Bay and remaining shoreline of Stubbs Bay, west of Old Ciystal Bay Road and south of Fox Street. This additional area is the subject of this amendment, and proccdurally, after approval by the Planning Commission this would go to City Council, and finally to Metropolitan Council for their approval. The entire process could take approximately two months. Smith asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none. McMillan asked about the Carpenter property and if this time frame w ould set them back. Gaffron replied it likely would not, as the provision of sewer would not change their proposed lot boundaries, although that developer intends to start road construction fairly soon. Gaffron noted there would be septic sites available for each lot if the MUSA amendment ultimately was not accepted by Met Council. However, the City Council preferred the Carpenter property to be developed with sewer. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding the MUSA line. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) ZONING AMENDMENT - 8:12-8:25 P.M. Gaffron reported the intent of this zoning amendment is to eliminate the use of wetlands for density credit in sewered areas. This amendment resulted in part from a recent application in Navarre in w hich a 10 acre site included 3 acres of wetland was proposed to take advantage of the wetland credit for a twin home development. The City Council concluded that the wetland credit may not be appropriate in either the high and low density residential zones, and suggested eliminating the credit altogether. Gaffron noted that at a recent Planning Commission work session, it was noted that when crediting the flood fringe area along the lakeshore, the creditable area should not include wetland and should not exceed the area of dry land within the property. Gaffron noted that the proposed ordinance revision addresses this concern. 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#5 - Zoning Amendment - Continued) Smith asked for public comments. Chris Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road, stated that when they bought their property in 1992, they were told they could use the wetland credit. Smith asked Gafiron hov\ this proposal affected the current applications. Gaffron replied this docs impact any subdivision like that of Valerius. Smith asked whether this zoning amendment goes into effect immediately upon Council approval, and how this would impact current applications. Gaffron noted this is an issue for the City Attorney to review. He indicated the applicant has applied for a sketch plan review, but has not made a formal preliminary plat application. Gaffron noted the Valerius request should be reviewed by the City Council at the same time this amendment is reviewed. Lindquist asked how long the zoning amendment process would take. Gaffron replied this would be reviewed by the Council at its next meeting, and if adopted would take approximately three weeks until publication. Stoddard noted there could be a refund of application money if Valerius did not proceed. McMillan noted the City Council will be aware of the potential conflict with the ordinance. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve proposed amendment upon staffs recommendation. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) f#2361 WILLIAM YAEGER, 310 BIG ISLAND (LOT 64, MORSE ISLAND PARK) - VARIANCES - 8:26 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Applicant not present. McMillan moved and Hawn seconded to table #2361 to the next meeting as the survey was unavailable. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2364, JOHN SERENA, 4607 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:26 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted, Aoplicant not present. Smith asked to defer this issue and come back to it. (Follows Item #17.) ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (US) #2366 PETER LANPHER, 1359 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - 8:27-8:48 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Van Zomeren passed out pictures the applicant provided. Property is zoned LR-1B. Requested are variances for hardcover, average lakeshore setback and side yard setback to allow a pool, deck and shed that were damaged during a storm in 1997 and subsequently replaced without permits or variances to remain. The survey shows tliat the pool and deck exceed 1,000 square feet and it is therefore considered an oversized accessory structure. The shed needs to be 10 feet from the side property line. The existing garage is also an oversized accessory structure and should be 15 feet from property line. The pool and deck exceed 1,000 square feet and are required to be 30 feet from the side property line. /Applicant is asking to keep the pool, deck and shed which require several variances for hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback, average lakeshore setback and side yard setback. There is a separate issue with the location of retaining wall. However, the appl leant provided a legal document from Hennepin County to staff. The staff originally thought the wall may be on the neighbor's property and the applicant thought the survey was incorrect. Van Zomeren stated that staff could not recommend approval because they were built without permits or variances. Four years after the pool was originally constructed in 1972, the variance was requested after it was determined that it was built without permits. Storm damage is viewed as providing an opportunity for compliance. Applicant stated he moved in 1986, the house was built in 1968, and the pool was constructed in 1972. In 1976, when the garage was constructed, there would have been a hardcover issue. He is concerned that the 1 ^76 suiv'ey is not the same as the 1998 survey. Applicant could move the shed on the other side, but there would be a drainage issues. Stoddard said he wants to be sympathetic, but has to look at the after-th>fact variance requests. It is common to ask for smaller deck, etc, when there is a hardcover issue. Smith asked how reconstruction occurred without a permit. Applicant said only the comer of the pool was destroyed, and the pool people thought panels could be replaced initially. Later it was discovered that more work was needed. Replacement parts are no longer available. Smith asked if no one thought to call the city and ask if permits were needed. Applicant said he thought there wasn t enough damage to require permits, and he was only replacing what had previously existed. The mortgage company decided there was 100% replacement cost. 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#8 - #2366 Peter Lanpher - Continued) McMillan asked if it was already grandfathered in? Smith said if it had come by as a request for repair, the Commission would have looked at what could be removed to ease hardcover issues. Lindquist asked if there was any addition to hard cover issues. Applicant replied nothing was added. Stoddard asked what can be reduce to alleviate what is excessive hardcover. Applicant said he had been doing ever>thing he could and eliminated part of the driveway. He is willing to remove gravel. Smith asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. McMillan moved, Lindquist seconded to approve #2366 for average lake shore setback, side yard setback with pool, deck, and shed to remain and variance for hardcover in the 75-250' setback with no future hardcover increases. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Gaffron said a four foot wide access to lake would be allowed. (#9) #2367 LAWRENCE GLEASON, 140 HACKBERRY HILL - VARIANCE - 8:49-8:52 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Applicant present. Van Zomeren passed around photos of this lot to Commissioners. She noted it is surrounded on 3 sides by a city park. It conforms to lot area. The applicant has requested a side yard variance to add a larger bedroom. The current bedroom is lO'xlO’, and the applicant would like to take the smaller bedroom and change it into walk-in closet and extend the existing bedroom to 10'xl5'. Staff recommendation is to approve side yard variance as there is no impact on adjacent property. Applicant has no comments. Smith moved, Hawn seconded to recommend approval of #2367. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#10) 2368 KIRK OTTESON, 710 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES - 8:53-9:15 P.M The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Applicant present. Van Zomeren distributed pictures of the subject property. It is located in an LR-IB district. The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback, a blufT setback and average Meshore setback variance. A street side deck, addition and a lakeside deck is proposed. The applicant proposes removal of the sidewalk and a parking area. Current hardcover is at 24.14%. Staff is concerned because of topography to the lake and the bluff. The sidewalk and parking area should be provided due to topography and vehicular sight lines. The application meets structural coverage requirements, but the staff is concerned about bluff impact. The applicant stated that the lakeside deck is existing but needs to be repaired. Mr. Otteson said that the house is narrow and it makes sense to go to the right (east), rather than left (west) where the neighbor's house is located. Smith asked would the bluff be better protected if moved just a foot or 2 on south side? Applicant replied the ravine is full of trees, and he is not concerned with erosion as it had been that way for 50 years. The neighbors to the west favor the proposal. The neighbor to the east was concerned about the ravine. Florence Hagberg, 740 North Arm Drive, is concerned with the ravine. McMillan asked if applicant is taking out trees. Applicant said two trees are too close to house. Smith asked if the Engineer had looked at the plan. Van 7 nmeren replied that she and Gappa have talked about it. Applicant said the deck is needing replacement due to rotting tresses, and is adding some new deck, but the new deck will not further encroach into the lakeside setback. Stoddard said he had no problem with hardcover, but said if it was a new project, it would not be done at all. Smith summarized the Commission’s concerns and would like assurance from the Engineer regarding impact on the ravine. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded to table the application and come back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting after the Engineer’s review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#11) #2369 - JOE AND MARY FIEDLER, 365 WEST LAKE STREET - VARIANCES - 9:16- 9:41 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Applicant was present. Gaffron said the applicant's request is for lot area, lot width, side, rear and side street setbacks and hardcover, for replacement of the existing residence. The applicant is also removing existing shed and replacing it with a detached garage. Gaffron noted various issues considering replacing the existing house, noting that the lot is too narrow for any new construction to meet setbacks without the need for variances. Staff is recommending approval of lot area and width variance, as well as the side and street setbacks for construction of a new house and garage. Gaffron noted the side street setback could be increased by reducing the house width. He noted that staff will not recommend a variance for a lot coverage, which would require reducing the footprint size of the house or the garage. Staff also recommends that a drainage and grading plan be provided. Gaffron also noted a letter was received from Robert Erickson, 847 Tonkawa, the neighbor to the east, suggesting there is insufficient hardship to approve the required variances. The applicant had no further comments. Robert Erickson commented that the City sets ten criteria for undue hardship to establish the need for a variance. His conclusion is this proposal fails to meet nine of the ten criteria. He requests that the variances be denied and that he would like to meet with Fiedler to discuss other possibilities for the site. Lindquist noted the applicant is attempting to put too much house on this small lot. Smith and McMillan agreed. McMillan noted if the size of the house is reduced, it may reduce the number of variances. Gaffron noted that Orono considers this as an existing buildable lot because it has been provided with sewer. Stoddard agreed that it is a buildable lot but redevelopment is difficult. After additional discussion about possible revisions to the proposal. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to table the application. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#12) #2370 GARY O’KEEFE, 1392 BALDUR PARK ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 9:42-10:07 P.M. - VARIANCE ANC The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Applicant was present. Gaffron reported this is a request for variances for hardcover as well as a variance and conditional use permit for grading within 5 ’ of a lot line for construction of a new residence to replace the existing home on the property. This is a conforming lot as to lot area, and meets the 80% width standard for the LR-IC zone. Applicant proposes to tear down the house and garage, and replace it with a house that meets the lakeshore setback and side setbacks. The applicant proposes to lower the top of the hill, and this requires grading within the 0-75’ and 75-250' zones. Grading in the site would result in fill from the new basement excavation being placed near the road to accommodate a new attached garage. The applicant proposes a walkout which requires excavation in the 0-75 zone. Gaffron noted that staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance, but because of the loss of mature trees, it is difficult to recommend cutting down the hill. Staff also recommends denial of the excavation to create a walkout based on past City practice and the goals and policies against shoreline topography changes as noted in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant noted he bought this property with the intent to build a walkout residence. He stated that the neighbors are in favor of cutting down the hill, and this would make a more gradual slope from the lake. Lindquist asked if the hardcover calculations were done by a surveyor. Applicant replied no but he felt they are accurate. Gaffron noted he only included the hardcover items shown on the survey. Hawn asked if this was a bluff. Gaffron replied it did not meet the criteria to be considered as a bluff. Mrs. O’Keefe said there is a hardship, as they need something on the south side of the lot to get to the garage, noting the topography of the site. Lindquist asked for any public comments. There were none. Applicant noted tliat grading in the 0-75’ zone will be necessary to remove the present house, so that excavation to create a walkout would not require much additional work. Gaffron noted that the problem is there will still be a substantial cutting in the 0-75’ zone to create a walkout once the present foundation is removed and the site brought back to match existing grades. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#12 - #2370 Gary O'Keefe - Continued) McMillan asked if cutting the hill was intended as a means to obtain fill for the back of the site. Applicant replied no it was to make the lot more level with the neighboring properties. After additional discussion with applicant and indications by various Commission Members that the proposal could not be recommended for approval without certain revisions. Lindquist moved, Smith, seconded, to table Application #2370. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#13) #2371 TIM AND LORIE LINE, 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 10:08-10:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Applicant present. Van Zomeren reported the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for land alteration in a floodplain to scrape one inch of lawn to fill in another area in the yard. Approximately 40 yards would be used to top the fill and 50 cubic yards to be redistributed. Staff is recommending approval subject to applicant installing silt fencing and obtaining proper approval from other agencies. Applicant is doing this project in compliance with the Watershed District as there is a wetland. Smith asked any for public comments. None. Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to recommend approval to grant conditional use permit. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#14) #2373 STEVE BECK, 2795 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - 10:13-10:30 P.M The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Applicant present. Van Zomeren reported it is zoned LR-IB, and applicant is asking for a hardcover variance to allow a deck away from the Narrows Channel. Approximate hardcover of 19.3 % is proposed to build a deck on the west side of the residence. The house is 8 feet from the channel. Staff is recommending to remove hardcover to comply. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#14 - U2373 Steve Beck - Continued) Applicant noted the topographical map with the packet was incorrect. He also said he had a hardship because of the Narrows’ noise and traffic. Applicant is interested in removing some of the existing badminton court, (presently a basketball court) approximately 40 square feet of hardcover. Hawn .stated the Narrows is a hardship. McMillan is in favor of removing 40 feet of the court. Applicant asked about the 2 foot overhang. Van Zomeren said it is considered an encroachment into the required setback. Lindquist would like to see the court completed removed from within the 0-75' setback. McMillan moved, Lindquist seconded to approve application for hardcover variance to allow construction conditioned upon applicant removing 40 square feet of hardcover in the 0 to 75' Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 2. Opposed Hawn and Stoddard indicating there should be a greater reduction in hardcover. Lindquist stated the City Council may ask for whole court to be taken. (#15) #2374 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 - 10:31-10:37 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Applicant was present. Van Zomeren stated it is a joint staff report and passed photos. Staff is recommending approval for: a. 630 Deborah Drive, with no conditions. b. 4220 6th Ave. N., as it will tie into the existing berm. c. 755 Hunt Farm Road, will screen the McCartney ’s residence from the County Road d. McCulley Road parking lot. Is used for snow storage by the city. There is a need to install a silt fence and to delineate the wetland at the McCulley Road location. The grade will change to the Luce Lin'* T:dil, however, it cannot have a slope that prevents DNR maintenance vehicles fi’om having access to the Luce Line trail or from handicap accessibility to the trail. The berms will have natural vegetation. McMillan asked if the parking lot was used by cars. Van Zomeren reported yes, when it is dry, and this is the intended use. McMillan asked if it will it be marked for parking. Van Zomeren said the DNR wanted it for parking, and Gappa says it needs to be filled in order to be used for parking. There were no public comments. McMillan moved. Smith seconded, to approve for conditional use permit. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 SKETCH PLANS (#16) #2365 CHRISTINE VALERIUS, 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD Gaffron reported this is a proposed subdivision for propcrrt' that contains 3.31 acres of dry land. Wetland credit is requested for subdividing the property. The proposed subdivision will create one new lot containing about 1.3 acres of dry land and just under one acre of wetland. There is a vehicle easement which cannot be counted in buildable acreage for Lot 1 . Lot 1 requires a variance for lot width. If council agrees with the premise that the property was not assessed a second sewer unit and is not 'serv'ed with sewer’, then a lot area variance is required. Council may choose to grant the wetland credit, if it concludes the property is sewered, but it is staffs understanding it is not their current intent to grant wetland credit for properties in the 2-acre zone. The existing shed would have to be removed because it becomes an accessory structure without a principal structure. Lot 2 would have lake access, but Lot 1 would not. Park dedication fee vs. land dedication, and sewer connection charge prior to plat approval are other issues, but this is a sketch plan. Another option for applicant, is to sell some land to the neighbor. Because this is a sketch plan, no formal action is necessary. Staff will take this sketch plan directly to Council, along with the proposed wetland credit amendment. Applicant noted she has submitted a petition signed in support of her plan by neighbors within 300 feet, except for one. Stoddard noted the coincidence in the timing, and would like City Council to look at this proposal and the proposed amendment at the same time. If not approved, the City Council should look at refunding the money. Stoddard noted the City receives many requests for width variances, and not many pass. The applicant stated she was told by the City that she would be able to subdivide once sew'er w^as available to the Stubbs Bay area. (#17) #2375 PARK LAND CO. - 2525-35-45 SH ADYWOOD ROAD Van Zomeren reported this is a sketch plan with an option for 40 unit apartments. She distributed pictures. This property has three separate parcels, two in front with B-4 zoning, and one back lot which is zoned LR-IB residential with a proposed density of 14.1 units. Van Zomeren stated the Comp Plan calls for this area to be urban service area. The big issue is the proposed density. Several options are available to amend B-4 to allow apartments. Creating a new zoning district may be inconsistent with Comp Plan. A proposed overlay district could be drafted that would allow apartment buildings with commercial uses. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#17 - #2375 Park Land Co. - Continued) Park dedication fees for this property range from a minimum of $2,900 to a maximum of $4,900 per unit according to Gaffron. Van Zomeren stated another issue is sewer and indicated 4 units, while applicant thought there may be six. Smith asked if the overlay plan has been discussed with City Council to which Van Zomeren replied it hadn’t, but it had been used a lot in other cities. She wouldn’t recommend that unless it met the Comp Plan. Lindquist asked if it would take change in how it is set up. Van Zomeren said now the highest density is 3 units per acre, and this is closer to 14. Lindq* ist replied that the proposed use realistically would not happen. Smith said it doesn't reflect on quality, but it doesn't fit on how it is zoned. Steve Young said he realizes he is asking for more units than the current zoning code allows. He questioned what could be reasonably developed there and he appreciates comments that it is not an intent or design base. Smith asked Young if he would consider other uses. Applicant said there is not a lot of interest in retail or business, that housing is the market, and condominium units may be possible. Gaffron said the staff was directed by the City Council to put on a high level burner looking at B-5 zoning, and he thinks we should be looking at the entire Navarre area. Stoddard said he liked the plan, but it comes down to zoning and density and the current zoning is the best fit for the neighborhood. The applicant asked if the Commission believed office use is best. Stoddard replied current zoning is the best for that area. Smith suggested the applicant change the target market. The applicant said he was looking at possibilities, and looking at a target market for seniors that would be a definable project. Stoddard said it all comes down to density. Applicant mentioned the State's 10+ year moratorium on nursing homes and discussed the complex issues of having senior housing available. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#7) #2364 JOHN SERENA, 4607 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Smith moved, McMillan seconded to table agenda item (#7) #2364, John Serena, 4607 Watertown Road, conditional use permit. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ^». I I ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 (#18) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON APRIL 27, 1998 AND MAY 11,1998 McMillan attended the April 27, 1998 City Council meeting at which the Council approved a shed for Len Busch. Lindquist attended the May 11, 1998 City Council meeting which discussed Bay Furniture, and Town Line Road. (#19) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None. (#20) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 20,1998 McMillan asked to amend the minutes on page 2 to reflect she abstained from the Woodhill Country' Club vote. Lindquist moved, and Hawn seconded to approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 20, 1998 as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#21) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MAY 26,1998 AND JUNE 8,1998 May 26 - Hawn June 8 - Smith. Lindquist requested the vice chairman’s seat be rearranged to be next to Chair Smith’s. ADJOURNMENT Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to adjourn at 11:22. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0, Sandra Smith, Chair Person