Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-19-1998 Planning Packet
■iu.. PUBUC Attendance •. •Mee^g D ate n□□□ COtJNCIL Planning C oimmission PARK COMMISSION Other mm MivV NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER I 1. C^AfioL nlScM ;?\K) M ^ ■ ('•V-dlU. .,iW ■j- \tri A ^^ ^__y.-< 4.’ll 6.. 7.. 8. 9, 10. 11- 12. 13, 14. 15._ •HUM i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 19,1998—6:30 p.m. 2780 Kelley Parkway—Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Charles Kelley 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 OCTOBER 26,1998, City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. RENEWALS AND AMENDMENTS: PUBLIC HEARINGS Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 1. #2421 Joann Jundt, 1400 Brackets Point Road. Variance Renewal. (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 2.#2431 Roger Olsen, 815 Partenwood. Variance Renewal. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) 3.#2434 Carol Olson, Kid's Art School, 2180 North Shore Drive, CUP Amendment. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. #2395 Brent Bentrott, 1453 Park Drive. Variances and Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) 5.#2399 Muriel Senn, 4448 North Shore Drive. Variances. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) 6.#2410 Peter Boynton, 1973 Eagerness Point Road. Variances. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) 7.#2413 Paul and Megan Bennett, 500 Hanlon Avenue. Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS 7:00 p.m. 8. #2425 Rebers Construction. 2190 West Wayzata Blvd. Subdivision Renewal. J (Staff: MikeGaffron) 7:15 p.m. 9. #2426 George Stickney, Vicinity of450 W illow Drive South and 2340 Fox Street. Subdivision. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS Paul Hanssen, 3195 Casco Circle. Variance and Conditional Use Permit. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 10.#2411 11.#2422 12.#2423 13.#2424 14.#2427 15.#2428 16.#2429 17.#2432 18.#2433 Richard Gay, 2735 Shady>vood Road. Variance. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) Gara Gehring and Tom Terry, 340 Leaf Street. Varaince. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) GregKIohn, 4455 North Shore Drive. Variance. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) Kenton and Diane Carlson, 3498 North Shore Drive. Variance. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) Terry Maurer on behalf of David Hardten, 2515 Kelly Avenue. Variance. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) Jefb'ey Brauchle and Elisa Schoonover, 650 North Arm Drive. Variances. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) Greenfield Corporation, 4755/4775 Bayside Road. Easement/Subdivision. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) DorieFinn, 1640 Shady’wood Road. Variance. (Staff: Paul Weinberger) SKETCH Plan REVIEW 19. #2430 Paul Phillips, 2140 Sixth Avenue North. Sketch Plan Review. (Staff: Liz Van Zomeren) 20. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on September 28,1998 and October 12,1998 21. Other issues for discussion. 22. Planning Commission approval of minutes for September 21,1998. 23. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on October 26,1998 and November 9,1998. ADJOURNMENT •*. / TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator y ^— Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator October 14,1998 SUBJECT: #2421 James and Joaim Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Renewal Variance Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, sewered. Application: Request for second renewal of setback and hardcover variances originally granted in October 1996 for restoration of an existing retaining wall, underground grotto and lakeshore stairway system located within 75’ of the lakeshore. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Resolution #3986 (Same content as Resolution #3786) F - Memo and Selected Exhibits from Prior Approvals Summary of Request Please review the exhibits from the 1996 approval. The applicant was apparently unable to complete this project in 1997 partially due to sewer installation on Bracketts Point which made construction access difficult, nor in 1998 due to reasons unknown to staff. The project involves restoration and repair of an existing retaining wall adjacent to an underground 'grotto', restoration of the grotto, and repairs to two lakeshore stairway systems located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. Note that repairs to the boathouse were specifically not included in the prior approval, and are not a part of this renewal application. This review should be treated as a simple renewal of the approval granted in Resolution #3786 in October 1996 and again in Resolution #3986 in October 1997.. Staff Recommendation In staffs opinion the findings and conditions of Resolutions #3786 and #3986 are still pertinent and appropriate, and staff recommends approval per the prior approvals. I*‘ - w Zoning File #2421 October 14,1998 Page 2 Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per the findings and conditions of Resolutions #3786 & #3986. 2. Recommend approval with revised findings or conditions. 3. Table for further information. 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 5.Other. A •. f Application # /• ^ Date RecelTed .Amount Paid. * ' CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION .Initial AppUcation Fee $250.00 ^ (S50.00 ner each addidonal va nance) . . ' ^ ^ ^ rR^w3l >^ance Fer^STSO.OO^ (no change 6om original application) Variance for non-conforming structures ‘ $250.00 After-t.^^e-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMA'nON ! Addres s fi^DO S Pro Mrtv Identification Number (PJ.D.)/griH-'^'?i <>P?0 Attach'legd descri^O^f f»«»PpIication If not included on required sfirv(^foatapplicati •—1 —^ I (do) (do not) also own th^^jacent parcels of land. Present use of property: A / residerxtial ___other (specify) Zoning District;________ ------------------- (month/year) Phone fhome") ^ ~13—• ^. ^ ______’ Phone fwork't ‘ _________ Vc >2>t^City: ^tP^^Q^—-------Zip;iX5“^l/J APPLIC.ANT , / ^ Name !c ^ ^ ^ “7 OWNER Of different than applicant) . \ Phone Qiomef C /.2,—/73 ~ ^L (if different than applicant) , '' , - , v Name YSl.^ ^ Address X ^vCA-^^gCTTr ^__/C\ty:_{Zipta^ i DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmetion Coft $—^ Describe request in detail; d^AJJ^r^ rM Af3o^Describe request in detail; _ R! I 1 i<F>. '{\ •# (attach additional sheets if necessary) *-.3 <» XI VARIANCES REQUiraD i^, roveraae..-'___Lot Area" ' Lot Width ------Hardcover -------.Lot CovOTg|<:;;^ Average Lakeshore^ ^yr Setback; Other (specify) Front Side Rear compliance with Zoning Code requirements;^ ‘ <f r rs! (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUB^^TTALS 1. 2. 3. AU of th? following information must be submitted bv the applicaHon deadlini. |« order for vour applicatiOD to be considered completg* I ___ Completed Application Form ---- Certified Ftopcrty ^ers 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) arid include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. ---- Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. ---- Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" x 11"). ---- List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ---- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The^ Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour lltnantt 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) Md/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. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant’s Signature^Date 9/1^/9 ^ OWNER’S-SIGNATURE ' • The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to ♦his application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date • Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. .................. . . 8 llUll DAU 00/26/9S lltIBICI’lU COUNTY VnOPCRTY INronHATlOII SYSICH PnOI'EIUY OIBTCUS LIST KU ’UHt NO. PACE 12 DATCII 00^* PnOP AOOR OIMCR llAltE TAXPAYER HAHE/ADDR 30 n-117-23 32 0009 OlAOO ORACKETTS POINT RO J R JUNOT t NARY J JUNDT JANES R JUNDT DOX 1 - CRYSTAL DAY HI 55323 PROP AOOR OHIIER NANE TAXPAYER IIANE/ADOn 30 11-117-23 32 0017 01300 ORACKETTS POINT RO CEORCE S PILLSOURY ET AL GEORGE S PILLSOURY AOOO FIRST OAtX PLACE HPLS HI 55'i02 PROP AOOR OltlER NAHE TAXPAYER IIANE/ADOR 30 11-117-23 33 0001 01A20 ORACKETTS POINT RO J n JUNOT A N J JUNOT JANES R JUNDT DOX 1 CRYSTAL OAY IW 55323 PROP AOOR OHIER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 30 11-117-23 33 0006 01500 • ORACKETTS POINT RO MARTHA S t A LACHLAN REEO ’ MARTHA S 1 A LACHLAN REEO 1500 ORACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA HI 55391 J J 1 30 .11-117-23 32 0010 01265 ORACKETTS POINT RO MICHAEL E LYHI III t MIFE MICHAEL A JORJA LYHI III 1265 ORACKETTS POINT HAYZATA HI 55391 30 11-117-23 32 0011 01420 ORACKETTS POINT RO J R JHIOT t M J JUNOT JAMES R JUNOT BOX 1 CRYSTAL OAY HI 55323 • J 30 11-117-23.32 0010 ‘ 01220 ORACKETTS POINT RO ELLA P CROSOY ELLA P CROSOY 1220 ORACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA HI 55391 30 11-117-23 32 0019 01200 ORACKETTS POINT RO JOHN S PILLSOURY JR ET AL JOHN S PILLSOURY JR 4000 FIRST OAtK PLACE ^1^1 HPLS HI 55402 30 11-117-23 33 0004 01450 ORACKETTS POINT RO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REEO MARTHA S A A LACHLAN REEO 1500 ORACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA HI 55591 30. 11-117-23 33 0005 01400 ORACKETTS POINT RO R A L HEAORICK ROGER L A LYHI C HEAORICK lAOO ORACKETTS POINT RO HAYZATA HI 55591 Total batch 004 00010 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AMO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF IHTORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE Oil THE RECORDS OF THE HEHIEPIN COUNTY OEPARTTIENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. f *DATE •% •L • • • . li E B B B B B B B ri• I <J G <* ■<► »• i 1 I 1 I 1 1 4i!i3 «5c«4.»ai4 • - - - . •• « • • • ••n-.rr-' • • 1 (•:'% .J;>liV . \>■ . J '* •’' flV i •;cf^ !• \A- iJ S Y i?B »••• ••• •••• n:'-. MSt /. / ii;' ' 1 . • Fr I /'•/. . I. ; .■ tJ »cv /'.*•;•. I . » J /""'/// 0 • ’ * 7 *atf/ ^,'/■"//-s/- —- •• « 7 ' #r*» ^ '0.000 0 0 '•: Kv> ^vV'.&?</V/- ,v. */,»i c.y/ ■I S*/<' r#?///» /V - ..' *1^0 0 m •.•*»// / 0* • / /;: -■■xx;:--. lii 4>^ :v if it.V. 'f u ^.1^ iSS® lit•' s: :-K-^;l '‘A-rlT <h ' ■ k'k««y I, ^ ^ : 1 • -', ‘ * • i I? 7 ’ • I I * o ^ ■ ?!/ • ^ t\ t*t « • 1‘ /if.'. ** *1* / !•»/I vr ' a**n j 9 I •/-} * iL « vj 1 / \\ '• ^ /V' ‘ / / * /;i^- x' i!/ /■?; ,/ h/; ; / fc-;'*.r—-.'- / »r y/F t J u f _______^ .'•.?' ,' • / 7 / f ^ ; ; j* *r •• •' /- / xy / .f ■‘ . >v4 u\ . [ ') //^ «• ••;..• \>. ^■. V ■%. y V, 7' . o' « •' • ?*« ?C• •*• ' «f\ ft, : \ . »•» ' ■ *■; i' A'~ • I \ Is*. 5 35ii 1 i':^ !Wl J N X f------^ 1 »fe''X-lvS - -r*-1 * • /'sr'>-" '7 \ V//' .................. . IV* - - V •vT ▼ - ^ l£ f-7" " «^ X' •<#••# - • *• ^I'.^t ' T:^ / y.y 'M rt /* 7 • CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 9 8 6_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C & L) FILE NO. 2300 . w) WHEREAS, James and Joann Jundt (hereinafter "the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 1400 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: (Exhibit A attached); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for renewal of variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C & L) to permit the restoration of an existing retaining wall, underground grotto and lakeshore stairway system located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allow’ed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2300. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission originally review'ed this variance request on September 16, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed variances to restore the lakeshore stairway system, retaining wall and underground grotto, based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 6 1 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 8 6 4. 5. 6. A. The property is unique for a number of reasons, including its age, its history and the fact that applicants have been diligently restoring the property to its former splendor. B. The proposed work involves restoration of amenities or structures which already exist, and does not propose any new buildings or amenities. C. The 650' length of the eastern shoreline justifies the existence of as many as four lakeshore stairways to provide access to the lake from the higher portions of the property which are as much as 25' above lake level, and the steep slopes east of the house suggest the need for stairway access. On October 20, 1997 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed this request for variance renewal and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval, finding that the findings and conditions of the prior approval as noted in Resolution No. 3786 are still valid and appropriate. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty, is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of tlie City. Page 2 of 6 I-.CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 9 8 6 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants renewal variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, 10.55, Subdivision 8, and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C & L) to permit the restoration of the existing lakeshore stairway system, retaining wall and underground grotto, subject to the follovring conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The restoration work shall not e.xceed that contemplated or proposed in the submitted plans. Hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone shall not exceed the pre-existing level of 0.7% as indicated on the site restoration plan attached as Exhibit B. Applicant is advised that any future proposal to add hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone might be approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase in hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Structural restoration of the existing boathouse is specifically not a part of this approval, and structural repairs to that building shall be reviewed by the Inspections Department and if determined to require variances, shall be brought forth to the Planning Commission and City Council as a separate application. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within on* year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 27, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The imdersigned 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 record'mg of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the propert>'. Page 3 of 6 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5^ 9 8 6______ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of October, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 m CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 8 8_____ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of and for said county, personally appeared 199_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 (Aey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of and for said county, personally appeared ^ 199_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 Page 5 of 6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 19, 1996 Updated Oct. 23, 1996 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaf&on Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road - Variances - _________________Resolution_________________________________________ Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acres, Unsewered Application: Request for lakeshore setback variance and 0-75' hardcover variances for restoration of existing grotto, retaining wall and lakeshore stairway system (applicant also proposes cosmetic repair to existing boathouse). List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Council Action 9/24/96 C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/19/96 D - Memo and Exhibits of August 14, 1996 NOTE: This item was tabled at your September 23 meeting because applicant was not present. Applicants propose to restore two existing limestone rock stairways leading down the lakeshore bank east of the existing house. These stairways have been in place for many years, and restoration will include repair or replacement of deteriorated stonework and handrails. Additionally, applicants propose to restore the underground grotto and its associated retaining wall. This is an underground cellar-type room, located within the lakeshore bank behind a stone retaining wall. Restoration will include mainly cosmetic work including adding stucco interior wall and ceiling panels, adding a decorative light fixture, restoration of the existing wood doors, and restoration of the existing stone retaining wall. .Applicants had originally proposed significant restoration of the existing boathouse, which is in failing condition. That work was to include roof replacement, window and door replacement and modification, straightening of the frame, residing, a new concrete floor, and a new concrete step. The August 14 staff memo indicated that the apparent total restoration proposed suggests that the structural work intended likely exceeds 50% of the value of the structure at the time it became non-conforming. The zoning code limits the structural restoration of such structures with the goal that they eventually disappear. Prior to the Planning Commission review, applicants withdrew the boathouse work from this application. However, at the Planning Commission meeting, applicant indicated that rather than remove the structure they intend to Request for Council Action continued Page 2 September 19, 1996 / Updated October 23, 1996 #2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road repair the roof. Please review the discussion on Page 2 of the August 14 memo regarding the conformity of this structure. Hardcover Existing 0-75 ’ hardcover on the property excluding the public roadways is less than 1% of the 0-75' zone. While applicant ’s submitted hardcover calculations indicate a 250 s.f. increase in hardcover, applicant indicates that is incorrect and reflects a prior application, and in fact there is no expectation that additional hardcover will be added as part of the restoration work proposed. Planning Commission indicated that they have no problem with the hardcover aspect of this application. Planning Commission Recommendation At their September 16 meeting, Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the restoration/repair/cosmetic upgrading of the stairways, retaining wall and grotto. Planning Commission directed applicant to work with staff regarding the boathouse repairs, but specifically did not approve any variances for the boathouse structure, and indicated that depending on the work ultimately proposed, that may have to come back for a further separate review. Planning Commission noted the following hardships which support the restoration work for the grotto, retaining wall and stairways: 1. The property is unique for a number of reasons, including its age, its history and the fact that applicants have been diligently restoring the property to its former splendor. 2. The proposed work involves restoration of amenities or structures which already exist, and does not propose any new buildings or amenities. 3. The 650’ length of the eastern shoreline justifies the existence of as many as four lakeshore stairways to provide access to the lake from the higher portions of the property which are as much as 25’ above lake level, and the steep slopes east of the house suggest the need for stairway access. Planning Commission noted that the boathouse would not be permitted if it were proposed to be constructed today, but members indicated that the boathouse appears to be an amenity which, in the context of the en»’:e property, should be allowed to be restored. Factors which Request for Council Action continued Page 3 September 19, 1996 / Updated October 23, 1996 #2159 James and Joann Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road may justify structural repair to the boathouse include its age, its connection with the history of the property, and its unique former function as a "changing room” with a divider for a boys' side and a girls' side. Plaruiing Commission suggested that applicant work with staff to determine the cosmetic versus structural nature of contemplated repairs, if structural restoration variances are necessary to bring that back as a separate application. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with Planning Commission that the stairways, retaining wall and grotto should be restored. Additionally, Council should give applicant direction regarding the restoration of the boathouse. A resolution for approval of the restoration of the stairways, grotto and retaining wall is attached for Council adoption. Options for Action 1. Approve per attached resolution. 2. Approve per attached resolution with revisions. 3. Table for further information. 4. Conceptual denial. 5.Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt attached resolution or take other appropriate action. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved bv3 . seconded by __, to adopt Resolution No. granting lakeshore setback and 0-75' hardcover variance approval for restoration of lakeshore stairways, retaining wall and grotto for James and Joann Jundt at 1400 Bracketts Point Road. Vote: ayes, O nays. i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997 (#3 - Old Crystal Bay Koad Addition Internal Trail System - Continued) Barrett indicated that thisVould require the active participation of the homeowners of 2655 and 2635 Countrysid^Drive West, who would have to personally agree to an easement for the residents ofthe subdivision. Jabbour amended his motion to include Barrett's responsibility to see thk^e easement be provided by the homeowners mentioned to the residents of the subdivision. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS / There were no public coniments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ("5) No item for this agenda number (*#6) «300 JAMES AND JOANNT JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - RENEWAL VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3986 Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3986, granting variances to James and Joanne Jundt of 1400 Bracketts Point Road for restoration of retaining walls, underground grotto and lakeshore stairway system within 75' of the lakeshore. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ______________—------------- (#7) #2301 GERALD MCdOURTNEY, 1055 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTIOWNO. 3987 The applicant was present. / X / Gaffron reported that the request for vari^ces includes landscaping within the right-of- way of Femdale Road, expansion of drivev^qv apron in right-of-way, and construction of a gate access within 75' of the lakeshore and o\jdie right-of-way. Legal combination of the properties carmot occur until court action ha^dsolved the ownership of property in question. Gaiffron noted that the apron will matcXjhe other side of the driveway allowing for better approach. The landscaping >^ln^ an arborvitae hedge set at 15-17* from the paved roadway. The right-of-way is 66'. Tn^gated access will remain grassy and allow for entry by private maintenance personnel. Gaffron said the Planning Commission recommended app)^al subject to the two tax parcels being legally combined once the court action has beehTmalized. The Commission felt the removal of the hduse more than off-set th^dditional hardcover for the apron, which greatly exceeds th^lotted amount for a garage'^ron. Per prior variance approval, an apron is allowed at a 40' width, which proviae^ extra parking space. St^ agreed with recomniendation subject to a hold harmless agreement signed by applicant for the improvements within the right-of-way. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20.1997 (n9) #2300 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD RENEWAL VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:24-10:26 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and CertiEcate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was not present. Gaf&on reported that the application is a variance renewal with no changes. It was noted that the boat house would not be restored. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2300. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#10) #2301 GERALD MCCOURTNEY, 1055 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:27-10:32 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication^d Certificate of Mailing wer^motcd. The Applicant was present. ^ 9 Gaffron reported that the request wa^or variances for'landscaping within the right-of- way of Femdale Road, expansion of driVeway apron in the right-of-way, and construction of a gate access within 75' of the lakeshore^^d in the right-of-way. The lot has been expanded recently by adding part of the Skate property. The existing house on the lot had been removed. The proposal is to plant a rcAv of arborvitae within the right-of-way along the property for privacy and security re^sohs. The 66' right-of-way is wider tlm the 50' right-of-way typically required today^*' The road had been a County road at one time. There is a considerable distance between the ^ved road and the property boundary. Historical usage includes a fe^ce encroachment which is consisterit with other properties in the area. The plantings wi^ be 15' from the'^aved road. The gateway to the property for access would be placed at tke^75' lake setback line. It is metal in design. The driveway aproi( w'ould expand the existing driveway to match what exists on the opposite side. The ho^se on the property was remodeled several years ago. At that time, the City denied a lo€llp driveway but allowed a wider^veway for parking. The code allows 20' width but i/exists at 40'. The change allows a'Weep in a car’s approach to the garage. The sjte plan is in process with the removal\)f the house grading, and replacement of plants. A landscaping plan has been apprised by staff. Staff e aoDlication.recommends approval of the application /As a note of information,'baffron reported that a neighboring property rec^ved permission for a 3-1/2' fence located 15' from the paved road. The neighborhas decided to plant an arborvitae hedge instead to be consistent with this property ^ I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETIN MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 28, 1996 6'S iff6.) ff2l35 ALBEE ESTAT RESOLUTION #3785 1575 LONG LAKE BOULEV,- VARIANCE - Applicants were present. Gaffron stated this item was tabled a*€ouncil September 23rd meeting at the request of the applicants. Since that time, Nancy Gav^roryl^resentative of the estate, has provided documentation that the Hedlunds are no j^Kger involved with the request, hence the Hedlunds no longer appear on the propped i«qlution. The estate advises they axe in agreement with the provisions an^xwnditions^^ the resolution and wish Council approval. Moved by Jabbour, secomidd by Hurt to adopt Resolution #3Ci85 granting variances for street setback, averaw/d^eshore setback, lake setback, hardcover and work in bluff impact zone for th^/idna Albee Estate property at 1575 Long lake Blvd. Vote: Ayes ■;57 nays 0: (#7.) #2159 JAMES AND Jo ANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3786 Mrs. Jundt was present. Gaffron stated the application is to restore two existing limestone rock stairways leading down the lakeshore bank east of the existing house. The stairways have been in place for many years, and restoration will include repair or replacement of deteriorated stonework and handrails. This will now give the property 4 access stairways on tn property with 600’ of shoreline. In addition applicants proposed to restore the underground grotto and its associated retaining wall. The grotto was originally an old pump house. The applicant has withdrawn the restoration of the existing boathouse. Callahan asked applicant if she was satisfied. Applicant indicated yes. Goetten stated this is a very unique case. Applicant indicated they are trying to bring the property back to its original condition. Kelley indicated pictures indicate a large amount of vegetation in the stairway and | applicant must understand amount of vegetation removal. Jabbour stated he disagreed with the Planning Commission regarding the 4 stairways for 600’ of lakeshore, it should depend on individual property. Goetten moved, Jabbour seconded, to adopt Resolution #3786 granting lakeshore setback and 0-75’ hardcover variance, approval for restoration of lakeshore stairways, retaining wall and grotto for James and JoAnn Jundt at 1400 Pracketts Point Road. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16,1996 G-i (« - #2169^hael Renard - Continued) Lindcjuist aske*^ what the hardcover facts were. Mabusth asked for a hrwkdovvn of the hardcover calcuWions and whether it included the landscaping. Be^z^hovved the survey to Mabusth, who'tiid not have a copy of this particular survey. I^^ussion was had on the particulars of the h^cover. It was determined that if the 130 jrL. of landscape rock in the 0-75' was removed, aibng with 420 s.f in the 75-250’ setback there would be no need for iance. Schroeder said 1a hardcover variance. Stdiroeder said he was concerned vvHn trading of plastic and rock as it should not have been there in the first place. The pla^ was installed by a previous owner. Schroeder said theYardcover should be separ^d showing what does and does not count. Mabusth said it v)ould not be required i£4nere was no hardcover variance required in the 75-250' setbaclc'and would only inj/olve the average lakeshore setback. Schroeder questioned whether tWs was actuallydoiown. Mabusth clarihed that the hardcover total was originally 61^2 s.f. or 26/v% where 5707 s.f. is allowed. With the removal of the 420 s.f of landscap^ock and plastic, the square footage of hardcover would be at 24.9% and not require aVari^ce. Smith asked why the shed was an issue ^n 1991. Mabusth said it was because the hardcover exceeded the allowed at jZo.7'}^^ With the shed removal, the hardcover w'ould be at 25.5%. There were no public comment. Schroeder said he was reluctant to allow the shed since the Council in 1991 recommended its removal with the sar^basic numbers presents. Lindquist noted that the structure was proposed larger at thayiime. Mabusth said there was also more hardcover and the updated survey was not available. Mabusth said thSj^removal of plastic and rock would result in a 1.8% reaction from 26.7% to 24.9%. Lindquist move^ Hawn seconded, to recommend apprwal of Application #2169 with the understanding >mat all plastic on the property would be reKwved along with the cement pad located Wthe 0-75' setback. The application would omy involve a variance to the average lak^hore setback, and the shed would be allowed toSj^emain. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#4) #2159 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:30-7:54 P.M. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application w'as tabled at the request of the applic^t at the August 19 meet’mg of the Planning Commission. He noted that the application has been revised by the withdrawal of the boathouse from the application. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNUSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 (tr4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued) Mrs. Jundt said the intent was non-structural in regards to the boathouse and repair only would be done due to a hole in the roof from a large tree branch that fell on it this past year. Lindquist asked Mrs. Jundt if she had a problem with the total removal of the boathouse. Jundt said she would be reluctant to remove the boathouse due to its historical significance. Gaffron said caution would need to be taken regarding a repair permit for the 1930's boathouse with the value versus the cost of repair. Smith clarified that the boathouse would not be deleted from the application, and there were no plans to remove the boathouse from the property. GaSVon informed the Commission that the City would have to review the repairs proposed. Jundt questioned why there was a concern when only repairs were planned. She was informed that structural repairs cannot exceed 50% of the value of the boathouse when ordinances made such structures nonconforming in 1975. Mabusth said she spoke with Jundt's attorney, Tom Crosby, who noted the cement piers, which are part of its construction and were found to be in good condition. He was informed that additional information would be required if the integrity of the foundation was questioned. A window will be added but the roof slope would remain the same. Jundt said she understood the concern when asked by Lindquist. Lindquist clarified that if any repairs exceed 50% of the value, the code requires the boathouse to be removed. It was determined that more imormation would be required before this issue could be resolved. Gaffron reported that the proposal includes improvements east of the main house to the underground grotto, a retaining wall, r.nd repair of the stairways. One set of stairways has a gap which will be comiected. This stairway is located 5-10’ from the shoreline. Another centrally located stairway will be repaired and restored The retaining wall will be repaired along with tt:e grotto. G iffron said the e.xisting 4 walkways extend 650’ in distance and questioned whether there were more than enough stairways. He noted the code allows for stairs to the lake but does not mention how many sets of stairs per property. The improvements to the grotto will consist of cosmetic changes with the addition of a stucco interior wall and ceiling panels, addition of a decorative light, restoration of existing wood doors, and restoration of the existing stone retaining wall. Gaffron noted that since the grotto was underground, it is not considered hardcover. The hardcover calculations are at 0.7% in the 0-75' setback with the exclusion of the hardcover in the public right-of-way. Additional hardcover of about 1% is proposed in the submitted calculations in the patio and deck area but no specifics are provided and will need clarification. Mrs. Jundt said restoration was only planned at this time, no additions. Smith asked if there were improvements to the grotto. Gaffron said the changes were cosmetic only. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO>LMlSSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16,1996 (#4 - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued) N!cMillan asked if there would be changes to the vegetation. Jundt said the plans call for trimming only. Gaffron said the code normally asks for a staircase to come straight down in order to keep the hardcover to a minimum. The stairs now angle down across the slope and are partially hidden by vegetation. Smith noted that the number of staircases was previously reviewed. It was determined that if the property was broken down into parcels that the m v> er of stairways would be acceptable. Hawn commented on the uniqueness of the property and the ract that only restoration was being performed, not new improvements. Hawn said she spoke with the gardener who said he used the far stairways alot in his work and the restoration would increase the safety. Hawn said she had no problem with the restoration. Jundt said it was their intent to return the property to what it once was and not change it. She said she had questioned whether the boathouse should be restored and was informed that it should be as it has historically value. She informed Mabusth when questioned that additional damage could occur if the repair w'as not made. Mabusth said, although the cost of repair may exceed 50% of value, she would be inclined to allow the repair because of the uniqueness. Stoddard asked how the valuation was determined. Gaffron said the assessor’s value was usually taken from 1975 records. However, no value was established for this building in the records. A value for a comparable building of its size could possibly be used. Lindquist asked whether the Commission was including the boathouse or not in this application. Mabusth said there was a need to allow the structural repair to the roof, but the applicant would have to come back with more information on the foundation. Lindquist said he would need more information before he could vote on the issue and asked for an estimate. Mrs. Jundt said she thought it would be okay to repair the structure. Gaflfron said it was a matter or defining whether and to what extent structural repair actually is needed. Gaffron said he would want the building inspector to look at the structure if the boathouse was included in the application. Lindquist said the Commission would only look at the sidewalk, retaining walls, and grotto, and would not include the boathouse in this approval. There were no public comments. (^ - #2159 James and Joann Jundt - Continued) the grotto. retaining'waUs''”nd”id" the restoration and cosmetic remodel to Staffregarding the boathouse ' work with I / Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. The Affidavit of PubUcal and Cettificate ofMaiUngCre noted. The Applicant was present. \ / area for coTstraaion'oTa ’’I 'df T'”'250' setback aggregate patio. A prevtUs nlaSd . deck will be smaller in size There vdllhe'^^'"'® replacement 75-250' setback area at »%. Y ''"<‘00' tI f >ver within The applicant said he began to repamC^e Lk, and it fell down. with the topography to the rear/^>f th#» n beyond the residence and IT to the richt-of-wav lin/ said there was 8’ of the stoop using part of the structure fofthe garage Rooke^d P“roh for possibly there would only be room Z a on-So-- Ac ‘ ® ‘‘"P' serve as back out area. / * right-of-way would continue to The homes are withiVthe W ottZ“ T reaui^S^ ""^ere only an easement would be e topography of the area would probably'^minate thatrequired. Mabusth said th possibility. r? yr.m^sT li 9 f \ • i ' * ' d. ^w^%V ^ . 'i'' .‘.•^V ti'; v'V;:•.-«•• ;• 'I- 0-^ •» o Ctlo LU CO Ozc <co CD X zu. oo 8 iTi X oos CO o 5 m X UJ < CD Oo C-> ZD o| ^oW oo'-’o “ — o O'^o Ro2°to Xo 1 8 ooo IT 3c o Id i 5 rO o UJ 0 1oc Q. Xo Z1 2 §s s oo W lOI e s|o ‘^£fe /r 11 • ^ n1l X . .1 ._] I/ll iTOf' V1 1 • 1 1 r in n l_ JL JL ^d- 1 1^1 Oz o UJ X IDo UJ X Xo Xo o UJ i§ O o ZD UJoo UJ X CO oz H-: o CO o lo iD CN i=^ CO \\ Sh Q- UJ O ti z X h- o CO z X p UJ O a TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:October 12,1998 SUBJECT:#2431 Roger J. Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variance Renewal-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential (1 acre) Application:The applicants received variances to expand and remodel the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living area. Variances were granted on November 24,1997, for lakeshore setback to be located 34 from the lakeshore where 75' is required and for hardcover in the 0’-75' setback where 20% (5,815 sq. ft.) was existing and 15.3% (4,413 sq. ft.)was proposed. 1 Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1, Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B), LR-IB Lot Requirements H2431 Roger J. Olsen 815 Partenwood PC-I0/l9i9S page-1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard I acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft. •IS ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 1.02 acres 225 ft. at 75 ’ setback; 357 ft. atOHWL 37 ft. (existing) 35 ft. (proposed) 46 ft. (existing) 20 ft. (proposed) 34 ft. The existing residence does not conform to the current lakeshore setback regulations. The homeowner ’s association has more restrictive side yard setbacks than the zoning district, therefore, the garage was placed 20’ instead of 10' from the side yard setback. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75 ’28,810 sq. ft.5,815 sq. ft. (20%) None 4,413 sq. ft. (15.3%) 15.3% 75 ’-250’15,415 sq. ft.2,995 sq. ft. (19%) 25%3,600 sq. ft. (23%) None The applicant was granted a hardcover variance in the 0'-75' setback to reduce the amount of hardcover from 20% to 15.3%. »243I Roger J. OUen 815 Parienwood PC-lO/l9m page-2 1 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP STAFF RECOMMENDATION The zoning lot conforms to lot area, lot width, and side yard setback requirements. The existing residence is located within the required lakeshore setback. The proposed plan reduces the amount of hardcover in the 0'-75' setback. The existing amount of hardcover on the site is 10,228 sq. ft. (23%). The proposed plan is for 6,595 sq. ft. (14.9%) total hardcover on the lot. Staff recommends renewing the variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0'-75' setback. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Applicant's letter Arclutect's letter Elevation Site Plan Hardcover worksheets Minutes from previous meetings Res. 4004 m3 1 Roger J. Olsen 815 Partenwood pc-io/\9m page-3 A < ; Application § ^ ^ ’ Date Received ^ Amount Paid. f £0^^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 ------- (no change &om original application) Varia.::e for non-conforming structures ’ $250.00 After-ihe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ■7 To r PROPERTY DiFORMATION, / a / ^ t-v'T Site Address ^ f i? (kuom, H 3 Property Identification Number fP.I.D.1 ------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date PropcitX Acquired______S'/'\o/9'7_________________ I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) Present use of property: Y. residential ZoningPistrict: Lfj~lB other (specify ) _ APPLICANT 1 Name Rn^-er J/ <v/s‘-g*/ Address: f£~ J^y uyaat/ OWNER (if d^erent than applicant) Name _____________________ Address: Phone (home ) ^"7/^^"733 . ‘ Phone (work ) V/ City: 0 ______Zip:. *? ^ ^ Phone (home). Phone (work) City:._ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $. VARIANCES REQUIRED• • • • Lot Area rr •. .. ’ .'.J • ■ _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coycra^e - *•% * • • ?.! Other (specify) Y Average Lakediore • • HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONpmONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:._________________:---------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1. 2.? 3. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS V V’’ * • , submitted bv the application l^eadl^nl> Hafo {« flrdsr -for VOMT aPDlicatioB fg be conaidered complete! # Completed Application Form •• .. Certified Prope^ 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) arid include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes m 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 8Vj" 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 addend)^ to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The^ Applicant^ and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour qpplKation is not complete if the above information has not ti»en APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Acteinistrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) M^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. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant's Signature /f Date OWNER'S-SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month.^ Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make airangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ..... 8 B September 23, 1998 To: The City of Orono From; Roger Olsen Subject; Renewal of Variance for my home at 815 Partenwood Road. I am requesting a one-year renewal due to the extreme shortage of sub contractors, mainly carpenters, to get started on my project. As you are probably aware, the summer storms combined with a good economy have made it difficult, if not impossible, to get contractors to meet their commitments. 1 am hopeful that next year they will get caught up on their backlog of work and be able to commit to this project in a reasonable length of time. Thank you for considering this renewal variance. Sincerely, Roger Olsen {- ■ ■ '■ •V.5:r= •0 I - 5 November, 1997 d ALEX/\NDl-R Di:SlGN CROUP I'vcuaroa %riu To the City Planners of Orono: In response to your inquiry about the extent of remodeling to take place at 815 Partenwood, I will describe to you the scope of the work. After being on the market for over a year, the Olsen’s purchased the property in June with the intent of immediately remodeling the house. The house has a sagging roof that is in need of re-construction. The structure is of 2x4 wall construction & not up to current energy codes, is in need of window replacement, the porch foundation is in need of replacement,as well as needing much updating to pass any building Inspection for current code compliance. Much of the current foundation will remain. Foundation will only be removed at areas where the house is being expanded. The porch foundation will be re-built. The lower level is walkout and has a sub-standard wall which can either have 2x6 studs piggybacked to the existing studs or we would rebuild the wall. Rebuilding the wall is a much preferred method of remodeling and what we hope to do. The same options of construction can be applied to the main floor walls that will remain. The main floor is currently cantilevered at lakeside further than current codes allow for cant ’s, so we will need to cut it back and re-build it without cantilevers. Given that the whole main level lakeside wall needs to be re-built to eliminate the cantilever, it has been suggested by contractors to rebuild the floor- for several reasons- to improve constr. & eliminate rebuilding of sub-standard areas, to raise the height of the lower level to current celling heights, and allow for clear spans. This concept has now been incorporated Into our plans. The ceiling plate heights will be raised and a totally new roof truss system installed. The exact size and shape of the existing and proposed house are shown residentkl BLuoiNc uesic .n - overlaid on the site plan submitted for variance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact the Olsens or myself. ▼ 401 E.AST L.*iKE STREET Sincerely, Kathryn Al^ander U AVZ.\T.\ M\ (612) 473-STT7 F.\X (612) 4-3-3222 £L6\/M10KJ O £ ^^Oar b(\IC6K'^ Ml VilillMI rii Ir^'Sns^Jfl ^ t I r.i il*gSS^ehWr>A+ii>3 co^roM UAK&<»t06 gUfes/>-ipe»a Ct%ii nt »i n—<1 t? rifii eioos 5 VM V)m A i I C# Cl Cl CO o Cl 3 • • o H *• o> •• •H LAKE MIM\ETO.\‘<A MAIN ENTRY ENTRY PLANTING M jr:K IT r/^ntzr^\i r%i amtimc 11.-20/97 10:04 FAX 612 473 S222 ALEXANDER DESIGN tiAJUJCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) f 7S-2S0*250-500' A,House X t LenjaN)WIdA X • • ^X • • • X B.Garage X • C.Driveway •X X D.Sidewalk X X E.Patio/Dcck X X F.Landscape X Uadcrlaio •X By Plastic X G.Other • • X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B PROPOSED HAPJOCOVER TN TAVP A.House X •Zfe>'2-t)Sj B.Garaje C.Driveway eSc*dCl. D.Sidewalk - E.Pailo/Dcclc - F.Landscape Underlain - •• By Plastic X 0.Other X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 - TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. l,(o4<^ S.F. _ _ _ _ _S.F. _ _ _ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. !5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. o S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. \ A B /c hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) O-75 EXISTING HARDCQVFr im A. House ± 250-500’500-1000* -^3^^ S.F. X X X S.F. S.F. S.E B. Garage C. Driveway lwciO\lA itTi iK. S.F. X X S.F. _______S.F. D. Sidewalk X X Ut>C\ S.F. ______ S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - - --- - - - -t- B !2h335_S.F. X 100 S.F. % PROPOSED HARDCOVER TN 7r>isnr A. House Len|ih Width 'h'bti S.F. X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage S.F. C. Driveway ^X X j2|\^Q S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X i*r\ Pi. S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X I go S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X A S.F. ____S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE __ _ _ _ _ _ ^ B a ,/»OQ S.F. X 100 ic^, S.F. ^ % A B A B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 Cr (rr\7. - #2304 Deborah Shell - Continued) Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2304. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#13) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:45-11:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the application is for remodeling e nd expansion of an existing residence to include an attached 4-stall garage and loop onveway requiring a lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances in the 0-75' and 75-250’ lakeshore setbacks. A revised survey was presented. Bressler indicated that due to the lot configuration, the building pad on the lot is restricted. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to conditions noted which include elimination of the loop portion of the driveway, plastic under landscaping, and with the notation that no further hardcover would be allowed in the future. Bressler reported that the applicant has agreed to remove the plastic under the landscaping. Olsen said the plans have changed due to the homeowners' association covenants requiring a 20’ side setback. The plan currently calls for a 10' side setback. He would like to move the design down 10' to satisfy this requirement. Hawn said in order for this to occur, a new plan would have to be submitted. Bressler noted that hardcover calculations would change. Berg questioned what existing foundation and walls would be used. The existing foundation and walls to be used were noted. The house is a walk-out style. Lindquist said he would agree in principle to this change but would require reviewing the plan. Olsen said there was a time limit problem for beginning construction this year. Hawn asked about the elimination of the loop and location of the well. Olsen said he has reduced hardcover 1185 s.f. in the 0-75' setback with the elimination of driveway and retaining walls. The applicant’s designer asked if approval could be based on percentages and changes meeting the percentages required. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#13 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued) Schroeder indicated he would have to review the plan. Berg said she w’ould like to see what the impacts are. Schroeder suggested guidance be given to the applicant. Lindquist asked that the hardcover calculations be improved. Berg noted that the Planning Commission must review the application that will be seen by the Council. Olsen said the shift would change the front setback from 35' to 32' and asked if that was a big consideration. He was informed that Lindquist that it was a consideration. Schroeder questioned the need for 4 garage stalls. Lindquist informed the applicant that the City does not like to see any structure within the 75’ Isdceshore setback. Mrs. Olsen suggested the plan eliminate the 10' within the setback that is in question by the covenants. Olsen said he could eliminate 10' from the plan but would lose storage space. Lindquist suggested the architectural design be considered as well. Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2305. Dr. Bill Cottleman, a next-door neighbor, was present representing the homeowners' association. He submitted a letter form the architectural committee regarding their restrictive covenants. He noted their restrictions are more stringent than those of the City. He said the homeowners' association would approve the home being more centered on the lot. A copy of the letter was submitted to staff. He said the association prefers to see as much distance between the homes as possible. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #2307 ELLEN PETERSON, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 3355 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:05-11:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Photos were shown of the property. Bressler reported that the applicant is proposing Construction of a 282* s.f. carport with a deck above it attached to the front of the existing residence. The 12' wide carport would extend 22' out over the existing driveway with a walkway. This proposal will require variances for side setback, lakeshore setback, and 0-75' and 75-250’ setback hardcover. ^ ^ m •m MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 \ \ \ Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - 6:47-7:03 P.M. The applicant and architect, Kathryn Alexander, were present. Dressier presented pictures of the property. The applicant is proposing remodeling and expansion of the residence to include a 4-stall attached garage. The application requires variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75' setback. There is no problem with average lakeshore setback as noted in the topographical map. The residence currently has a 3-stall side loading garage. The driveway configuration has been changed. The existing residence encroaches the lakeshore setback. The allowable building space is limited by the property. Only a portion of the existing foundation will remain; further information is included in the packet. The total hardcover is proposed at 19%. The 1.02 acre property is located in the one acre zoning district with 3/4 acre in the 6-75' setback. The street setback is also restricted. Bressler reported Staff recommended approval subject to maintaining a 34' lakeshore setback firom the designated OHW where 75' is req’iired. Encroachment on the lakeshore setback will not be increased by the improvements. Staff recommends hardcover be maintained at a maximum of 14.5% in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 20% is existing, 16% is proposed, and none is allowed. Bres'^’er indicated that the amount of existing hardcover excluding landscaping underlain stic is 14.5%. This figure could largely minutes of the orono planning commission meeting HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 be met by eliminating several proposed decks and existing patio area on the lake side of the residence. By approving this percentage, there would be no net gain in the amount of hardcover on the property, not including plastic under landscaping. Staff recommends all landscape underlain by plastic in the 0-75* lakeshore setback be removed prior to commencement of new construction. The applicant has agreed to this provision. Staff also recommends that no further hardcover variances be granted to this property in the future. Mr. Olsen, in noting the difficult lot, said he preferred not to reduce the hardcover further than the proposed 16% to 14.5%. Ms. Alexander said the total hardcover is less than the 25% allowed. Hawn informed the applicant that trading hardcover for landscaping underlain with plastic is not the same and does not justify the additional hardcover. Lindquist said he agreed noting there is a large amount of structure on the property and is of the opinion that the applicant should maintain the 14.5% hardcover maximum. Stoddard asked Bressler to explain the suggestions for hardcover removal. Alexander noted that as suggested. the hardcover would still be over 14.5%. Bressler informed McMillan that he arrived at the 14.5% by subtracting the landscaping underlain with plastic from the hardcover. The balance of hardcover to be removed would come from eliminating a portion of the patio, dog run, decking, or decreasing the size of the addition. Olsen said that he would have to eliminate the existing patio or addition even if all of the decking was eliminated. Lindquist informed him that if the residence was new \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 construction, he would not be allowed any structure in the 0-75' setback. Olsen acknowledged that the home would not have been able to be built to meet today's standards. Alexander noted that the patio consists of pavers and asked if pavers with drainage holes is still deemed hardcover. Lindquist said they vere. Alexander said eliminating 1.5% of hardcover would consist of 497 s.f. When asked by Hawn what items are necessary, it was noted that the dog kennel could be gravel and the patio could be reduced in size. This would amount to less than the decrease being required. The patio is 810 s.f. and could be reduced. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2305 for lakeshore setback, hardcover variance in 0-75' setback, subject to revised Staff reconunendation including a 4T lakeshore setback variance for structure to remain at 34’ from the OHW, hardcover variance for a maximum of 4415 s.f. in the 0-75' setback, and plastic uitder landscaping moved in the 6-75' setback. The reduction in hardcover in the 0-75’ setback will be decided by applicant subject to staff approval. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3560 SHORELINE DRIVE - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLASS HI PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:03-7:39 P.M. Bill Gleason was present representing Brook Park Realty. j MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT • i (#3) #2279 G. MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - RECONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL Mrs. Whitehead was present. Gaf&on reported that discussion was held at the last Council meeting regarding the park dedication fee. Pursuant to Staff discussions. Staff recommends reopening the preliminary plat resolution to enable Staff to draft for incorporation into the resolution additional findings related to the nexus and proportionality issues related to the park fee. Mrs. Whitehead had no comments. She verified Staff and Council reviewed her letter faxed to the City Office. Gaffron indicated the fax was received on this date and distributed for Council review. Jabbour informed Whitehead that the Council plans on acting on the application in a timely manner. Mrs. Whitehead said she appreciates that. Jabbour said the Council must also protect the interests of the City. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to reconsider Resolution #3966 for purposes noted. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to direct Staff to draft findings of nexus and proportionality for inclusion in Resolution #3966. Barrett verified that the findings will include the nexus and proportionality of the subdivision's impact on parks. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#4) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 814 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4003 The applicants and architect were present. Van Zomeren reported that the 1.02 acre property is located in the LR-IB Residential District and meets the minimum lot requirements. Pictures were presented of the property. The existing house is located within 75' of the lakeshore. The lot is unusual as the lot extends along the lake but is narrow in its depth. The application is a proposal for a 4-car garage and additions to the residence. A patio with pavers currently exists. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the 41’ variance for lakeshore setback for the residence 34' from the lakeshore and 15.3% hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback where 20% exists and none is allowed. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 . (#4 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued) The applicant had no additional comments. Jabbour asked if any of the hardcover resulted, from replacement of non-structural hardcover with structural hardcover. Van Zomeren explained what currently exists and ' is proposed. She indicated the plan is reduced from the original proposal by removal of a dog run and balcony on the laice side. Van Zomeren said additional structure will occur. Jabbour explained the issue of concern. He noted that applications have been reviewed where illegally non-conforming hardcover is approved as part of an application becoming legally non-conforming hardcover and resulting in more permanent structure on properties. Jabbour said when the non-conforming hardcover is reviewed, the Planning Commission assumes it has been placed their legally through the permit process but has been added since the original application for construction on the property was made. The City has not verified if the property has changed since the last application and the hardcover is used for trading for additional structure. Kathryn Alexander, the architect, said the property is the same as existed when the original permits were issued. Jabbour said his point referred to other situations. Peterson expressed her surprise that the residence was able to be built originally. Jabbour indicated that it was approved just prior to the current zoning ordinances. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4003. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#5) #2311 LOREN FRITZ, 3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4004 Mr. Fritz was present. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4004. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#6) #2313 TOM AND KARISTEINKE, 910 DAKOTA AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4005 Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4005. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4004 _ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE NO. 2305 WHEREAS, Roger and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 815 Paitenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances . Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space located 34' torn the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed as shown on Exhibit A. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council pf Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2305. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 1.02 acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 17, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings; 1. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL. Page 1 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. / A 0 ______ 2. The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad. 3.The amount of hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback would be reduced from 20% to 15.3%. 4. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and w-ould be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the fmdings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and w'elfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to a’.iow the retrMeling and expansion of the existing residence located 34' from the OHWL where 75' is rc» d and hardcover of 4,415 s.f. (15.3%) in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where 5,815 s.f. (2C is existing and none is allowed. 1.All plastic under landscaping must be removed in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback prior to any new construction. 2. No further variances will be granted to this property in the future. 3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not wit'' the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (Novemoer 24, 1998). Page 2 of 5 Safi ’S!! CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ______ 4.Violation of or non-compliance wth any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall con'titute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be puiushable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of November, 1997. AT^.ST: Dorothy M CiCity Clerk Propdity Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of November, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instnoment was executed on behalf of the City. wmmmmm. JAMELGBMR wwrmauMMBOu lemiootMTY Myeo«WidittiBi»«iJ»t>t.2000 Not^j Public \J Page 3 of 5 ill CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 0 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of . 199^ before me a Notary Fublic within and for said county, personally appeared /!.T. knov»Ti to me to be the person(s) describecf^in Wd who exec Jted me foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ■'yiUJL A JAMIE LGaiAR N0TAAYPU3UC4W60I ^ Cwwteofl EipSaMBitl,! NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of for said county, personally appeared 199 before me a Notary Public within and known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 eioo • • (4J CO HI A I ■ I d C4 • S i r ‘ ^ \ Cv| S 2 O • • ro o». % A •H rj< O o LA!<e MIMNETO\’.<A MAIM ENTRY ENTRY PLANTING . ., .^vif-TK.T r'z-'ncr-M rii amtimt irrmit-fifai: tj»^ iiir^-\rr».[iTiTifllM Rm«ilIK RvniM W75mnr Findings: 1.That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning C.apter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; The proposed tipi location will meet the zoning requirements for accessory uses by locating behmd the principal building and not in a required parking area per drawing on survey by staff. The school is allowed as a conditional use in residential districts. 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 tipi will be located behind the school and at least 10' from the property line. It will not impact the adjacent uses nor reduce the number of required parking spaces. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. This application is to amend the conditional use permit for the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School. The art school is subordinate to the environmental school and the tipi is an accessory use tc the art school. It will comply with all other provisions of the Zoning Code. Staff Recommendation To amend the conditional use permit to allow the tipi, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The tipi shall not be located in a required side or rear yard. 2. The tipi shall not be located in a required parking area. 3. The tipi shall be allowed on the property for a period of time not to exceed 1 year from the approval date . Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Applicant's statement D Applicant's drawing E Survey F Permit Record G H I J Minutes from 5/19/97 Minutes from 5/27/97 Res. 3424 Res. 3908 U2434 Carol Olson, Kid's Art School 2180 North Shore Drive PC-lO/19/98 page~2 Application # A Date Received 2S*'R9 Amount Paid iiJ~y CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION , - Site Address Mor\h StD^—yhA£. Type of Application to be Filed Vlvf>S* Aer *=9r^,3iO\n Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name > ^ Ai^c^l 6LSok V Address \)r\^ Phone (horned ______ Phonefvvork^ U~?C->~9^^I City C^^Oy^ _______Zip I /I>JbK til Qiiiereni inan tipj;iivaiiv I \ (home)---------- Name ^ P noxfoAmc^,. vS^WraV Phone (work)----------- ______City ___________ - Zip. OWNER (if different than applicant) NameJj Address Date Property Acquired (month/year) 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $ 75,00 For ea^h variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use K $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) FOP- f\ T'iP* ______$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 Pee 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 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350 ’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hermepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv-eyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Anach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The appliceint 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 th^ Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arra..gemenls to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. s V - 56.56 86.48 P 8 ^"'■(42)> r47.8 />P ,1? xO OUTLOT B Ifl X '<0 < BiA^ (43) » KMO 474. 5/ 1€ST (19) MINNETONKA I '<0 (40)^® 5B »r'2" eRisTAiL' N» (39) ^(32)‘- » ® (38) ® ^ (37) ^ V ^ uo •\ 140 ^50o‘IB• f..50V 5(34) g HO (35)|4()8 122) ,,168.35 13 (ID 160.1 II (30) islTBS" g (29),^fii KI43.62 9V *o MYKA" 135.36 8 •®/l» M 5 « (26).^g/ (26) A’li R 118.9 'O/ 1?3,5 c % s7 ?!CRYSTAL AVE ro w k\.*^r> S (44)SR ?06 g (19)0 ;os {W «(56)!I (57)« Ifi s s 8 '18.5 AVE mm 87.5 s 45 3!\ & 1 • 1 (54)g 1 >• 'T® ®(53)^i (55)8 175 87.5 87.5 - 6 - g S 160v->.1—•V 87.5 37.5 eg *(« )!(4a) 474.5 (CO RP-Ne-5-1^ -117-23-33 czT)r; 1-199 (101) Or S(5l)^/^ c At^T SroOlt) Tt) fVMKV^KlO -^VtE CCKCHTIOIA A\- vxsc ^^HCr ^<^9. C3LD ScVlkiOL . H- S'AO'R^ D^\MC . \vi AT=n, Mv4,, 553^'. \Kv^m vsno 9oc\ vxV m \H\)vAN r\9i eOvU:prnoH-ftL ^'XWib<ifcS. OH -WrS KoATV^NMeST ?A!f^^ 'iVk^ . ter C£KiTg:R \D €7 \.r 'I* V4 V3 *>s <8 1 ------1 1 — lj'I: 1 1 i , O ' 1 CL —— —----------- o 7 --------------- —— d J “T----------“ r ' \\\'^^ ” • ^ ^ ''^' •^CKTT ar€os^ oxc^ijofy «Wdiu^ ItJ <teK sidU \^ t to’ 4ton ba\t(ii*v\^ drwe:(CO. R^.Was ft Conf /’•f C*'^ S E (.orn*.'" /jOv'<- Lot 5 ict. ;o.T//->, e.-^3 Paae 1 cf. 1 i-h t c PERMIT RECORD I ^(^9 3L 9/7c^„ 6?b-q-7 n '/^^i ILU jlU- Al/9^ Permit Mo.Date 9~&-rs Type of Permit ^/((0nhiy?f S3fO ■7-«g-74 *Otk^s0T)ert't SL/4f 6"73'7 9 _(Je4( f A '// - ^5'*' '?/ G o' Px^r^i/iA-r -/ ^ 4.|- 2i;l MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#9 - #2233 Walter Kolzer - Continuet^*, Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2233 to gather additional information and further discuss the home occupation licensing. Vote. Ayes 7, Nays 0. Van Zomeren will notify applicant of time and date of work session. (#10) #2234 DOUGLAS E. WALDOCH, 4215 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARI^'iNCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:59-9:02 P.M, The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Appbcant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District requiring one acre lots. The property is substandard at .664 acres and at a lot width of 56 at lakcshore and 95' at front setback, where 140’ is required. The applicant proposes to remove and reconstruct a new residence which will require a lot area and width vari^ce. The location vrill improve the garage location, street setback, and structures proximity to side lot line. Van Zomeren indicated that Staff recommends approval. The applicant had no comments. Schroeder asked if the new residence is the same size. Van Zomeren said it was not calculated as no variance is required. Smith noted that the proposal is for a two-story residence in contrast to the current one story. Van Zomeren indicated the neighbors have voiced their support of the proposal. Smith questioned whether the property will be landscaped between the driveway and property line. She was informed that this is not required. McMillan noted the driveway and curb cut was approved. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2234. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#11) #2235 MARTIN B. SCHNEIDER, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDmONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:02-9:33 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#11 - #2235 Martin Schneider - Continual) Van Zomeren reported that the application is for an amendment to a conditional use permit originally issued in 1984 to allow for a non-conforming use of the structure as an arts school. The current proposal is a change from one non-conforming use to another use by the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School. The change of occupancy changes the Building Code classification fi'om B2 to E2 which requires improvements to the building for handicap access and life safety standards. Van Zomeren asked the Commission to review hours of operation and parking that would result in any new impacts. Van Zomeren said Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the CUP subject to standards and conditions 1 and 2 regarding certificate of occupancy and amendment if any changes occur to the CUP. Review of the plans are also required. Martin Schndder informed the Commission that the building is the Old Hill Schoolhouse. He explained the background of the building and hs use by the art center. He sold the biulding in 1994 but g^ed it back in February, 1997. Schneider said he does not believe there is any change in the occupancy. He indicated the ?ge group had not been previously specified. B2 allowed for adult education but children were the majority attendants. Schneider said the cliunge in occupancy will require the fire code regulations to go into effect requiring a fire suppression system. The property does not have city water and would require pressure tanks. While he supports the need to provide handicap access ramps and bathroom, he objects to the fire code regulation due to major expense and what he feels is not a change in occupancy. Lindquist informed him that the Planning Commission has no authority over these requirements. Van Zomeren said no variances are allowed fi'om the Building Code. The code requires a 2-story structure in the E2 classification to meet certain standards including a sprinkler system. Van Zomeren referenced a letter firom Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, regarding this issue. Schroeder informed the applicant that the Planning Commission is only to consider what the future use will be. If the E2 requires fire suppression equipment, children cmnot be put at risk. What has occurred in the past, whether right or wrong, does not affect this application. Stoddard noted that the fire suppression system involves building code requbements beyond that required by the Chy. Van Zomeren noted that the art school had moved into the building without a certificate of occupancy. Letters from the Building Official had been sent to the art school regarding required improvements that were not made over a three year period. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON MAY 19, 1997 (#11 - #2235 Martin Schneider - Continued) Smith asked if there would be any effect on the neighborhood. Scl^ider ^d the use would not be increased and amount of parking stalls is excellent. He sai c no received Eny neighborhood complaints. Smith asked if the second story was not used, if the code would stiU apply regarding afce suppression system. Van Zomeren said it would. Van Zomeren reported that if the application was approved, the comprehensive plan would need to be amended to reflect the change in use. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve the amending and cominuation of the conditional use permit to provide for class instrucUon for the L^e Mmneto^ Environmental School as outlined in application, subject to Staff r^mmendations and review of appropriate use classification and required buUding and State rules and regulations for appropriate use. The Staff recommendatioi^ subject ^ fouLing standards: The buUding shall have a cen.ficate of occupancy “ ^ relocates into the building. A future change in tenancy shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (The meeting was recessed for ten minutes.) (#12) #2236 WILLUM H. BOCKMANN, 1090 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:43-9:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the appUcant is seeking variances to street setback, side yard, and hardcover for removal of a one-car garage and replacement by a two-car g^e. A lot area variance of 78.5% is required. Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback would mcrcase from 37.2% to 38.98%. The street setback would remain the same. Van ZomCTcn indicated that the lot area, width, and weU location, which limits the locauon of garage, are the hardships. Other homes in the area also have two-^ gardes, btan recommends approval. Acknowledgment fonn has been received from adjacent neighbo at 1082 Loma Linda Avenue supporting the proposal. The appUcant provided a letter from his neighbor indicating support for the garage to be located T from the north property fine. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 19.1997 (#11 - #2235 Martin Schneider - Continued) Smith asked what the building inspector required. Van Zomeren said the building would require interior steps and a fire escape under the B2, which is not as extensive as the requirements under the E-2. Lindquist noted that the applicant questioned the classification change from B2 to E2. Schneider asked the Commission to proceed with the application as recommended, and he would work with the building inspector. Smith informed him that if the building was classified E2, there would be areas where compliance with regulations would be required. Schneider said he did not know if he could make those improvements and might possibly have to sell the property. The tank and heated building for the tank would be prohibitively expenrive. During public comments. Van Erickson informed the Commission that the building is old and felt the number of fire exits was adequate for safety. He did not believe the building should be required to have a sprinkler system. There were no additional comments. Lindquist asked the applicant if he had reviewed the recommendation and conditions. Schneider said he had some disagreement but asked the Commission to move forward, and he would work to resolve those issues. Berg inquired of Schneider if the issue was the code or occupancy. Schneider said it was the code as it changed the occupancy. Van Zomeren said the change to the CUP triggers the need for an amendment regarding occupancy and building codes. A member of the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School Board asked that the certificate of occupancy be supplied without all of the work completed as parents of the children will be performing some of the required work. Lindquist informed her that the Planning Commission does not have this authority, and the matter would have to be taken up with the Building Inspector. Van Zomeren indicated that h was a liability issue. Sherokee Use asked if this request was not possible, if the school could hold open houses. Lindquist again related that the Commission does not have the authority to waive Building Code requirements. Smith indicated that the interpretation of the code would be by the State. Schneider disagreed in that he felt the issue was the adult versus children occupancy. He believed the issue will have to be reviewed by the City Attorney. He informed Stoddard that the recommendation could be subject to building codes. Schroeder said he was in support of the use itself. He asked if there were any significant changes to hours or otherwise. Schneider said there would be no change to hours and people in attendance. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 27,1997 (#11 - #2234 Douglas Waldoch - Continued) Jabbour inquired about the property’s elevation. Waldoch said the initial 75' is flat with the home located in the steeper grade. Jabbour noted there was no need for the shed to be located in the 75’ setback. Waldoch said the distance from the house to the lake is far. Jabbour indicated that the City has been consistent with asking for removal of hardcover within the 75’ setback. Waldoch noted the shed serves a function but would be willing to move it to another location to gain approval of the application. Van Zoraeren clarified that the shed could remain elsewhere on the property. Kellqr suggested the shed be placed behind the average lakeshore setback. Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3907 with removal of the shed out of the 0-75' setback. The shed can be placed elsewhere behind the average lakeshore setback on the property if hardcover requirements are met. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#12) #2235 MARTIN B. SCHNEIDER, 2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 3908 The applicant was presem. Van Zomeren reported that the application is for an amendment to a conditional use permit for the Old Hill Schoolhouse located in the RR-IB Zoning District. The property is 25,400 s.f. The Lake Minnetonka Environmental School is requesting relocation to this property. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the building receiving a certificate of occupancy before the school relocates into die building, a future change in tenancy would require an amendment to the CUP, and review of the appropriate use classification and required state building code rules and regulations for the proposed use. Goetten questioned the limiting of the occupanc)' to 56 when the prior usage occupwey was 83. Van Zomeren indicated that the number was derived from the school's inaxiraum enrollment. Goetten s^d she would prefer the number be increased to allow a change in enrollment. Kelley inquired if the building code would require the building be sprinkled. Jabbour indicated that this issue was not in the Council's jurisdiction. Schneider reported that he would perform what is required for the ^ven occupancy and accept code standards. For the record, Schneider said he did disagree with the assignment of the occupancy ** change in classification triggers meeting the building code regulations. He not^ this is a separate issue and is willing to proceed with the application based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation and according to the resolution as stated. He doe^ however, question the findings of the Staff. I MBYTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CHY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 27,1997 (#12 - #2235 Martin Schneider - Continued) ' Kelley inquired who makes the decision regarding classification. Schneider said El classification allows for occupancy up to 50 children up to grade 12 and E2 allows more tlm 50. Schneider asked the application be moved forward pending code review and wfll comply with code. Kelley asked if the classification is detennined by Staff. Moorse said the inspection staff reviews it. Kelley asked if this has been done. Van Zomeren said an architect prepares the code compliance, and it is reviewed by Building Official Lyle Oman for completion and appropriateness. Oman performed that review. Moorse noted that the El and E2 classification requires a fire suppression system. He said the change m the building code triggered the need for the fire suppression system but the code compliance has not yet been reviewed. Van Zomeren indicated that this would be conducted by the building official, after an architect had prepared an analysis. labour indicated that the process can be appealed citing an example when the inspector did not agree with the architect's findings. Jabbour reported that Schneider suggested the City’s classification of the property before as B2 and now as E2 caused him to lose his grandfather rights. Jabbour clarified for the record and in defense of the City that Staff had made every attempt to get the former occupant in compliance without success. Whether the building is sprinkled is not within the Council's jurisdictioiL It is a subject of the building code. Schneider informed Jabbour that he will continue with the process noting he could appeal if necessary. Jabbour and Kelley both noted that regardless of what occurred in the past, the rules regarding children occupying the building have to be followed. Van Zomeren informed the Council that the prior occupant, the art school, had moved into the building without a certificate of occupancy. The City then had to make attempts to gain compliance over 3-1/2 years. The B2 classification was for the art center. The Building Offiaal did not observe children on the premises during his inspection. While the past classification may have been incorrect, the classification should be determined before aity new use is allowed. Van Zomeren confirmed for Schneider that the building does not have a certificate of occupancy. Schneider reported that he is not affiliated with the art school. He gained possession of the property again when the art school defaulted on their contract for deed in February 1997. Jabbour said the CoimcU would like to expedite and facilitate the application. He indicated that the building can be shown to people prior to receipt of the certificate of occupancy. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 27,1997 (#12 - #2235 Martin Schneider - Continued) Schneider indicated that he originally purchased the building in 1989 and maintained the current use. The building is currently for sale. He noted the problems with having to add a fire suppression ^stem to the building, both structural and financially. He expressed concern that the City may not want to maintain the building as a school. Jabbour sai^ the philosophy of the City is not to become involved in the use but indicated the Council is in support of the project. Van Zomeren said the resolution does not include a manmum number for occupancy. She recommended a number be included. Schneider noted that the building code is based on the building size and age of occupants. Van Zomeren said the number of occupants based on the building code is consistent with the resolution as drafted. KehQr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 390S. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#13) #2236 WILLIAM H. BOCKMANN, 1090 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3909 The applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request for side yard and hardcovM variances for removal of an existing one-car garage and to install a two-car garage. It was noted that the Council had not been provided with the survey for their review. The property is .215 acres in the 1 acre zoning district, it does not meet lot area or wdth. Van Zomeren indicated that the location of the well limits the location for the new garage. She reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval for a 2.6' side yard variance and an increase from 37.2% to 38.98% hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 25% is allowed. The Commission asked that a caveat be included putting the applicant on notice that no fuiure hardcover would be allowed. Mr. Bockmann said the garage would actually be 1' from the property line due to the well. Kelley noted that conceptually the garage is located in the roadway and needs to be moved. He understood the need for a 2 car garage and supported its placement due to the well location and approval by the neighboring properties. Goetten reported that it was not possible to make any detemnnations without having the survey available. I . CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _8 4 S A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 AND A VARIANCE TO SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) FILE NO. 1923 WHEREAS, Atelier LeSueur, Inc. (hereinafter the "applicant") has an interest in the property located at 2180 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5, the applicant has made application to the City to allow the continuation of a non-conforming use of the facility as a school of fine arts providing full-time class instruction and a variance to Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A) that would allow the continued use of an open parking area located within a required side street yard where no such parking would be allowed. / Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File <^1923. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 25,440 s.f. or .63 acres. 3.The building referred to as the Hill School was built in the late 1800’s and served as an elementary school for the Crystal Bay community. 4.In 1957 the Hill School was purchased by the Minnetonka Art Center and the facility continued to serve the Art Center through 1989. Page 1 of? CITY of ORONO resolution of the city council NO. 3 4 2 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. u approved a metes and bounds division that divided the Hill School property from the Minnetonka Art Center. From August 15,1989 through September 11. 1990. tlie Art Center of Minnesota (formerly Mmnetonka Art Center) leased the facUity from the new owner for the purpose of continuing use of the facility for art instruction purposes. From the later part of 1990 through the present, the facility has served as a licensed day care and a dance school. From the late 1800’s to the present, the facility has never been used as a residential dwelling. As required by Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5, the applicant has filed for a conditional use permit to allow the continued use of the facility or a fine arts school offering full-time instruction. On April 18, 1994, the Orono Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variance based on the following unique findings: The use has existed prior to the creation of the single family zoning district through to present times without interruption. The use has had no detrimental effects on the surrounding residential neighborhood. a. b. c. d. The art school to be operated from the Hill School building will continue to share parking facilities of the Art Center of Minnesota consistent with the former comprehensive operation. The City has no record of vehicular accidents resulting from the use of the gravel parking areas along the east side of the property adjacent to Briar Street. Page 2 of 7 id '>CITY of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITi COUNCILNO. 8 4 24-------- 11.The Council finds that the *at“gltog “e V^i^ufd noT adversely >s ~ ^^Sn^ran “r '*'' and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 12. ng ~ s- ;‘*s -i's i caKl“ « «.! •< «■ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upononeormoreofd.ahove« tliat applicant’s proposed use of ^ conditional use permit per Municipal Zo^g conforming use of the property and 8 f^^her concludes that the configuration of the Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 5. Council ^ property are unique and resolution as Page 7. Applicant sha» Jk f«P° ^ completed by right-of-way of Briar Street. Page 3 of 7 fv«wos»ia^ CITY of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5^ 4 O A 2. Applicant shall retain a licensed architect to address some of the following items as originally set forth in the Building Official’s memo of April 18, 1994 that are to be completed by November 9, 1994: a. Handicap access to first level only. b. Handicap sanitation facilities. c. Consideration of occupancy requirements and type of construction. d. Exiting requirements. 3. This non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming use. 4. Nothing in the Municipal Code shall prevent the placing of this structure in safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the Building Inspector, providing the necessary repair shall not constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of said structure. 5. If structure is damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot or an act of God, the structure may be reconstructed and used as before if it is reconstructed within twelve (12) months after such calamity, unless the damage to this building or structure is 75% (or more) of its fair market value as shown on the Assessment Records at the time of damage, in which case the structure shall be demolished, and any construction thereafter shall be for use in accordance with the provisions of the Single Family Residential Zoning District. 6. If the non-conforming use of this structure is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months, any future use of the structure shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Single Family Residential Zoning District. 7. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by applicant obtaining permits from the City to complete the required improvements as set forth in Conditions 1 and 2 above to be completed by November 9, 1994. Page 4 of 7 r^nwosoiitor. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 4 24______ 8. 9. 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. Annette LeSueur, the Director of Atelier USueur, Inc., has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, the School, its heirs,“successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of May, 1994. thy liin. City Clerk Annette LeSueuf Director of Atelier LeSueur, Inc. {y' ^ n, Jr., Mayor artm B. Schneider Andrea E. Schneider STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instniment was acknowledged before me on tWs 9* day of May Zo%“ 0 “i^^^ exiled'Uehaif of dre City. NOTARY^PUBUC'-MW^OTA Public Page 5 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 4 24 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of -J'u/y___________, 199_f/before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared An np ^ tx r. /y // / v, 't //_____ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (Aey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. . :W UUT>k S. VEE NOTARY PU8UC - MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY _ My commission expires S-12-^/ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) . On this day of 0cipher ________, 199^ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared I^ar4-:r\ 6> ne.'Aef i ____________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (Aey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ■■ijf. LISDA S. VEE 5^^* NOTAPY public - MINNESOTA. hfn.ne^in county My wr/Tflp .^^:cn expires d-12-96 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) >, , , On this 1^^ day of u Of-cotr , \99jJ_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally append /liff-Lvi T /a^ An £ • known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing iii^trument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. UHm S. VEE NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My commission S-1^66 NOTARY PUBUC Page 6 of 7 r««50M0ia DR WE (60. RO. ’?!)Son. fitr 0»c. f30i. 993 /• ^etr*. Wosft C^ntrmf SE. Carn<r ^ov*6 S fcec. ;o,r//’7. Page 7 cf 7 3424 EXHIBIT A • PARCEL A ^ j recorded plat thereof, HennepinLot 5. Block 3. MARKVILLE. according to the recoraea p County, Minnesota. PARCEL B Lots . and 6. except ‘^e West 69 « feet or saia L“ni“«nirsotI: MARKVILLE, according to the recorded plat tnereoi, RESOLUTION # S 4 S 4 * • r* STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) I Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk of the City of Orono . Hennepin proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held 9 , 19^ . and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 12th . day of Ma^ . 19 94 (SEAL) •. r . ’• • I .: • • i P OPHAM HAIK 11.9. Orvicct: OCMVKW. C01.0WA00 TCC S0J*«9a*l200 MIAMI. FkOAlOA rcu 3C9 SSO-OOSO WAtMIMOTON. O.C. T8W 202-S2A.8000 SCHNOBNICM • KAUFMAN, LTD. IMCWUOINO Tm« law PAACTIC* OW MASON* FlNWICK A LAWStNCl, ESTABLISMtO t SUITS 3300 222 SOUTH NINTH STPSST Minneapolis . Minnesota 95402-3336 TEL 612-333-4800 • FAX 612-334-8066 HEATHER LILLIES DIRECT DIAL (612) ^U^9f796 March 15,1995 Mar 1 6 AmUIATlOMSt EtuiNO. C hina TtL Of I••I•BI^92EI Ltt^XtO. OIMmant Tcl 01 l«B-14l-4EttA2» STUTTOAAT. OCAMANT TtL 01 14t-7l 1-22242 1995 Dorothy Hallin City of Orono P.O.Box 66 -------- _ Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Hallin: Enclosed, please find the following resolutions recorded in Hennepin County: 1. Resolution number 3507 (file number 1983), recorded on 01/27/95 as document number 2585965. , j 2. ResoluUon number 3506 (file number 1980), recorded on 01/27/95 as document number 2586032. j 3. Resolution number 3500 (file number 1969), recorded on 12/23/94 as document number 2577888. 4. Resolution number 3473 (file number 1963), recorded on 12/20/94 as document number 2576730. 5. Drainage Easement (Wold), recorded on 12/20/94 as document number 2576733. 6. Resolution number 3421 (file number 1917), recorded on 12/05/94 as document number 2571924. . 7. Resolution number 3486 (file number 1970), recorded on 12/20/94 as document number 2576732. 8. Resolution number 3375 (file number 1892), recorded on 11/04/94 as document number 2565014. 9. ResoluUon number 3424 (file number 1923), recorded on 11/04/94 as document number 2565015. 10. ResoluUon number 3420 (file number 1881), recorded on 10/21/94 as document number 2561221. 327/140874133/15/95 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Resolution number 3325 (file number 1829), recorded on 10/25/94 as document number 2532220. Resolution number 3374 (file number 1891), recorded on 10/25/94 as document number 2562221. Resolution number 3320 (file number 1864), recorded on 10/25/94 as document number 2562268. Resolution number 3463 (file number 1949), recorded on 10/04/94 as document number 2556153. Resolution number 3431 (file number 1920), recorded on 10/04/94 as document number 2556154. Consent (Marquette Bank), recorded on 02/22/95 as document number 2590898. Restrictive Covenant (Kipfer), recorded on 02/22/95 as document number 2590897. If you have any questions or comments regarding these resolutions, please feel free to contact me. Very Truly Yours, r^aJkiA ither niies Case Assistant 327/140874833/15/95 . I- I CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 9 0 8 A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 FILE NO. 2235 WHEREAS, Martin B. Schneider (hereinafter the "applicant") has an interest in the property located at 2180 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5, the applicant has made application to the City to allow for a change in tenancy of a non-conforming use of the property to allow the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School to relocate to the site. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2235. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 25,440 s.f. or .63 acres. The building referred to as the Hill School was built in the late 1800's and served as an elementary school for the Crystal Bay community. In 1957 the Hill School was purchased by the Minnetonka Art Center and the facility continued to serve the Art Center through 1989. The Atelier LeSueur School has vacated the premises and it is currently vacant. On June 12, 1989, the City approved a metes and bounds division that divided the Hill School property from the Minnetonka Art Center. Page 1 of 7 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 0 8 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. From August 15, 1989 through September 11,1990, the Art Center of Minnesota (formerly Minnetonka Art Center) leased the facility from the new owner for the purpose of continuin g use of the facility for art instruction purposes. From the later part of 1990 through May 1994, the facilit>’ has served as a licensed day care and a dance school. From the late 1800’s to the present, the facility has never been used as a residential dwelling. As retjuired by Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5, the applicant ha*'g filed for an amendme nt to a conditional use permit to allow Lake Minnetonka Environmental School to locate in the building. On May 19, 1997, the Orono Plannin g Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use penmt amendment based on the following unique findings: a . The previous use as a school has existed prior to the creation of the single famil y ynning district through to present times without interruption. b. The proposed use will have no detrimental effects on the surrounding residential neighborhood. • The Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zo ning 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 applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council finds that granting an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow the use of the facility as a Lake Minnetonka Environmental School will not Page 2 of 7 AsUtX CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _39 0 8 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council concludes that applicant's proposed use of the property as a private, non-profit middle school for grades 4-8 is a legal non-conforming use of the property and hereby grants an amendment to the conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning C^e Section 10.03, Subdivision 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Applicant shall retain a licensed architect to address code requirements for change of occupancy. This non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming use. Nothing in the Municipal Code shall prevent the placing of this strucbjre in safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the Building Inspector, providing the necessary repair shall not constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of said structure. If structure is damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot or an act of God, the structure may be reconstructed and tised as before if it is reconstructed within twelve (12) months after such calamity, unless the damage to this building or structure is 75% (or more) of its fair market value as shown on the Assessment Records at the time of damage, in which case the structure shall be demolished, and any construction thereafter shall be for use in accordance with the provisions of the Single Family Residential Zoning District. If the non-conforming use of this structure is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months, any future use of the structure shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Single Family Residential Zoning District. Page 3 of 7 6. 7. 8. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 0 8____ Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by applicant obtaining permits from the City to complete the required improvements as set forth in Condition 1 above to be completed prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued and relocation of the school. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatic^y terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Martin B. Schneider has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, the School, its heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of May, 1997 • AT EST: GabrieiJabbour, Mayof\, Property Owners STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of May, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Miimesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. ‘^m notartpubuc-minnesota HENNEPIN COUNTY Notary Public Page 4 of 7 >1 Am CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 9 0 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Cfnnp _________. 199 7 . before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Mar44n ^chn^/ cfer: 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. “ LINDAS.VEE NOWIYPUBUC^ANNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My CommiMlon Expires Jan. 31. AiM ■C- Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) day of ss. , 199___, before me a Notary PublicOn this_________ within and for said County, personally appeared ____________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 s P-- I— -------vr r I 106.00 r T’ T TT T "T r T n 'll 1 ' I I :i. I V , U' I UvJ Ji : I g|-* N\\\\-.m\ N \l PROOP OP PARtelN6. W«0C >IOCv/A1 OOA^ Jo7 •KCKTf CXMTIVJV TitMAifi docfi^r • # 38.7 XX ✓ / / > / XK/ST/Ai4 ^ ■'Z-iT»«Y ^ WOOO CLP«. *. N • • V’ • • # ••y • V-'^9 n 'S / S.O doUC. DRWC 69.00 -------------~~l---------I-------106. ---N90*00 ’00 ”W 175.00 — (CQ RD. ^1)S«/t. Se*>^er‘€ase.mtrtf per Dec. //e.tSOZJ^i /* ^ttr* Y/Ofte Canti'^t Cl^rrteri^ £> & ^O'VK'* ttOSf'i L.o't ^ ^O.T/O. R.-2.3 Exhibit A Page 7 cf 7 8908 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator October 14,1998 SUBJECT: #2395 Brent and Kathym Bentrott Variance(s)-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area: 17,142 square feet (.39 acres) Application:The applicants appeared at the July 20th and August 17th Planning Commission meeting and requested hardcover variances, a 10' vacation of Bluff Street, and side yard adjacent to street setback variances. 'fhe Planning Commission recommended that the proposed three season porch be located at least 3' from the side property line and that Bluff Street not be diminished by a 10 ’ vacation. The applicant was also directed to redesign the location of the garage to include meeting the side yard setback from the east property line. The applicant submitted a new plan in August that showed access from the street and located the garage closer to the house, approximately 130' from the street. The applicant also submitted building elevations for the proposed garage. The garage was shown as a two story structure with the doors facing the street and a door on the lakeside for access to the storage area. The applicant has submitted two similar drawings where the only significant difference is the amount of fill. The new plan requires the following: 1. 2. A side yard adjacent to street variance to allow a new deck and porch to be located 1’ from the property line where 35' is required. A side yard adjacent to street variance to allow a new garage to be located 8' from the property line where 35' is required. U2395 Brent Bentrott page-l 3.A hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback to increase from 2,334 sq. ft. (23.43%) to 3,518 sq. ft. (35.32%). 4.A conditional use permit alter land and grade within 5' of the property line is also required based on the submitted plan. A conditional use permit, however, requires notification to property owner ’s within 350' at least 10 days before the public hearing. This application was not noticed in the official newspaper or mailed to adjacent property owners as a c.u.p. because staff was not certain that a conditional use permit was required for grading within 5’ of the property line until the plan was received which was after the deadline for official publication and less than 10 days notice to adjacent property owners. If the Planning Commission finds that the hardcover and setbacks are acceptable, then a public hearing for a conditional use permit may be scheduled at either the November Planning Commission meeting or the Planning Commission may recommend that the Council hold a public hearing on the conditional use permit at the same time that it reviews the variances. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.25, Subd.5 (B) LR-IB Standards Section 10.22 Subd. 1 and 2 Hardcover Regulations Section 10.56, Subd. 16 Hardcover Regulations U2395 Brent Bentrott pagt-2 Lot Area and Yzirds LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street Lakeside 1 acre 140'35'10 ’35 ’IS' Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street Lakeside 17,142 sq. ft. (.39 acres) 48' at OHWL 54' at 75' setback 5.3' to garage House is 9'; Proposed deck isatl' & garage is 8' 72' to house The subject property does not meet minimum lot area or lot width requirements. The previous lot area calculations did not include the vacated portion of Forest Blvd., so the lot contains more lot area than what was previously shown. The proposed deck/porch on the west side of the residence requires a side yard adjacent to street setback variance. The proposed garage also requires a variance from side yard adjacent to street. Because the deck/porch addition is proposed to be located less than 3' from a property line, there are additional Building Code requirements for fire and public safety that are required. If approved, the applicant will need to work with Building Inspections staff. *2395 Brent Bentrott page-3 Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75 ’3,704 sq. ft.365 sq. ft. (9.85%) NONE 4 sq. ft..01 75-250 ’9,960 sq. ft.2,334 sq. ft. (23.43%) 2,490 sq.ft. (25%) 3,518 sq. ft. (35.32%) 1,028 sq. ft. (10.32%) 250'-500‘3,478 sq. ft.780 sq. ft. (22.43%) 1,043.4 sq. ft. (30%) 928 sq. ft, (26.68%) None. TOTALS: 17,142 sq. ft. % of LOT AREA: 3,479 sq.ft. 20.2% 4,450 sq. ft. 25.9% The proposed plan represents an overall increase in hardcover of 971 sq. ft. Hardcover is proposed to be reduced in both the 0’-75' and 250’ -500’ setbacks. The consulting engineer questioned whether the area between the parallel sidewalks would be hardcover. According to the Building Inspector, applicants have proposed similar parallel paved areas in the past to reduce hardcover, however, the City has considered the entire area between the .sidewalks to be regarded as hardcover because it becomes compacted as it is driven over. The Planning Commission should determine whether this area should be added into the hardcover calculations. ISSUES 1. The subject lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. 2. 3. 4. 5. The west side of the property is subject to a 35' setback from platted, unopened Bluff Street. The applicant originally requested vacation of a 10’ portion of Bluff Street which was not favorably received by the Planning Commission. The existing deck encroaches into the required side yard adjacent to street. Both the proposed porch/deck and new garage encroach into the required setback. The existing garage encroaches into the required street yard setback. The existing hardcover exceeds the limits in the 0’-75 ’ setback. The applicant is proposing to remove hardcover in the 0’-75 ’ setback, however, overall hardcover would increase on the zoning lot. iJJPJ BrfU Btniroil pagf-4 6. 7. There are engineering concerns with the proposed plan. The consulting engineer has indicated that the slopes were drawn at a 2:1 ratio which makes it very difficult to maintain. A 3:1 ratio is recommended. He is also concerned about grading next to existing structures on adjacent property. He is also concerned about drainage and the retaining walls being 6* or higher. He also questioned how the driveway would be designed to channel runoff away from the garage and off of the sides of the driveway. His letter is EXHIBIT a. This application also requires a conditional use permit for land alteration and grading. The proper legal notification and publication did not occur because the preliminary plan w'as not received in time. The proposed plan prepared by Larson Associates requires 831 cubic yards (83 truckloads) with an 8% slope for the driveway. The other plan has a greater slope and requires less fill. 8. 9. City staff has not received any comments from the adjacent property owner and staff is not certain that the neighbor has reviewed the revised plan. The 60-day review period was extended an additional 60 days which expires November 8th for the original variance application. Because the revised plan was received on October 9th and now requires a conditional use permit, the review period should start over from October 9th. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To review the two proposed plans which both require side yard adjacent to street setbacks, hardcover variances, and a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit public hearing should be set for either November 16th with the applicant providing additional mailing labels or be scheduled for November 9 at the City Council meeting. Attachments a b c d e f g h I • J A B Consultant Engineer's letter Larson Assoc, memo Larson's calculations Hardcover calculations Building pad analysis Original plan Larson plan —831 c.y. of fill Alternate plan —less fill Minutes from 7/20/98 Minutes from 8/17/98 Application Plat Map B2 Elevations C Topo D Sewer map I, J, K Plans M Permit Record H2i95 Brtnt Bentroit page-5 Bonestroo. Bosene. AnderUk and AssoctAtes. inc is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Or.o G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C AnderJik. PE • Marvin L Sorvala. PE. • Ricnard E Turner PE • Gienn R Cook. PE • RoOert G ScT»umcht, PE • Jerry A. Bourdon, PE. RoOert W Rosene, PE and Susan M EPerfm. C PA. Senior CcnjuJtanis Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A. Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A I.A. • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Andersen. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Wilhamson. PE. L S • Robert F. Kotsmith • Agnes M R.ng • Michael P Rau, P.E. • Allan Rjck Schmidt. PE. Offices: St Paul. Rochester. Wiiimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl Website WWW bonestroo com ^ 1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & \\\\ Associates Engineers & Architects October 14,1998 Elizabeth VanZomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Bentrott Site Plan File No. 139-GEN DearLiz: We have reviewed the site plan dated October 7. 1998 for the proposed garage relocation on the Brent Bentrott property. The site is located at 1453 Park Drive on the south side of Forest Lake in the south half of Section 7. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Grading: The proposed grading plan appears to present some problems. The proposed slopes north of the driveway at the south end of the lot scale to 2:1. We recommend the maximum slopes be 3:1 so they can be maintained. The proposed swale east of the driveway is within 6-feet of the lot line and as close as 7-feet to the neighbor’s garage. It may be necessary to obtain additional easements to construct the driveway and swale. The g^ing plan appears to make the existing drainage situation worse by directing water towards the existing home and proposed garage. We would recommend revising the grading plan so that drainage is directed away from structures. The proposed retaining walls exceed 6-feet in height in some locations. Retaining wall details and design should be subnutted for review. 2. Drainage: A detailed drainage area map of the contributing drainage area and drainage calculations should be submitted for review. 3. Easements: Utility easements should be shown 5-feet wide along the interior lot line. Drainage easements should be provided across all drainage ways. 4. 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. • © /oryrX Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul. MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 - Fax; 612-636-1311 LABSON ASSOCIATES 612-682-9531 10-08-98 07:54 P.Ol Larson Associates, Inc. Architects and Engineers 23SI Eakcn Avenue N£ ioffalo. MinnesoU 553)3 TeL (612)612 9530 (612)682-9531 October?, 1998 Mr. Brent Bentrott 1453 Park Drh'c Orono, MN 55364 Re: Bentrott She Plan Dear Brent: © Enclosed is a copy of the she plan for your property as requested. This option shows the location of die proposed garage to be mid-way b^een the existing house and the street. With this option I calculate the required fill, udiicli must be inerted, to be 831 cu. yds. This is based on the criteria of an 8% maximum slope for the grade of the driveway. The amount of fin could be reduced if the maximum slope could be increased for a portion of the driveway near the street. Since the greatest change in elevation is at the street, thb would allow you to descend down more quiddy, redudng die fiU needed to build the drive>vay. If you have any questions please feel free to caD me. Sincerely: J^ed K. Larsd^RE. 'chhect. Structural Engineer Minnesota Reg. No. 15847 981S0U1 jkl _ V.' OCL i 4. OCT-08-1998 08:34 612-682-9531 3iy.P.Ol LARSON ASSOCIATES l4ii>oi» AvMH'iiitrs Im*. Artluitnl-. .1111* In^niiTis ? ixi tiiu* N r. haUnli*.. Miiuh 41 i VI * VSM» ■ i I CiTV Or CPC'\0 1 p'! T:;- ,7= p"' fi ‘O-y^r^*' ' L' U L:i Li= L=5 u \y L= •-=. .OCX 1.4, 1928 • • A • • CCT-13-1998 08:56 612-682-9531 10-13-98 08:16 P.Ol October 12,19V8 Mr. Brent Hcnirotl 14.^3 Park Drive Orono. MN 55364 Re: BentroU Site Plan Dear Hreni: As requested we have calculated the hard surface areas for your properly. I noticed while tabulating the individual areas that the garage was jtiadvertemly o:nittcd from the she plan calculations sent to you last week. The following arc the corrected hard surfaec areas: Surfa£S Hard COver(s<iiL) !ifital area (sq fl ) Hard cov er (%) 0’ - 75’ Setback Vlouse 75* - 250’ Setback ] louse & add (jarage Sidewalks Driveway Retaining wails 3704 0.01 % 1(>13 572 347 917 09 l otal hard cover Over 250’ Setback 351K 9941M 7--*)'^3.5.4' driveway 928 35 14^'IS)^ 26.4 % (z C*. 14 I r you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely: Ja^ K. lars(i«vP.lj. irchilcct. Structural Engineer Minnesota Reg. No. 15X47 9X15UU2 ikl I •If iV-c . Ceff Cu.Cvc ' I ^ , (Vv'flT-*: ^%-C t-’’* U*f**'^ ' J 612-682-9531 31Z P.01 r HARDCOVERjC^CULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CmCUE ONE) C O-TsO 75-250* 250-500* EXISTING HARDCOVER ZONE aTHotsc i.Xenstfa C‘ I ^ ' * 1 Width I .^.1 jV.-. X J X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PatioJBBIt pecJ< F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic .OCJj 14 1998 • « A • •- * “ *x (tCi:c6 ) X X X X X X X lid fti’iUG ') G. Other B>V lr>u»g9 A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B + B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE A. House V ) X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X X X X X E. Patio/SST W>U- X OcUi WILL iLj. X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other W»(A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE M + B X 100 500-1000'0) ii \ZU‘ •?7 7nt>u ,o\ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SE. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. , S.F. S.F. ' S.F. ' % A B A B * i • CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 HARDCOVER ORDINANCE - In 1975, the Orono City Council adopted an ordinance limiting the percentage of lot area that can be covered with impervious surface ("hardcover") such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the lake. The intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. Hardcover Zones - Allowed Percentages: 0-75 0% 75-250'25»/o 250-500’30% 500-1000'35% Hardcover includes: - Roofs - Sidewalks - Paved or gravel driveways - Patios & decks (includes slatted decks) - Tops of retaining walls & rock walls - Decorative landscape areas underlain by plastic sheeting or fabric - Any other surface that does not allow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground INSTRUCnONS FOR COMPLETING HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 1. Circle which setback zone (0-75', 75-250’, etc.) the calculation is for. 2. 3. 4. 5. For each item of hardcover witbm that zone, enter the length and width, and multiply to get square footage (s.f). Add up all the square footages to get total square footage of hardcover. Divide by the total area of property within the zone and multiply by 100 to get percentage of hardcover in the zone. If changes in hardcover are proposed, you should do a "before" worksheet and "after worksheet. If either results in percentages greater than those allowed, contact City staff before proceeding with your project planning! Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SE1*BACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (7^^ 250-500 ’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ■ • LengA;Width ^ ...’J U X X X B.uaragc ________ OCTj 1.4, l&SS C. Driveway _________ D. Sidewalk ^LsC»: S h'2- E. Pati^eck Cl Cr ^ F. Landscape Underlain PAI>$ X X X X X X X X X 2.2- I U L<(rS'-') Uj2rU^.) .MZ. G. Other g-1 v»'-( A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk 06 E. BBS^cck ____1 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X G. Other Ct'.^nTS TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * B X 100 X 100 X 100 500-1000< n\t~ SI. * .>« / i>^\ 1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. SJ. S.F. SJ. S.F. SI. S.F. S.F. S.F. ___ S.F. 5 ___ S.F. Z.'S.-o % % IT-Il- S.F. SJ. S.P. S.F. e^Z SI. <^\1 SI. S.F. Z'‘\y SI. SI. MqO S.F. S.F. SJ. SJ. S.F. 0) *7 0 SI. S.F. A B q^t/^ SJ. A B HASDCOVER CALCULATION WOBK^S£X !ol‘1is SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250'250-500 500-1000' EX15T1NC HARDCOVER Hi ZONE A. House _____________ Length Width X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway ^6 ^0 D. Sidewalk ( \ k i ) E. Patio/Deck F. Landso^ Uaderiain By Plastic G. Other . A A X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ngo + B X100 + B X 100 raOPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length B. Garage C. Drivew^ X X X D. Sidewalk _ E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X I \*^7 on<i SI. S.F. SI. SI. M 0 4 S.F. S.F. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. Mr sj. _ S.F. _________S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. SJ. SI. SI. SI. SJ. SJ. SI. S.F. SJ. ST. ; S.F. ST. r * t • * ' I 'liJ I I CF • r.*,- 'i-1 © A B ;) TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ST.A ' TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ ^ C^z% * B X ioo - ST.B '7U.C,^% OCL 1 4 1998 • • ^ t • \ HARDSURPACE C.AL01LATION9 \ 5ETDAC|j;5 \ AREA OP HARDCOVER TOTAL AREA 55 OP HARDCOVER ALLOWABLE % OP HARDCOVER 0-75 4 50. PT 3704 SO. PT .00155 055 75-250 \t^S^iea. PT q44l SO. PT 35-4 *2555 250f '*126 so. PT 3514 SO. PT 2^.4<55 3055 f>\ve K06DCO issues DU&To pBOKtHlIV To pROPCtlW I; If (;irvoF~' s HI f .i » '«o_ !i;i l•■•l.■■!l^^'^ .OCL 14 1998 Boico iKi^ PPib «, r.'-'' Larson Associates, Inc. Architects And Engineers 23B1 Eaken Avenue, N.E. Buffalo. Minnesota 55313 Tel. (612) 682>9530 Fax (612) 682-9531 I Maroby —tll» Itel Uif aU—. Mr rmtt mm fgayatad hf ma ar «Mi«r mM 4 tmI itiwkliB aa« IM I MB • 4i^v WaMaiAjMNMliBal Mi4ar UMlm um 1O/7/0B 15847 ProjMt TtUa BENTROTT RESIDENCE ORONO, MINNESOTA Sheet TlUa SITE PLAN Projtoi Nttmbtn DaU:_________ 98150 10/7/98 Drawn Blj:TLM Cheeka4 Bj:JKL Copjrtfhi Lmon Amoo» Ino. 19M A1 CUP N€€/)eo fiot' UmOO f)cre:2/)ri<» <■ VilTRI^J OF nm peopenzT/ >c CERTIRC lot 9. is HENNEPIN L "h?dcov.r^ '• *« "Ot \ SETBACj^S AREA OF HARPCkPVER TOTAL AREA % OF HARPC(2VnR ALLOWABLE 55 OF HARD6<2VER 0-13 \4 s<a. FT 37(24 Sa. FT ^156 o% 13-230 \ t %’^\%eO. FT 4^41 SO. FT 35.M %23% 250+ '5<2. FT 3514 3Q. FT 30% NEW DECIC NEW PORCH I ,f;iTVOF lui l;-|..:!j'^l:;,iJ .OCL 14 1998 ^ —V Larson Associates, Inc. Architects And Engineers 2361 Eaken Avenue, N.E. Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Tel. (612) 682-9530 i (612)Fax 682-9531 I MarsMf mtiiff tkat ttit fl«i. ffMtfto- atiM, ar raiaat «aa yt apatai to aa ar aa4ar ■» dlraal latsf^isa aai tkal aM a 4a^ Ik ator tka ImL£vn£^srr.£sr E. U*wa uni 10/7/98 •to.ia. 15847Mtii 10/7/08 Project TtUe BENTROTT RESIDENCE ORONO, MINNESOTA Sheet Title SITE PLAN Projeot Number: Dele:___________ 98150 10/7/98 Drewn By:TLM Checked By:JKL Copyiighi Lereon Amoo» bio« 1998 A1 Inc. leers N.E. 5313 30 31 Mifin- M m 15B47 )TA B150 7/98 TLM JKL h 199B ^ ^ w T" ^ ■£>tZ.c.r-:-r “feC.tOT"C,0 TT* . o-tS -j-5 -1 ■^CTO 1 eyli.T E>\ir xo*i ^£X\^T 2A*5%| Ftopo^to .06^^FT20P6J\4? ZCT^ n, 2>°>? So^r n w/^lUo U/vB.0/o/tn. / / / ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20,1998 (*I14) #2395 BRENT BENTROTT, 1453 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES AND VACATION, 9:24 p.m. - 9:47 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Brent Bentrott were p'esent. Van Zomeren stated this lot Is located in the LR-1B zoning district, which has a minimum of one acre. Van Zome'en stated the applicants are requesting that a 10 foot portion of platted, but unopened. Bluff Street ce vacated to allow an existing deck that is along the west property line to be remodeled into a three-season porch. The vacation is also requested in order to build a new garage that would be accessed from Bluff Screet. Variances are needed for hardcover in the 0 ’-500‘ setbacks. Variances are also required for the side yard adjacent to street setback from Bluff Street to add the three-season porch, and a variance to the side yard setback for the proposed garage because it is considered an oversized accessory structure. Van Zomeren stated this application is dependent on the vacation, which traditionally have not been granted, and recommended the Planning Commission consider that portion of the application first. Bentrott stated they are proposing to build a new garage which would be located closer to the residence which should help reduce hardcover. Bentrott stated he didn ’t know a fire lane was considered a road. Mrs. Bentrott stated they v/ould like a portion of the existing deck turned into a three-season porch. Chair Smith inquired what the practical use of the fire lane was. Van Zomeren stated any access off of the lake would need to also be reviewed by the utility companies and the DNR. who would probably deny the request. McMillan staled the Planning Commission might be setting a precedent if the variance is granted, noting she was not in favor of the vacation. Lindquist remarked he does not think realistically this application would be approved as proposed. Bentrott stated they suggested using the fire lane as one option. There were no public comments. Chair Smith inquired what would happen if the vacation is denied. Van Zomeren staled if the vacation were not granted, the Planning Commission would be looking at a side yard adjacent to street setback to build right on the property line, no additional hardcover, and the conversion of the deck into a three season porch would be considered a structural change, and at least ten feet would be required between the accessory buildings. Bentrott staled he would be in favor of constructing the garage under 750 square feet and ten feet from the neighbor's building. McMillan stated she would be in favor of the three season porch and a redesigned garage with proper setbacks from side yard with no additional hardcover in the 75 ’-250’ and 250'-500‘ zones. Lindquist stated the garage cannot be constructed right on the property line. Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20,1998 (ISI2395 Brent Bentrott, continued) Bentrott commented the existing deck is currently located right on the property line, which will be removed. Lindquist stated the Applicant probably will be denied the vacation and vrill have to comply with present hardcover restrictions. Chair Smith suggested the matter be tabled to allow the Applicant to submit revised plans. Bentrott stated he would be fine vrith tabling the application. Lindquist commented he would be in favor of a 60 day extension from August 22. Van Zomeren stated the City Is required to act within 60 days of when the application is submitted, Bentrott stated he would be in favor of extending the time limit. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application 2395 for property located at 1453 Park Drive. VOTE: Ayes S, Nays 'O. (#15) #2396 CLINT AND JODI MORRISON, 3510 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCES, 9:48 p.m. - 9:57 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Mom’son were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting to replace their existing residence with a new house and attached garage. This property Is located in the LR-1A zoning district, which requires a minimum of two acres. This lot consists of 1.36 acres. A variance from lot size requirements would be needed as well as a variance from average lakeshore setback requirements. A conditional use permit is also necessary to allow a boat house to remain on the property during the demolition and reconstruction. The boat house would need to remain as an accessory structure and not be occupied while the residence Is under reconstruction. No variance to hardcover is required. Staff recommends approval of the application based on the lot being a comer lot and the construction is completed in a timely manner. The Applicants had no comment. There were no public comments. McMillan inquired whether a conditional use permit is needed to allow the accessory structure to remain. Van Zomeren stated a variance is needed to allow the accessory to remain during the reconstruction. Mom'son remarked the boat house Is really the original garage of the house. Lindquist commented boat house should be changed to read accessory structure. Page 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17,1998 (#2408 MIKE HILBELINK, Continued) Chair Smith stated the Planning Commission has to act on what is presented to them, but U.e Applicant could request that the application be tabled to allow time to submit revised plans. Van Zomeren stated if the bam is to be used to house animals, the Planning Commission needs to know the exact lot lines that are being proposed. Schroeder stated to house horses a minimum of three acres is needed. Van Zomeren stated since the bam has not housed animals for an extended period of time, the intent to house animals probably has been abandoned and a new conditional use permit would be required. Van Zomeren stated if a new house is constructed on the backlot. it must meet the required setbacks for that lot. noting the restrici.on for the barn falls on the lot that contains the bam. Smith moved. Schroeder seconded, to table Application #2408 for property located at 900 Willow Drive North to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED (#3) #2395 BRENT BENTROTT, 1453 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES. 7:20 p.m. -7:45 p.m. Van Zomeren stated this application was considered at the July 20 Planning Commission meeting where the Applicants requested hardcover variances, a ten foot vacation of platted, unopened Bluff Street, and side yard adjacent to street setback variances. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of the vacation of Bluff Street and tabled the application to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. Van Zomeren reported the Applicant has submitted a new plan that shows access from the street and locates the garage closer to the house, approximately 130 feet from the street. The Applicant Is proposing to construct a two-story 22' by 25* garage. Van Zomeren stated she has spoken with Tom Kellogg, an engineer with Bonestroo. who has reviewed this plan. Kellogg has expressed concerns over the slope of the driveway, which would require a considerable amount of fill to obtain a grade of 8 percent. Van Zomeren stated the Planning Commission needs to consider whether this garage can be relocated to its proposed site, what grade the driveway should be at. how much fill will be allowed, how close the garage should be to the adjoining property line and existing house, and whether a variance to hardcover should be granted. Chair Smith stated this application involves issues that need to be addressed by an engineer, which the Planning Commission is not in a position to handle. Bentrott staled at the last meeting the Planning Commission had stated they would not ue in favor of using the unopened street for access to the garage, which necessitated the need to relocate the garage. Bentrott remarked a structural engineer has viewed the property. Bentrott stated the adjacent property should not be impacted by the additional fill since the elevation is much higher. Van Zomeren stated the engineer has also raised concerns about the distance available in the lot Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17,1998 {#2395 BRENT BENTROTT. Continued) width to maintain an adequate bench of three to one for safety and mowing. Stoddard commented the steep embankment might require retaining walls, which would also increase hardcover. Lindquist stated this property will exceed the allowable hardcover in all three zones if the application is approved and will require variances in both the 75'-250* and 250-500 ’ setbacks. Lindquist stated he would probably vote against this application with the proposed hardcover. Van Zomeren stated that the new hardcover numbers were not provided with the revised plan. Chair Smith stated the Planning Commission probably cannot act on this application without the new hardcover numbers. Stoddard stated the surveyor or Applicant should be notified by City Staff that hardcover needs to be calculated before the meeting. Mrs. Bentrott stated they would like to relocate the garage closer to the residence to allow elderly relation the ability to visit them year-round, noting they weren’t aware they couldn’t relocate the garage. Mr. Bentrott staled Bruce Vang, building inspector, has been out to view the property and followed his suggestions to utilize the platted, unopened street and to construct a new garage because in his view the existing garage was a hazard since they had to back out onto the street. Stoddard stated it has not been the philosphy of the Planning Commission to vacate or allow use of platted, unopened street for private driveways. Stoddard stated the Applicant .vill need to review the possible need for retaining walls, amount of fill, and new hardcover numbers, noting the Planning Commission cannot act on this application until those issues are addressed. Berg expressed concerns over the driveway being close to the neighboring house and the impact the noise and headlights would have on the adjoining property. Schroeder suggested tabling the application to allow the Bentrotts time to address these issues. Chair Smith stated she would prefer a plan without retaining walls if possible, and suggested the Applicant continue to work with City Staff on the hardcover and engineering issues. Mr. Bentrott stated they applied for the vacation to eliminate setback for the three-season porch. Hawn stated the vacation probably would not be approved. Mr. Bentrott stated in his opinion he has three options; 1) keep existing garage: 2) reconsider the application without the ten foot vacation of Bluff Street; and 3) proceed with the revised plan, which Is the most costly. Hawn remarked in her view those options are not viable due to the increased hardcover. Schroeder suggested tabling the matter, noting he is not prepared to give guidance on this application due to the engineering issues that need to be addressed. Stoddard suggested the Applicant continue to work with City Staff in an effort to resolve some of Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17,1998(#2395 BRENT BENTROTT, Continued)these issues.There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2395 for property located at 1453 Park Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSiNESS; PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2391 EVAN ANDERSON, 1260 SPRUCE PLACE - VARIANCE, 7:46 p.m. - 8:05 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are applying for an after-the-fact variance for hardcover to allow a patio to remain in the 0-75 ’ distance from the lake, and a variance from allowed hardcover in the 75*- 250* lakeshore setback for a patio and the reconstruction of an old garage, which would require a variance from the side yard adjacent to street setback. The Applicants are proposing to construct a 24 ’ x 20' garage to replace an existing 22.5 ’ x 20' garage, which is 40.6 square feet larger. Weinberger stated a conditonal use permit Is needed for retaining walls that have already been replaced on the property. An after-the-fact variance is needed to allow retaining walls and patio to remain in the 0-75' zone which are not depicted on a 1996 survey. Mr. Anderson stated the retaining walls have existed since 1978 and have been replaced. Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to maintain the total hardcover wu,‘'’n the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback at 18.5 percent. The allowed hardcover in this zone is none, which would require a variance. A hardcover variance Is also required for the 75'-250' distance from the lake. The Applicants are proposing to increase hardcover from 55.3 percent to 56 percent. The allowable hardcover for that zone is 25 percent. Anderson stated City Staff have been out to review his property in the past, noting they were not aware the retaining walls were not depicted on the survey. Mrs. Anderson stated they have obtained many permits over the years for the work that has been completed on their property. Mrs. Anderson noted their property is the principal watershed for that entire area and the retaining walls are necessary for the drainage. Chair Smith expressed concern that the retaining walls were not depicted on the survey. Stoddard stated he ag»’ees with Staffs recommendations. There were no public comments. Stoddard remarked he would be in favor of granting the after-the-fact variances, but would like to limit the size of the garage to what is currently existing. Stoddard commented he has viewed the Page 7 Application tf Date Received Co- *14 loMAmount Paid ®3fi5Cy CITY OF ORONO - VA^IAKQE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee(^^50.00^ (S50.00 per each additional valance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) lOPROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)>> Ml-------------------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Procerty Acquired _____NiO\/£W^El^ ------------(mon11«;year) I (do) (do no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___^other (specify) --------------------------- Zoning District: ^ t 0_______________________--------------------------------- . *N APPLICANT _ __ Name AHHrP..: Cityr Phone (home l Ml2.-(g^ Phone (work)_]]]I^ Zip:j9z^M OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ :q Address:City:.Zip:. Estimated Construction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST --------- , -------------------- _ ^ ■scribe request in detail: @aMtn UEtO ClUasTr^TT. VteoStf- eglVutPi. iWXP IkKuM)lvK-A -^-SavrsiJ ftOOcTua^ -ttxofttOS JN (attach additional sheets if necessary) iAidc > VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Setback:Front X Side Hardcoyer Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ^ °y gg) - HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS OP> Describe undue hardship or practical difficukjiL or unusual property 7rtning Code requirements:(i (uTO 6 kouse: Vg) 1 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AlL.of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. V 'O'. ^ 2. >V 3. - J Completed Application Form Cenified Property Owmers 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, Govi Center, 348-3271 ). JJt Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVi" x 11" for ^ repioduction. Topographic sur\ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11"). -VT List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest m the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owTier(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 4.J. 5. - J 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Dale OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges Euid agrees to tliis application and further authorizes reasonable entiy onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. DateOwner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices a.” days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plarminj Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 i1 M d t. GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 NOTIFICATION OF 60 DAY EXTENSION MaiUog Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 July 27,1998 Brent and Kathryn Bentrott 1453 Park Drive Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Application #2395 State law requires that Cities shall decide on zoning applications within 60 days from the date an application is considered complete. The review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was submitted on June 24,1998 and was considered complete on Jqly 9..195S- The 60 day review period expires on September?. 1998. The Planning Commission tabled your application to the August 17, 1998 meeting. The earliest potential date that the City Council could take action is August 24,1998. Before August 10,1998, please provide a revised survey showing the proposed three season porch, at least 3’ from the existing property line and the garage and driveway. The garage needs to be at least 10’ from the garage on the adjacent property. If you have questions, please call me at 473-7357. Sincerely, Elizabeth Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator EVZ'ch Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734»10 A CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crjstal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2395 NOTICE OF PLANNING CO>EVnSSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 7/21/98 TO:Brent Bentrott 1453 P?rk Drive Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO: T\TE OF APPLICATION:Vacation of Bluff Street and Variances DATE OF MEETING: 7/20/98 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commbsion recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Make sure that proposed 3 season screen porch is at least 3' from Bluff Street property line - show on survey. 2. Deny 1 0’ vacation of Bluff Street. 3.Rework garage location and be at least 10' from garage on adjacent property (Palms). Contact building official, Lyle Oman, at 473-7357, for assistance in determining a location for the proposed garage. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, August 17, 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. X:\APPS\WP\\TN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE\PC.ACTION'2395 I (we) Adjacent Property' Owners’ Acknowledgement Form [print name(s)‘[print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at xC\jr\C hV". also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property' or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Sc 10 Property Ovvner Date ipAv Owner \ K DateProperty Owner ----- ^ ^ G#' ***♦♦****♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦****************************************♦♦♦***'*•**♦* I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand tliat in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date DateProperty Owner 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 ‘}(Z-t'o) 65^^ 5A P^- —1 ------11-^ L^ - 1 ■ '! Jl—1 ir Ji^ ptujpsr [&tST Vl*2w> 1 1 i ■ 1 hcm^) 564- 94^^ 22. Sicfe ■jfj • ^ ♦ • . * • •- . .-^i■■■'':■•.•■; ■• .Vs- v>' •<'■ ■■■•■;: - ’ ;■«•’•'■.' ^ ■ '... . <i*»* r;...:,v^ • •• ^*V* ^ . » i tktl I h ► •• di j |i V-i ws •y .1 k i 4 M V 'o J ••s ’5 >1 V t k 1) •i •# 0 9 r V 4s ll « NT '-l i m i? V y 5 Mr C w it 4 tJ I 'Ir I 4'^ ".1? 5 ■• -tr ♦ I' f *»• i V? •Jl A 0 I 54 *4a , V fi -ftf 4 jP- P4 (V 7 0 0 4 ■7 f 4a li <w '• jl *«• f i <1 V' 4. 1 'ii1 i y-I d V «• /ys'-s kh. Permit No. PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit t^DO. /P-^SOO <^ujeA y 3^93?/-/fr* 79 /?Z)^ ^P/Kocei. I S 3-^-«0 ^ I ly €-iS-^(o y&^1 Ulc^’ ~}yteeJ-\ f! ! _____ \ T''O Cvavt-^^o e^n () ^ lv-*j-\. (} . 0 (/ ^ /VW^ C^TTH^SLaoO^O^ \J-C4AJto \ OJV^ V/V\i C\A^^rC£^vvJ^X Vf' ^1^V\o3lSc dix/lL 1a.0A/\ . xxiL'l , GcxAA.0 Aa^ ^1 IT ^\Sy\, SvVv<L!^olS^ o/nte « t -S' TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM; Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE;September 12,1998 SUBJECT:#2399 Muriel Seim 4448 North Shore Drive Variances-Continued Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:16,722 sq. ft. (.38 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting multiple variances to add to an existing residence. This application was postponed from the August agenda in order to obtain an accurate survey and proposed plan. The applicant is requesting variances for lakeshore setback, side yard setback, street yard setback, and hardcover in the 0-75 and 75-250* setback and structural lot coverage. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B) LR-IB Standards Section 10.22 Subd. 1 and 2 and 10.56, Subd. 16 Hardcover Requirements Section 10.03 Subd. 14, C Structural Lot Coverage 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’ Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 16,722 sq. ft. (.38 acres) 272' at street setback 8' e.xisting 2.5* proposed 8.6' existing and proposed 32' existing and proposed The zoning lot does not meet lot area requirements. The lot does not meet street, side or lakeshore setbacks. The proposed addition does not increase the lakeshore setback encroachment. The addition does add more structure into the required side yard and reduces the setback from the right- of-way from 8' to 2.5'. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Allowed Existing Structural Coverage Proposed Structural Coverage 16,722 sq. ft. .38 acres 2,508.3 sq. ft. (15%) 1891.62 sq.ft. (13.4%) 1831.82 sq. ft. + 693=2,524 (15.09%) The current residence and shed comply with structural lot coverage requirements. The proposed addition exceeds the lot coverage requirements by .09% or 16.52 sq. ft. If the shed were removed, the addition would not exceed lot coverage requirements. A variance is required for the addition. The applicant could potentially add 616.68 sq. ft. of lot coverage if all other requirements were met, however, hardcover and setback requirements restrict additional structural coverage. Much of the lot area is in a location that is not feasible because of the bridge, lakeshore setback, and street yard setbacks. r Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'14,080 sq. ft.3,352.9 sq. ft. (23.81%) None 3,352.9 sq.ft. (23.81%) 3,352.9% (23.81%) 75'-250'2,642 sq. ft.1,152.4 sq. ft. (43.62%) 660.5 sq. ft. (25%) 1,533.4 sq. ft. (58.04%) 872.9 sq. ft. (23.04%) The applicant is requesting hardcover variances in both setbacks. The applicant received approval for the driveway configuration from staff in 1984, (see Mike Gaffron's letter dated 7/12/98, Exhibit (G). Hardcover variances are required for the addition. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated that she desires to have additional living space to include a utility room. ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The zoning lot does not meet minimum lot area requirements. The existing residence encroaches into the following setbacks: a. North side yard is 8.6' where 10' is required b. Street yard is 8' where 35' is required c. Lakeshore yard is 32' where 75' is required Structural coverage is 13.4%. The zoning lot exceeds hardcover limits in both the 0'-75' and 75'-250' setbacks. No additional hardcover has been shown on the survey in front of the proposed garage which probably is not accurate. Additionally, no hardcover in the 0'-75' has been proposed to be removed to reduce the overall amount of hardcover. The proposed addition encroaches into the required north side yard and further encroaches into the required street yard. Staff would prefer at least a 10' setback from the right-of-way for public safety. The proposed addition does not reduce hardcover in the 0'-75' setback. 6.There is a well near the southeast comer of the residence that limits the location of an addition. Options Two alternatives may exist: 1. Remodel the existing living space, patio and decks, and add a second floor. 2.Remodel the existing garage space and add a detached garage at least 10' from the right-of way over the existing conc’’et<* drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recognizes that this is a very difficult site to work with given the location of the existing residence, the slope/grade from the road to the driveway and paridng area, and the bridge. However, the plan as submitted does not meet the goals of the Zoning Code and does not appear to be the best possible solution to providing additional living space and a larger garage. Staff does not recommend granting variances for stmctural coverage, side yard setback or street yard setback. Further, the hardcover in the 0'-75' setback should be reduced by eliminating the stones and pavers. The deck in the north side yard could also be reduced. Any addition to this property should be at least 10' from the right-of-way and 3' from the well. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat map Topography Survey Hardcover Floor Plans Letter re: driveway County road plat U2399 Muriel Senn 4448 North Shore Drive PC-October 19. 1998 page~4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17,1998 («7) 2399 MURIEL SENN, 4448 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES, 8:18 p.m. - 8:25 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication >were noted. Mrs. Senn was present. Van Zomeren stated the Applicant is requesting hardcover and street yard setback variances to construct an addition to an existing residence to include a 16’ x 22 ’ garage and utility room. The Applicant has been asked to provide a current survey with updated, accurate hardcover information. Van Zomeren requested the Planning Commission provide direction on what amount of hardcover will be allowed, how close the encroachment to the front setback can be. and whether an addition to the house wilt be allowed. Senn stated she purchased the property 25 years ago, noting the stipulations regarding hardcover and setbacks were not present on the property when it was originally purchased. Senn commented the lot has a unique configuration as well as problems with continuing erosion. Senn requested she be allowed to construct a new garage on the property. Schroeder suggested the Applicant submit an application based on the ordinances, noting the property is a difficult piece of land to work with. Senn remarked she has contacted a surveyor but has had poor response. Lindquist inquired how much acreage this lot consists of. Senn stated the lot is one acre. Van Zomeren stated a rough estimate for the hardcover is 2,200 square feet. Van Zomeren requested the Planning Commission give guidance on what a reasonable setback from the county right-of-way would be. Berg commented the Applicant will need to submit a proposal before the Planning Commission can act on her application. Lindquist staled the Applicant will need to obtain an updated survey and plan for what is acceptable Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to table Application U2399, Muriel Senn, 4448 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit a proposal. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2401, THOMAS AND MARGARET RADKE, 3424 EAST LAKE STREET - VARIANCES, 8:25 p.m. - 8:26 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was not present. Lindquist stated the Applicant was unable to stay until this matter was heard tonight and requested that the application be tabled. Page 10 ft Application M _____ Date Receivedc Amount Paid ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-ihe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_____<-1 ^ ^ A Property Identification Number (P.I.D.'l r)~7 ) \'l ^3--------------00 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ^ ^ ^ I ^^(do not) also ov^ the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify)--------------------------------- Zoning District: (J2. | ________________________________________________— APPLICANT Name /£ fV fVj Phone (home). Phone (work)_ 4*7 gL- CS47V.fl Addres^ tio. City:___Zip: C */ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ___________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:.05 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmetion Cost $ Describe request in detail: j (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width ^ Front ^ Side X~ Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore i^. Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: n;iw ----is------------------------ ______SI _____(sAi^in£> d------------------------------------------------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered comnlete! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. z 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 814" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/2" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date ^/a^ 9 f/ 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 purposej of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature k Date '7) 3*! ^ t Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 _\Z__l '« / S/V ^ • ,v» ^ ^ . ✓ - /\ \ CAST IV^ « L S 1132 / ?• 94. ^ .u« t?7) . vj' . ^ .V:v.-:r-->t-^’ V^V> _______ ./ >.. ^ ^>469.32 4.t9^^i .(•A......D-i.,. ( '%</,> I 4, (2) sf^’^y X'W/"■■'/>■ T •/£,=• ,..V//,\/,(4i/^ - M ;14“-. \ 09) ’, 5 \«-{»v A .6' • ^1 cc: '^/ /v ■.« 11\H-^' / V fS;i«v3T)/ V \w 7 ^ ' ^/4^4 T'"> \,u: t-cc NO 3T3200 /AC ccc I4C 3309CC7 NOTE, lot a TONiAVlPi CAWieNS 7 ^ ...-N;y*-^... '"/'V / / (3) ■'"K ■'<3e^ rs^.r <7 ^7-//7-23-3'/ 6S 65 65 4>43! a (17; .••••** -fi 65 dS 6^ Pared Information Pweain 0711723310013 Noun Hunter 04448 niMt Nun NORTH SHORE DR r,-? ' ‘•ta.* <o < CO Ck: O u_ >- llJ > ^ ^ UJ CO CO u. ° lil ■^ct: ei K q: LUo • . Qo < oz CSJ to CN Ir'. 0 1 . I 2^ Zg5 ^ OUJ >- CO o o >- 3 z -* E 3 H- UJ O . Z O > Z q; o y LiJ '(0 ^ QQ ^ 5 5 ”6 |il!l5i|if \ll\hh. ilPIiililiHl ■ if! *1 ?• HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHLE l - / d SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARnCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X 75-2S0 ‘250-500’500-1000’£ „ 5 K6-0 Lcn)ih Width B. Garage X X X C. Driveway "PAMeifL -arc D. SidcwalLS «-<p«=>.3hg; (fra^yf ci^auk) U W OBCkC E. Patio/Dcck i/fe stoop S€ SreP^ X X X X X X 7g % ca VC r-c cj c Nw "PaT9o F. Landscape ^ z- b loc-bs x Underlain _____add x By Plastic waul / u x C. Other IZ x o .c^ f-1 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B !4ofhCf fS44-.^S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^3.1 S.F. so iroj,o S.F. S.F. 2,Z.Z,.^ 3!.BA S.F. <f . O S.F. 2. g . 9 &A-S.F. / 3.9 S.F. ^.<o S.F. Zo.<^S.F. • 334?, \^H^O S.F. S.F. X 100 =ZFvS/ % PROPOSED HARDCOVER TN ZONK X House /JAfA PAPtH TP (4A^0C^< = S.F. •* •Lcn^ih Width X X X • • 7?.V B. Garage' ^ C. Driveway __ D. Sidewalk _ E. Paiio/Deck _ F. Landscape _ • •' Underlain __ ••• By Plastic - G. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 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. % A B A B tAvuicc. r>fcAyA/ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARnrOVFR IN 7.0NF 75-250’250.500’500-1000' A. House X 9B S.F. Lcnjih ' Wi4ih X __S.F. ••■ • • •X s S.F. X c S.F. B. Garage X S.F. C. Driveway X «370.S>S.F. X s S3, o S.F. • D. Sidewalk X ra S.F. •X ss .S.F.- £. Pa(io/Deck X ss S6.0 S.F. T^ATIO <X 7S. o S.F.• ir*v, |i , . l»* . • • f A ' M * • • F. Landscape X S.F..*• \ • • Underlain X s S.F.By Plastic X s S.F. • G. Other X S.F. # . A • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE.. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • i/Sz.4 S.F. S.F. :V>: ..A--.--r B X 100 =* %. •*» I*,*.*• » • “ ipOPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7n^pp• A. House X c To 7S'/ S.F. • • • , I-cnfOi . Width X w 9 m V S.F. . V*-’ • *• m % • X s S.F.• •X SS S.F. • <r ^Ot^OSr B. Garage ‘X a rJ3 m S.F. . A B Ct*. rotr C. Driveway • • :—:—— . i ’■ D. Sidewalk __________ .'A' ~ ** —— ***' /(OC^S E. Patio/Deck • ♦ 4 ■i‘ F. Landscape Underlain --------By Plastic ............... - X X X X X X X X X - Z3V - 7S • • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B- //S2k4- / r /TS2. A- S.F. Z€42. S.F. * 100 “ 04 % A B • • • • •• • • • • • m V'. fo2 / • i 4 t I I .1^ i "t -* r V'-'f! i \- '1/ \Z' -—ri-?o - -i.. I \ • - t -t „i— -I -r -I -h- I I . .1.I. I i •—I - 4. .. - ..4... - r -+ • •i— 1 — ! ■^”r* r V. -4 1 I Ir I- 4.-1 i..1*t__L _I i \ ! • • 1►0.^ « 1. ..f- ~ W - L. i A....l Af.-II I N L'. !a: i • • HV \ - -1 : ' r f-j- r-tm— _ i_. 1 —L_ .j - Gi : ¥ •• • — r 3^ :r: t I I i___ - » - r - f 1 . 1 t - r ~ *. I 9 ^ . .j -4-»- . -4 . .1____-V ->■ ' CITY ; ,0F 7 OBONO J ■ m #239 Cf CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 12, 1984 Mrs. Muriel Senn 4448 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Paving Driveway Dear Mrs. Senn: I have reviewed your proposal to pave your existing gravel driveway and turn-around apron. After discussion with the City Engineer, we agree that in your specific situation, paving with asphalt or concrete over the existing gravel surface may actually have a beneficial effect on the quality of runoff entering the lake, since the silt from the gravel will be eliminated from the direct runoff. Even though bituminous or concrete paving is less permeable than gravel, it appears that with your unique topographic problems, paving appears to be a good idea. 1 also discussed with the City Engineer the idea of creating a "basin'* around the perimeter of the turnaround area to catch the runoff and slow it down. He felt this would need to be quite extensive to have any major effect, and he suggested instead that you ensure that the paving be sloped to allow runoff to flow equally to all edges of the paving, and eliminate a swale which would channel the runoff to a single point and possibly cause some erosion. Based on the above, we have no objections to your proposal, with the condition that the paving cover only areas already gravelled, i.e. the 12' wide garage driveway apron leading to the turnaround, and the turnaround itself which is approximately 30' wide and 40' deep, and bounded by the existing hedge, and that the paving be sloped in all directions as described above. No permit is required for this work. Thank you for your concern with this project and your patience in awaiting this response. Michael P. Ga^^d^ron Assistant Zoning Administrator BULUING & ZONING - 473-7357 • ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473-735U assessing , , , pc: Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Official PL'BLIC WORKS - 473-7359 ji’ . ^ <0 y i**r* -I A^l^r . •• \ • •/f/•; ' \.'-32'*29 C*3I5.86.; ® i ;tr -g-TL' --------3^'-,.. ^ A-.361I4* 20"^‘'«-^ Tj » p,4 w"|7 SS-** , _\ ivi^i'.AVlSvV^^ \ iStV^ Ad'}l‘icr, ^’'^T 56 "•'■i-v.c»"' * -4 2 TO: FROM; DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator September 12, 1998 #2410 Peter Boynton 1973 Fagemess Point Road Variances—Pwblic Hearing continued Zoning District: LR-IC, Lot Area: One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) 10,350 sq. ft. (.237 acres) Application:The applicant is proposing to build a new house and garage in the same location as an existing house and garage. The building official and inspector agree that the existing residence is not structurally suitable for repair and remodeling. Therefore, this application is being reviewed as a complete "tear down" and should meet all required code provisions. The proposed house would be connected to the garage area. This is an application to tear down an existing residence and build back in the same location as the old foundation with a new addition between the garage and the house. The application was continued from the August agenda. The applicant was advised by the Planning Conunission to limit structural coverage to 1,500 sq. ft. and minimize the need for setback variances. The proposed plan does not comply with this directive. The proposal requires the following variances: 1. 3. A lakeshore setback variance to be located 40' from the lakeshore where 75' is the minimum setback. An average lakeshore setback to locate closer to the lakeshore than the adjacent residences. The proposed northeast comer of the structure is 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback. A side yard variance to locate the garage 5' from the property line where 1 O' is required. U24I0 Peter Boynton 1973 Fagerness Point Road PC-October 19. 1998 page-! 4. A street yard variance to be located 1’ from the property line where 30’ is required. 5.A hardcover variance in the 0'-75 ’ setback to allow 17.9% (1,054 sq. ft.) where 21.46% (1,258 sq. ft.) is existing and none is allowed. A hardcover variance in the 75’-250' setback to allow 29.64% (1,331 sq. ft.) where 1,477 sq. ft. (32.9%) 6.A structural lot coverage variance to allow (19.02%) 1,969 sq. ft. where 1,552 sq. ft. (15%) is allowed and 1,843 sq. ft. (17.8%) is existing. (No decks were included in this calculation). 7.Removing the existing foundation and building a new structure requires lot area and lot width variances. 8. The proposed plan exceeds the height limit of 30'. To build the proposed residence a height variance would be required. A conditional use permit is required for any grading in the 0'-75' setback. The survey and propose elevations indicate that a walkout is proposed on the north side of the residence. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) LR-IC Standards Section 10.22 Subd. 1 and 2 and Section 10.56 Subd. 16, L, 1 and 2 Hardcover Requirements Section 10.03, Subd. 14. C Structural Lot Coverage U24I0 Peter Boynton 1973 Fageiness Point Road PC-October 19. 1998 page—2 ANALYSIS LR-IC Zoi.ing Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1/2 acre 100'30'10'75' and ALS Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 10,350 (.237 acres) 77.26'1'5'40' The zoning lot does not conform to lot area, lot width street, side or lakeside setbacks. The proposed house and garage location does not eliminate any of the setback issues. Variances are needed to continue the encroachment into the lakeside, street and side yard setbacks. Variances are also needed for lot width and lot area because it is a tear down. In 1980, a variance was approved for a street setback for a new 20' x 28' garage to replace a 20' x 18' garage located 12' into the road right-of-way. The application also included an 8' x 28' addition to the house. Hardcover variances were approved for the addition and the garage. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Existing Structural Coverage Allowed Structural Coverage Proposed Structural Coverage 10,350 sq. ft. (.237 acres) 1,843 sq. ft. (17.8%) 1,552.5 sq. ft. (15%) 1,969 sq. ft. (19.02%) Note: No decks were included in the structural coverage requirement. The existing residence exceeds the structural lot coverage requirements by 2.8%. The proposed plan further increases the structural coverage on the lot and requires a variance. U2410 Peter Boynton 1973 Fagerness Point Road PC-October 19, 1998 pages Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75’5,860 sq. ft.1,258 sq. ft (21.46%). NONE 1,054 sq. ft.. (17.9%) 1,054 sq. ft. (17.9%) 75'-250'4,490 sq. ft.1,477 sq. ft. (32.9%) 1,122.5 sq. ft. (25%) 1,331 sq. ft. (29.64%) 208.5 sq. ft. (4.64%) The existing residence exceeds the hardcover limits in both setbacks. The proposed plan reduces the amount of hardcover in both setbacks but exceeds the established limits. In 1980, the 20' x 28' garage was constructed with street setback and hardcover variances. An 8' x 28' addition was also constructed with a hardcover variance. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant ^\ilI need to provide testimony as to his hardship for the requested variances. Issues 1. The zoning lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. Variances for lot area and lot width are needed to build a new residence. 2. 3. 4. Previous hardcover and street yard setback variances were granted in 1980 for the garage and an addition to the house. The existing residence encroaches into the average lakeshore setback and the 0'-75' setback. The proposed plan does not improve the encroachment of structure into the lakeshore and average lakeshore setbacks. The existing and proposed residences exceed the structural lot coverage and hardcover limits. 5. The proposed plan does not reduce the encroachment of the garage into the required street yard and adds more structure into the required street yard. #2410 Peter Boynton 1973 Fagerness Point Road PC-October 19. 1998 page~4 6. The proposed plan includes a walkout on the north side of the residence which requires grading which will require a conditional use permit. The applicant has not filed a conditional use permit application. The legal notification requirements for a variance are 150' where a conditional use permit requires notice to 350'. 7. The proposed plan exceeds the allowed height of 30'. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To deny the requested variances for average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, side and street yard setback, hardcover , height and structural coverage and the conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0'-75'. A lot area and lot width variance may be granted, subject to the applicant providing a plan that more closely conforms to the zoning code regulations for setbacks, hardcover, and structural coverage. Staff finds that a suitable building pad exists for rebuilding within the required setbacks. The requested variances and conditional use permit with the exception of the lot width/ area variances are due to the design of the proposed house and not the characteristics of the zoning lot. Attachments A B C D E F G Application Plat map Survey Hardcover Elevations Floor Plans Topography H I J Sewer Map Permit Record File #524 U2410 Peter Boynton 1973 Fagerness Point Road PC-October 19, 1998 page~5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17,1998 (#2407 LANE MOORE. Continued) Lindquist noted the Applicants were just requesting a variance to the side yard setback and not to hardcover. Ih^fr^T*^^ '^'•1 be removing an existing shed and share the driveway with the neighbor to Weinberger indicated the size of the planter is 88 square feet. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2407, 3438 Livingston Avenue, the^granting of a variance to the side yard setback requirements to allow construction of a 16* X 22* garage located three feet from the side lot line and to permit the 88 square foot planter currently existing on the property. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#15) #2409 GEDNEY AND EMILY TUTTLE, 1225 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCE, 9:58 p.m. - 10:02 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Tuttle were present. Weinberger remarked the Applicants are proposing to construct a 12* x 24 ’ shed to provide winter s rage for lawn furniture and other e'^uipment. The property contains a wetland located at the back p i'on of the property which restricts the Applicants from building on that part of the lot. The house is CvO.structed without a basement due to the high water level which leaves the residence without adequate storage on the property. Weinberger stated present hardcover in the 75 ’-250 ’ lakeshore setback is 45.6 percent and this application proposes to increase hardcover to 46.4 percent. Staff recommends approval based on the existing hardship. There were no public comments. Chair Snriith inquired why the Applicants didn’t add on to the existing garage. Mrs. Tuttle indicated they had the understanding they were prohibited from doing so. Stoddard moved. Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2409,1225 Shoreline Drive, granting of a variance to hardcover In the 75*-250 ’ lakeshore setback to allow the construction of a 12 ’ x 14 ’ shed. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#16) #2410 PETER BOYNTON, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 10:03 p.m. • 10:22 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Boynton was present. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17,1998 (#2410 PETER BOYNTON, Continued) Van Zomeren stated the Applicants are requesting variances for street, hardcover and average lakeshore setback. A conditional use permit is also required because the Applicant is proposing to significantly change the grade in the 0-75' setback, which was originally not requested by the Applicant nor included in the legal notification. There are multiple issues with this application that still need to be addressed before any recommendation can be made by City Staff. Boynton stated originally the house was built as a cottar ; ’ck In 1920. has a hand dug basement, and needs to be torn down . The request for variances t 'ack are being sought because the house cannot be built without them. Boynton requested iS*? anning Commission give guidance on what hardcover and setbacks would be acceptable. Schroeder inquired if the house was tom down and a new structure built, how would the application be handled. Van Zomeren stated if the house is reconstructed, the lot would be treated as a vacant lot and would need to meet all the requirements for that lot. Schroeder suggested the Applicant design a house that conforms to all the variances. Boynton stated in his opinion the land is unbuildable without variances. Stoddard stated he would like a footprint for the house that doesn't call for variances. Boynton commented he could possibly utilize the existing foundation, noting in 1978 an addition to the house was constructed with a good foundation, which comprises approximately one-third of the foundation. Gaffron stated once a house is torn down, any grandfather rights are forfeited. Chair Smith questioned whether the Planning Commission could act on this application at the present time. Van Zomeren remarked typically the Planning Commission does not approve of grading in the 0-75' setback with no additional structure in the 0-75' setback. Chair Smith asked for public comment on this application. Cathy Lee. 1965 Eagerness Point Road, staled she was under the impression the house has to be moved back, noting she would prefer the house on the existing footprint to keep the house in line with the rest of the houses on the road. Van Zomeren commented Staff needs more information on the adjoining properties as well as a new survey which outlines the proposed structure and hardcover. Lindquist suggested the Applicant try to limit the house to 1.500 square feet and 25 percent tot^ hardcover. _______—________ Cathy Lee remarked the area is on a pennisula and moving the house back would not affect drainage into the lake. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2410,1973 Eagerness Point Road, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 18 A Application if *3.^/10 Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renet^'al 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 • A A 1 f I ■■______PAr^RT?KlFSS~ yr>lhST VoNo Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ' ill —2-S Im 0008 Attach legal description to application if not mcluded on required Date Pro perty Acquired _______________ survey. I (do) ^ noth also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property:___presidential ___^other ( Zoning District: _(month/year) other (specify). APPLICANT D /I Phone (home)_7V2_^ij^^ Name___________________________________ Phone (work ) V7/ Address:___________________________City: pfUTM)_______Zip: r<7^/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Constmction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) C "Si tp:'!'’'> • 1 1 rrIt'' 'Vx . :i faV . V,/ VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ ___Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover ___^Lot Coverage rf Setback:ront Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or imusual property .^conditions preventing a A A * A ^ M ^ * « --------------- ^ -----------I------------A- ^ ^---------------- * ^ compliance with Zoning Code requirements: hi __f'/niiV nVf pailreTi^L. I _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS f All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. X ^3. (■4. 5. P6.X 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Propert>' 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. 348-32711. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licer.sed 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 (provide one (1) copy S'/a" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include n£une(s) ofapplicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE__ • The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true «d 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 >.vestigation cad verification of this request. Owner’s Signature 01 JK'.v'csiigBiion ua K i vcnii< Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 eiSIFFll'S AEPi TS S5=!AiWiO)@P V / / s/ : rK, ^■? / f^6r ■>^ V./ / an Ti / <•I -. •'.<. '••j u f m:. ti^Mi / ' IT'C. 4 ! V3 • _ • • • • • • • • /A"' [175 n7'^/^6rn AC 5-19-65 4UDV /A/ I ' {^•, ( 15) •^/ 15 ( ’3\ /V/i (6- /- Parc«l Informalion PwmID 1611723140000 NottM HiwuNf 01973 •M N«m FAGCRNESS PO«IT RO HARDCO SETBACK ZO^rE: (CIRCLE ONE) ALCULATION WORKSHEET 0-75^ 75-250’ 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Leofth Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landsc^ Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B gaCiO X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___ X Lensth Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patlo/D^k X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 1,0^4 B xlOO 500-1000' iSo ^30 /2'if 5r^o 3dMu> ^34 120 n.^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. D, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B ■s t H 1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ tTS^SO^ 250-500’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____ X Lenfxh VTidih X X X B. Garage SGI C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X dLli E. Pacio/Deck X X 30e F. Landscqie Uaderlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B WlO xlOO 3a.q PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 303 AdclihoTi Cirvctui Leo^th Width X X X ■73a> B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk Sfef)5/VM4C X X d d3 E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -i- B XlOO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % ffcptjytJ A B A B 13, "Building Height" - The vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower and the top of the of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height. _ _ _ ---------------^35 V. r-o"■MOT I8 rr\ VI* •f rwu «t«. at $.14 LCff t.lv^TiorM (^ScwTv^wesr) vra 1^' rf? — V- r-o-aaM» 'f/it rtA 4 11 / “ tmamm s-<\9 mmm m3 fVVbtitueVi i G»»t* VI ff Sl»>.N r>< % e*^*« (S^.fMfAjT WiAU«.‘»F «tc «.«MA ||0 /^•, s^¥»inf fWlC ut’^ fVoDC. - '^H\ ^ CllA^ V« r - - ^ ^ I ^ ^ ^ _• _ - •fhf*# IW»Aoo ^ r«4. ^f».r w*^ •r.^^ (W A**fp> C^W.< GaiiMi «HT I-. I ♦ «rt» • G^Aat - L ^ ^•e^y/v^ML «mM <t% %• A«w«* «y tvt «At.«M C ••tTuA# (Mm Ca ^«o r la«»*>aW <•?■ ^ieCMOWr yjAU -fy^ Lcvcu “-^ Vm‘o‘tmmmm •M 1 I I ',< / • ( yI . V yj u •V'I V \ V \ 'I-w. *>l Q^ Cm^./ N / / Z' x. :-=x.- f 0*1U4» i.....r^id CJMt . I ____ r J — K“-4-' 'I . -. i f-■ •—~xrr a-if% \ \ \ Main Ltv<U " mmrnm <71 4 ----* piO#—^ C-3 CT73 ^c<ulf. Cv«Mr i €•4. ✓ c«Mr^« W»A . Of*« UffffL tf^CU t*-o' S-Sh 1‘i'B Fwjcrnc* Pt"- Bd. 1^3 Pr P5 H « X PERMIT RECORD Permit No. 94^ Date Type of Permit ■7- ^S- (pc lilit ^.\jou8 p - P/ -So ^710 (t''3d -&0 4t><4^ ^syd!/h 7 4^7.y to ^0 r. &7.cl . ^ 1 3 /" *7 j:* M /> ii•’/ ts Q • J:Council • • • ‘.< • • *' *• 4 •Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zon.lnc Ac\':i/.nis’ir.^tor i/v i f;;November 6, 1979 §524 A. R, Backstrom, 1973 ^^''gorr,c^’^; T’oir.t - V3%?.:tAS’C iN'.: district - lr-ic i.'.«ckstron requeats a street setbackof 2* for •jaraco 20’ x 28’ to replacv c> /O' x J.;J’'Icc/itf-'l : ' ir*:o the right of way of ?.ig.>rner5r. ^olnt Rc'.'icl, The .cw-onu part of hia reque?:t involves an 9 ’ x 29• c-^dition *hc rear o*. the house. The pro’x>r*cc^ r'TT'orovcmon*’n will . V i-iirv a hardcover variance of 26*6 n.-;. cr 9f, The . / j. icntu wil^ add approximately 4 34 s.f, of hardcov'^r • . The Addition will add 224 a.f. or 7.5».. The ..-ruju {i.ubiract existing garago) will add 210 s.f. * ■ •t« r 7 •• I Ccupniosion recoRtnende approval of the application; ...... . iivi'.w Kinuto* of October 29, 1979 for background ion and recommendation• Mdi hon 960 3.aN ^€O ioim 360 .. , (i, !•» -ii.jiirjVi* I )u;M <• jii( .St. of O. K. Ki:;?»r‘r^ Morlih SJuiro: :v*-, \.<-T l‘1 arun'ifj ('i u i;ni: nn I i c >nfi, { . ^ ' f ,• * C’ • • 4• •• • •# vj. ^ f . ‘ •• > >•iV ii ' . , ' r,' -«• * :. • .• ••. . • < *># *•% . ] : i- ^. * • * • f •• _ s- ^ i . ' ! • .t • *. /' *• , •*. ? 5I.* I » < « »■*'»♦ il i #‘C^ I* ••*’ i •' • , #*. (T^ #•• - • • . 'xi •;••’■.sV* • .' -.* •*'% , % • • • • » ■ j t - •*• r.‘. rV"?.-;." ■'• ■' ■ ^• • • 1 • • . • . '* •»• • •w .4 t ^ .1 . .. . /'-V .. • 5 . •» 1.•• ;! V ?. 'hi* oravi'l drlvowayfi ruivlng t.ho non-con form liuj <j/ir«if}f*3 are to bo rcr^ovt'cl and Ki.'fdcd 7h.o new drlvoway should not rxcood the a 1 lowed additional hardcover of 360 sq, ft. 3. The applicant to bo advlnod that pnllon, reinont walV.s, etc arc consldc!<*d liardotjvcr f'.ot.ifin, /vVfrs (5) - Kays (0). 7vlan ^'l.son# City. Planner^ <*nt<*rod into ()io record the variance roquost of A. *1. nacl.fit ron, 1<>73 r.»<jenu*!:a Poii'.t Hoad, d.it<?d Novenbor 6, 1070, wliirli litater.: Mr. H.ioV. ?:! r< !n re<pn?sts a .street ?.» th.ick v.ni.ineo of .33' for a n.-w rjar*i<jQ 20* X 28* to u pl.u'o a 20* X IB* < .t.’a'je located 12* ilito t lu* i lijht of ssjy of Ptuj< i ner.s roifi* -’oad. Thi"* second part iff his re<pii.?;t iiivolverj ..r; ' >; 26 ‘ .iddition to tin? le.ir (>f the hi.nic.f?. The •'I-:.. *1(1 i! j : OVeJ ’ient S will leipnie a h.ifdeovc*]* v.iiiar.ee <,f .'60 **q. ft# or 9Y, ’.’’In? i p»i>t ovei ’ienl j; soil .i<h\ .ipp I ox i nat ely 434 iuj. ft, of hat<let>ver or 1**. .tv. The .I'ldltion will adfi 224 cq, ft, nr 1 , The r.- .-.s: » :e {r-ulit riict ••.vj'.tini} n.ii-ep? ) \;ill .. id .in • *. . er J .\'s. VAH.*ANCK 1973 Fmjt*raesn Pe ^024 A. *1, nackf'.lrutn H (ih .*,« • d) 1 . ' •«%- - • I l.ij i. . .. J .. • .1 Lv. . i• u. ’% * r* -,i • * I *.l • »* »'' , . .1 . •. -«fl .‘V/: • .-fft •• > •• • *4 • . • • .« • .* ‘v ■b-• • •• •-<*.*« Subdivision , rrcliMiiiUiVy Subdlvtalon*, Ftol .^« •.•••= I /. ^ V. : :/v'.5 . 1-'*^ V'''' 10 .:ON’ Vine: ._£l for _fL Ar.-Hnst __Abjnonclon ' '•. 1 A . q.'jn.oy.ccLx<iuc._ox»p.liA7y)•; -A..ccoj)t-.y;i.vrrj;.othucrk.J/a ____ j p. .->• .M. /:Vr\‘?LQ^Cijo.Q_iif_^^^Qg3^cj,jrnno. 2 ..’*»’'Ot...f.V.O^ ^.r.ojlit ____ • ' b-‘xd ‘*<\voir._vArJ!'iif:c ♦o^aVIo;/_ _ "■■ 5 '•'••. i^>i»sg..-£indti>A.«.!Mrtrtte^tov.Pt.^c..^n^p.iagj6tna. hcwuMucftn- <1# *^. • v; ' '';''- -'VU>ni.J otb_aa_j)aiL_y«_£J«uinAnaJlpir!Mj,nB^^ J ^.to be _onc story with a fl«it roof, r TT • - * «.«r . ------------------------------------ , _______ .—^! »« « « mrrn» •• •« •• • •• . > » *. •. A( p«* ••«• tfi r • ‘Vi* •* P > • » v»«* • ;. .• -V •. ;. .• ,• ' '••••••>• "•;. A-;;;r/. A A'A*;wV>V.VA ;;i A !i: .*.?*? i»T ri».'ri.' ^ -____ hri-i,'..* •M > •> . r •>:A;’i l!:i: lUTK .^..Nj?A'!:’Jl^>£I»l.J.j|^..J^J>0____________ _ f.T si'bwUtnl of new Inforr.viilon (.-.pplicnf ton iviy l,f coTi’-rideicd icn.-aHy wittnlrnun If InforiMtion or oKplnmnto,, ti-: not provldcil) for v;orU l o bt)*,In fur '.’ork to ho t:(■.•;.ij«l«: t fd • *« • I'fi* \uu*k )’i-r;iiit -■ : ;il i r.i i J iMi ;:*.’:iJf A?;;: !!••A:I!i:) - i;t>Mt .•.(;( lUiiidfnj Tr.:.; i .jl i r ff;A.:i l>ii':;m J :.;• / . ,.;• / f - i i................................... , . b.-rrv'-. •• rvy i.■ Ih-v," f\r. . fi-'-. *f<' C - -Hm’H •-I t • ' ’. * • . * ir .in >-ur*^oy for ..I’iri ::. ^ tron* rf _,r:* 7. >«-.''rr'»3r n-:*:..--;;.::'. ' • -r.ly* llinr.es'la A* //’/y 7f / b 0 /•//1i ■; * . * l;!te o i" - 4C* c;_;.i>79 ]rori ri-k'ir TKiS ITEM h^S S££H ^IISROFliMED •r 7 TO; FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator October 15, 1998 SUBJECT: #2413 Paul and Megan Bennett 500 Hanlon Avenue Variances—Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B Lot Area:6,473.5 One Famiiy Rural Residential District (2 Acre) square feet (. 15 acre) Last month the Planning Commission tabled this application to the applicant to consider purchasing an adjacent lot before placing an addition to the residence. Fhe applicants have proposed to add a 20' by 24 ’ garage with second floor living space to the existing residence. The home was constructed in 1949 without a garage. The applicants purchased the home in 1996 with the assumption they would be able to construct a garage. This application had required the following variances: 1. Side yard adjacent to street setback requirements. 1T is proposed to Dickenson Street where 50’ is required. 2. Side yard setback requirements. 8.9’ is proposed where 30 ’ is required. 3. Rear yard setback requirements. 11.9’ is proposed where 50' is required. 4. Structural coverage to allow'2,011.67 s.f. (31%) where 1565.27 s.f. (24%) exists and 1,500 s.f. is allow ed. In 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2982 to permit the construction of a deck within required side yard, street yard, and back yard setbacks and to allow 22% lot coverage by structures with the condition that the applicant is advised that future proposals to increase lot coverage by structure on this property will not be looked upon favorably by the Council. In 1996 the previous property' owners expressed interest in purchasing the vacant lot across the allay from 500 Hanlon Avenue for the possibility of constructing a garage in the future. The vacant lot was owned in common with the applicant ’s lot, but went tax forfeit a number of years ago, and is only for sale to adjacent property owners. When sewer was brought into the area the assessment was split equally between the applicant's property and the lot across the alley. As a result of going tax forfeit the $3,350 assessment has not been recovered by the City. In 1996 the previous property owners requested the City Council waive any interest or penalties on the assessment and collect only the principle amount of $3,350 on the vacant lot, with the condition that the tax forfeit parcel be legally combined with the 500 Hanlon Avenue parcel. The Council did agree to collect only the principle amount of the sewer assessment, however, the owners did not purchase and join tlie lot. The Bennetts have contacted Hennepin County regarding purchase of the tax forfeit parcel. They would be able to purchase the lot by placing a bid on the property. The applicant would the.’ approach the Council about the outstanding assessments placed on the lot. It would be up to the Council to decide how much to assess the property for. In 1996 the Council waived any penalties against the original assessment and agreed to reassess at $3,350 to be paid at 7% interest over 5 years. The applicant has the following options to consider: A. To proceed with the application as presented last month, not acquiring the tax forfeited lot. (Please see attached Staff Report) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 6,473 s.f.Existing: 1,565.27 s.f Proposed: 2,011.67 s.f 24% 31% B. To acquire the tax forfeited lot to decrease the structure over the entire lot. Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 6,473 s.f *13,946 s.f Existing: 1,565.27 s.f Proposed: 2,011.67 s.f 24.0% 14.4% "I'he lot would conform to allowed lot coverage by structure. This would be subject to the applicant acquiring the lot and legally joining that the tax forfeit parcel with the 500 Hanlon Avenue parcel. Variances from setback requirements would have to be approved by the City Council. 1. 2. 3. Side yard adjacent to street setback requirements. 17' is proposed to Dickenson Street where 50' is required. Side yard setback requirement.*?. 8.9' is proposed where 30' is required. Rear yard setback requirements. 11.9' is proposed where 50' is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of variances should the applicant acquire the tax forfeit pare ’ and legally combine the lot uith the 500 Hanlon Avenue parcel, based on the hardship that the lot is undersized for the zoning district and the development proposal would not inconsistent with the development in the locality. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2413 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 23, 1998 TO:Paul and Megan Bennett 500 Hanlon Avenue Wayzata MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 09/22/98 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commbsion recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: To allow the applicant to consider purchasing the adjacent lot (#24) to reduce the structural coverage impact. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Coimnission October 19, 1998; meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the 2^ning 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. jig TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE:September 3,1998 SUBJECT: #2413 Paul and Megan Bennett Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acre) Lot Area:6,473.5 square feet (.15 acre) Application: The applicants have proposed to add a 20' by 24’ garage with second floor living space to the existing residence. The home was constructed in 1949 without a garage. The applicants purchased the home in 1996 with the assumption they would be able to construct a garage. This application requires the following variances: 1.Side yard adjacent to street setback requirements. 17' is proposed to Dickenson Street where 50' is required. 2. 3. 4. Side yard setback requirements. 8.9' is proposed where 30' is required. Rear yard setback requirements. 11.9' is proposed where 50' is required. Structural coverage to allow 2,011.67 s.f. (31%) where 1565.27 s.f. (24%) exists and 1,500 s.f is allowed. Parking and Access The applicants are currently parking their vehicles over a gravel drive located off Dickenson Street. Much 0. the parking area is actually within the dedicated right-of-way for Dickenson Street. The proposed garage would move the access from Dickenson Street to the alley located behind the house. This would have less impact on the busier Dickenson Street as cars would not be gaining access by backing up into approaching traffic. The applicants intend to remove the existing gravel driveway and parking area if they are granted necessary variances to construct a garage. The primary issue remaining would be the outdoor parking of vehicles for guests. The proposed driveway, with alley access, would only be 12’ in H2J13 Paul and Mtgan Bennett 500 Hanlon Avenue Pariances 9/22/9S Page I length, not allowing adequate space for parking an average sized vehicle. The applicants have stated short term parking would be located along the north side of the driveway and along the alley or Dickenson Street. It should be noted the streets are actually further from the house than they appear on the survey. The parking would not occur on the Streets, but in a similar location as is currently used by the owners. Lot History: In 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2982 to permit the construction of a deck within required side yard, street yard, and back yard setbacks and to allow 22% lot coverage by structures with the condition that the applicant is advised that future proposals to increase lot coverage by structures on this property will not be looked upon favorably by the Council. (Resolution No. 2982 is included as Exhibit F.) In 1996 the previous property owners expressed interest in purchasing the vacant lot across the all^y from 500 Hanlon Avenue for the possibility of constructing a garage in the future. The vacant lot was owned in common with the applicant's lot, but went tax forfeit a number of years ago, and is only for sale to adjacent property owners. When sewer was brought into the area the assessment was split equally between the applicant's property and the lot across the alley. As a result of going tax forfeit the $3,350 assessment has not been recovered by the City. In 1996 the previous property owners requested the City Council waive any interest or penalties on the assessment and collect only the principle amount of $3,350 on the vacant lot, with the condition that the tax forfeit parcel be legally combined with the 500 Hanlon Avenue parcel. The Council did agree to collect only the principle amount of the sewer assessment, however, the owners did not purchase and join the lot. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage #2^/J Pmd and Mtgan Binmtl 500 Hanlon Avenue Variances 9/22/98 Page! ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Rear Yard Side Yard Side/Street Yard Required 87,120 s.f.200’50’30’30’ Exists 6,473 s.f.50’22’9.6’10.4’ Proposed 6,473 s.f.50'11.9’8.9’IT The garage would require variances from rear, side, and street yard setbacks. The lot does not meet minimum lot area or lot width requirements for the zoning district. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 6,473 s.f.Existing: 1,565.27 s.f. Proposed: 2,011.67 s.f. 24% 31% The lot does exceed the allowed structural coverage on the lot. The addition would increase the overa. coverage by 446.4 s.f. The zoning code allows 1,500 s.f. on this lot. A variance was granted by the Council in 1991 to allow the lot coverage by stmeture that currently exists on the property. Hardcover Hardcover is not considered on lots over 1,000 feet from the lakeshore. ANALYSIS Variance Pend and Sftgah Bennett 500 Hanlon Avenue Variances 9/22/98 Page 3 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Applicant's hardship is included as Exhibit B. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. 4. 5. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be used as a single family residence, although improvements on the property are difficult. RR-IB zoning district requires a 50 foot side yard adjacent to street setback. The subject lot consists of only a width of 50 feet. Any additions or accessory’ buildings would require variances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The property is undersized for the zoning district. The minimum lot size is 87,120 s.f. for the RR-IB district. The applicant ’s lot is only 6,473 s.f. Lots in the zoning district require a 50' setback for side yards adjacent to the street. The applicant's lot is only 50’ vridv, therefore anything that occurs on the property requires variances. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The addition of a garage with 2nd floor livin’ space would not change the use of the property. The neighborhood is used exclusively for residential purposes. Economic considerations alone shall not coa^.itute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms cf this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The use of the property would remain residential with a garage as a permitted use. i^24l3 Paul and Megan Bennett 500 Hanlon Avenue Variances 9/22/98 Page A 6. 7. 8. 9. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property was platted well before the current zoning regulations, resulting in the property not conforming with standards. The size of the lot does not allow th.* applicant to build a garage that could conform to zoning district standards. The applicant does not have the option to purchase adjacent land to increase the size of the lot. The only adjacent lot is used as a residence. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants purchased the lot in 1996 assuming they could build a garage. They have indicated in their letter of hardship they would like to have indoor storage for vehicles, especially in the winter. The granting of the proposed variance v.ill not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The granting of the variances will not constitute a public hazard. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The applicant has proposed to construct a garage that w’ould not be inconsistent wdth the development in the neighborhood. The size of the lot does not allow the applicants to place the garage in another location on the lot. Issues 1. The existing residence and deck encroach into to required setbacks. 2. The lot is undersized for the zoning d istrict. 3. The lot is a comer lot located at Dickenson Street and Hanlon Avenue. 4. The street setback from the north side of the lot is 50 ’, which is equal to the existing lot width. §241} Paul and Megan Benneu 500 Hanlon A\enue Variances 9/22/98 P(igt5 5.The proposed addition would encroach 33' into the street yard setback towards Dickenson Street. 6. 7. 8. 9. The proposed addition would encroach 21.1' into the South side yard setback. The proposed addition would encroach 38.1' into the rear yard setback. The City Council in 1991 adopted a resolution for a variance to allow a deck within required setbacks. The resolution stated the Council would not look favorably on any future variances for increased lot coverage. Direct access to the property would be gained from the alley rather than the current access Dickenson Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the previous resolution to determine how it applies to this proposal. The new garage and living space will increase lot coverage to 31%, contrary to the intent of approval granted for structural coverage on the lot in 1991. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Statement of Hardship Comments from Neighbor (521 Hanlon Avenue) Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Survey Resolution No. 2982 City Council Minutes October 28,1996 Building Plans Property Owners List Permit Record ^^2413 Paml and Sftgan Btnnett 500 Hanlon Avenue Variances 9/22/98 PagfS A t Application it 2.4 t3 • Date ReceivedTS^^^55 Amount Paid. ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S50.00 per each additional ^^ance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00. (no change from original application) V .dance for non-conforming structures ' $250.00 A::er-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress A4.n/p<^ ------------------------------- Prope. ;y Identification Number (PJD.^ / *“ /-2.-----------.y-------------^ ^ -------------------------^ ■ ■:----------------------------------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ^ A A •I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propertyi ^ residential ___other (specify). ZoningDistrict: _______.ig ---------------- (month/year) Address: 5CP Av'l— Phone ftiome ^ ___ Phonefworic ^ _ City: Arc»vo__________Zip:_£T3Jll OWNER (if different than applicimt) Name ____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:. City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Con^ction Cost $ ----------- Describe request in detail: *100 u/i’W fcotys <,x\s4TfvrA _______________________________ ^ (attach additional sheets .if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED nil T.ot Area ^Pi{ Lot Area ^ Setback: Lot Width Hardcover X W C V i 1 • •• **■. :• V:W c Lot Coverage Front X,sid«|5iT^^R«»Average Lakeshore % Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRI^ION of unusual PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue har^hip or practical diflaculty or unusual property eolations preventing compUance with Zoning Code renniremenb: lot 1^**^- V',.:R Ta \CiH<;. fw Aiku-uJ iy.^j<L;p n j------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) H ardship We wish to apply for a variance for the construction of a garage with a family room above due to the following hardships that exist on our property. When we signed our purchase agreement for our home in October 1996, we were led to believe by the sellers’ realtor that we would be able to construct a garage on our property. Being that we were not residents of Orono or owners of our property at 500 Hanlon Avenue at the time, we were barred from the application process to determine whether we would be able to construct a garage. We relied on the representations made by the sellers’ realtor. Although \»e have not had a garage on our property for the past year and a half, we have come to realize the problems posed by lacking a garage. First, our cars parked in the front gravel pseudo-driveway are dangerous. We must back our cars onto Dickenson with traffic moving at up to 30 plus miles an hour at a time. We lack the visibility as we back out of our driveway, putting ourselves in danger of an accident. Second, the location of our parked cars are hazardous to pedestrians, namely small neighborhood children. We constantly fear that our soon-to-be-toddler or one of the neighbor children will dart out between cars in front of an unsuspecting driver or biker. Third, the lack of garage poses a threat of a health hazard. We lack a place to properly store our garbage. As our infant grows, our use of diapers and waste increases. Currently, we must store our garbage outside underneath our deck. There have been several mornings, despite our careful efforts, when we wake to find our garbage strewn about the yard. This not only poses a threat to our health, but to the neighbors as well. Fourth, there is potentially dangerous pooling of water. Due to the current gravel driveway, during rainstorms, run-off tends to pool in the intersection of Dickenson and the alley along the east side of our property. This pooling of water is particularly hazardous with the current threat of encephalitis-carrying mosquitoes. Lastly, the lack of ? garage is a major hardship for our eight-month-old child. Placing our child in a car, which must be parked outside in cold Minnesota winters or hot and humid summers, is a hardship. Our baby was bom on December 15, 1997. In order to take her to our doctor’s appointments, we had to leave the baby unattended while we scraped off the ice and snow’ and warmed the car to an appropriately warm temperature. This problem will only continue to worsen as our child becomes more and more mobile, putting her in more risk of harm while left unattended. We have the additional hardship in that the lot on which our house sits is only .15 acres. We are limited in areas in which to put the garage. We believe that by placing the garage to the east of the house, we will be able to use less ground cover and keep the constmction within the spirit of the existing home. Being that our home, which was constructed in 1945, already sits in violation of the current zoning codes were it a new construction, any additional construction would naturally be a continuation of that vanance. r - i \% I > Exhibit^ A August 16,1998 c City of Orono Zoning and Planning Commission 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Application for Variance at 500 Hanlon Avenue Dear Zoning and Planning Commission: We reside at 521 Hanlon Avenue, Orono, Minnesota. We are the adjacent property to the south of the Bennett household located at 500 Hanlon. We understand that the Bennetts are applying for a few variances for the construction of a 20 foot by 24 foot attached garage with a family room above. We understand that the Bennetts need a variance from the City because tlxeir proposed building will sit in an area that does not meet current setback and lot requirements. We have reviewed the footprint and building plans of the proposed Bennett construction project and realize their proposed building will sit approximately 9 feet from our property line and 12 feet from the alley which services our property. The proposed construction will sit less than a foot closer to our lot. We do not object to the City granting of variances for the Bennett building plan. We feel that their proposed building will not be significantly closer to our lot than their existing home. We also feel that it will be an improvement to the value and appearance of the entire neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of this application. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, » • X; t 1 • ; Residents at 521 Hanlon Avenue W~T. 134.22 fv*in KO P*> Orvj Op.' Ill' A3-BI 154. I o (47) Oi 05 Z9d. 12/ %O •n / I '>’o’.r-> \ ^ • 35 V u • - * '•• ^ ll 7^4o ? 134.04 iTTT ^ N39*53'iO-E Tvr C3 'Jirr A' \ r\io> i302 \lOT 15, aOCK 12 5 MINNETONKA BLUFF Olcn DICKE ,n >27.92 'S 24 \ % 127.92 ^/\ 1 a 0 i s >. 9/ (49)2 S \ 55 22 v'-^\ ^ a a 21 << y / a f^io\(1) S a '9 <;••S' ^ *3 '«(6)508 y,2=^(7) ^ r-'^ 16 ^ (il)^ - a ^(3) ^ a 15 S.0 B 2 950^ '(9)i« \* 1 -f «' ^3 127.75 12 v! y, 127.75 n CD D> TO 12 SON • „ ST ^(26)24 a <.•■■' (14) « 22 ,.•• a N ^ « 20 ; ^ (46) :(15); « f a 19 6 '< a « (2I1 /#K ^ » LI 17 *=■ (i'2)\®6) ^ s- 16 ® (21){ 17) a 1^.(20J \ 10 a ^ ^( IS)i 1 ” a •(18) ^ a '^\ 12 g 125.25 1 (O i\j (Ni t- / -4:1. O T> <m r 129.4- a 20 i .1 iC , '94* (39;1 ' (27) ^ S^(33j^4 i 1 3 -\ 17 : Jj ^ ! : 1l r'' 4 1 s S(37:j'4^ J! 5 l(^(28)a "09oi > ^r7 a -§50! i a *. ; i ! / ® \ a•'"' (29) * ^ (33) ■"■' 123^32 r. (301, V yi 1 ^ (32)■va. \=<a\^c \ 100 >’^-i! * V «. S i5 129.4c :V'2 mm m T> < «: : "* i(AR) i '<3(t u \ fJlc 60 I/' FOX 33 JJ 9% • IS6 iLIll \ \ 1 (16) I ^ c vtfng .Lake,; i; Miard:^ XVLdkeJliS^LTOIMO m LAIE RO 600 •►• *1 ' j ‘.i»a*„ M ^ I.........u’C nV^- X ¥ EtiiinV‘'V'V**?fy^ Ur ^ ^ “V • -^zyula V ^ Iv V *,v>‘^^^^':pwntry a^ .1 • • #• -• V^.w ^ ■ <■ •• # Course A;c • V.;^- OCUiif^ <. - • > -% * •.•. - -• ». :•• \ T' ' • £fl4e::-^ •• • V ..•? •4'-*:*V>I - - vrl^'V' ' vvttlf.-iii:. • • “ • -ui.' • •• - r ^ » *.rj SEE MAP'76 • ^ ■ ■ I ■ yyi-gn ■- P . .%s-^-‘r^^.o\ • • •• |T^7 jw 'ockitt is Point . .. £50^ EOlfVOg 1*1"^ r• :..> • viVSlooikottAV • •. • • . ■ •*• -•: ^< Point l\ . «^. * . • V-f i-tryv *'■••»’■ ^KAMSET •. » ^•- • - '.••r . Breay ’. .. ;•.;<./ ‘Po/n/ * :;r: • •• r .-••.I'--' .» \ 4 ^ • *•• w >*..v^ •* - . •• ■ '^,wo SWI/< TII7 HENNEP OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR PAUL BENNETT LOT 1, BLOCK 14, MINNETONKA BLUFFS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA cn O DICKENSON ST.O) O S B8*43*00" E 129.48 > <m i N 88*43' 00" W 129.48 T CO \J ^ % This survey intends to show the boundoiies of the obove described property, the existing house and deck and the proposed garage thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroochments. Bearings shown ore bosed upon on ossumed dotum, • - ♦ o : denoUs Iron morker found # : denotes Iron marker set -< COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. asm DOCK UN) swcraE 9IE fUNCs «UiMIIOA1DI£ IKMEHtSU Itt-47>4t4l I tecby cetiiT M Mi snt| tm fnpati If aa « ude ly dract spr- viwv ed IMI on a (Uy r«^i4 GrI «d lad Sovtjnr ode lilt tm of the Slate of UmcMla SCALE r»20* DATE 8/7/98 iteri^^Cf2t2L^222£l2.i£S2L!i2S2Li2iSL joe NO. 98-339 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2982 H A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) AND SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #1652 WHEREAS, Daniel and Barbara Fleischman (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 500 Hanlon Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 14, Minnetonka Bluffs, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to permit the construction of a deck to be located 22' from the south side lot line where a 30' side setback is normally required, 11.3' from the north side street lot line where a 50' setback is normally required, and 28' from the rear lot line where a 50' setback is normally required, and a variance to allow 22% lot coverage by structures where only 15% l«.t coverage by structures is normally allowed. Minnesota: 1. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1652. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17, 1991 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings; a) The small lot size, being only 6,475 s.f. but subject to standards normally applied to lots of 87,120 s.f., is a distinct hardship in that no improvements to this property could occur without the need for variances. Page 1 of 5 % i>/ii A • uMlv' - CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2982_________ b) The proposed deck continues existing lines of the house and except for the proposed stairway at the west side of the deck, encroaches no closer to the street than the existing house. c) The proposed deck replaces a pre-existing deck of slightly smaller square footage in the same location. d) Without this deck, two of the three main doorway entrances to the residence will become only marginally useable due to their elevation above grade. 4, The property does not contain a garage. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) allows lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures of at least 1500 s.f. for any developed property, regardless of the resultant lot coverage percentage. In this case, the variance is necessary because for lot coverage purposes the deck is not considered part of the principal residence. However, granting of the lot coverage variance is justified on ^he basis that replacement of a pre-existing deck structure ^il not tend to increase the visual density of the neighborhood. 5, The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 property; would not merely serve as convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; ana would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2982 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) and Section 10.26, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a 16' X 20* deck with 4' x 10* stairway, located 22' from the left side lot line where a 30' setback is normally required, 11.3' from the north side street lot line where a 50* setback is normally required, and 28' from the rear lot line where a 50' setback is normally required, and grants a variance to allow 22% lot coverage where only 15% lot coverage is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant is advised that future proposals to increase lot coverage by structures on this property will not be looked upon favorably by the Council. 2. Applicants shall construct the deck per the approved plans. Any changes from those plans which increase the size or extent of the deck shall be subject to further City review. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (July 8, 1992). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2982_________ Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of July, 1991. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of July, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2982_________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN f-ik ) SB, ) On this day of ^ U t ^ : within and for _______________, 199 f/ before me a Notary Public within and fot said county# personally appeared bara. f (pn-^an ,\oinf oOJn ^ known to me to be the person^(s) descrilSed in and who executed thexnown UU nits UU J. own \SD i ^ — ^ ^ ------------------ foregoing instrument# and acknowledged that he (they) executed the seune as his (their) free act and deed. A ’ MOTA.VJSLI-. ffigaor* HENNEPIN COUNTY My commlssJoo cxplrtt S-12^ 9T ^IT#esota._1 )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ day of _ _ before me a Notary Public within and % J J • ^ _ I Ta /i/ id fot ____________199 t said county# personally appeared r^ar\)El Fl^i^C.hryx^r\\ [otn't (DU}n-C<^-----— ^ ‘ ■ibea in and who executed theknown to me to be the person(s) descr-i.,^— -- - - - - - - - - foregoing instrument# and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. r.-i-LINDA S. VEE NOTARY PUBUC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My commission ospiros S>12 ‘46 Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION #2982 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) • ) CITY CF ORONO ) I Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk of the City of Orono. Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the oroceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on July 8 , 19 91_, and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this • 15th . day of July^ . 1991 oX^thy M. (^IJllin, City Clerk (SEAL) ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 28, 1996 I ENGINEER REPORT (*,?14.)CHANGE ORDER #1 - OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE TRAIL Jabbour moved. Goetten seconded, to approve Change Order for the Old Crystal Bay Road bike trail project to provide for bituminous surfacing and restoration of the trail along Old Crystal Bay Road from Kelley Parkway to the Orono School property in the amount of $10,938. Vote: Ayes 4, nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#15.) AGREEMENT WITH ORONO ICE ARENA, INC. REGARDING INSPECTION AND MONITORING OF STORM WATER FAdLITIES This item was discussed in conjunction with Item #5. C iyi6)- bOO^HANLOiYAVENUE -’SEVVER ASSESSMENT^ Moorse stated 2 parcels were involved. When the sewer project was assessed the owner at that time let the vacant parcel go tax forfeit after it was assessed for a 1/2 sewer unit. The current owner was not aware of this and would now like to purchase the vacant tax forfeit lot from Hennepin County and requests the Council to collect only the principal amount ($3,350). Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the collection of only the principal amount of the sewer assessment ($3,350) on Ixt 24 adjacent to 500 Hanlon Avenue, to be paid in five equal installments of principal, plus interest at an annual rate of 7%, with the condition that the tax forfeit parcel be legally combined with the 500 Hanlon Avenue parcel. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. (#17.) ESTABLISH DATE AND TIME FOR CANVASSE^IG BOARD MEETING Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to set the 1996 Canvassing Board meeting for November 6, 1996, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. (#18.) TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY - RESOLUTIONS #3792 AND #3973 Moorse stated this involves 2 parcels. One is a driveway which staff is recommending to be released to adjacent property owners and the other is a parcel in Chevy Chase which the city should retain for drainage. Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution #3792 to release parcel 31-118-23 42 0005 for sale to adjacent property owners. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. Hurt moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution #3973 requesting the acquisition of parcel 36-118-23-41-0043 for a public purpose particularly drainage and utilities. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. 1 • • 1 i 1 ProposecJ : ConGi-rucl/on fr-OUt ^0OKil-)) i ‘ 1 h' V<i»» r \ I f • t i ' rr V3 C e( M O UJ - - i!I !I I / / / / »• B C>^tve.w<ay PV'OpO'vJ Coobh uchco (\J\t':l f*o-v 5’c^.ler c? RUN DATE 08/11/96 BATCH 502 MENNtPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^SS^Ol PACE 8 PROP ADDR ONNEK NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 02-117*23 31 0013 00500 HANLON AVE P A 8 M M DENNETT PAUL A I MEGAN M BENNETT 500 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 02-117-23 31 0014 00521 HANLON AVE E S 8 A J WELCH ERIC S WELCH 521 HANLON AVE WAYZATA m 55391 36 02-117-23 31 0015 00537 HANLON AVE R V 8 M E KOEHNEN ROBERT 8 MICHEL KOEHNEN 537 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 02-117-23 31 0026 •0036 ADDRESS tINASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND FOR SALE TO ADJ OWNER ONLY 36 02-117-23 31 0026 00539 KEENE AVE 0 HARALD ERIKSEN 0 HARALD ERIKSEN 6219 ZEALAND AVE N MPLS MN 55426 36 02-117-23 31 0037 00530 HANLON AVE L W TRIES ET AL TRUSTEES LUCILLE WOODVILLE THIES 530 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 02-117-23 31 0036 00520 HANLON AVE 6 D 8 C M TAH6EN KONRAD C KRUGER 520 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 02-117-23 31 0039 01295 DICKENSON ST R S MILLER/K E STENSO MILLER RICK S MILLER 1295 DICKENSON ST ORONO MN 55391 36 02-117-23 31 0046 00540 BARRETT AVE R T JAFFRAY 8 V H JAFFRAY R T 8 V H JAFFRAY 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 36 02-117-23 31 0047 00450 ORONO ORCHARD RD EDWARD H HAMM TRUSTEE EDWARD H HAMM 406 ST PETER ST 0434 ST PAUL MN 55102 TOTAL BATCH 502 OOOlO I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION# TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE I ! j PERMIT RECORD lo~r\ Permit No.Date Type of Permit )6'^ (« ww CL^ei -/a “7 • V«9/5 (.-lo-R I /Liyy\^tHyec(ji ^VOt.8 />iio '6 ./? 1 p f ■ ^ 3.OH0 If-ai-?*?X^CL^ d. ft I "h- ■'ll „l9)b^^C. L- 'Vj?(o ' 6)" *7 s/ 9-/(1'9^Cv^t^ OJI^dyflK L 8 To: From: Date: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator hMichael P. GafFron, Senior Planning Coordinator October 15, 1998 Subject:#2425 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Approval - Conversion from Outlot to Lot Status - Outlot E, Sugar Woods ('2190' Wayzata Boulevard) - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-1, Retail Sales Business District Summary of Request: Convert Outlot E, Sugar Woods, to buildable lot status to enable development of the property for commercial use. The key issues \vith the original review related to access for the lot. Those issues were resolved, resulting in Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution No. 3972 adopted October 13,1997. The developer was not able to find a purchaser for the property until very recently, and since preliminary approval was expected to expire (Oct. 13,1998) before that purchase was completed and final platting commenced, this request for renewal with no changes was submitted. Note that the purchaser of the property is intending to construct a 10,000 s.f. office building on the site, and will be be appearing before Planning Commission in November for a CUP and Commercial Site Plan approval. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Ovmers List D - Preliminary Plat Drawings/Survey E - Resolution No. 3972 F - Letter to Rebers re: Park Fee 11-7-97 G - Selected Exhibits from 1997 Approval Brief Review of Access Issues Orono's 1987-88 Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2 included the future creation of a service road north of Highway 12 connecting Willow Drive and Brown Road. A corridor for such a road was subsequently created in the Otten Brothers property when it was platted via PUD, but only a road segment adjacent to Outlot E was defined within the Rebers property when Sugarwoods was platted That 1989 approval of Sugar Woods allowed Rebers to postpone dedication of a specific service road corridor through Outlot F until Outlot F was further divided. However, the 1989 approval also #2425 - Rebers Subdivision October 15,1998 Page 2 required that future development of Outlots E and F be accessed by the service road rather than directly to Highway 12. The 1997 discussions revolved around whether, when and how the service road will be built, and whether Outlot E can be developed without the service road being constructed. The final outcome after a lengthy process of review and discussions with the developer and his representatives at both staff and Council levels, was that Outlot E could be converted to a buildable site (becoming "Lot 1, Sugar Woods 2nd Addition") subject to a number of conditions spelled out in Resolution No. 3972, including: - Lot 1 can access directly to Highway 12 at a site directly across from Brimhall Avenune, subject to MnDOT approval. - Right-in/right-out access to Lot 1 from Highway 12 is approved permanently; left-in /left-out access to 12 at Brimhall is acceptable on interim basis; when frontage road is installed. City reserves the right to terminate right-ia'right-out with compensation to property owner, can terminate left-in/left-out without compensation; as long as Hwy 12 accesses of other properties served by frontage road are similarly terminated. - City has right to control access to Lot 1 thru Wear site via commercial site plan review process (i.e. City can prohibit or allow such access). - Lot 1 will bear the costs of frontage road construction adjacent to Lot 1. Owner can contest the necessity and feasibility of such a road at the time it is proposed. City will require financial security for future road construction at final platting. - City to end up with road/trail/drainage/utility easements over old Outlot D and over the new triangular segment of corridor being platted as Outlot A. Resolution No. 3972 contains a number of findings which support the final conditions of approval. Stormwater Plan An additional condition of Resolution No. 3972 was that applicant confirm that the existing stormwater pond in Outlot F is viable to serve Lot 1, or provide a new stormwater plan for Lot 1 and Outlot F. As of this writing, no confirmation or plan has been submitted; however, the contract between Rebers and his purchaser requires the purchaser to complete the final plat requirements, which suggests that stormwater will be dealt with as part of the Commercial Site Plan Review... #2425 - Rebers Subdivision October 15,1998 Page 3 Park Fee Determination Because no Park fee was paid for Outlots E & F in the original platting of Sugar Woods, a park fee is now due for the conversion of Outlot E to buildable lot status, under the current park dedication ordinance. The City Assessor in November 1997 established the Fair Market Value at $3.05/s.f. for the property. Staff calculated the lot area (exclusive of the triangular road segment Outlot A) at approximately 41,072 s.f, yielding a valuation of $125,270 and an 8% park fee of $10,021 per the ordinance then in effect. The City Assessor will be asked to update the Fair Market Value for 1998. In April 1998 Council adopted a revised park dedication ordinance. Staff will be reviewing the new ordinance to determine its impact on this subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends renewal of the preliminary plat approval granted approximately one year ago, with no revisions or changes. There are no changes in the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area that would change any of the prior findings. The primary items remaining to be resolved are the stormwater plan (developer to provide as a condition of preliminary plat approval) and an estimate of future road costs (City to provide) for purposes of the required escrow/security. Options for Action 1. Recommend renewal of the approval granted in Resolution 3972 with no changes. 2. Table for further information (specify). 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4.Other. CITY OF ORONO W 612A730510 * « CITY OF ORONO -1 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCAjnON Site address 2;i90 West Wayzata Boulevard M i ^ . * ' " ' ■ i»i ■ ■■ I I I Application # Date Reccived]22£Z2Z Amount Paid $200. od A ------------ — ^ j ^0 w W4 ^ ^ ^ f ri Property Identification Number (PID) 34-118-23-21-0032 Please check <|ne - Property____abstract or X torrens? Attach legal description to application. I APPLICANT Name Sidngy B. Rebers and Barbara Rebers Address _c/o I Rebers ConstnirMnn rr> A ^ ^ ^ Ta7 V% ^ __ «City Webster Avenue South St. L9uis Park, MN OWNER (if different' than applicant) xj / * a on i i +. •^ N/A. Applicant IS owner. Phone (home) 941-4355 Zip 55416 Phone (work) 920-6996 Address City (attach list if rdorc than one) I EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development $izc I Present use (check) i Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Zip Phone (home) _ Phone (work) One 0.955 0.955 B-1 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels ResidentiiU; no. of units None Other (specify) Vacant X-' I __ Division for Tax Purposes __ !Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ 'Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites One Existing Units _2_______New Units ! One Total Units Proposed Gros^ Density Minimum Lot ^ize Proposed Use ochcck) One Units per ^ Acres Sq. Ft, Dry Buildablc Land ________Residential ^ X Other (specify) vanani- 1C SEP 10 *98 li:i7 6124730510 PRGE.02 CITY OF ORONO Q 6124730510 uy/ lo/yo iu:oo u No;u^j I >nmMUM MATERIAL REQl|lRi:D FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARV APPLICATION 1. Piymanl of fati (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Corepleted application form.; 3. Preliminary plat information bn Certificate of Survey. 4'. Certified Prope.“7 Ownen List of ownen within 350' (you must obtain this list &om Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). ■ 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate Ibt of any other persona you wish notified of this application. Zoning OfficIaVs Si^jiature Date i ' I MINIMUM MATERIAL REQVIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Paymrat of fees (refer to Prel^inary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey ^r mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. ' ^ 4. Easements, covenants, etc. \ 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Officiara Signature___ Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check p(J those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: : _____ Sketch Plan Review [Class I. II & HO S250.00 ____ Subdivision of a LotfLine Rearrangement S350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) S3S0.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application S375.00 + S25.00/lot (Class III St til non-resldential) _____Final Plat Application (Class lU) S200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision [)nly S75.00 _______ Subdivision Vv/easements and covenants min. S200.00 _____Park Fees (to be detepnined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Englneeriiig Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I afid II Subdivision Application S200.00 (No change from origirul application) X Rene wal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application S200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change from original application) Ifiiali ?nn.nn B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Rof ds S600.00 S.SOflineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + S.50/lineal ft; .lln.ft.x JO-S lio. ft.x.SO^S _____Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 ______ _____ Proposed Sanitaiy S^wer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ _____Proposed Watetmilnj Extension $250.00 ■fS25/itub _______ _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ______ _____ On-Site System, SlteJEvaluation Review (applicable to niral lubdlvlsion applications) $50.00/per lot x •_____new lots ______ C. Flexible Application Fce^Ilsc. Fees ” . •* _____ Variance $220.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) - _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _______ _____ PRD Application wim Subdivision S30.00/Dwelting Unit ______ t The applicant hereby agrees to proyide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Coi)nc)l necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. » ^__/ ^ Applicant’s Signaturing^ I Dale ^_ Osvner’s Signanire D^e y Date ^ ^ Applicant must have all submittals |nio the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plarsning 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 Sc. Zoning^Office of this change prior to the meeting.# o /"■F ^ ^±: /O O SEP 18 ’98 li:i7 6124730510 PAGE.03 RUN DATE 09/25/98 BATCH 509 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 39-118-23 21 0002 02160 WAYZATA BLVD W UltLIAH W WEAR t WIFE I'V.LIAH W WEAR 2160 WAYZATA BLVD R306 LONG LAKE HN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 39-118-23 21 0021 02102 SUGARWOOD DR REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55916 REPORT NO. P14SS401 PAGE II 38 39-118-23 21 0022 02109 SUGARWOOD DR REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55916 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 39-118-23 21 0023 02106 SUGARWOOD DR R H SCHOHMER SEN SCHOMMER R M SCHOMMER « E M SCHOMMER 2106 SUGARWOOD OR LONG LAKE MN . 55356 38 39-118-23 21 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55916 38 39-118-23 21 0030 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLS MN 55916 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 39-118-23 21 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 39-118-23 22 0017 02251 PINE RIDGE LA C f L OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN P 0 BOX 299 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 39-118-23 29 0001 02120 WAYZATA BLVD W WILLIAM WEAR ETAL WILLIAM W WEAR 36 HACKBERRY HILL LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 39-118-23 21 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SIDNEY B t BARBARA REBERS SIDNEY B t BARBARA REBERS 3525 WEBSTER AVE ST LOUIS PARK HN 55916 38 39-118-23 22 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 39-118-23 29 0058 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED SIDNEY B < BARBARA REBERS SIDNEY B < BARBARA REBERS 3525 WEBSTER AVE ST LOUIS PARK MN 55916 38 39-118-23 22 0015 00038 ADDRESS PENDING CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD C LOUISE OTTEN BOX 299 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 39-118-23 22 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNEl CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN BOX 299 LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 39-118-23 23 0009 00520 BRIMHALL AVE JAW PROPERTIES INC JAW PROPERTIES INC P 0 BOX 703 BRAINERD MN 56901 U 01 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 72 39-118-23 23 0023 02225 WAYZATA BLVD W PERRY'S VENTURES INC PERRY'S VENTURES INC 2205 W WAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 39-118-23 23 0053 02205 WAYZATA BLVD W PERRY'S VENTURES INC PERRY'S VENTURES INC 2205 WAYZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 39-118-23 29 0002 02073 WAYZATA BLVD W GREGORY H SHAUGHNESSY LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC 2073 W WAYZATA BLVD P O BOX 697 LONG LAKE MN 55356 V I fh>y If*?*- i'®2“•■St tnu 0*|ls • >. 2 ® *• \-ll^ St^sl VL FD. MnDC 0.18 MfS Idul «/>o 1 fcfa 7> It It t s OHIO tonvHS rr p I'/**' f 5i7G^i? r002?S 2JVD ADDI^ y EXISTING BUILDING .■• \ I K*!• ^V.,'*.‘ . t.:”* . f. • 1020--^'^'' residential property '' / / •t f ' ' 'i* ’ \ • • iVJr/j; -I i‘ ■ -‘-r ' •.v#t >1' / \ Y ./ \»** I * 1' •'■•’'v/ •:✓ . __ ‘ • •: \ \-.- . V;'.ViV;V /s 87'’41'0 ___-153.42- \ \ I ••.>.•-.V ’.*••■ \ .A •■ - ‘ K - *• / / / l’ • ’“Aj V 'FOUND JLM SET PER TORRENS CASE NO. 17100 (DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION) % • * ( f « I PROPOSED 5 ' LOT 1, BLOpK 1 ^ ^ ARTA = 41,612! so. fT. 3 ) \ \ FD. MnDOT R/WJ\ imu p*iinQ .frs X WI0.5 y JCO> MON. B5109 '^"HIGHWAY R/W—.^ FD. MnDOT R/W MON. B5229 0.18 WEST OF COMPUTED POSITION—' S^y CORNER OF:^ OUTIOT E-----' ^ » / /' * / /\ \ 'iS h-----5C>±-\-L^ ) PARCEL J42A -A‘o MnDOT R/W PLAT NO. 27-70 , ^..MnDOT R/W MON. BJO Y//////.' / _Sf CORNER OF 7/77Z7.T7 / / 1 \ 4 P\o •• $^% t % • m / '/ EXISTING / / BUILDING / 4 / / / / / /EXISTING .4^UILDINC / i^UTlOT E Wn.OY > •X- i"*» o Ci 1*1 1*1 MnDOT R/W MON. BX 4^/ ......................."NO, <^TR c /4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _8 9 72 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS U SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2190 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - FILE NO. 2212 WHEREAS, Sidney and Barbara Rebers (hereinafter the "Applicants") on February 19, 1997, filed a formal subdivision application with the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") for approval of a replat of property legally described as: Outlot E, Sugar Woods, except that part shown as Parcel 342A on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat No. 27-70, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the Propert>’"); and WHEREAS, this replat is proposed for the purpose of converting said Outlot E to buildable lot status in order that the Propert>' may be developed, as required by the City as a condition of the plat of Sugar Woods; and WHEREAS, after duly published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 17, 1997, at which time ail persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting held on April 14, 1997, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the Applicant and made the following findings of fact: 1. 3. The property is located within the B-1 Retail Sales Business Zomng District requiring a minimum lot area of 20,000 s.f. and a minimum lot width of 100. The property contains a total area of 41,612 s.f. and has a defined width of approximately 146'. The proposed plat consists of one commercial lot meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the B-1 Zoning District. Page 1 of 9 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 9 72_____ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The propert>' is served by municipal sewer and water. The property abuts U.S. Highway 12 as well as Outlet D, Sugar Woods, a segment of a proposed future frontage road corridor platted within Sugar Woods. In 1987 the City adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 which planned for the future development of a frontage road between Brown Road and Willow Drive, paralleling Highway 12. In 1987 it was anticipated that traffic on Highway 12 would continue to increase as a result of the upcoming completion of Interstate Highway 394. The purpose of this planned frontage road was to reduce and/or eliminate access directly to and from Highway 12, generally for safety and traffic flow reasons. Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 specifically addressed road improvements needed prior to development of the commercial corridor as follows: "Prior to the development of the commercial portion of this property, the e.Kisting intersection at Brown Road and Highway 12 shall be improved so that safety concerns associated with the current use and future increased use of this intersection are addressed. Configuration of the frontage road and North Brown Road would be determined at the time of development." Orono's 1994-95 reconstruction of Brown Road alleviated alignment concerns with the 12/Brovvn intersection, and Mn/DOTs 1995-96 safety improvements on Highway 12 similarly alleviated a number of safety concerns. The plat of Sugar Woods, completed in July 1989, included nvo commercially zoned parcels (Outlets E and F) abutting Hi^way 12. These two parcels were platted as outlets, rather than as buildable lots, because the Applicant at that time wished to delay decisions regarding future access to the commercial property until such time that it was developed. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to the comprehensive plan by creating Outlet D, a short segment of the proposed future east/west frontage road. • Outlet D, however, only provides a corridor from the west boundary of Sugar Woods to Page 2 of 9 i _j CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. >^9 72 9. 10. 11. the northwest comer of Outlot F. The City's intent in approving the plat of Sugar Woods was that at some future time when Outlot F is developed, the remaining frontage road segment eastward to Brown Road would be defined and platted. On December 12, 1988, the Orono City Council adopted Resolution No. 2554 granting preliminary plat approval, conditional use permit and variances for the plat of SUGAR WOODS. Page 8, paragraph 4.E stated that the subdivider’s agreement should; "Clarify that Outlot D (portion of future east/west road) is to be fully developed at the time of future development of the commercial corridor. The access road will be fully installed at the time cf either the applicant's development of the commercial corridor or as a result of any other condition that may require the installation of the road prior to aipplicant's development of the commercial corridor." The foregoing language was not put in the subdivider's agreement, but it was put in the resolution granting final plat approval. On July 10, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No.2653 approving the final plat of SUGAR WOODS. Page 4, paragraph 4 stated; "4. Outlot D, a portion of future east/west road located within the commercial zoned portion of the property, shall be installed at the tune of the development of Outlots E or F or the development of the Wear property (unless the City has obtained an alternate legal access through Outlot E to the Wear property all subject to the approval of the City)." Pursuant to the terms of the preliminary plat resolution and final plat resolution, on September 8, 1989, Rebers Construction Co. and Sidney and Barbara Rebers granted public roadway easements over Outlot D to the City of Orono. Said easements were filed with the Hennepin County registrar of Titles as Document Nos. 2038791 and 2038792. Page 3 of 9 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 72_____ 12. Thereafter, the Orono Building & Zoning Administrator and City Attorney objected to cert^ terms of said easements; said easements were renegotiated between the City and the Applicants; and a replacement public road easement over Outlot D was granted to and accepted by the City subject to the following: "1. No road shall be installed by Grantee until a building permit has been issued for construction of a commercial building on Outlot E, SUGAR WOODS (in which case the road may extend no further east than the Northerly extension of the East boundary of Outlot E) or on Outlot F, SUGAR W’OODS (in which case the road may extend the full length of Outlot D). "2. The south edge of any road built by grantee shall be no further North than the South boundary of Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS. "3. If and when a frontage road or service road is built connecting Outlets E and F, SUGAR WOODS, across land South of Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS, or an casement for such a road is dedicated, granted or condemned, this easement shall automatically expire." (Quit Claim Deed dated May 30, 1990, recorded June 25, 1990 as Registrar of Titles Document No. 2105974.) 13. It appears that Interstate Highway 394 will not be extended along the current corridor of U.S. Highway 12; it appears that a bypass route will be extended from the current freeway terminus near the easterly boundary of Orono to the intersection of Highway 12 and County Road 6. When this bypass is operational, traffic on Highway 12 adjacent to the Property will decline. However, the resultant traffic volumes on Highway 12 adjacent to the property at that time are anticipated by the City to be at a level that would generally indicate the need for a limited access highway. Page 4 of 9 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 7 2 14. The Council finds that although the ultimate access for the Property should be via a frontage road, the form of future development of the adjoining and nearby properties should be taken into account at the time the frontage road is developed. Such future development has not been determined, but it will influence if, how, where and when the frontage road is constructed. Therefore, the Council chooses not to install the Highway 12 frontage road through Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS, at this time, whether or not Outlot E is developed with a commercial building, without waiving its right to require or order such installation in the future. 15. The Council Ends that suitable interim access to Outlot E from Highway 12 may be possible using the Mn/DOT right-of way directly west of Outlot E, which would allow an access to be constructed opposite Brimhall Avenue. Such an access location affords an opportunity for shared access to serve the adjacent property in the plat of East Willow Woods. 16. Outlot D, Sugar Woods, is intended to serv'e as a trail corridor as well as a frontage road corridor, and therefore requires a continuous width of 60’ in order to accomodate both uses. Outlot D currently is 60' in widUi at the west end but tapers to a width of 40' at its east end. Additional right-of-way is needed by the City via creation of an additional Outlot and granting of drainage, utility, road and trail easements in order that the 60’ corridor be provided. 17. The City Engineer has additionally recommended that a 5' drainage and utility easement be granted along the south side of the added right-of-way outlot, within proposed Lot 1. 18. The easement granting the City rights to develop a frontage road in Outlot D does not grant an easement for drainage or utilities purposes, which is necessary in order for the City to use it for the intended purpose. 19. Proposed Lot 1 is subject to the Park Dedication requirements of Municipal Code Section 11.62. Page 5 of 9 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. . 3 a 7.2____ 20. An y development proposed within proposed Lot 1 will be subject to a commercial site plan review process before the Planning Commission and City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the prel iminary plat application of Sidney and Barbara Rebers p>er plat drawings by Wayne D. Cordes, a licensed surveyor employed by BRW, Inc. dated March 4, 1997, for the conversion of the Property into Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot A, SUGAR WOODS 2ND ADDITION, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Lot 1 shall be allowed direct access to U.S. Highway 12 only if the applicants are successful in relocating their existing access to Highw'ay 12, by obtaining an access permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) permitting access over the triangular parcel of land owned by MnDOT across from the intersection of Biimhall Avenue and Highway 12. Any direct access to Highway 12 which is not directly opposite Brimhall Avenue will not be allowed. The right-in/right-out access of Lot 1 to Highway 12 at Brinhall Avenue is approved on a permanent basis. The left-in/left-out access of Lot 1 to Highway 12 at Brimhall Avenue is approved on an interim basis. At such time as a frontage road is installed to provide alternative access to Lot 1, the City shall have the right to terminate the right-in/right-out access at Brimhall Avenue upon payment of just compensation and the right to terminate the left-in/left-out access at Brimhall Avenue without payment of any compensation; provided that Lot Ts access to Highway 12 will not be terminated unless the Highway 12 accesses of the other parcels served by the frontage road are similarly terminated. The City reserves the right to control access to Lot 1 from the Wear property directly east of of Lot 1 in the commercial site plan review process. Applicant Page 6 of9 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 7 2____ 7. shall, if found necessary by the City, place barriers to prohibit access from the Wear property. 4. Lot 1 shall bear the total reasonable costs of constructing the portion of the frontage road directly adjacent to Lot 1. If the frontage road is built, the owner of Lot 1 reserves the right to contest the necessity and feasibility of the frontage road improvement. The Council will require at the time of final platting security in the form of a cash escrow, letter of credit or other form of security acceptable to the City. 5. Applicant shall grant the City a drainage, utility and trail easement over Outlot D. 6. A triangular segment of right-of-way shall be platted as Outlot A, SUGAR WOODS 2ND ADDITION, per Exhibit A attached, and applicant shall grant to the City road, trail, drainage and utilities easements over said Outlot A. Applicants shall proride confirmation that the existing stormwater pond is viable to serv'e Lot 1, or shall provide a new comprehensive stormwater plan for Lot 1 and Outlot F, SUGAR WOODS, subject to approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer. 8. Applicants are hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval, on October 13, 1998. Should Applicants fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within Ac one year deadline, it shall be necessary for applicant to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows; 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the Page 7 of 9 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 7 2 City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary sur\'ey by Wayne D. Cordes dated March 4, 1997. B. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10’ wide along the exterior boundaries of the Property. C. Designation of Outlot A per Exhibit A attached, to serve as an expansion of the frontage road corridor. 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City. B. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. C. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the Property. 3.Signed and executed road, trail, utility and drainage easement over Outlot A, SUGAR WOODS 2ND ADDITION. 4. Signed and executed trail, drainage and utility easement over Outlot D, SUGAR WOODS. 5. Fees to be paid: Total due: $ 200.00* A. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents = $200.00 Page 8 of 9 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 9 72 B. *Park dedication fee, the amount of which shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The applicant shall be advised as soon as Assessor's report has been filed \\i^ City. Park dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of land within Lc» 1. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at its regular meeting held this 13th day of October, 1997. •ordthy M. HaMun, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Gabriels^abbour, Mayor\\ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this d&y of Q!3q^199^, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. notaw 'publi^wnnesow Page 9 of 9 ^dM lEON>,RD,^STREET & DEINARI) • • x-'c: % \ oo'oy / |[i '.n \ ITH:J) 4.24*97 14:44/5J. l4:27.-Np.,42604SS935 | :; ■< . -I EXHIBIT .:r S9T2. ^v- % • l\\ '-‘V3ifv omh'yd snoNinniia^^^ t. V V N \ \ ' • V V ^ '*• \’X*' sjsaooM iwons- tadinsnssvj Mnan w lovNl^a^- d3mrav . y3nv c73ho7c/—-^ ^ * Zioi • — 'n V3dv omavd sn0N,rm M „00,6kZ0 S p-£9 'S6S-— 996-nr^ HlhJON ^ ivld * “ T^VlrTS )= CITY of ORONO Municipal ORlces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 November 7,1997 Sidney & Barbara Rebers 6916 Dakota Trail Edina, MN 55439 Re: Subdivision Application #2212 - Park Dedication Fee Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rebers: The City Assessor has placed a Fair Market Value of $3.05/s.f. on Lot 1, Block 1, Sugar Woods Second Addition for park fee calculation purposes. The area of Lot 1, Block 1 is approximately 41,072 s.f. by my caloilation (41,612 sf - 540 sf for Outlot A=41,072 sf)- The Fair Market Value is therefore 41,072 sf x $3.05 = $125,270. The 8% park fee per City Code Section 11.62 Subd. 3B is calculated as .08 x$ 125,270= $10,021. This amount will be due prior to final plat approval. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Senior Planning Coordinator end. cc: Steve Pflaum Telephone (612) 47^-7357 • FAX 473-0510 0^0 CITYof ORONO Municipal OfSccs PostOflkcBox66 Crystal Bay, MinnesoU 55323-0066 FROM DATE Orono Zoning Department Rolf Erickson, City Assessor \i-H -HI RE: Park dedication fee of: 3/j Rebg.r.sr v/*i^iov\ 3*j-/f8-2?-2-l-<?032.__________ / C e 1 ^ I 4*^ ____ 0!1 I ^ % o % % ^IGIZ @ $3.OS $ ^jZCfloo. TELEPHONE-473-7357 • F/VX-473-0510 . j-04-1997 10:58 BRU; HRE BRW INC PUfiAiag Tran«pvftitkm UrbftA TOOTNrdSmcSo. Klififwapu1is« MNSS415 6U/370.07C0 Fh612/371H37B OtAVtr Milwiuktt MlnMipolin Newark OrliAda rhoavix PoftUn^ Son Diego 612 370 1378 P.02/02 Temorandtim D.A.TE:August 4,1997 TO:Mr. Sieve Pflaum LEONARD, STREET & DEINARD 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 By FAX 335-1657 FROM: Wayne D. Cordes, LS SUBJECT: Relocated Access Driveway — “SUGAR WOODS 2ND “ Orono, Minnesota As a follov^r-up to our phone conversation today. I have received confirmation from Bill Warden, Mn/DOT Permits Section ( 582-1443 ) that they will approve a new point of access to the Rebers parcel. The new access will be at the intersection of Hwy. 12 and Brimhal l Avenue. A full turning movement access is proposed with Mn^OT suggesting a possible right turn lane , adjoining the Rebers parcel , to be constructed along the westbound Hwy. 12 to provide improved traffic movement. Mn/DOT will not issue a permit for construction until complete coristruction plans are reviewed and approved. You should expect a minimum 30 day review and a construction bond will be required before construction is allowed for the new driveway. Relating to the City condition of approval for the relocated driveway, Mr. Warden suggested that Ron Moorse at the City call him to confirm »he approval. I have called Mr. Moorse to inform him of the approved access, and that he should call Mr. Warden to confirm the issue. This is the extent of the approvals that we will get from Mn/DOT without complete construction plans. Mrr/DOT will issue a addendum to the plat review letter, outlining the proposed access driveway requirements to be incorporated into final plans. Please advise as to the schedule for completion of the final plat and or the sale of the property . Call me with any questions, my direct ph. # 373-6403 . TOTftL P.02 ran MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#6 - #2214 Richard Kozicky - Continued) The applicant asked for a recommendation regarding the driveway configuration. Gappa said he would assist the applicant with making that determination. Lindquist asked the applicant to work with Staff regarding changes to the proposal from the input given at the meeting. Mrs. Kozicky said she understood the Commission to recommend less structure as being more desirable than less hardcover. Commissioners agreed. McMillan suggested tradeofls be considered. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2214 to the April meeting. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) 7:30 P.M. - #2212 SIDNEY AND BARBARA REBERS, 2080/2190 WAYZATA BL\T). - PRELIMIN ARY SUBDIVISION, CLASS m - 7:42-8:57 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is a request to convert Outlot E, Sugar Woods, to buildable lot status to enable development of the property' for commercial use. Outlots E and F were created when Sugar Woods was platted. The intention was to eliminate the need to detail the development of the primarily commercially zoned property until a future date. Outlot E is zoned B-1 (see rezoning. Agenda Item #3). The 1987 Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 included the future development of a frontage road between Brown Road and Willow Drive, paralleling Highway 12, to eliminate direct access to Hwy 12. Outlots E and F in the 1989 plat of Sugar Woods need to be converted for this to occur. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to the comprehensive plan by the creation of Outlot D, a short segment of the future east/west frontage road corridor. This only provides a corridor from the west boundary of Sugar Woods to the northwest comer of Outlot F. Outlot F would continue the corridor when developed. Outlot C of East Willow Woods was then created providing a corridor connecting the west side of Sugar Woods westward to Willow Drive. The corridor was platted and the City has an easement over it. The issue of converting the subject property to buildable status relates to the access issue and is identified as follows: 1) Should Outlot E be allowed to develop with its only access directly to Highway 12? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#2 - #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Continued) 2) How do the 1995-96 safety improvements to Hwy 12 impact access to Outlot E? Is a shared access with adjacent Wear property necessary? Stoddard was informed that there would be no effect on the Wear property’s gas pump access as there is a third access. However, this does not solve the access issue for the east boundary property as it would require making U-tums which is not deemed desirable by the City. 3) Will the expected future relocation of Hwy 12 in the nexn 5-10 years effectively reduce the amount of traffic on exist mg Hwy 12 to eliminate the need for a frontage road? 4) If the traffic levels are not reduced, should the conversion of Outlot E to buildable status be the trigger for construction of the frontage road? Gaffion cited the potential traffic volume impacts of the Highway 12 relocation. It was noted that Mn/DOT projects through traffic will use the new bypass and the traffic on the current corridor wili decline. The current Hwy 12 traffic through Long Lake is 23,000 cars per day. Under the "no build" option, the traffic would increase to 25,000 by 2015 with a three-fold increase on CoRd 6. Under the "Alternate 6 North plan, 12 traffic is expected to decline to 14,600 cars by the year 2015. This traffic level is still significant considering a daily traffic volume above 10,000 cars generally requires a limited access 4- lane roadway with service roads. Hwy 12 is projected to rema'm two lanes onl>. The Hwy 12 safety improvement plans included medians and turn lanes which preclude direct access to the applicant's parcel by eastbound traffic unless through the easterly Orono Shopping Center access. The City feels it would not be appropriate to allow Outlot E's traffic to use that access. An anticipated future curb cut for Outlot E would be a right-in/right-out access and would necessitate U-turns for eastbound traffic which the City deems inappropriate. Gaffion said the City does not beUeve modifications will be made to the median in the future to provide eastbound ingress/egress directly to Outlot E. Gaffion reported that the City's preference for a frontage road would reduce/eliminate direct access to Hwy 12 and bring the traffic to a semaphored intersection at either Brown Road or Willow Drive. The preliminary plat of Sugar Woods was conditioned on the frontage road being fully installed at the time of either the applicant’s development of the commercial corridor or as a result of other conditions requiring the installation of the road prior to the development of the commercial corridor. The conditions of the Sugar Woods plat approval resolution indicate that mstallation of a road segment in Outlot D must be concurrent with development of Outlot E. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMI^USSION meeting held on march 17, 1997 (#2 - #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Continued) GaSron indicated that the City was granted road and utility easements over the East Willow Woods and Sugar Woods frontage road segments when platted but ovvnership o the outlots remains with the respective developers. The specific conditions of the easements allowing the Chy the right to build the road withm Outlots C and D are limited. The Otten easement states that no road shall be constructed until the following occurs; 1) The owner of Outlot C, East Willow Woods, requests it to be built; or 2) Until an east/west frontage road is constructed from Willow Drive to Bro^ Road with southerly extensions from Sugar Woods to Hwy 12 and another Immg up with Brimhall Lane, or 3) Upon rezoning of the two residential properties north of East Willow Woods to commercial; or 4) Upon development of Otten's easterly parcel as a separate entity from the currently developed westerly parcel, unless the City detet^es that no access require for the easterly parcel. A right-in access currently exists from W illow Dnve to the Otten property. Ga»on further explained the limitations of the Cit/s Sugar Woods easement in relation to occurrences on the outlots The development over Outlot E allows the constmction of a 150’ segment of frontage road adjacent to Outlot E. The easement over Otten s Outlot C precludes the segment of road until the entire frontage road is budt from Brora to Willow. Gaf&on questioned whether a 150' segment of frontage road would be desirable. The access impact on business development of Outlot E will likely determine how the buildings will be oriented. As a result, the developer wll need to taow frontage toad will occur. If that is unknown, the buddings would ikely be onented to the south It was noted that since a semaphore currently exists at Willow, it would be appropriate from a traffic flow standpomt to develop the service road »es‘rard from Outlot E to Willow Drive prior to the development on Outlot E to elimmate the U-turn problem. Gaffron indicated that additional items to consider include a trail corridor. sidewalk pathway on the north side of Hwy 12 is not the trail that was envisioned for area. To maintain 60 ’ of roadway to allow a trail to be constructed additional triangle of right-of-way to be platted at this time with easements granted. Gaffron noted the City Engineer has requested drainage and utibty easements be granted over Outlot D since this did not occur when Outlot D was platted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#2 - ^2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Continued) Gaffron informed the Planning Commissioners that Staff recommends approval of the conversion of Outlot E to buildable lot status under conditions 1-5 as noted in the Staff memo. The applicant's representative, Steve Pflam related the history behind the subject property as it relates to development of Sugar Woods and Highway 12. He indicated that the service road has been opposed to by the property owners. This opposition is indicated by the number of conditions placed upon the outlots and their future development. ■ Pflam indicated the property owner, Mr. Sid Rebers, has a potential buyer of the property who would like to maintain the existing access Rebers does not want to pay for the frontage road. Pflam said Rebers believes he has legal access to Hwy 12 which would not preclude the City from building the service road or eliminating access to either. Pflam said the issue is one of restricting property by the placement of conditions relating to a frontage road. He also believes the property owner should not be assessed for the frontage road as it would be a public road connecting to other public roads. Pflam believes the purpose for the frontage road is eliminated by the relocation of Hwy 12. Pflam does not believe the lot status should be tied to the frontage road. Pflam said the issue of the median can be addressed by addressing the triangular piece of land owned by Mn/DOT and allowing access from Brimhall Lane to Hwy 12. Lindquist inquired about the curb cut from Hwy 12 into the property. Gaffron said the Hwy 12 improvement plan notes the 1979 curb cut but does not define the location of the curb cut. Mr. Rebers said the original curb cut included a cut to Outlot F, originally for access to a residential property owned by Hazel Meyers and was moved to Outlot E. He indicated there is still a curb cut to Brown Road but an increase to the size of the holding pond would restrict the curb cut. Rebers said he had planted a buffer of trees between the residential and commercial areas, and the frontage road would be forced to run along the yards of the homes in Sugar Woods. He reported having had many offers to purchase the property but has waited to sell until receiving an offer from a compatible use like the bank to protect the sensitivity of the area. Rebers noted the service road by the Otten property nearly touches Dickey Lane to the north. Rebers indicated the highway department has said no more improvements would occur on Brown Road in regards to a stoplight and indicated U-tums are legal if no postings are made. Rebers said he does not wish access to enter his property from the Wear property. During public comments, Cliff Otten indicated he did not want a service road. He noted the service road was considered due to the future development of Hwy 12. He had requested the road be placed to the rear of his property but he feels this was a mistake as he subsequently lost 30' to the Hwy 12 safety improvements. Otten said he does not believe the need for the service road exists any ’onger. NUNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#2 - #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Continued) Pflam asked the City to wait for development of Outlot F to occur. He noted the ideal use of that property would be a single office building which is being considered. He said access for such a building could come from BroNvm Road v-ith a cul-de-sac to the building. The easement would still e.xist if a future need was determined. CouncU Member Flint questioned where the trail would be placed if the road was not built. Otten did not see the need for the trail with the existing sidewalk. Flmt reiterated the sidewalk was a temporar>' solution and did not have the required traU width. Pflam was of the opinion that the trail could be buUt by Hwy 12. Stoddard asked what the City’s intention was for building the frontage road. Gaffron said the Comprehensive Plan called for the road as a parallel corridor to Hwy 12 m response to the increasing traffic load and to eliminate direct access onto Hwy 12. Gaffron said ffie traffic will continue to increase forcing U-tums to occur which is not desired by the City. He noted the existing problems with access on and off Hwy 12. Gaffron said it may be reasonable to construct the frontage road from Willow Drive to the outlot noting there will be financial and easement limitations. McMillan inquired if the applicant envisioned two accesses to Outlot F from Hv^ 12 and Brown Road. Pflam said both accesses were possibilities and two separate legal accesses exist, one at 2160 Wayzata Blvd. and one along Hwy 12. Lindquist read a letter into the minutes from the City Engineer indicating the need for roadway and utility easements. The City Engineer noted the existing plans for the east- west frontage road and indicated development should be tied into the plans. Rebers said he is concerned with the location of a service road near the residential lots and impacts on safety. Sn ath inquired if there was the ability to make additional changes to Hvtq-12 as >< today for a front access. Gaffron said no. He indicated the lack of a defined toad comdor through Outlot F leaves the possibUity to develop where desired type of buyers that would benefit the property. Gaffron said it is Nln/DOT s mtention wate a right-in. right-out access for Outlot E with no changes to the medians or a service road. TheVestio^s whether development of Outlot E should occur prior to the service road being built. McMillan questioned whether there was a possibility for a spur road ali^ng with Brimhall Lane to Hv,y 12 without a left turn lane. Gaffron said the road was weened a that point which would allow the possibility of a left turn lane. McMillan was of the opmion that this would be a good alternative. She would like the service road to be platted in case use intensifies in the future. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 (#2 - #2212 Sidney and Barbara Rebers - Continued) Berg asked the size of Outlet F and its intended use. Rebers said the property was 6.6 acres. When questioned whether he would focus on a use that would generate low traffic. Rebers said he envisions an additional perimeter buffer to save trees and impose a buUding setback larger than the 30’ setback allowed. His intent is not to maximize the use of the land. Stoddard was informed of the number of U-tum areas along Hwy 12. The Planning Commission discussed the number cf options relating to right-in, right-out access U-rums. access from Brovin Road, and triggers for future development. Gaffron inquir^ if the development of Outlet E should be the trigger as noted in the conditions of Sugar Woods or if the Commission was satisfied with Outlet F being the trigger. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2212 with approval for a right-in, right-out curb cut subject to applicant being required to pay for any future road or bike traU on the north side of said lot. Lot 1 would be subject to utility and drainage easements continumg along Outlet D and subject to any future development between Willow Drive and Brown Road along the Hwy 12 corridor. The applicant would be bound by the City's requirements for road access. The right-in, right-out access would be eliminated w'hen the frontage road is built. McMillan questioned whether the motion was too restrictive and if the option of aligning with Brimhall could be reviewed to allow for total crossing of Hwy 12, which would benefit safety. Stoddard did not recommend amending the motion but said applicant could discuss the possibiUty with Mn/DOT. Pflam said the applicant was negotiating with Mn/DOT regarding the pond and could consider the Brimhall option. Cliff Otten said he would offer his support of the Brimhall option. Smith inquired if a shared curb cut could occur with a bank and the Wear property. Gaffron said Wear would have to be consulted, and there were possible safety concerns. • Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) 7:45 P.M. - #2224 CITY OF ORONO, 2080/2160/2190 WAYZATA BLVD. - REZONING - 8:58-9:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. n (#5 - #2204 Fullerton - Continued) Jabbour moved, Kelley Vote- Aves3 Nays 1. Goetten Goetten’s vote was made for reasons stated She Ipportrf .he'appr.ca.ion but recommends the Park Dedicat.on fee be resolved poor to any approval of the application. Wmston felt the case should be reviewed ad hoc. case by case. Radio indicated while the - .rtainty. He also noted that the Executive Session is only being held because threat of litigation from this application. (M) #2212 SIDNEY & BARBARA ''oLUiroN^TOPRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION .APPROVAL - RESOLUTION NO. 3880 The applicant was present along with attorney, Steve Pflam Gaffron reported that the application is for pr^minaty' Outlot E Suoar Woods, to buildable status. The outlet was created from a parcel ofland remaining from the Sugar Woods plat for otoa Outlots E and F, which is the Orono Shopping Center. At the time of the comprehensive plan amendment included a frontage road to seM Projected “mmeru^ development. The Sugar Woods plat conformed to that amendment with the creahon of Outlot D This outlot only provides a corridor from the west boundary o ug^ o to the northwest comer of Outlot F. The intent was that at some future time when oudot F is developed, the remaining frontage road segment eastward to Brorvn defined and^platted. Outlot D was platted because the C«y "«ded traverse thenar property located between Outlots E and F. ^ of Eas^^Wdlow Woods was platted, providing a corridor connecting from Outlot E of Sugar W oods. westward to Willow Drive for future frontage road. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRU. 14,1997 (#6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Gaffi-on indicated that access is the primary issue with the conversion of this outlot to buildable lot status. Outlot E meets the minimum lot area and width standards for a building site in the B-l District, and the only variances which may be necessary- for its development would be related to specific building and site layout issues. A 70’ wide curb cut for a right-in, right-out ingress/egress resulted from the satety improvements for Highway 12. These improvements did allow for a future curb cut but with a median across it. Gaffron noted that the comprehensive plan limits access to Highway 12. Although the "Alternative 6 North" proposal for the Highway 12 corridor would move substantial traffic offof Hwy 12, the current Hwy 12 would continue to have a high traffic count. The projected count would still warrant a limited access roadway with service roads for access to adjacent properties. The Planning Commission had discussed the access issues as outlined in the 4/2/97 memo on page 2 relating to traffic on Ib.vy 12, safety improvement impacts on access to Outlot E, shared access, and factors that would trigger construction of the frontage road. The plan called for a road within Outlot D to be developed at the time of development of Outlot E or F for a fully completed frontage road. The City has easements over Outlots C and D to Willow Drive. The existing drainage pond was developed as part of Sugar Woods. The City would require confirmation that the pond would be able to handle the additional drainage from development of Outlot E. Gaffron stated the Staff'recommendation differs from the Planning Commission review outcome. The Commission recommended unanimous approval of the prelimnary subdivision and change in outlot to buildable status with a temporary right-in, right-out access subject to future construction of a frontage road. Other conditions are noted on page 7 of the 4/10/97 memo. The Commission suggested the applicant investigate the possibility of a shared curb cut with the Wear property and the possibility of creating an access across from Brimhall Avenue which would seive both Outlot E and the East Willow Woods future development. Gaffron said the Staff recommendation would follow the comprehensive plan and would not allow this development to occur until the frontage road is in place. Staff recommendation includes seven conditions as noted on page 6 of the 4/10/97 memo. Steve Pflam relayed the history of the property owned by Rebers. At the time the outlot was so designated, the City and applicant disagreed about the need for a frontage road. This and several other lots were platted separately so there would not be the need to obtain right-of-way from Sugar Woods development for the future frontage road. The future frontage road was not extended eastward as it was felt it could be dealt with when Outlot F and the lot to west of the Rebers property were developed. W^en Otten's property was developed, a piece of land was obtained for the future frontage road. A right-of-way was granted with restrictions. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT^ COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Pflam said the applicant’s major objection to the frontage road is the property is zoned commercial and already has legal access to H^vy 12. The applicant does not currently have plans for Outlot F and would agree to revisit the frontage road issue when that property is developed. Pflam said the applicant is seeking a buyer who w'ould use the entire property rather than subdivide it into smaller lots. Pflam said the service road is laid out for use by a large number of businesses and, as such, would not be needed if only one business was developed on Outlot F. Pflam asked for approval of the outlot to buildable lot status. The applicant does not want to reorient the lot to the rear and lose Hwy 12 access. Pflar. said he felt the City does not have the resources to fund the service road. Pflam said the comprehensive plan has been affected dramatically by the relocation proposal of Hwy 12 Pflam indicated it was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting for a nght turn n and out with a median. Commissioners raised the question ' west to line up wntl Brimhall. Pflam said he discussed this possibility with Mn/DOT, who owns the triangular piece of property. The applicant has applied for a permit for such an access. Pham indicated the median is wide enough to support a stacking lane if needed Pflam said this access could be used by the Rebers and Otten properties. Pflam asked for approval of the replat to a buildable lot without loss of access to Hwy 12. He said the applicant is prepared to meet all conditions including the oO wide right- of-way for a flituie road or trail. Cliff Otten said he agrees with the plan as presented by Pflam for access. He said he does not see any need for a service road. Otten and Rebers imbrmed Jabbour that they were planning their properties in light of the Alternate 6 proposal for Hwy 12. Kelley asked for clarification on the covenants on the property if an easernent was granted. Gaffron reviewed the easement limitations as noted on page 4 of the 4/10/97 memo. Goetten noted she agreed with Staff regarding the service road the City can legally enforce it with the pre-existing conditions. Radio said he thought it would be difficult for the City to require construction of the service road. Kellev asked if the applicant would be willing to combine access for the bank property (Outlot E) with the Wear property. Pflam said he would be willing to discuss this possibility with Staff and Planning Commission. Kelley was concerned that people wou drive through the Wear lot to the bank property. Pflam said a barrier could be built. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO C1T\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 {U6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Kelley asked Otten if he would be w illing to vacate his existing easternmost access if a shared access from Brimhall was approved. Otten noted that he currently has two access points on Hwy 12. one right-in only and one right-in, right-out. Kelley asked that the access currently used for nursery stock be eliminated. Otten said he would consider it. Otten noted that a joint access w ould also become the new access to the City well. Moorse explained Staffs concern for access related to the development of the commercial properties. When looking at the issue from a long term standpoint, Moorse recommended that it would not be beneficial for all the traffic from this development to^ enter onto Hwy 12. The next development will set the tone for the remaining commercial ve.opment. WTiile understanding the parcel is small, it will orient all access onto Hwy 12. Jabbour agreed that Staffs recommendation made sense from a planning viewpoint but questioned whether it can legally be required. He indicated a future developer may not want ingress-egress onto Hwy 12 Goetten noted the access on Hwy 12 for the Rebers property would not eliminate the service road and could possibly be used by Outlot F in the future. Moor e asked Council to review the issue comprehensively noting if the property was developed to orient to Hwy 12 and away from the service road, it would affect any businesses be’mg oriented to a service road. Kelley agreed that the orientation of the businesses now would affect future business orientation for access He said he believed the second lot owmed by Otten will be sold in the future and Outlot F could be divided into several lots. Kelley also noted that the purpose of the service road was to move traffic away from Hwy 12 and indicated the proposed Alternate 6 could still change. Kelley said he would not recommend vacating. '■•e service road. If the Brimhall access was acquired, Kelley said he would request the cond curb cut for Orten’s property be eliminated. He also recommended the prop-. - obtained for the future service road to the north. Pflam indicated the Brimhall proposal for access originated with the Planning Commission and from the comprehensive plan itself. He said this access would not preclude the building of the frontage road in the future. He indicated the applicant would be willing to pay his share of the service road in the future. Pflam said the applicant will consider access from either Hwy ’ 12 or from Brimhall. Otten noted that the original concept for a service road did not place the location. He indicated he lost 30’ to Mn/DOT for Hwy 12 improvements and it represents the service road as it could have been located adjacent to Hwy 12 instead of to the north. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 14,1997 (#6 - #2212 Rebers - Continued) Jabbou’’ s<ud he recommends maintaining the casement for the service road. Peterson asked Radio if conditions can be placed on the application for elimination of Hwy 12 access if the Brimhall access was approved. Radio referred her to the Pla^g Commission condition #5 as noted on page 7 of the 4/10/97 memo indicating the right-in, right-out access to Hwy 12 is to be eliminated when the frontage road to the rear of Outlot E (Lot 1) is developed. Radio said the conditions also put the applicant on notice regarding orientation of the business. Pflam said he had no objection if the condition placed fijture owners on notice regarding access only via a frontage road, but objected to the condition being recorded due to potential marketability’ problems. Goetten questioned what would happen if a buyer was found for Outlot F. Pflam said the applicant would make another application to the City. He also m.dicated that a service road would be used by the public and felt the cost could not be assessed to property owners only. He also indicated a buyer for Outlot F may prefer a private driveway onto Brown Road. Pflam asked Staff to address in a memo how the frontage road would be laid out, assessed, and any conditions that would be required to be met. Jabbour asked Pflam if there was any objection to the Park Dedication fee. Pflam said no. Gaffron asked for discussion to clarify findings for redrafting of the resolution. Radio indicated a motion for conceptual approval or denial with findings could be made, with formal approval of a resolution at the next meeting. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision and conversion to buildable lot status as outlined in the discussion with use of Brimhall for access only and directed Staff to draft said resolution. Applicant was asked to work with Staff and a CouncU member on details. Radio inquired if a condition regarding orientation would be included. Council agreed to make the condition cited in the resolution. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour asked Staff to work with Otten regarding closure of 1]}S easternmost ^vvy 12 access and use of Brimhall for access. (Agenda Item #7 follows Item #14) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (Park Commission Report - Continued) Write reported that a property ov-ner on Stubbs Bay has indicated concern with a problem of public trespassing on their property located next to the public access. The owner would like to see their property restored and the public access more clearly identified. Jabbour informed White that he met with Park Commission Chair Wilson and another member of the Commission regarding the park dedication ordinance. The Council will be considering changes to the ordinance. PLANNING COMNnSSION COMMENTS No member of the Planning Commission was present. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADNHNISTRATOR’S REPORT r#4) #2212 SIDNEY REBERS, 2190 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - PRELLMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - RESOLUTION NO. 3972 Gaffron reported the application was before the Council for preliminary plat approval for conversion of Outlot E of Sugar Woods Plat to a buildable lot status. Conceptual approval was granted on April 14,1997. Changes have been made to the resolution per discussions with applicant's representatives. The revised resolution meets the approval of the applicant. Staff, and City and applicant attorneys. Staff recommends adoption of the preliminary plat approval resolution as presented. Bill Wear was present to ask questions. The applicant's attorney, Mr. Pflaum, was present. He said he supported the resolution as drafts *.I Bill Wear voiced concern with the future proposed frontage road to the rear of his property. He is concerned that the closure of his Hwy 12 access would result in one of his lots becoming landlocked. Wear asked the Council to initiate granting an easement to his property from the west in order to provide a future access for his middle parcel if the Hwy 12 accesses are eliiriinated. Gaffron said the easement suggested by Wear would need to extend across Lot 1 to the Wear property. NnNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#4 - #2212 Sidney Rebers - Continued) Wear said he had no intention to use the property at this time but wanted to piotect his interest in the property for the future if he ever decided to sell this particular lot. Wear said he presented Gaffiron with a copy of an adverse claim with Rebers agreeing to a 55' setback on the east side and 75' on the west side of Lot 1. Jabbour asked Barrett if the City was in the position to request an easement. Barrett indicated the City w’ould most likely provide access to eliminate landlocking property. Gaffron noted that the lot was an individual ta.K parcel. • Wear noted the change in access from Brimhall, which does not extend to his property, would result in the landlock of this parcel if the Hwy 12 access was eliminated in the future. He would like the City to provide a means of future access before the current access is closed off. Jabbour explained the City's position regarding commercial usage along the Highway 12 Corridor as noted in the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan was written with the possibility of the improvements along Hwy 12 being in the current corridor. He noted this has changed to the Alternate 12 location, and the existing highway will be used for local traffic. Based on this, the City would probably not aggressively pursue any change to access. Kelley said Wear's concern regarding the frontage road will most likely not occur. Wear said he would still like to protect himself from that possibility. Barrett indicated that access is currently provided so objection could only be taken if that access was eliminated. Wear responded that the portion of his property that would be taken for the frontage road is there if the City decides to construct it, and he would like to have the same consideration. Pflaum was asked to respond. Pflaum said the service road was a sensitive issue to all of the property owners along it noting Rebers also opposed the construction of the service road. He indicated it would also have an adverse effect on the residential properties. Pflaum indicated the agreement stated the frontage road could be constructed if the City' so deemed it and the cost would be shared. He noted that there w'ould be access to all the properties from the access provided by Rebers from Brown Road to Willow if Hwy 12 access was eliminated. This road would be developed if Rebers developed the property to the east, and the problem for Wear could be dealt with at that tune. He indicated he was not in favor of further burdening the Rebers property in providing an easement at this time. He had been unaware that the Wear property contained two parcels. Pflaum further elaborated that the Brimhall realignment was done at the request of the Council. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 - #2212 Sidney Rebers - Continued) Jabbour told Wear that his access would not be closed without providing an access elsewhere. Wear indicated that the easement would protect bo± himself and the City and should be done at this time. Jabbour asked Council to comment. Goetten said she did not believe the Council could ask the adjoining property owner to provide this easement. She supported the plan as proposed as there were no plans to close the Hwy i2 access. Kelley concurred with Goetten. Flint said he thought Wear was adequately protected as he currently has an access and it cannot be taken away from him. Barrett said an access cannot be eliminated causing a parcel io become landlocked without providing alternative access. Jabbour suggested Wear obtain a copy of the minutes of the meeting for his records. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3972 granting preliminary approval of a Class II subdivision for property located at 2190 Wayzata Boulevard. Flint asked for and received clarification of the location and purpose of Outlets A and D. Vote: Ayes 5; Nays 0. (*#5) #2286 STEVE WHITE, 4355 BAYSIDE ROAD - CLASS I SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 3973 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3973 approving a 2-lot metes and bounds Class I subdivision for Steve White at 4355 Bayside Road. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2287 TRACI AND BRADLEY PETERSON, 1770 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIA Cv'CES - RESOLUTION NO. 3974 Bradley Peterson was present. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator October 15,1998 #2426 George Stickney, having an interest in Lot 1, Block 1, Bill Kelley's Land on Willow Drive South (03 117 23 32 0006) Preliminary Plat-Class II Subdivision Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area:6 2/3 acres Application:The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6 2/3 acre parcel into two zoning lots. Lot 1 would be a 4.02 acre lot and Lot 2 would be a 2.57 acre lot. An existing shed is located on Lot 2. The application has been sent to appropriate agencies and City staff for review and comment. # 2426 Stickney. XXXX Willow Drive South PC-lO/19/98 page-1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200’50’30’50’ Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Lot Area Lot Width Lot 1 4.02 acres 302’ Lot 2 2.57 acres 201’ The proposed lots will meet the minimum lot width and lot area requirements. Suitable areas exist within the required setbacks for a building pad that will not result in any variances. ANALYSIS Septic Sites The septic reports for this preliminary plat have been received and are being reviewed by the On-Site Septic Systems Manager. There are issues with the proposed design due to a seasonally high water table. Steve Weckman is scheduled to meet with the applicant's septic system designer prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The proposed location of the septic systems will impact the driveway location and the proposed location of the building sites. Staff will provide an update at the Planning Commission meeting as to the field inspection of the septic sites. Access The preliminary plat does not indicate where the driveways would be located. The consultant engineer has indicated that any driveways should provide adequate sight lines to ingress/egress from Willow Drive. The applicant may want to consider one shared driveway for the proposed lots. The driveway(s) shall not have a slope greater than 10%. # 2-/26 Sli '''■‘ev. XXXX Willo PC-I0/19/9S page~-2 iouth Drainage City staff has received verbal comments from Jim Hafner, MCWD, that no stormwater ponding would be required. A drainage map, and grading/ erosion control plan will need to be provided before the final plat is submitted. Drainage easements shall be provided across all wetlands,ponds, and drainageways. Easements Utility easements shall be shown as 10' along the exterior lot lines and 5' on the internal lot lines. If a shared driveway is provided, an agreement regarding ownership and maintenance shall be provided. Park Dedication Fee The Park Commission recommended a park dedication fee in lieu of land. The proposed plat has been sent to the City Assessor for determination of the value. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To approve the Class II preliminary plat subdivision, subject to the On-Site Septic Systems Manager ap~-oval of the septic systems design. Attachments A B C D Application Plat Map Engineer's letter Preliminar)' Plat U 2426 Slickney. XXXX Willow Drive South PC-IO/19/98 page~5 Application § ^ Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siieaddress X//X dOilWc-J Property Identification Number (PID) O'? n'^ 'i.'i 37-q'j o j Please check one - Property 'Z abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application, f / /j-/) rgg U/^ APPLICANT Name ________o-v'o rgg ^ ^ -ri»c y- Address ^.r9o r.'Ai. Or City ______ ________Phone (home) ^'?S'-L'7sS Zip Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) . Name _________<\C oinoOC^ 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 / ^ Y.3 Acr<r Acres Dry Land O______ Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Lai Residential; no. of units __________ Other (specify)______ “Z 4c. S, r. PROPOSAL __________ Division for Tax Purposes __________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) ./ Subdivision fcr New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / / 'Z. Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Z.Units per Acres Afros' Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land X r,_____Residential __________Other (specify)__________ \D c\| MINIMUM M\TERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELLMLNARY APPLICATION 1. Pa>-ment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Prelinina.’y plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this plication, attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zonins Official's Signature __________ Dat e _____________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature ___________________________Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S3 50.00 y. Subdivision Application (Class I &. II) S350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application S375.00 + S25.00/lot (Class HI & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only S75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class 111, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees; _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;___ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;___ I9l4ls lin. ft. X .50 = $ lin. ft. X .50 »= $ _____ Request for City- to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sew er Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 / On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00'per lot x f new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit 6b- The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zon’ing Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance ^ Applicant ’s Signature Owner’s Signature _ Date ^ Date 9tn Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each n.onth. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council, If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^ I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & \\\\ Associates Engineers & Architects October M, 1998 Elizabeth VanZomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Stickncy Subdivision File No. 139-2426 Dear Liz: Bonestroo. ffcsene. Anaeriik t*nd Assoc>^tes inc ts tvi Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik PE • Marvin L Sofvala PE • Ptchard E Tu■rre^ PE • G'enn ff Cook. PE • PoPert G Schunichi PE • Jerry A Bourdon. P£ • Rooert W Rotene. PE and Susan M EPerlm C PA Senior Consu't.snts Associate Pr.f^cipals Howsarj A Sanford PE • keitn A Gordon. PE • RoLert R P/efferle. PE • Picna^d W Foster. PE • Oavid O Loskota ^E • Robert C Russek. Al A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann PE • Ted K F?eid. PE • Kenneth P Anderson PE • Mark R Rolfs PE • Sidney P VliJIiamson. PE. L S • Robert F Kotsmith • Agnes M Ring • Muharl P Rau PE • Al.'an Rick Schmtdr. PE Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wnimar and St Cloud MN • Milwaukee. W'l Uebsrfe WWW bonestroo com c We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed two-lot subdivision for George Stickney. The site is located on Willow Drive South just south of 450 Willow Drive in the south half of Section 3. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access' There currently is no well defined access to the site. Proposed access locations should provide adequate sight distance from the high point on Willow Drive located approximately 180- feet south of the site. It may be appropriate from a safety perspective to combine two driveways and have a shared access onto Lots i and 2. Maximum driveway grades should not exceed 10 percent. 2. Utilities: The existing grades may make it difficult to locate primary and alternate septic sites. City staff should review the proposed septic locations. 3. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading. 4. Drainage: The draft version of the City ’s Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site drains both east and west. The westerly portion of the site drains westerly to an existing wetland identified a*' FR-P19. The remainder of the site drains easterly to an existing wetland identified as TL-Pl 1. 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, i'his subdivision is larger than 2 acres and the MCWD should review the plans. Depending on MCWD comments, ponding alternatives such as buffer strips may be appropriate for this site. 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. 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. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636*4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 U44M PRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GEORGE STICKNEY OF COT 1, BLOCK LL KELLEY' S LAND HENNEl'il-J COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Uol 1. Block 1. BILL KELLEY* S LAND o 1 denotes iron morkef • * ‘ (945.6): denotes existing spot elevotion, meon seo level datum — 940 — — — ! denotes existing contour line, meon seo level datum Beorings shown ore based upon on assumed datum. Th'S survey intends to show the boundories ol tne ubovt described property, the location of on existing shed, ond the topography thereon, it does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroachments. r**"4i AM€A = 3f f A<Mt3 z; TO:Liz Van Zomercn, City Pianner/Zoning Administrator FROM: DATE: Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager October 19, 1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2426, George Stickney - Preliminary Plat The proposed two lot plat requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Site evaluation/design has been completed for primary and alternate drainlleld sites a each lot. The site evaluation/design information provided for lot 1 is approved as submitted. The information provided for lot 2 can not be approved as submitted due to slopes exceeding 6 percent over more than hall' of the mound area. During a meeting today on lot 2 the designer and my.self found suitable soils and slopes for two draintkld sites in the apple orchard. The slopes range from 0 to 6 percent and the soils found were not filled. The sites would meet all City and State Standards. Bused on the above inl'ormation, staff recommends approval of the application on the condition that the additional site evaluation/design information is submitted to the City one week before the date of the City Council meeting. The city requires the drainlleld sites to be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration. /O TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator October 13,1998 SUBJECT : #2411 Paul and Leann Hanssen 3195 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit-Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC Lot Area:24,750 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) square feet (.56 acres)________________________ Application:The applicants are requesting a Land Alteration Permit to replace a boathouse 15 feet from the lakeshore. The existing boathouse has been determined by the City Building staff to be in disrepair. A wind storm in May heavily damaged a deck that was located on top of the existing boathouse. The deck could be replaced by receiving a building permit, as it had existed before the storm. However, the Building Official did not issue the building permit due to the existing condition of the boathouse it would be located above. The deteriorating condition of the boathouse was not a result of the wind storm. Structural Review: The applicant hired a structural engineer to review the existing condition of the structure and recommend corrective measures to provide a structurally sound foundation conforming to the Minnesota State Building Code. The structural engineer has determined the front and back walls would be replaced and portions of the side walls that will connect to the new front and back walls would have new concrete blocks added to fit the existing walls. The side walls would require some additional repairs. The structure has a minimal foundation that would need to be replaced. A portion of the hillside must be temporarily removed to build a foundation under the structure. The existing roof is deteriorated and must also be completely replaced. ^2411 Paul and Leann Hanssen 3195 Casco Circle Variances and Conditional Use Permit 10/19/98 Page I Lot Hbtory:The Planning Commission recommended denial of variances to tear down the existing residence to allow a new residence on March 17, 1997. The applicant was a potential buyer of the property, not the current property owner. Following the Planning Commission action the previous applicant withdrew, and did not appear before the City Council. Thb application will require the following variances: 1. Hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback. The existing hardcover is 310 s.f.( 4.5%). The applicants are requesting to replace the 160 s.f. boathouse. 2. To allow a boathouse to exist within 75' of the lakeshore. 3. A variance from the side yard adjacent to street setbacks to allow the structure to be located 10' from a platted public right-of-way, where 15' is required. A Conditional Use Permit b required for the following: 1. Land alteration in the 0-75' lakeshore setback. To allow a foundation to be constructed under the existing location of the structure._______________________________________ Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations • Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(1): Lakeshore Setback Regulations • Section 10.03, Subd. 19: Land Alteration • Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Setback Regulations for the LR-IC Zoning District ^2411 Paul and Leann Hanssen Si93 Casco Circle Variances and Conditional Use Permit 10/19/98 Page! 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC (1/2 acre) Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard adj./Street Street Yard Required 21,780 s.f 100'75'15'30' Proposed 24,750 s.f 90'16'10'NA The subject property does meet lot area requirements. The structure would be located 16' from Lake Minnetonka where 75' is required. The property is adjacent to a platted, undeveloped street. The code requires a 15' setback for structures adjacent to a street in the LR-IC Zoning District. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'6,750 s.f.310 s.f (4.5%) none (0%) 310 s.f (4.5%) To allow replacement of a boathouse 75'-250'13,500 s.f 4,476 s.f (33.1%) 3,375 s.f (25%) 4,476 s.f (33.1%) none 250'-500’4,500 s.f 1,340 s.f (29.7%) 1,350 s.f (30%) 1,340 s.f (29.7%) none 500'-1000'0 0 0 (35%) 0 none The proposal requires a hardcover variance for the 0-75' lakeshore setback to allow the lot to retain 310 s.f. (4.5%) where 310 s.f. (4.5%) exists. Should the City approve a Conditional Use Permit and variances, the applicants would be allowed to reconstruct a deck above the boathouse because it was damaged by a storm. The deck is proposed to be 18' by 20'. !^24U Paul and Leann Hanssen 3195 Casco Circle Variances and Conditional Use Permit 10/19/98 Page 3 !» i Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 24,750 s.f.3,467 s.f.14.0% The lot does meet the 15% allowed lot coverage for structure. ANALYSIS A. Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1.That the proposed location of the conditional me is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The boathouse is a legally non-conforming structure that has existed for many years. The structure has deteriorated to a point it requires major reconstruction or replacement. The Zoning Code would not allow this structure to be built new. 2.That the proposed location of the conditional me 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 injuriom to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The location of the structui'e would not be detrimental to public health. 3.That the proposed conditional me will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The structure would not comply with allowed hardcover, lot coverage, and street yard setback requirements. Variance approval would be required to issue the Conditional Use Permit for Land Alteration. / / Paul and Leann Hanssen 3195 Casco CircU Variancis and Conditional Use Permit 10/19/98 Page 4 i Issues 1. 2. The boathouse requires major renovation to include complete replacement of two walls and partial replacement of the two remaining walls. Both remaining walls would also require tuckpoint and repairs to cracked block and other masonry to provide a solid wall. The roof would consist of a full replacement. A conditional use permit is required for land alterations and grading within 75' of the lakeshore to remove a portion of the hillside to place a new foundation under the structure. 3. The variances must be approved to issue a Conditional Use Permit. 4. The applicants are requesting to replace a deck above the boathouse. 5. The City Building Official has determined the boathouse is unsafe to construct a new deck above. 6. The deck could legally be repaired because it was damaged in a storm. The building which the deck was located above has been determined to be structurally unsafe not allowing the deck to be constructed. Therefore, the property owners would loose their right to the deck which was involuntarily removed. 7. Last year the Planning Commission recommended denial of variances to allow the existing house to be removed and a new residence constructed. It was recommended at that time the boathouse be removed to reduce hardcover on the lot. The applicants withdrew the application without a hearing with the Council. OPTIONS • The Planning Commission has the following alternatives to consider: A. Recommend approval of the request with the hardship being the boathouse existed as a legal non-conforming structure, and the deck which was located above the boathouse would be able to be reconstructed if the building was structurally sound. A condition of approval would be the applicants must return any material removed or graded during construction to its existing location and elevation. B. Recommend denial of the request stating the structural condition of the boathouse would require a complete rebuild of the foundation and most of the walls. The Zoning Code does not allow any structure within 75* of the lakeshore. ^2411 Paul and Leann Hanssen 2195 Casco Circle Variances and Conditional Use Permit 10/19/98 Pages Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Applicant Letter Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Survey Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Site Photos Deck Plan Structural Engineer Report Property Owners List Permit Record / Paul and Leann Hanssen 3195 Casco Circle Variances and Conditional Use Femii 10/19/98 Page 6 Application § cQ V^//_____f | Date ReceiTcdT 9^ Amount Paid cRA7V^f___ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^^ ^ tVcA-«g^ . Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)____ APPLICANin Name'^r - ^ ____________ Address ____________ City Ziki, Phone (home ) *^"1 \ ~ ^3> ___ Phone (work') 4~*^^ ~~ ______________Zip 52T3>^ ( OWNER (if different than applicant) Name___________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Pro I (dp cquired (month/year) ^so own tfi'^ adjacent parcels of land.L FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PEIUVOTS - _____$ 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 I yC^ $250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals^0*rsetF« Lhedule UdfOV of Non- ^ August 13,1998 Request to replace deck at 3195 Casco Circle We submit this application to replace our deck that was damaged in the May storm. We purchased this property in the early spring of this year. After our purchase but before the actual closing and move in date, a severe wind storm took the deck and lifted it off it*s foundation, landing it nearby totally destroyed. The property consists of an older home of marginal value. The deck was one of the main reasons we purchased the property. It greatly enhanced the appeal and value of the property. We only wish to restore it to it’s original condition. See Sec 10.03 Subd paragraph of Orono Municipal code.D Paul and Leaim Hanssen 1 I rr c % I a V. < t ■V ^ ^ >7i\r^^‘i' c P/i 7" A5 (49X>^oV / \ 'Vr-. ' ^ m'<6^ / A '^-^7 ' (J3) V • SPSIN.1 ?ARX (31) '"t.;'-* \s,o) % . A \ \l ;6 %SV IS'E 10?. 62 7^60 45 \ 45 lEP/fJXr (29 (28) lA s[^\# V t _ 1 7TV! 6o\l' 60 CASCO • • «. > C" - -i V ... ......................... S‘0$sbtrjPdni ' SI? ,\ • •HCUOH AVI 10 U O / 3——*!*£Aft/»*$ ? \ s s u-^^ y/L*- -•'rZ-’.....'//* iu tn ctm »^'vs«o«uiii o . Hk\ fTk CI34 .Spring Park .»•. fi . ; Borman..mh - - Mkv'«nXoro ^ : -• • Faint 4 { • • ' .V• • .. ^ c JjOOSE •• ■' • , ISLAND «• * ** * *•* •* <*. -1-^ •‘.i.y *• ••-•: .• .- * .• . ' rV';. ;-^.,cV •*. ^ni'4 ‘. '.—i# j - '^>5 • '■■ •■• ^V’<'- 1 X\SPRAY .* • S»*.\o\ft«.V Loi D ■ £ CASCO lake MINNETONKA HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZOi\E: (CIRCLE OiNE) / 0-75'75-250’250-500’500-1000'I of 5 EXISTTNC HARDCOVER IN ZOl A. House Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway X X X D. Sidewalk ^ E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X G. Other {(L TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House S.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. f -7 <0 S.F. A B D. Garage C. Driveway . D. Sidewalk £. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X «*S.F. Length Width X S.F. iX«=S.F. X S.F. X S.F. X S.F. X ss S.F. X S.F. X «S.F. X • S.F. X cx S.F. X m S.F. X S.F. X -S.F. X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F.A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •S.F.B ^ R X 100 -% HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET G SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250*250-500'500-1000* % EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______ Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway __X X D. Sidewalk X X 4*:5 E. Patio/Deck ii X X ^2^ F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic H X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER IT AREA IN ZONE -5- B * N...100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE r- cr TV ^ B X 100 S.F. C ^1 S.F. Q S.F. ' S.F. w • a • S.F. I I '3 s^ S.F. _S.F. _S.F. -V* A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Y S.F. ^ .. S.F. XI :S CQ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TO^^RQPERTY AREA IN X 100 - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______________ X A B Length Width X X X SJ. SJ. S.F. T D. Garage C. Driveway • S.F. 1. - --A X X SJ. S.F.P_! K D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. ■'•-v E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. SJ. G. Odier SJ. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B __X 100 - _S.F. _S.F. % A B • y Mil \ws^- riSy2r> * OdcV» o^JCr b oaVKow^^ • '^•►•T-w -.T •-■=* • •/" •-’ •>' fl vri • i. ^ tr. ^‘■if TT g .-*-/-■ - ?, .«b3»Si mmm • n -% \ ~_ ^.~w OA H tt^-! «:!^35C J •4M /%n a r.'iJ&. J,H, Dahbneier Engineering Inc. September 24, 1998 Paul Hanson 3105 Casco Circle Orono, MN 55391 Re: Boathouse 3105 Casco Circle Orono, MN Commission No. 98212 Dear Paul: The purpose of this letter is to report the findings of a structural engineering review and provide corrective measures for your boathouse on your property. ASSIGNMENT J. H. Dahlmeier Engineering Inc. has been retained to pro\ide a structural engineering review and report including necessary corrective measures for the boathouse on your property located at 3105 Casco Circle, Orono, MN, as directed by Paul Hanson, owner of the property. BACKGROUND The boathouse roof at lake side was severely damaged by the windstorm on May 15,1998. In order to comply with the City of Orono ordinances, stomi damage repair can proceed only after a structural condition study followed by necessary repairs to provide a structurally sound structure. OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS 1. A site visit was conducted by J. H. Dahlmeier Engineering Inc. on Septentber 10, 1998 to review existing conditions. 2434 Comtacrce Boulevard Mound, MN 53364 (6l2i 472 ‘1746 FAX (612) 4724761 Paul Hanson September 24, 1998 Page 2 of 3 2. The follou ing observations w ere made with respect to the foundation of the boatliouse: 3. a. b. c. d. e. f The foundation is an 8" thick concrete masonry foundation system. The boathouse is built in the side of the hall with grade at the roof line at the rear and grade at the slab height at the front with grade sloping along the side walls. The structure is ten courses high (7'-4"). The slab on grade provides space approximately 10 feet deep witli a transverse wood frame wall at tliis location with backfill approximately 3'-8" above the slab sloping up to the rear foundation approximately 6 feet away. No exploratory work was done to deienninc tlic depth of the footings. Horizontal cracks exist in the masonry side walls indicating frost heave with the wall out of level approximately 1/2" over its length. The rear foundation wall is severely damaged due to excessive earth pressure and frost heave. The following corrective measures are required in order to provide a structurally sound foundation conforming with the Minnesota State Building Code: a. Reconstruct the rear wall with 12" block on 16" x 8" fooling a minimum of 5 feet below grade. Reinforce with #4 @ 32" vertical in center of wail with hook dow'cl into footing. b. Remove wood frame wall and constmet new masonry wall 8" thick on 16" x 8" footing wth top of footing 4" below bottom of floor slab. Reinforce with #4 @ 32" vertical in center of wall with hook dowel into footing. Tie this wall to existing pilasters in side wall with /r4 dowels @ 16" O.C. grouted in place. c. Underpin front foundation wall and side walls to provide a minimum of 5 feet to bottom of footing on exterior grade. Underpiiming to be done in accordance with standard practice 4 feet wide strips. d. Tuckpoint and repair cracked block and other masomy to provide a solid wall. e. Tooth rear wall to side walls to provide a rigid wall system. f. Construct w'ood roof system using standard carpentry procedures with roof plate anchored to masonry wall in accordance wiilt the Code. g. Provide wood blocking @ 24" O.C. in first two joist spaces %%ilh nailing to rear wall top plate in accordance with the Code. 4.Since the boathouse is a utility structure, protection against frost on the interior is not recommended or required in my opinion. Paul Hanson September 24,1998 Page 3 of3 professional 6.This re^rt addresses foundation and structural condition and design. Other items mav hr^sxK,?a"r;.s;S' '• If jou have any questions, please contact me. Sinccrelv.• s J. H. DAHI^IEIER engineering , INC. H.' Dahlnwer, P.E. I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of th(i State of Minnesota. -MMinnisofa ¥legistration No. 9212 I 1 I I RUN DATE 97/27/W BATCH 5Q3 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 3B 29-117-23 34 0008 03120 CASCO CIR H J DOUGAU/NORWEST BK TRSTE NORWEST BANK N A PETER DOUOALL/06916200-0046 6TH t HARQUETTE HPLS HN 55470 38 20-117-23 43 0022 03205 CASCO CIR CONISTON ESTATES INC CONISTON ESTATES INC 7 BROAD ST CHARLESTON SC 20401 38 20-117-23 43 0025 03185 CASCO CIR J PRAUS sex HAVILAND J PRAUS 8 C K HAVILAND 3185 CASCO CIR WAYZATA HN 55301 38 20-117-23 43 0028 03145 CASCO CIR B C DOWNEY 8 B A DOWNEY B C DOWNEY ABA DOWNEY 3145 CASCO CIR WAYZATA HN 55301 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 43 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO D C PLAIN 8 P L PLAIN D CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0023 03105 CASCO CIR ROBERT H 8 JUDITH C BOYLAN ROBERT H BOYLAN 3105 CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0026 03165 CASCO CIR e K 8 D H CARLSON GERALD K 8 DIANE H CARLSON 3165 CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0029 03135 CASCO CIR ROLAND C AHUNOSON ROLAND C AMUNDSON MINNESOTA JUDICIAL CTR 25 CONSTITUTIONAL AVE ST PAUL HN 55155 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 14 38 20-117-23 43 0021 03225 CASCO CIR DAIVO A DOTZENROTH DAVID A DOTZENROTH 3225 CASCO POINT CIR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0024 03185 CASCO CIR J PRAUS 8 C K HAVILAND J PRAUS 8 C K HAVILAND 3185 CASCO CIR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0027 03155 CASCO CIR BENJAMIN F ROBERTACCIO ET AL B F 8 H K ROBERTACCIO 3155 CASCO CIR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0030 03133 CASCO CIR G C BECKER/T I HARCHESSAULT 6 C BECKER/T I HARCHESSAULT 3133 CASCO CIR ORONO HN 55391 s* V #• u • _ i' ii ?•... ^ . s ..•* .M*.* PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 20-117-23 43 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT 0 HACNIE 3135 CASCO CIR WAYZATA HN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 503 00013 // TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator October 5,1998 #2422 Richard Gay 2735 Shad>'wood Road Variance-Public Hearing ____ Zoning District: LR-1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre; Lot Area:1 Acre + Application: The applicant has proposed to construct a fence to exceed the maximum 3 1/2' height within the average laJceshore setback. The fence would be 6' in height. The applicant has stated in his hardship statement 3 1/2' is inadequate for the purposes of containing his 2 Borzois dogs. The proposed location has house access, where placing the fence elsewhere would not allow this convenience. This application requires the following variance: 1. To allow a fence to encroach into the average lakeshore setback. (Section 10.03, Subd. 15, Paragraph D). The zoning code does not allow fences to exceed 3 1/2' within the average lakeshore setback. This lot is located with one adjacent residence to the North and a small bay to the South. The average lakeshore setback would be measured as the distance from the one adjacent residence to the lakeshore. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 15(D): Non-Encroachments Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback 1^2422 Richard Cay 2^35 Shady^vood Road Variance 10/19/98 Page 1 V • ANALYSIS Variance STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Surrounding Properties The residence to the North of the applicant's property sits on a hill located above the proposed area to be fenced. The adjacent residence is configured on the lot to look straight out over their own property. The fence would be visible to the property as it would be located on the property line between the house and the lake. Adjacent to the subject lot, to the southeast, is a small bay. The bay contains several docks and boat covers. There are three residences across the bay that would not be affected by the fence as the fence would be located in a wooded area. There is a wooded area between the applicants property and the bay as well as several boat canopies screening the properties on the bay. Allowed Fencing The {qiplicant would be allowed to construct a 3 1/2 foot fence. Lakeshore lots only allow 6' fences in side yards and along the street. No fences are allowed within 75' of the lakeshore. Please see Attachment F for City of Orono Fence Regulations. Issues 1.The fence could be constructed 3 1/2 feet in height. Fences are not allowed to exceed this height in the average lakeshore setback to protect adjacent property sight lines. 2. 3. 4. The adjacent property owner is located on a hill with a view above the proposed fenced area. The fenced area is currently wooded. The property has only one adjacent residence as the lot is located next to a small bay. H2422 Richard Cay 2735 Shadywiod Road t'oriance 10/19/98 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The plight of the applicant is due to his desire to keep dogs on the property, not due to the topography of the lot. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the request. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application/Statement of Hardship Plat Map Location Map Site Topography Survey/Site Plan City of Orono Fence Regulations Allowed Fence Height Property Owners List Permit Record i j »2422 Richard Cay 2735 Shady yvood Road Varkmct 10/19/98 Pag^y i Application # Date Received Amount Paid ?//«/»» S 250*-^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE itfPLICATTON Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 .. (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures ' $250.00 Ajfter-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION, s . \ O ) Site Address' Z"7y^ l<0^o _________ Property Identification Number (PJfJ).l ^ M I "7 - - ... • • J____________- legal UCdwiipuuu lu c^puwauuu jjl Date Property Acquired /9^g _________ I (^^ (do not) also own the afijacent parcels of land. ^ Present use of property: V residential ___pother (specity) Zoning District: ^______________________ survey. (mondi/year) APPLIC Phone (home).‘vs. 'a O OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ ______' Phone (wx)rk)jSL2£L£j________ »d<l City: ^U^r6^€>^ ^ Zip: / * • Phone (home)_________________ Phone (work). Address:City:.. Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQlgST Estimated ^n^^on Q>st Describe request in detail: /o 2 /vf j {/ ^ 7/^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) V.Iia:/ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage y Setback:Front Side X Rear "y. Other (specify) )o a/Iujo to Avf X Ave^e Lakeshore i^kcslot<^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDmONS (attach additional sheets if necessary) Cc ftl;__ 7 K/Vtf ^ L:^ l^>ll ^ 'i!^ //c/^^^ <5. /4t^ cA;^ko-Jir^9^k> mjj¥^ Ca Oa £^S c/iV^«i-^^ l//«J>'4/^ ^ <3- :/-CA.<^-^e/ / u\ <5 »'"€^ 7^ ^4^ /K lA^iT UJfV^ d c? o/o^f'^4iw^ /^/T^ y''^^^>l'*^^ COi^Us£^ U/Lh^j><. Ooe>t4^cJ Ue^ oU:i: 3^^/ \r<^se^d.LU /oc^}o>f^9. iL«.-4 /ocid)o^ o^PtoD^^ ^ av.- i^<.i^\>t>'f L. '(*' 'Me. Me^ /Ar ^hdly(^l'My r^-e</ o# <0^ A0'^tyf&l <fr 3re<? ?-jf'*' ^ ^ X *<•<J y^N % V *;•*•;•.'• *.'• -*« *-1:1 '•-*. • : ^ T ^ \SPRAY MINNETONKA Carman ^ xJ'OJoyette Bay ^ * WT* •• ^ •. •, «• ^ %•*•» A* 1 ^ H I ■iIj !“- CJ?. J=i-- ■ • * # »• • ^ — • • V V • .. • • •t . ^ r .. . 'W , ».>il-: A- -/•V !.• X -••' • • jt »^ • • ,»*• • • *. * vf. i -■ y.T*'if •• » * ^ . X % ^ % T %. • k* •• * r ^ •* * * ■-:*•.■-• /*:•*: '■ rrt.>•V -f I • • • ^ *-4 • Lodte Point I •* .*. • . V ■••t -.r « % . ^ • • J and part of Tract □» R> S. Rt}. 415 I i.aKe>W4 S^V}A.cV^ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the followir^ described property: That part of Lot 26, "Pheasant Lawn" lying southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with the northwesterly line of said lot from a point on the northeasterly line of said lot 123.6 feet southeasterly, measured along said northeasterly line from the most northerly corner of said Lot 26, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County and State ALSO all of Tract U, except the Northeasterly 110 feet thereof. Registered Land Survey No. 415, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, and of the location of an existing building. It does not purport to show other iirprovements or encroachments. p CITY OF ORONO Fence Regulations General: 1. 2. 3. Fences meeting height and location regulations do not require a p^nnit. Fences must be within property boundaries, but no setback is required. The City of Orono does not require fences around swimming pools; however, property owners are advised to check with their insurance company. 4. The City of Orono does not regulate fencing materials or visual appearai.ee of fences Fence Height/Location Standards Location Maximum Fence Height Standard; Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 3 W 6’ 6’ Lakeshore Lot: Lake Yard 3 W Ahead of "average lakeshore setback line", except fio fence is allowed within 75 ’ of the shoreline Side Yard Behind "average lakeshore setback line" Street Yard 3 W (6’ along County & MSA Funded Roads) Comer Lot: 30’ Sight Triangle Front Yard Side Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 3’ 3 W 3 6’ 6’ If you have further questions regarding fences, please contact the Building and Zoning Department at 473-7357. i 1 & > • • I % ^ •• C«rtlficat« of ftwoy* tot Patti C. Carloon of part of lot 2<« *Pboaaafit Lavn* OM part of Tract 0, K. x,. t. Kb. 413 AlloiikJ Fiat thit it^^fuaI htrtby cartlfy that and corract raprafantatlon of a auf%ay of the followir^ deicribed propartyt That part of Lot 26. "Pheasant Lawn* lyin9 southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with the northwesterly line of said lot fron a point on the nortl-«tsterly line of said lot 121.6 feet southeasterly, oeasurad alon^ said northeasterly line froo the oost northerly corner of said Lot 26. accordin9 to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Pe^istrar of Titles in and for said County and State ALSO all of Tract U. except the Northeasterly 110 feat thereof* Registered Und Survey No. 413. Piles of Registrar of Titles* County of Hennepin, and of the location of an existing building. It dees not purport to show other inproveioents or encroachxaents. Ti Scales I inch • 50 feet Date t Hay 30* 1914 • s iron siarker found o . s iron eurker set Cordon R. Coffin Co.* Zno. Gordon R. Coffin Reg.Mo. 60t Hark S. Gronbarg Reg.Mo. 127! Engineers and Land SMtyyott Long Lake* Minnesota mm DATE 09/IA/98 HEr^E^IN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LISTBATCH 503 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 21-117-23 2^ 0003 02705 SHADYWOOD RD G 0 I J M FOX GAYLORD 0 I JON MARIE FOX 2705 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 2^ 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES 0 GINTHER ET AL JAMES 0 GINTHLR 3131 DARTMOUTH AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0032 0272C SHADYWOOD RD B A KVAM A J C KVAM TRUSTEES JOIM C t BEVERLEE A KVAM 2720 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR KN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0062 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BOYD WITTMAN BOYD WITTMAN 5455 TEAL CIR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0065 02740 SHADYWOOD RD ELAINE T PAGONIS ELAINE T PAGONIS 2740 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1 REPORT NO. P14S5401 PAGE 9 38 21-117-23 24 0004 02725 SHADYWOOD RD M D I R A MEEK MICHAEL D i ROBERTA A MEEK 2725 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0005 02735 SHADYWOOD RD B G CARLSON ET AL TRUSTEES TERRYL A 6ULL1F0RD 6601 WEST SHORE DR EDINA MN 55435 38 21-117-23 24 0029 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED PAUL C CARLSON ETAL PAUL C CARLSON 2735 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0031 02700 SHADYWOOD RD WILLIAM a NICHOLLS WILLIAM H NICHOLLS 2700 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0060 02765 SHADYWOOD RD L A I D J BUTLER JR DAVID J BUTLER JR 4034 ROBERTS POINT RD SARASOTA FL 34242 38 21-117-23 24 0061 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN P TNIMMESH THOMAS P HUBER 2615 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0063 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D MIEGEL 8 J MIEGEL DONALD R 8 JUDITH D MIEGEL 683 SULLIVAN DR COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MN 55421 38 21-117-23 24 0064 02730 SHADYWOOD RD JOHN L FIEBELKORN JOHN L FIEBELKORN 2730 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR m 55331 38 21-117-23 31 0003 02745 SHADYWOOD RD JAMES E ZIMMERMAN JAMES E ZIMMERMAN 2745 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 503 00014 n C% M C% It a PERMIT RECORD • • Permit No..Date Type of Permit £itnf Hd(j^e 731 tb'^h 5t N€U) AES. -lists'/3- V't<?hi OtiUUfi • B ft S4r"hn e ^/^" _6?J ’...n -Lo, . _ 9-‘/-‘91 LLSi^^tlCS-^ 7 ■ lx TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Octobers, 1998 SUBJECT: #2423 Gara Gehring and Tom Terry 340 Leaf Street Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B Lot Area:27,388 One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acre) square feet (.62 acre) ________________ Application: The applicants have proposed to construct a 70.8 s.f. roofed entrance to serve the existing residence. It would be located 22' from the property line, within the frront yard setback of Leaf Street. The required setback in the zoning district is 50'. The new construction will include replacing an existing stairway and porch that currently serves the residence. The new proposed construction would not encroach further into the front yard setback than the existing residence. This application requires the following variance: 1. Front yard setback. The covered porch, as proposed, would be located 22' from the platted right-of-way for Leaf Street. The required setback in the RR-IB zoning district is 50'. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): Setback Regulations H2423 Cara Gehring and Tom Terry 340 Leaf Street Variance lo/tms Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-IB (1 acre) Lot Area Lot Width Side Yard Street Yard Required 87,120 s.f 200'30'50’ Existing 27,388 s.f.151.9'34'22' The property does not meet lot area and wdth requirements for the RR-1B zoning district. However, the lot was platted prior to the current zoning regulations. The new addition would encroach 28' into the front yard setback. The existing residence is located into the front yard setback at the same distance that is being proposed for the new covered porch addition. Hardcover The subject property is not located in the shoreland overlay district. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 27,388 s.f.Existing: 2,012.5 s.f Proposed: 2,083.3 s.f 7.3% 7.6% The lot would not exceed the allowed lot coverage of 15%. ANALYSIS Variance STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. ^242} Cara Gehring and Tom Terry* 340 Leaf Street Variance 10/19/98 Page! Criteria for Detennining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The residence located on the lot was constructed prior to the current zoning regulations resulting in the house being located into the front yard setback. The applicants have stated the existing stairs and porch are in need of replacement. The lot topography requires steps to access the front door. The porch and roof structure would be minimal in size and would not encroach closer to the front lot line than the house which it would serve. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The property was platted and developed prior to the zoning standards. The house is located the same distance from the front lot line as the proposed addition. The house is located atop a steep hill requiring steps and a porch to access the front door. Adding a roof to the steps has become necessary due to the weather conditions. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance would not change the locality, as the property would be used as a single faimly residential lot. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. 5. 6. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The use of the property would remain residential, which is consistent with the zoning. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 1^2423 Cara Cehring and Tom Terry 340 Leaf Street Variance 1 0/1 9m Page 3 The residence is located on a site that contains steep topography. The applicant has stated the steps and a small porch are necessary for safe access to the front door of the house. 7. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The addition of a roofed porch would allow for a safer access to the house. 8. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The granting of variances would not be a public hazard or contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 9. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The applicants have demonstrated a unique hardship applies to this property. The location of the house is within the required front yard setback on the property, and the steep hill leading towards the front of the house requires steps and a porch landing for safer access to the property. Surrounding Properties The properties surrounding the applicant’s lot are low density residential. All property to the north, south, and east are zoned RR-IB, two acre rural residential. The lots located to the west are zoned LR-1 A, two acre lakeshore residential. Issues 1.The residence was constructed on the lot prior to current zoning regulations resulting in the residence being located within the required front yard setback. 2. The locality is developed low density residential. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance from front yard setback requirements to allow a roofed addition to be constructed 22’ from the front yard setback based on the applicant’s Statement of Hardship. §242} Gara Gehring and Tom Terry 340 Leaf Street Variance 10/19/98 Page 4 Attachments A B C D Application/Statement of Hardship Plat Map Location Map Survey/Site Plan .. . - . Application » ^ ^ • Date Received" ^ /2^f y g * Amount Paid. Z S' d p<ly . CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00-. (no change from ori^al application) Variar.ee for non-conforming structures * $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) •v n r j PROPERTY I^ORMATION Site Address "V-AQ_____________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Property Identifi^rion NumbersJ-D.") I 1*1 OOP S _ ^ ^ A * ^ ^ ® ^ J ^ ^Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Proocrtv-Acquired _______________________Date Pro _ ________ I (do) also own the adjabent parcels of land. Present use of property: \/^ residential ___pother (specify). ZoningDistrict:____9, \ ^ __________________ (month/year) APPLICANT Phone fliome ) SxnV. Name Kr>.> rv VTPhone (work) W. (o • ^ Addres^l^^^Ct Ij^o CitvTlMVv^ (— Zip: gS‘-?S'(g ,. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (wbrk)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST^Estimated Cons1ili< 1: r\oP uOfvVcxa ^v L S rOrlvl v>jtA 'Attach additional sheets .if necessary) ^fW\- n>C- VARIANCES REQUmED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: )(^ Front Other (specify)____ Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY COMimONS ry-'uA^LLCs\rt.r lA.A ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) d^liT^S' (I) EAST ! '0 * • yj ^ ;o ,s^ 03) N&o:t ^7.2-^ CYGNEi * 50 S87*3?'35'» flit:? ^;|33 33C. 91 rc V \ N39‘2’'r5“A' ,/ (20 r- , -.•.•.•.•-•,*.N*.*.V.V.W,’.V.\‘.".*.V.\‘ • %_ a •. • • • « t a ••••a^«»^aaa 317 198 •« 15 . / (6) .......... .•V ^242 __________ 317 V I n-i 331 :r 200 ■..So., oJL P V 633. :S ^ UDOa-lO*.‘409 * 42' I5*W 1 193 5, 57 200 7 372.7 325.94 N09*G5'22^*1 22? 240 173 •. \ 33 -a-* 11 nvA u ORONO am»-Tui fOKt an 0 0 wiAA cm mwn 5CM«sTi^« on . / k .nn i* * /J./*.« ..'T'.v/ Vl‘: vAnnrovn » soMfurr ^ Vri '* '*•' •’*■ >• MAf "®0 THonown c^vrc'»»*i • < Line • • vnm 400 F(X Mi 800 5>ci> @Wti5 v5'"’ * 3eitmj . . . \nt f * 1 \ 12' Proposed Covered P»rcV^ RUN DATE 09/0^ *98 BATCH 505 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 09-117-23 23 0009 00370 LEAF ST KENNAN K KROLL KENNAN X KROLL 370 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55359 38 09-117-23 23 0021 03180 RIDGEWOOD CIR LOREN CROSS TRUSTEE LOREN GROSS 8609 LYNDALE AVE S BLOOMINGTON MN 55920 38 09-117-23 23 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED H W t S J LAUE HERMAN W 8 SHIRLEY J LAUE 8080 WOODLAND TRAIL ROCKFORD MN 55373 38 05-117-23 19 0007 03200 BAYSIDE RD R I T MINKEMA ROBERT L 8 TERESA M MINKEMA 3200 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55359 TOTAL BATCH 505 00012 38 09-117-23 23 0008 00390 LEAF ST L M BEHRMAN 8 JANE E BEHRMAN LEIGH M 8 JANE E BEHRMAN 390 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55359 38 09-117-23 23 0023 03100 RIDGEWOOD CIR T E 8 H H CASHIN TIMOTHY E 8 MOLLY H CASHIN 3100 RIDGEWOOD CIR LONG LAKE MN 55359 3p 09-117-23 29 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN (DNR) CLUCE LINE TRAIL) 38 05-117-23 19 0050 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN (DNRI (LUCE LINE TRAIL) REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 19 38 09-117-23 23 OOOS 00390 LEAF ST H C FURCHNER JR ETAL HENRY FURCHNER 390 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55359 38 09-117-23 2i 0029 03180 RIDGEWOOD CIR FRANK J 8 PATRICIA K ROUTSON FRANK ROUTSON 1920 JOHNSON DR STILLWATER MN 55082 38 05-117-23 19 00395 LEAF ST TONY EIDEN COMPANY TONY EIDEN COMPANY 9100 BERKSHIRE LA N PLYMOUTH MN 55999 0003 38 05-117-23 19 0059 00375 LEAF ST D H CROWTHER 8 S J CROWTHER D H CROWTHER 8 S J CROWTHER 375 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55359 Permit No Lol ^S>^U) '1^%7- 93(^3 A3Q>9 /03VO tOi¥ // PERMIT RECORD Date /V? -T A ^'Pf-7 9 f-i8-e<f <?-//- (f-S. ?g- Type of Permit ^OpffX ^2.£ar\ T^tJ< dJU 5 - TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator October 12, 1998 SUBJECT: #2424 Gregg Klohn 4455 North Shore Drive Variances—Public Hearing /3 Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:27,000 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (i Acre) square feet (.62 acres) _____ Application: The applicant has requested an after-the-fact variance to complete a deck currently under construction on the lakeside of the residence. The deck would be 180' from the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, but would require an average lakeshore setback variance to permit an encroachment of 24*. The principal resid«,nce to the west, adjacent to the applicant’s property, is located much further back on the lot. The lot to the east, adjacent to the applicant's property, is located closer to the lake than the applicant's residence. 'fhe applicant has also proposed to place a single story (8X17) addition to the residence for living space. The addition is located at the 250’ setback and would require a variance from allowed hardcover in the 250-500' setback. This application requires the following variance: 1.Average Lakeshore Setback. The deck would encroach 24' into the Average Lakeshore Setback. 2. Allowed Hardcover in the 250-500' lakeshore setback. Existing on the lot is 2,028 s.f. of hardcover (32.9%). The addition would add 136 s.f. of hardcover, totaling 2,164 s.f. (35.1%). The allowed hardcover is 1847.1 s.f (30%). Lot History: The lot was platted and developed prior to the adoption of the zoning code. A one stall garage near the front lot line was damaged during a storm. Future replacement of the garage would not be possible in its existing loca inn as it is entirely within the street setback and partially in the side yard setback. ■_____________________________________________ «2-f24 Gregs Klohn 445S Sorth Shore Drive Variances 1 0/19/98 FjgeX Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.56, SuDd. 16(C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Allowed Hardcover Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(2): Allowed Hardcover fH424 Cregg Klohn 4455 Sorth Shore Drive Variances 10/19/98 Page! ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB (1 acre) Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard Required 43,560 s.f.140’75'10'35’ Proposed 27,000 s.f.98 ’180 ’15’48’ The residential addition and deck would not encroach into the setback requirements for the LR-IB zoning district. However, the deck structure would not meet the required Average Lakeshore Setback. The deck would encroach in the average lakeshore setback requirement by 24 ’. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 015,968 s.f.0 s.f. (0%) none (0%) 0 s.f. (0%) none 75-250’14,875 s.f.2,567 s.f. (17.2%) 3,718.75 s.f. (25%) 2,837 s.f. (19.0%) none 250-500'6,157 s.f.2,028 s.f. (32.9%) 1,847.1 s.f. (30%) 2,164 s.f. (35.1%) To allow a residential addition. 500-1000’0 0 0 (35%) 0 none The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to permit the construction of a 8 X 17 addition to the residence. The hardcover would increase from 32.9% to 35.1%. ^2424 Gregg Klohn 4455 Sorth Shore Drive Variances 10/19/98 Page 2 Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 27,000 s.f.Existing: 1,963 s.f. Proposed: 2,855 s.f. 7.2% 10.7% The lot does not exceed the allowed lot coverage of 15%. ANALYSIS Variance STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues 1. A one stall garage exists on the pr' ;rty that was damage in a storm. Replacement of the garage would require variances from front and lide yard setbacks. 2. Lot requirements would be met by the proposal. An average lakeshore setback is required for the deck. The deck is 180' from the lakeshore. 3. The deck is an after-the-fact variance. A stop work order was issued by the City Building Inspector requiring the property owner to apply to the City for a variance to complete the structure. 4. 5. Tlie addition would increase total hardcover in the 250-500' setback. This portion of the lot is small in relation to the remainder of the lot and contains most of the driveway hardcover. The adjacent property owner to the east is constructing a deck that would change the location of the average lakeshore setback to be slightly closer to the lake. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Plarming Commission consider the future use of the storm damaged U2424 Gregg Klohn 4455 North Shore Drive VarkuKes 10/19/98 Pagt4 garage located 5.5’ from the lot line. It has been determined by the City's Building Inspector any replacement for the garage would require variances. Staff is recommending approval of an after-the-fact variance to permit the construction of a deck to be located on the lakeside and west side of the residence. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Plat Map Location Map Survey/Site Plan Site Topography Hardcover Calculations Floor Plan Property Owners List Permit Record M2424 Gregg Klohn 4455 North Shore Drive Variances 10/19/98 Page 5 Application # Date Receired *f/23h% Amount Paid ^ 2^*0 A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no chmge from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY ESTORi\LATION Site Address_____SS aJot ^A fyiA^ SS$4»y Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _______ Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv’ey. Date Propsaa^ Acquired yyiA^CA ___________________^(month/year) I (do)^o n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PresennoTof property: residential ____mother (specify! Zoning District:______________ APPLICANT Name Address: f>.v>City: Phone (home ! Phone (uprk! - 33 *7 / o<^***^_______Zip: SSS^y OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: T* oM ^ ^ fU L4.t4 Jj- hz>s^Sf (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width L^^etback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zonirig Code requirements: c ^ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) AAX , ————C - Oa/L^ /=u -7$x W c '/- /> /Vt :^uy /c^ /5 , 7^ ^ ^ -J, ’ —■ 'v >*-v•y\ \ —‘----------------------- • .' -:^t::, '• \ ■*•;?' ■ ^ -r-vA, • (\1 s\' 4V.-> •• i* 'ijs ’ • /. iZl . t ^i------' ji; . , r--’ r >•' C:. '•; _i ,_ . /N • * • X P'*.* X .■^\ • ' •• ♦x.* '*'/ •'- •' • X« ------:?J,!,^c•• 'X>X . t (7, v; / />■' lii«iWv..-:i -<y>-fir -.• ^rv* . I «kW V CHIPPEWA LA QFORl OB 0 BATSOE TAAJLS f^o cut RED OU ’::Red . Oak'^ ’^oursc SEE MAP 61 Jennings ^vColf ^Vr ;>S^ ^ • ^■ WEST BHUCM RO - •>•' • JAKOt . »tST Clirtw^ I^ •'mS^>^onr'i! tc^^mortt ■■; oa X oahl Forest rBRAKO •'^/.X o u V>- • Jr- 1*000 HVO mfoJri^iX '■'• i :’-5' i-- v^ a a : V-^t4|:25^^|V-1?1I _/--^. ;.;^L :'v: ^ :;‘.T5^.*.i:‘; g -'V J600 ^ OrGll—L* - - '* ■^ * • 'XX [19 fSh^rt^ ^\ ?• *. ': r_- • - •• J .•••• '/"'-C* / ■>C^*V.v Vlrm >* T •“•rf • * * * *•r.' **-'•*.-• r- €tvttiitate ®l g>uvt)ei^ Survey For Grr^nn Klohn 4455 North Shore Drive Orono, MN Book 3 49 Page.File D ^Xisr/^tr c'/‘irut.>vr74'v> / ‘'t'yjSe- //? 'ZoMt /O 2ozi \3t *yivju/ 1 ZZ- ot ^re^3 27,000 sq ;use . ^1,7?0 " ■•rage " r 3 ” • idewalH 3n0 ’atio •'410 •• loncrete Dr. 312 '' :hed OCX Dr. 1,550 '.ard Cover 4,505 /Ve<(if<“r;A'S f/7 / >'/ / I .V OP. u \ N I t; k G ' -V ij /o I ‘^S'r /y^r 1 / DecV- 0 'J / • V C7«-': 69 \ /?veRflG,e ^.aki ^shorc I / \ V |5-r ‘^ <r oDffnotes Icon Mon.Foui^__ C^^LC.^ ........... “o”’ ‘ / 7S" •>■ -N •V. zr?o HARDCO SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) T YI5nriNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Leajih 0-75' ,CULATION WORKSHEET 75-250’ 250-500’500-1000’ B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -5- B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other V»Tdth TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B o xlOO o Width F /f.® f 3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. $5 S.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 xlOO S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B HARDCOVER CALC SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____ _____ X ■ _ fVORKSHEET 25Q-500’ F 500-1000 ’ Lca|tfa B. Gaxase C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Leagth B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PatloADcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic * Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G« Ocher 17^ o S.F. Width TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ B . X 100 Width :sa xlOO i(7 jiO 17ZC> 117 3X0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. » S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. I S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. XS^7 S.F. S.F. 17. Z. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, A B O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ____________S.F. / V Z7^ - S.F. A B HARDCOVER CALCULATION WO SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 75-250’ y.YTSTTNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______________X -------------------------- Lea|Th SUjlcI B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ __ • - B . PROPOSED TTARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Leogth SUJ B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk £• Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other RKSiEBE^ C 250-500* J 5QO-1000^ F Wide; TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B . width 3 O'S.F. S.F. • x=S.F. ss S.F. ss 1 2S~S.F. . 1 S.F. S3 /S'*) o S.F. VO S.F. er S.F. mt mmam S.F. as S.F. S.F. S3 S.F. as S.F. • S.F. • :lo26 S.F. X100 = Gj I 5*7 •?;?. 9 S.F. % /3(r>__S.F. S.F. a-S.F. ____fJ-S S.F. _______S.F. /9S'S.F. as tssro S.F. S.F. as • • •S.F. • S.F. as S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •U>\5'7 S.F. “ ^ X100 *=X iT. i_55 A B A B r: RUN DATE 09/22/98 BATCH 507 PROP ADDR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE. TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 07-117-23 31 0001 0AAA5 NORTH SHORE DR GAYLE ERNEST WITTI6 GAYLE E WXTTXG AAAS NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0004 04485 NORTH SHORE DR C F t R G FREEBURG CLAYTON F FREEBURG 4485 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0010 04470 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN J GROTANS ET AL JOHN, XLZE 8 PETERIS GROTANS 4470 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0041 00038 ADDRESS PENDING HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND COUNTY OF HENNEPXN PUBLIC ROAD USE STATE DEED WYIEB? 15-19-51) TOTAL BATCH 507 00012 38 07-117-23 31 0002 04455 NORTH SHORE OR GREGG D KLOHN GREGG KLOHN 4455 rURTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0005 04495 NORTH SHORE DR BARBARA J ANDERSON BARBARA J ANDERSON 4495 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0015 04448 NORTH SHORE DR HURIEL G SENN HURIEL G SENN 4448 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 34 0005 04425 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL J DICKEY ETAL NORHA J DICKEY 4425 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 ^4 h REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 15 38 07-117-25 31 0003 04465 NORTH SHORE DR J L THEISEN JR ET AL TRSTEES BARBARA A/JOHN L THEISEN JR 4465 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0009 04480 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN J GROTANS JOHN J GROTANS 3200 29TH AGE N E HPLS tW 55418 38 07-117-23 31 0039 04460 NORTH SHORE OR J A LORENCE 8 H R LORENCE JANES A 8 HAXINE R LORENCE 4460 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 34 0004 04435 NORTH SHORE DR GORDON W LUNDHAN GORDON W LUNDHAN 4435 NORTH SHORE DR Hr'IND HN 55364 Permit No. ' 7• 7a;? 6- PERMIT RECORD Date //’'/£, -SS /.Lt S - 7 gr /q^ 79 V-7- • • » • TO: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator September 13,1998 SUBJECT: #2427 Kenton H. and Diane L. Carlson 3498 N. Shore Drive After-the-Fact Variances—Public Hearing H Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area: Application: 7,940 sq. ft. (.18 acres) [Staff calculated lot area based on a 49' x 140’ area north of North Shore Drive, and a 24’ x 45’ area next to the lake] If these numbers are in dispute, then the applicant should provide an updated survey. The applicants property was damaged by early summer storms. They were allowed to build back their home in the same location, height, and bulk as the previous structure. A porch was added to the south side of the house that was not part of the original structure. In order for the porch to remain the following after-the-fact variances are required: 1. A side yard variance to allow the porch to be located 3.2' from the east property line where 10’ is required. 2. A structural lot coverage variance to allow an additional 6 ’ X 26.5’ (159 sq. ft.) to be added as structural coverage. The approved structural coverage in 1979 was 24.24%, currently with the porch there is 26.25% structural lot coverage. 3. A hardcover variance to change an approved 4’ x 26.5’ deck as shown in a 1979 plan to a 6' x 26.5’ covered porch. The amount of hardcover added is 53 sq. ft. Hardcover in the 75’-250’ setback would increase from 36.16% to 37.43% where 25% is allowed. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.25,6 (B), LR-1C Standards • Section 10.56,16, (C) 1 and 2, Hardcover Regulations • Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2., Hardcover Regulations • Section 10.03, Subd. 14 C, Structural Lot Coverage ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100'30'10'15' Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1,080 at lakeside 6,860 7,940 sq. ft. total (.18 acres) 49' average 55' to covered porch 3.2'8' The zoning lot does not meet the lot area, lot width, side yard or side yard adjacent to street setbacks. The covered porch encroaches into the required side yard and requires an after-the-fact variance. The applicants own the property next door to the side yard encroachment. Structural Covera2e Total Lot Size Approved Structural Coverage (1979) Allowed Structural Coverage Existing Structural Coverage 6,860 + 1.060=7,940 sq. ft.1,925.32 sq. ft. (24.24%) 1,191 sq. ft. (15%) 2,084.34 sq. ft. (26.25%) In 1979, the approved plan on file indicates that structural coverage was 24.24%. The approved deck on the south side of the residence was at grade and does not count towards structural coverage. The deck was at some point increased from 4' to 6' and currently has a roof over it. Roofed porches count towards structural coverage, so the size of the covered porch which was not included in the 1979 plan is a 6' X 26.5’ area that totals 159 sq. ft. of additional structural coverage. Hardcover Note: The applicants started out rebuilding what was damaged by the storms, a new survey was not required to rebuild their home. The survey used for these calculations was a 1986 survey. Staff recalculated what was submitted by the applicant. The calculations are not certified by a surveyor. Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75'1,080 sq. ft.60 sq. ft.NONE 60 sq. ft. for a lockbox .05% 75'-250’6,860 sq. ft.2,515.34 sq. ft.* 1,715 sq. ft. (25%) 2,568.34 sq. ft. (37.43 %) 853.34 sq. ft. (12.43%) The covered porch that was added requires a hardcover variance for an additional 53 sq. ft. of hardcover which staff calculated as the 2' extension of the 4' deck by the length of the deck which was shown as uncovered in the 1979 plan. This adds a total of 53 sq. ft. of hardcover. After-the-fact variances for hardcover are required to keep the covered porch. If the variance was denied, the porch and 2' of the deck under it would need to be removed. *There is another issue with hardcover on this property that is not addressed in the worksheets. The applicant's drawing of the property shows 3/4" stone along Baldur Park Road and in the yard between the house and north property line. A boat is stored on the stone. When gravel or stone is not over plastic and is used for landscaping purposes only, it does not count towards hardcover. Staff has determined that the stone on this property allows for parking and storage arid should, therefore, be counted towards hardcover. If the stone is to remain, it should be measured by a certified surveyor and included in the hardcover calculations. Staff would prefer, however, that this area be planted in natural vegetation to reduce the amount of hardcover on the zoning lot. The applicant will need to address this issue. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants have indicated to City staff they want a covered porch to provide an egress from the second floor bedroom in case of emergency. Issues 1.The application is for after-the-fact variances for side yard setback, hardcover, and structural coverage. If the application is not approved, the covered porch and 2' of the deck will need to be removed to reflect the same amount of suiicture and hardcover that was built in 1979. 2. The zoning lot does not meet lot area and lot width requirements. 3. 4. The residence that is being rebuilt was non-conforming as to side yard adjacent to street, side yard and rear yard setbacks. The applicant needs to be advised regarding whether or not the stone can be replaced in the yard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To approve the after-the-fact variances for structural lot coverage, side yard setback, and hardcover, provided that the applicant replace the stone in the yard with natural vegetation with a condition that no further variances for hardcover and structural coverage be granted. Attachments A B C D E F Application Plat map Applicant's drawing on survey Applicant's hardcover Building Pad Staffs survey J K 1979 plans Permit record #2427 Kenton Carlson 3498 N.Shore Drive PC’IO/19/98 page~4 G H I Staffs hardcover Letter regarding repair/rebuild 1998 west elevation A Application # •• Date Received IjT. - Amount Paid. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S50.C0 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) ADP(26S5-- S. PK)rviOu^ l^<l ‘6^305 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Uny^STTri f ZUlh/ SS3 J)______ Property Identification Number (P J.D.*) ^___________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired a- ^ J ____________________________^(month/year) I (do) (d»4Mt) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___other (specify)_____________________ Zoning District: L(Z ________________________________________ APPLICANT Phone (home ) V7/ ‘fSo'y _ Name/^:«t/72yA^;^.3y/»/)^Z(^LsW Phone(woric) SHt>£s-rb/?L\^ City: vi/y^z^t=Tei-_____Zip: ^ 5 s OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (w6rk)_ Address:City:Zip: Estimated Ck)nstmction Cost $^.ScQ oO DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ______ Describe request in detail: 6i^ AjrS ’Pa£GU -- Afo Jki _ (attach additional sheets ijf necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ’ ___ Lot Width • ^ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front XSide Rear Average Lakeshore y Other (specify) Co\jePf^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY COOTITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:^f< i// — f^cQ^c. t lO aJ •PTh-^T' ft/ ^l/S'Al'T S/-0 /A/0<^Sg/Ay (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS % • All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of ✓ Finance, A-603, Govt Center,_24&427i). 9-^2 ~7 J y'_jZT Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) arid include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. ___ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing ✓ grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/j" x 11" for reproduction. j(^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views provide one (1) copy 854" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any ether persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your yariance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infoimation 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 Signatur locate y ' OWNER’S-SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agreej to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signatur Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plaiuiing Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ■ ■-■ r r^n •’V^•”•i^;^9®gs^w5^fs^.•4.?^A‘■.!•v*. ■Dp^v^m By ^PUC^kfr- XfOcaet»®cD ^sjor Ta SCM ^l<g><S4M»Cli QffligtJT B l^cK €t>6r R:g\n^ tU^Ttrilep^ jCk Hi ^ ^ --------- ew^ IV Pf V ‘,€<y'^ ^o.,Prn<«v ^slnM FE£T Che impfoveihents shown on this drawing are approximate and are based on a visual inspection of tot dimensions are taken from the recorded plat or county records. This drawing is for informational (a»A# tOA w l*«»Vk*lt^* eWflk •• S HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET_ : /ippucmorr SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE •; A. House * X Length ^Idth B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X . • •. X X X •X I X X X X X G, Other Ld^SoX /P.o PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Hou^ ~ . L * X Length thldth Ck V.p LO.t>' X X X a. A B. Garage JwCU^Vt> x C. Driveway ;?D D. Sidewalk E. PaUo/Deck INCIU2>^^ Ujrh¥ F. Landscape aseril fV^ JUnderioia _____________ By Plasma _____________ X X X X X X X X X G. Other S.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. (oO*D S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERFY AREA IN ZONE -t- B ?3 T S. 7 X 100 (^0,0 S.F.S553s.f. h7^6 % ZKe>ik7,'X S.F. S.F. /5lg^ ~S.F. 2 S.F. S.F. 3?^^S.F. S.F. t0£> S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AR^ IN ZONE B _ X lOO 5^7.7 _s.F. S.F. ” %;^l t) A B A B • . >• • •ClTYofORONO Municipal OCHces Streat Address: 2750 Ksil^ Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Manini Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 HARDCOVER ORDINANCE - In 1975, the Orono City Council adopted an ordinance limiting the percentage of lot area that can be covered with impervious surface ("hardcover") such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the lake. The intent of Orono ’s ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. Hardcover Zones - Allowed Percentages: - • 0-75 0% 75-250’ 25% 250-500’ 30% 500-1000’ 35% Hardcover includes: - Roofs - Sidewalks - Paved or gravel driveways - Patios & decks (includes slatted decks) - Tops of retaining walls & rock walls - Decorative landscape areas underlain by plastic sheeting or fabric - Any other surface that does not allow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET — 1. Circle which setback zone (0-75’, 75-250’, etc.) the calculation is for.' 2.For each item of hardcover within that zone, enter the length and width, and multiply to get square footage (s.f.). 3. Add up all the square footages to get total square footage of hardcover. 4. Divide by the total area of property within the zone and multiply by 100 to get percentage of hardcover in the zone. ' 5. If changes in hardcover are proposed^ you should do a "before" worksheet and "after worksheet. If either results in percentages greater than those allowed, contact City staff . before proceeding with your project planning! Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 12 TAYLOR LAND SURVEYORS INC. 230 W. BROADWAY. P.O. BOX 170. MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA BS3B2 PHONE (012) 29 S-3308 PLAT DRAWING E REQUESTED py Warranty Title, Inc. t FILE NO. 5220_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NAME CARLSONt Kenton and Diane INSPECTION n^TP November 12. 1986 ADTpgpc 3498 North Shore Drive. Wavzata, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4, Block 3» BALDUR P AlteweJ---- t>UiU>lNC^ P/SD • Hennepin County* Minnesota f\lt sok-v'Oj SCALE » / INCH FEET *The location of the improvemenu shown on this drawing are approximate and are based on a visual inspection of the premises. The lot dimensions arc taken from the recorded plat or county records. This drawing is for ihformational purposes and should not be used as a survey. It does not constitute a liability of the company and is intended for mortgage purposes OQly.*' BOOK.lz5k, PAGE ___Z_ NO. 86QQ1“IQ69- TAYLOR LAND SURVEYORS INC. m 230 W. BnOAOWAV. P.O. BOX 170. MONTICELUO. MINNESOTA S83S2 PHONE IS 12) 29S-33S0 REQUESTED BY _____ FILE NO. _ 5220 PLAT DRAWING Warranty Title, Inc. F INSPECTION QATF November 12. 1986 NAMF CARLSON, Kenton and Plane ADDRESS 3498 North Shore Drive. Wavzata. Klnnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4. Block 3* BALPUR P % Hennepin County, Minnesota •House s H |0804» 60^ laxefiti pzoM^eb SCALED I INCH • FEET *The location of iht improvements shown on this drawing are approximate and are based on a visual inspeaion el the premises. The lot dimensions are taken from the recorded plat or county records. This drawing is for informational I purposes and should not be used at a survey. It does not constitute a liability of the company and it intended for mortgage purposes only." BOOK P—51. PAGE 7 WO. % .HAKDCO\nER-C^CULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500* EXISTING HAKDCOVF.R IN ZONE A. House X __________ “ 500-1000’ LcQ|th B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric Locibs «a G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X (o’ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -s- B . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Leogch B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other 6' Wtddi 10' 1030 1080' xlOO .06 Width ICL TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 1050' ^0’B /080 xlCO Gr S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. __S.F. _S.F. . 0^ ___55 A B A B prepau^ ^ HAimCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-25^ 250-500’ EMSTES^G HARDCOVER IN ZONE - AS APPROVjeO A. House X _____________ ■» UOOOiil .5h^ B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck 5locK F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric Leofth Width X X X 4* X X X X X X X X X G. 9*^^ z' ______—T— ^ . -___________5to^c Csc< afplicoiA^^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL P^^OPF.RTY AREA IN ZONE / ^/ X A J 36*‘^-34 . B tosW xioo PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X _____________ Leo|ih Wldih B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk CovcttCb PoecH E. Patio/Deck blade F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X AO*X X X X X X X X X g.’ G. Other ______________ x _____________ shf\c. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A „ ^ B U)?6Q --- 50C-1000’ nen 4- s.F. * • 2. s.F. IS.Q^ S.F. DA S.F. "^4 1Q4» loo S,F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. a‘5'5.34 S.F. (/liCof S.F. S.F. H07.4 S.F. m.2.S.F. 's.F. 03.69’ S.F. 39«4 S.F. S.F. S.F. a- A B 1S9 S.F. S.F.-AddiltoH. S.F. S.F. loo*S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. t ,7S6f. iV S.F. ,S.F. 37. A B pic[>(}!/€cf J.H, Dahlmeier Engineering Inc, August 12,1998 Kenton and Diane Carlson 3498 North Shore Drive Orono.MN 55391 R£: Storm Damage Residence 349fc i4orth Shore Drive Orono, MN Commission No. 98095 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Carlson: The purpose of this letter is to report the findings of a site visit and construction review of your residence. OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS 1. 2. 4. At the request of your contractor, Tom Betz, and the City of Orono Building Inspections Department, a site visit was conducted to review foundation conditions on July 30,1998. At the time of the site visit, the south wing of the home (two-story portion) was completely demolished with the first-floor framing cap removed. The foundation walls were exposed and several test pits dug to footing depth. 3. The following observations were made with respect to the foundation: a. The foundation is concrete masonry. The top block is filled with concrete. The top two courses are misaligned, chipped and broken. b. At the test pits, the bottom of the footing is at least 42" below grade. The footing was poured without the benefit of forms and about 14" wide at bearing. Soil for footing bearing is sand. A load tabulation indicates that the soil pressure at the footing level would be approximately 2,000 psf. 2434 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-4746 FAX (612) 472-4761 Kenton & Diane Carlson August 12, 1998 Page 2 of 2 5.SS ESJJSKSS S.5Sir~' 6.Although the footing foundation system is not ideal the cettipm^nf • value of replacement since the footing foundation system doe] meet frost protection and soil bearing capacity. 7.It IS my understanding that the contractor will accomplish the following: ^ Remove the top two courses of the existing foundation me ° above ---------ww..»,.w»w TTcui vau lu Draner neionr laairAi _____ . ... contmuous the foundation. "ra^r PROFESSTONAT. nPTMirii^ 8.It IS my professional engineering opinion that based on the above infnrmat;«« ^ a u If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, J. H. D EIER ENGINEERING, INC. . Dahlmeier, P.E. JHD:lm Cc: City of Orono Tom Betz/Betz Builders I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a uly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Minflfesota Registration No. 9212 r VuesT fLEV. ^4? AFTBE- the.- Ffer VFEIAWCC tei^— /u?K)c souT>f s I />e ^ / S'' O /i O r 3^ / 4i ‘^, ■=r:;srrr».i:r~, .rs^ «• N \y 3 R^C TRim v.^HFI i j.. :»1 !• •: iri II: ' !•?.••* • #. ^ :iv 4r i<' (•' ’T'- GAtsLE Loo\/eeiCvd»(r^ ^a"C£M/C />AV»v? Clf4*f>/6L GROo\Jt I S»*«4W ««!• A C«M«*I tAal w •• BC f «M« IB*# #1 • lM4uU|«#«. •A*« ta^iMri. •Mi %• topped VmiMMailf a«4 •«#(«(«Bf •• m i« «A«4 ••••. ^ In air** •• •oof «# WOtf «•. •M4arlaMM«i c««MaiiRt mi |sS U2£*J. _I?1 />*L*gffaaAi— »Aal W »nMa«»4 a«>4 n«a—^ ••»)! a^^«*t4 r«S?aM4*| fliaictai ifiwtra IM p**« laXt«*| fl•nk IM rt»c •# tM loof •• a §mm H Mckca «aai4c |A« ••ff b«« mi iM MiiMiaif. —mB >0 ■flf —< lAaM K •BiMa (Bt •<i.alMaBftNMAiMit. ^ A.C*rA ST ELEVATI o M ^ ' o cHAWVf L n>V ! V--. V I • V — —J X.»«’ 4 43"v/me pofiCH •V ^./ V'\ i*' '1. V •v ■ 5 X-. j./’ c- A .■X—.If / j; fftS (VEf^t) EXIST Cx yp.QTH ^LEV 'Ai=ro'* 3^9^ ^ . K PERMIT RECORD Permit No p<?6 3#'75' IOYlf2. /ou-tcr' Date ^-5--7? ^-/7- 7<y 7- =? 79' 7- / Type of Permit —■«■- - - - - - _ _ _V^Ju/-' A" TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE:August 5,1998 SUBJECT: #2428 Terrance Maurer on behalf of David and Christine Hardten 2515 Kelly Avenue Variances-Public Hearing ___________________ Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:43,170 square feet (.99 acres) Application: The applicants have proposed to remove the existing house and detached garage on the property to build a new residence with attached garage. The applicants do not intend to remove the existing boat house with stairs along the lakeshore. This application requires the following variances: 1. Accessory structure to remain on the property without a principal structure. 2.Hardcover in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback. The applicants are requesting 924 s.f. (6.3%) where none is allowed. 3.Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback. The applicants are requesting 6,530 s.f. (28.7%) where 5,673 s.f. (25%)is allowed. 4. Hardcover in the 250-500 ’ lakeshore setback. The applicants are requesting 5,748 s.f. (33.2%) where 1724.4 s.f. (30%) is allowed. U242S Terrance Maurer on behalf of David and Christine Hardten 2515 Kelly Avenue Variances m9/98 Page 1 Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations • Section 10.03, Subd. 9(A): Accessory Structures V • Section 10.03, Subd. 6(A)(1): Undersized Lots • Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage • Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(2): Allowed Hardcover • Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Allowed Hardcover B2428 Terrance Maurer on behalf of David and Christine Hardten 2315 Kelly Avenue Variances 10/I9m Page 2 .'r1 ANALYSIS T.ot Area and Yards LR-IB (1 c:cre) Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard Required 80% of 43,560 s.f. 80% of 140’ 75’10’35’ Proposed 43,170 s.f.170'Existing: 110' Proposed: 115’ Existing: 27.7’ Proposed: 10’ Existing: 73’ Proposed 161' Section 10.03, Subd. 6(A)(1) of the Zoning Code states that lots under one acre serviced by public sanitary sewer and platted prior to the date of the zoning chapter are only required to meet 80% of lot area and lot width stand^ds. This lot does meet the criteria listed in the above referenced section of the Zoning Code. Therefore no variances are required for lot area or lot width. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0-75’14,727 s.f.924 s.f. (6.3%) none (0%) 924 s.f. (6.3%) yes 75-250'22,695 s.f.To Be Removed 5,673 s.f. (25%) 6,530 s.f. (28.7%) yes 250-500’5,748 s.f.To Be Removed 1724.4’ (30%) 1,907 s.f.yes 500-1000’0 0 0 (35%) 0 none 0-75' The property contains a boathouse and steps in the 0-75' setback. The boathouse would remain on the property upon completion of a new residence. Any approval of a site plan on the property would create a legal structure, therefore a variance should be approved to allow the hardcover to remain. The Code would not allow the boathouse to remain on the property following removal U2428 Terrance Maurer on behalf of David and Christine Hardten 2515 Kelly Avenue Variances 10/19/98 Page 5 of the principal residence. A variance would have to be approved to allow the structure to remain on the property without a principal structure. The zoning code does allow a stairway to access the lake. This hardcover is legal. 75-250* All hardcover in this setback would be removed and replaced at the time of new construction. The applicant has proposed 6,530 s.f (28.7%) of hardcover. The City allows 25% in the setback. This would require a variance to allow the increased hardcover. The applicant has stated the pie shape of the lot is restrictive as the lot width at the 75' setback is 180 ’ and the lot width at the 250' setback is 82’. 250-500' The existing lot is well over 50% hardcover. The existing detached garage (proposed to be removed) and driveway is located over this portion of the lot The lot also will contain a shared driveway used for access to the neighboring property. The request for 33.2% hardcover (1907 s.f) seems reasonable due to the driveway being of minimum size to allow access to the applicant's property and the adjacent property. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 43,170 s.f Existing: 4,151 s.f Proposed: 4,712 s.f 9.6% 10.9% The lot would not exceed the 15% allowed lot coverage. ANALYSIS Variance STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. i^2428 Terrance Maurer on behalf of Day Id and Christine Hardten 2515 Kelly Avenue Variances lo/tma ?a%e 4 Issues 1.The property contains a boathouse that would remain on the property following removal of the existing residence. 3. 4. 5. 6. The proposal would meet required setbacks for the zoning district. Although the lot is undersized for the zoning district, it would not require a lot area variance for new construction. Properties under 1 acre serviced with sanitary sewer are only required to meet 80% of the standard. The lot is pie shaped creating a hardship for lot area in the lakeshore hardcover setbacks. The proposal would decrease overall hardcover on the lot from 10,110 s.f. to 9,361 s.f. Two letters in support of the proposal have been submitted and are attached to this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of variances to allow the boathouse to remain on the property and for 924 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback. Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow 1,907 s.f. (33.2%) hardcover in the 250- 500' lakeshore setback to allow a shared driveway to remain on the property. Staff recommends the applicant to reconfigure the house on the lot to conform with allowed hardcover of 25% in the 75-250' lakeshore setback. U242S Terrance Maurer on behalf of David and Christine Hardten 2515 Kelly Avenue Variances !0/l9/98 Page 5 Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K L Application Plat Map Location Map Site Topography Current Survey Proposed Survey Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Elevation Views Floor Plans Letters of Support Property Owners List Permit Record I 1 4 ii2423 Terrance Maurer on behalf of David and Christine Hardten 2515 Kelly Avenue yarlances 10/19/98 Pages A Application # Date Received Amount Paid. ..............•; .. CITY or 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 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION• • Site Address Kpily awnn** Property Identification Number fP.lD.1 38 20-117-23 12 0038------------------------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired___________________________________________^(month/year) I (S6) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: x residential ___other (specify)---------------------------------- ZoningDistrict:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- applicant Name Address Zio: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name David R. Hardten ______ City:. Phone fhome'l (612) 471 9543 Phone (work"! (612) 336 5782 _ __ _ _ _ _ _Zip:_ _ _ _ i3 ^5 Address: 2515 Kelly Avenue . DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Remove existing .house and replac e with new home Estimated Constmetion Cost $ $650fOOO.CX) (attach additional sheets .if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIl^D ^ Lot Area ___Lot Vfidth Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Otiier (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code n»gnirements : «rho nf fhp lof mnke.^i ir imnofiflib le to meet current hardcover reau.^rements and maintain a home consistent with .Uie pnrypnt* noighhorhood (attach additional sheets if necessary) /)a 1 X X 1 X .*X pd ?9 <A X T«X i 19 <^•17;mh a -•r*' n (5S) -K5 ?r (57)«# n - (96) V (38) |J X 1 X % i ^ ^T X X 5 > 2 «^J ^ ^ s2i2 2:'^ n^i A :;iww i \i 9 J !6 56-56 -®d^ =a _ 'i (.M M l!04j s'w (ics: > 4w ✓. 3? J«id iv t i«ii ton r ! 1 V itQo: Kv 'X %pD X I X » -•»}\• ••••>• 1 ^’t^ 9 M 77 !8 tf »21 ^ rf?.24 ^ • ^[15!«I’l;X if\ oi i n #1 !t ?T?3:2 X x'X ; 5 s* 1 X-5? C S^ »d '• •" i ^ s>fi is2 ,f ^(90) (89- S^S.rl al 31 I » i M ! T a^TLiUr" «JS «X h\i) ^ 2 '«1 *2)'4? [*“TV« ft • » (15) “ ' t 4140 19 y \ (131 " ^nW -H Ciion:Li »i= "Tir «: •« I3324n 1 ’M VI 1 < ir I <w-rt «*Tfl ^ f**!!<951 5"‘4 '•V’*'] M A 1 X i': :^--i- J — h-Vi •: \\^:r.li is(ico)ii Nd.**o-aDT C61) fe ( ») *itt xcrc •f«^t6f-' --------164 t?------- cri) COC rc 2>3I'« TUT?_________ iuQ NW5'';Tf. ..--,^i» .;y*r’. « I-------—ST-----, Vs^,cv/V^ IQ0-49*2t e / % 9 »C9)^eo) I a * \.‘JLsU t^ ‘iff, (43)IX va S 1 ,C0YI ”nr"C" .» 'f* K *\ -a p2i 4 ^ I A \\ Xyv \ ^ \ • •••«*• < r\Tw?- V P-. '^S3) / /6 (22) / / V w . y '/i.t i -/. ■ 1-^ i^7i ? is 5 i tt^Jilji *1 a fxm •;> -4 <; *«*W> ^ mOl^ rCiT-iV^' V/ : '. J.- >1-' t \ .A." *• Jf^v>*>•'.'v 11V!. ■'< :♦ • •1V-•* ; • \ 600 , • •<• *4 4 >•iT.V c<r^v • *.✓*.• \ *•« •• y i 9 \ \. \ • >.• > r' v-' • #r >' /« I i"*#-* ' k , * Ufiyctjfe*. aniryCttt' /- f. rt /. ,•• • ••./VJ • * •• • “agernas .V / • _ ^ SSOM V • TOIO AVf t *» .'•1 -v:l « • *.• ^ o MINNETPNM *••>4 >1' y .\\ - Spring Park SNOKiUM X 24C' ItOI *1" r. j-AT'*-]; - -.-•^1 -fV»f '-' 1 \ •• ^ *#, • I ^ «.a=>^-C* - ‘•5y.a** ,• !8C(^' , » 4“ ?0l'/U DHO] S- ^ . ••f >*..r •• • •c>^n ^ 9 y,\< 1 ^ • ■^i i ^E • ;;* ^ISLAND Locke Pocfit pc^’•% ^ IV^ ^ • •> V ^ « • % / 4* « • -^ •* . •. • ^SPRAY CD V-o<c a: V- 0^' 5 V/) 00cr c z v> 0mm X Ui 11.N Scale r - 30' IMPERVIOUS ARE>^ - A LOT ANCA - S.740 sa FT. aiUMNOUS AREA - 1,107 Sa H. WPEXViaiS SUTAa oovcrace - uu IMPERVIOUS AREA - B 1 LOT AREA -aUBBSa FT HOUX AREA - %S70 Sa FT. DECK AREA - M7 SO. FTanjwNous mea - a,ua sa ft. BOAT HOUX AREA - 737 Sa FT SOCIMLN AREA - 187 Sa FT. IMPOUAOUS SURFAa OOXRACC >< IMPERVIOUS AREA - C LOT AREA - 14,727 Sa FT BOAT HOUX AREA - 737 SO. FT SOEWLX AREA - 187 Sa FT. IMPERVIOUS SUXAX OOVERAK - 031 LOT AREA - 43,170 SQ. FT. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA - 9,361 SQ. FT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE « 21.6X fSSRVfSSU IfOAL mCRmCK TRACT C OF R.LS. NO. 1428, HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA. ADORES : 3818 KEU.T A8ENX Engmccrmg CoMMNv. me. V • SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) y YTSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ HAIUDCOVE>.ft^CULATION WORKSHEET 75-250’ 250-500’500-1000* tieuSCr B. Garage »• • C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio^eck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric Leoj^ X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Ocher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A____________ ® . ypOROSEP HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House_____________* B Wo«S Leogch ousC B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidev{alk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other i - Vid±737 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 187 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. xlOO /V/727 S.F. €»^a/ ~S.F. Width :zaz % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ♦ ®- 9 2V S.F. ^ XlOO % HARDCOVER CALCUL, SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___ X _ RKSHEET 250-500’500-1000’ Leo|di B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dedc F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -f- B PROPOSED HARDCOVER TS ZONE A. House _____________ X Leogch B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X E. Patio E. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -r B Width G S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. » S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.V. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. % Width 3£7fl_sF S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2, SSSLs.f. S.F. 3 17 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. xlOO A B hardcover calculation \york SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 75-2S0’ ryiSTlNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X ■ -------------------- 500-1000' Lcafdi Widdi B. Ganse C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ + B . f PnPQSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Leagth B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcdc F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ B. • • s.f: S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ‘s.f. S.F. ■ S.F. Cj 3.? S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. % Widdi S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. / ^ Q "7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /^0"7 S.F. ^ S.F. B xlOO fNl GEORGE C. MAURER, CONST. 201 W. TRAVELERS TRAIL SUITE 15 BURNSVILLE. MN 55337 (612)89fB904 FAX (612) 894-B891 i • S Q It CNI9 fi fi C'h /t1 J rJ . i October 4, 1998 n Charles and Candice Nadler 2509 Kelly Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 471-0275 ovii u 7 Ur ORONO City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357(phone) 473-0510(fax) Dear Michael Gaffron, Charles and I have reviewed the Initial plans for the new home that Dr. David and Christine Hsirdten are planning at 2515 Kelly Avenue. We are writing to support the design plans that we reviewed for a lovely new home that will certainly enhamce the property and our community of Orono. The Hardten’s have been very committed to keeping their property beautifully landscaped. This new home wUl certainly be full of lovely plants and trees that will preserve our lakeshore environment. I hope that in the future our commerclcd areas in Navarre will be held to the same type of standards for preserving our environment that the residents are. We need to raise the bar for new commercial development In our residential areas. We must develop the natural beauty of our incredible geographic location and enhance our community with areas of green grass, plants, scrubs, and trees rather than condone retail centers of blacktopped blight. Please feel free to call us regarding any Issues with the building of the Hardten’s proposed plans at our home (471-0275) or at my office (542-4853). Sincerely, OTuck and Candice Nadler City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear City Council Members and Members of the Planning Commission: We have become aware of the variances that David and Christine Hardten of 2515 Kelly Ave are requesting to make improvements to their property. We live two houses from them and are aware of the unusual shape of their lot, and the problems that this presents. We believe that the proposed plans would enhance the appearance of the property without negatively affecting the adjacent properties. We are in favor of the improvements that they have suggested. jn Sincerely, / Ken & Rita Heimbach 2525 Kelly Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Cc: David R. Hardten RUN DATE 00/1^/96 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT HO. P1A3SA0I PJ^GE ^ ATCH 503 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 36 20-117-23 11 0022 02525 KELLY AVE K G HEiraACH IRE HEIMBACH K 6 NEIMBACH IRE HEIMBACH 2525 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 36 20-117-23 11 0032 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DAVID J DELANEY DAVID J DELANEY A600 CASAMITA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 36 20-117-23 12 0037 02509 KELLY AVE C I C NADLER CHARLES I CANDICE NADLER 2509 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 \ PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 36 20-117-23 12 0036 02515 KELLY AVE DAVID R HARDTEN DAVID R HARDTEN 2515 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55351 36 20-117 23 12 0039 02523 KELLY AVE BRADLEY A HOYT BRADLEY A HOYT 253 LAKE ST E WAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 12 00^6 02505 KELLY AVE BRADLEY A HOYT BRADLEY A HOYT 253 LAKE ST E WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR TOTAL BATCH 503 00006 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE Permit No. 3/7 (e PERMIT RECORD Date 4 /a -n~i^ >/g-7g 'Z^'32 '19 ^''c? -7 7 7 ^'SIS /<'e/(-. j%d Type of Permit ^iTLc^^aj^ TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator October 12,1998 SUBJECT: #2429 Jeffrey Brauchle and Elisa Schoonover 650 North Arm Drive Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:60,040 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (1.38 acres) Application:The applicants are requesting several variances that would allow for the replacement of a lakeside deck on their home. A small portion of the deck is located in front of the 75' lakeshore setback. The applicants are requesting only to replace the existing deck. They do not plan to increase die size of the deck or encroach closer to the lake. This application will require the following variances: 1.Section 10.22, Subd 1(B): To permit the reconstruction of a residential deck 63* from the lakeshore where 75' is required. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2: To allow 2.1% hardcover where 0% is normally allowed. 3. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l): To allow 2.1% hardcover where 0% is normally allowed. 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2: To allow 50.5% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed. 5. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(2): To allow 50.5% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed. Lot History: A variance was granted in 1978 creating a buildable lot. The variance allowed a residence to be constructed on a lot with less than one acre of dry buildable land and approved variances to permit a principal building within the front yard setback, located 27' from the lot line. A variance to construct the residence in the 75' lakeshore setback was not approved. if 24 Elisa Schoonovir and Jeffrey Brauchle 650 Sorth Arm Drive Variances 10/19/98 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB (1 acre) Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard Required 43,560 s.f.140 s.f.75'10'35' Existing Proposed 60,040 s.f.800'63'100'29' The existing deck is located 63' from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka. The applicants have proposed to reconstruct a deck in the same location and size as exists today. A portion of the home was constructed in the 75' lakeshore setback, thus narrowing the deck would not eliminate any variances. The residence had variances approved to construct the home within the front yard setback. The portion of the deck that wraps around the house encroaches into the front yard setback 6'. They are proposing to construct a deck 29' from the front lot line where 35' is required. ^2429 Elisa Schoonover and Jeffrey Brauchle 650 North Arm Drive Variances 10/19/98 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 0’-75’ 75'-250’ Total Area in Setback 46,820 s.f. 13,220 s.f. Existing Hardcover 1,014 s.f (2.1%) 6,682 s.f (50.5%) Allowed Hardcover none (0%) 3,382 s.f (25%) Proposed Hardcover 1,014 s.f (2.1%) 6,682 s.f (50.5%) Variance Requested To allow replacement of a deck partially within 75' of the lake. To allow replacement of a deck partially within the 75-250 lakeshore setback. 250'-500'Os.f 0 s.f (0%) 0 s.f (0%) 0 s.f (0%) none 500’- 1000' 0 (35%) none The applicant has requested a hardcover variance to allow an equal replacement of a deck to be locc'ted within 75' of the lakeshore of Lake Minnetonka. A hardcover variance is also necessary L” ttic 75-250' setback. 0-75' Lakeshore Setback The proposal to replace the deck would account for a total of 438 s.f of hardcover. Although, hardcover exists under the deck as rock underlain by plastic. (Please refer to Attachment C) The plastic does extend beyond the edges of the deck totaling an additional 193 s.f of hardcover. The remainder of hardcover within 75' of the lake is a stairway and landing, with wood retaining walls located on a hillside. The City has no records that any variances or conditional use permits were ever applied for to allow the retaining walls to exist. 75-250' Lakeshore Setback The hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback would remain at 50.5%. Included in this figure is 363 additional s.f of rock/woodchips with underlain plastic, and 3,980 s.f of driveway. The drive has two access points to North Arm Drive. The northerly drive has a direct link to the garage and the southerly drive provides a second access to the property. U2429 Elisa Schoonovei and Jeffrey Brauchle 650 Sorth Arm Drhe Variances 10/19/98 Page 3 Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 60,040 s.f.2,853 s.f.4.7% The lot does meet the 15% allowed lot coverage for structure. ANALYSIS Variance STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues 1.The lot is very wide and narrow, resulting in most of die subject lot being within 75' of Lake Minnetonka. 2. The original plans for the residence do not include the southern portion of the deck or the landing on the hillside. The city does not have record of a building permit being issued for those structures. 3. 4. The replacement deck would have the same footprint as the existing deck. A variance was granted to previous property owners to allow the residence to be constructed 27' from the front lot line. The deck is 29' from the front lot line. This portion of the deck is necessary to allow the applicants to reach an entrance to the house on the south side. 5. The lot does meet structural coverage requirements. i^2429 Elisa Schoonover and JeJJrey Brauchle 650 North Drive Variances 10/19/98 Page 4 1 ’I STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to minimize the impact of stormwater runoff on shoreland areas and protect the quality of natural waterways. One way the City does this is by regulating the amount of hardcover that prevents rain and surface water from being absorbed and filtered naturally into the ground to remove impurities. Staff is requesting the underlain plastic be removed from the propertj’ (556 s.f.). Staff recommends the variances be approved due to the small area of the lot that is within the 75-250' lakeshore setback and subject to some hardcover being removed. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K Application Applicant's Statement of Hardship Site Plan Location Map Topographic Map Survey Hardcover Worksheets Plat Map Deck Plan Property Owners List Permit Record 1 U2429 Elisa Schoonover andJeJffrey BrauchU 650 North Arm Drive Variances 10/19/98 PagfS A % * ^ ;?• »* t * Application # *^^^7 * Date Received ^l2.2l^ Amount Paid. ^2.5^ A . • I CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE ^PLICATION .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 lOTORMATION Site Address NJ ovlt ~v ^ (V z-i-vn ^ Property Identification Number fPJ.D.) c>Vi» - qqq v Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired rvNVcxL/- ?> \ -^ \^ ft lg>_______________^(month/year) 1 (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___pother (^ecify)______________________ Zoning District: ^^___________________________ APPLICANT Phone (home ) Name _____1_ Phone (wor kl Address: (d^o (\r-<vs- City: Orot-vo _______Zip:*^S‘^Vg»*^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:,Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction ^st $<^co6c7.oo ^ Describe request in detail: eiE: o ________________________ e 1/ t •,V. *y '•*43V • * X- I. ^ (attach additional sheets .if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area • Lot Viidth \/ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side \Z" Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTiON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS * V* • Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or imusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: *>€?e ________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) September 22, 1998 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Mn. 55356 Re: Brauchle Schoonover Variance Application Dear City Officials, This letter is the description of our variance requests and the unusual property conditions preventing compliance with the requirements of the zoning code. Our house was built in approximately 1980. We purchased it at the end of 1986. The house has an elevated deck on the back and side as shown on the survey submitted with our application. The deck is somewhere between fifteen and twenty years old and needs to be replaced. We have visited with your zoning staff and have been advised that we need four variances. A portion of the deck lies within seventy five feet of Lake Minnetonka, requiring a setback variance. The fi’ont of the deck lies within fifty feet of the front of our lot, requiring a firont setback variance. According to the surveyor ’s hardcover calculations, 2.02% of the 0 to 75’ zone is covered by hardcover, including the deck, requiring a hardcover variance. In addition, 50.54% of the 75-250’ zone is covered by hardcover, again requiring a hardcover variance. All of this is caused by the shape of the lot. The lot is large, but wide and shallow. The deepest portion of the lot, where the house is buUt, is only 126 feet deep at the maximum point. Even at its maximum depth, then, there is literally no room for any structure given that the 75 foot lakeshore setback and fifty foot firont setback equal the maximum depth of the lot. All of the lot lies within 250 feet of the lake. As a result, the house, driveway and deck are all situated at the widest point of the lot, but inevitably violate the setbacks and hardcover regulations cited above. This hardship was recognized by the City when the house was built. At that time a front yard setback variance (#423) was granted. I su;mise the other regulations I have discussed were not in effect at the time. The City in granting the variance noted the “severe hardship of the shallow depth of the lot ” even at its widest point. Hence, we request the needed variances on the same grounds. c% ^ ^1 1 '"j 0-1 i* & We wish to emphasize that we propose no new hardcover or improvements-we seek only to replace the deck currently on the property. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to call with questions. Very truly yours, lenrey R. Brauchle Af. Elisa M. Schoonover 650 North Arm Drive Orono, Mn 55364 (612) 472-6325 *1 .•** ••/ . * ./ V - ••. .*■ 1 ‘•v. ' ' . * ••• CJ^ Access o qfohi a w 0 rtl6H BATSDE EUIN ST 400 • EO OAX t Red .* Oi^'i Cd^i'i feoursc' % A KATS I rhuKe--l^r..'Wi — lATS ■**3 ^r^U.OMrie-i-kX WEH WAICW AO - > •• 8C0 'aj s" ¥=^’'^ ?C -'1. •■-•- ^ ^ .•i:iA;.:.v *' l ^ mi . I Forest 5Afl<fBoo^ Faint '-•?: v.-v-: -V- y^/ DEERING ^^v' ISLAND -'.V-r'L-- . ,^r.»0 Afaxw6 4 .••_ . i.MWI p f• :. .. K I t'A V/ • ^ *0/^ T«# \-4f a:-V.. :•: : . . r V r,.y:.v ..r.'.^-;*V ■ *U«I JA ■?I^ At-Tcv^Ama — OR A itCKSOM AVI 0 RO o \ -■ •*^«-V/.>*. • •■ •.,'.' vl* • c-‘.-«. •.•• '.•/• >.'z~ X *•. * • -e •►’; V*. 1 •_ ♦ •• • •• ^ '*• >!• • LLL* • -^\^SH0KLttE o i czar r HARriroyF ^Cj^CULATiOiN vv ‘oi<ivbki::h.i SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE OISHE) ^7sj) . 75-250’ .25-500’ ..... • • EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 6 Maucmk . ,4500-1000' A. House i^COHCHCrC ^PlUMAjf^ f.:\M?oO R.eTA/N»N6^ Leng'Ji Width ;!■ iL i WOOO STEP-S . B. Garage . ■ C. Driveway X X X V • f. t.• • 4- 11 . ••r. « f D. Sidewalk • • »• % • E. Patio/Deck AMO STEPS 056K ADJA cth T TP X X X X X X F. Landscape OH PLASTIC. * ^ Underlain______________ By Plastic. ______________ x ... Or Fabric • G. Other t • • • • « • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B. 4(.8ZO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Length Width B. Garage •• C;* Driveway * D. * Sidewalk * E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic Or Fabric G. Other . X • X -x X* • X X • X X X X X X • . • • •» • 8 ea S.F. S= 1 27 . S.F. e (0 0 S.F. . S.F. 1 • S.F. • • ••.... # ••• • S.F. •S.F. cs S.F. S.F. * • .W£r S.F. n 1 •S.F. • • . • •1<J3 S.F. *1 •S.F; ... « o* • 1 . •s:f. mmm •. • • • 9 S.F’ • * • * • t ?4€" M • • "" • • • • X 100 . ■».. Z,02 • • • • • * ■ /• S.F. S:E .T . t* 1^,,. ">• •• • -r *'• sy-'^\iS.F. • • •• • • s. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^B X 100 - . S.F. " S.F. " r# A E • •• •• • • . i- •* ;• %•n* [i :r • $ •G •- HAIOJCOVER 2«f2 ' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ^ • • • •9m •^ t • FYT<mNG HARDCOVER ZONE A. House ______________ • IjCQ^^ *, # ' yjJoqO ^TitPS - Srone v/au-5 -2.il.f. >5" VV^oO WAtL$_______!-------- X X width • • ^ (go l.-F> tzi X : . • t B. Garage C. Driveway » . D. ■ Sidewalk • • • f • • ii* % • E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic. Or Fabric • X X X X X X X X X t • • • V • • •« • G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ••£€82.B /3.Z2Q.X 100 ppnpnSF.D HARD<"^VER IN ZONE . A. House ______________ Length • • Width X X .X B. Garage c. Driveway D. . Sidew^k E. Paiio/Deck • F.' Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X X X X X .V • • • • • • I • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZO^NE ^ A ----------^ 19^2 S.F. • AM 32 ■•■! s S.F.' ___S.F. . S.F. S.F. 37 8 0 S.F. S.F. •.I .• . • S.F. S.F. S.F. >S.F. 14^S F •J ;* w«?o S.F. S.F. zegj^s.F. A B % • .•ir'.T • -• • • • •• •• • •••• S.F. S.F. X 100- - • S.F. " S.F. " F. A B ... . • • 14 • t • • • • ® . * •% .* • • • • • • • •* SEP-3Q-13P3 14:53 <jl HErUI CO PFOPEPTf Th;^;343971b P.Ol 1- \ WO(o-Ul-93~ / \ , \ \/\(>' I * wrw.rr i (5) \ i. \ •I / , y>r- I I • I I 11 \ ■*' P X'S-.R.'SS /»•» \^ % y. A- vV>, ' •\ \i7 i 's --^s, v' >(-o)%^ 'v VW ‘X V \\ \ V \ » ‘■4% ' '■' (7) («) '<••* R& sr.'.V .V* +f0 Post-it ’ Fax Note Co/Oep:. Phon# n 7671 oateC^..30^j^ p»,gU» 1 From PN.o.>3y^. Fax V /•••» fv ^ •• •• • ^ i ••.J V o RUN DATE 09/23/9® BATCH 501 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATIOH SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT HO. PM35901 PACE 1 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 32 0003 00<t05 NORTH ARM DR LAKEVIEW COLF OF MTKA INC LAKEVIEW COLF OF MTKA INC 055 RED OAK LA MOUND HN 55364 38 06-117-23 42 0005 00580 NORTH ARM OR B V JOHNSON APR BRYCE V A PAULA R 500 NORTH ARM DR HOUND HN 55364 JOHNSON JOHNSON 30 06-117-23 42 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO VICTORIA ESTATES HOHEOWNERS VICTORIA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS C/0 THOMAS MAZER 560 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 30 06-117-23 43 0001 00650 NORTH ARM DR J BRAUCHLE A E SCHOONOVER JEFFREY R BRAUCHLE AND ELISA H SCHOONOVER 650 NORTH ARM OR MOUND HN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0002 00600 NORTH ARM DR DOUCLAS F WATSON DOUGLAS F WATSON 660 NORTH ARM DR HOUND HN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0012 00645 NORTH ARM DR K H A B M SHIN KWAN6 H A BARBARA M SHIN 645 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 501 00006 A 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE im hlfSlJ ^S‘0 PERMIT RECORD Permit No. £^s Date //- i39-7P' y-/7- 7 9 4'-'SY'?9 Type of Permit TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator October 15,1998 #2432 Greenfield Corporation, having an interest in 4755 and 4755 Bayside Road Driveway Easement--Amendment to Subdivision Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) Lot 1 2.10 acres, 2.05 acres excluding storage pond Lot 3 2.4 acres Application:The applicants have sold Lot 1 and granted a 20’ private driveway easement over Lot 3 to provide access. The private driveway easement is not in compliance with the approval resolution that required that access to Lot 1 was to be via Outlot A. ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200'50’30 ’50’ Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Lot 1-2.05 acres 205 ’>50’30 ’>50’ Lot 3 —2.4 acres 200 ’no structure no structure no structure U 2432 Greenfield Co. 4755/4775 Bayside Rd PC-W/I9/98 page-l A new residence is under construction on Lot 1. It complies with all of the minimum lot area, lot width, anchsetback requires. Lot 3 does not have a structure on it. At the time of subdivision there was considerable discussion about the driveway outlot access and the preference to not grant lot vvidth variances. The City Council adopted the preliminary plat resolution (Res.3750) and final plat resolution (Res. 3798) which required that the outlot be divided equally in thirds for owTiership among the three lots. Access was to be provided to the lots adjacent to Bayside Road via the outlot. Each lot was to meet the lot width requirement of 200'. Lot 3 and Lot 4 were both platted at 200'. Lot 1 is platted at 205'. If the proposed driveway for Lot 1 had been platted as part of Lot 1, then Lot 3 would not meet the lot width requirement. The City's consulting engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway and has indicated that from an engineering standpoint it is acceptable. He noted that a culvert may need to be built to provide for runoff. Options 1. The applicants could propose a lot line rearrangement which would remove the area of the driveway easement from Lot 3 and attach it to Lot 1. That would result in the need for a lot width variance for Lot 3. 2. The City could recognize the driveway easement over Lot 3 in favor of Lot 1. The lot width for Lot 3 would continue to considered 200', however, the area of the driveway easement would not be included in the lot area calculation for Lot 3. Further, the applicant would be required to install a culvert to provide for the concerns identified by the consultant engineer. The City would require that a resolution be adopted accepting the easement with an executed copy of the easement attached for public record. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Easements for access purposes are inferior to platted outlots. Staff frequently receives inquiries from the public about driveways and easements. They create considerable confusion among adjacent property owners as to ownership and rights. Issues in the past have included location of garbage cans, mailboxes, landscaping, mowing, and maintenance. f# 2432 Greenfield Co. 4755/4775 Bayside Rd PC-10/19/98 page-2 The Planning Commission should discuss the two options in the context of the engineer* report and the minutes from the subdivision approval process. Attachments A Application B Applicant's letter C Proposed easement survey D Engineer's letter E Property owners list F Final Plat with setbacks G Final Plat as recorded H June 10,1996 minutes I July 22,1996 minutes J August 12,1996 minutes K November 12,1996 minutes L Declarations M Res. 3750 N Res. 3798 # 2432 Creen/teld Co. 4755/4775 Bayside Rd PC-IO/19/98 page-3 Application it rO.^'3 O' Date Received Amount Paid /cxP l ’^ A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION / PROPERTY LOCATION . Siieaddress V 7-^^ ^7PS Property Identification Number (PID) 38 Qfc- I n - ^ ^5- OQA.I C4T 5*9) Please check one - Property ____abstract or torxens? Attach legal description to application. ^ ) (5 hAtXJiclc ______ _____ C^Jb^oliATIc^____________________ Address ^ 7 2 CJ <; City /iTh^^, APPLICANT Name t=urv _Zip Phone (home) ' ^ Phone (work) *7>5^>32iaQ OWTSTR (if different than applic^ . ^ Nam e ^ptserO'rta.fe jTillcu)A<i Address • 1^0 hkjLu~nfTk, D/^ City Cl) I^^2n»r7> . /Vlt^Zip (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Deyelopment Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Phone (home) 73 ~ J f _Phone (work) 2.co o EteeH-wr Ac Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels I Residential; no. of units S» P Other (specify)_______ ^*41^) -fov* Lof I Diyision for Tax Purposes Number of Building Sites Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdiyision for New Building Sites I I Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) _ Existing Units New Units _ Total Units _ Units per___Acres _ Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land _ Residential _ Other (specify)_________ C^' 1 ,1 ^UTERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Pa>-ment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey ' W »f Financ. Lni^i Officiarfsbn”tu'!li^ appliation. please attach a separate list of any otherpersons you wish notified of this application. ~' Dcitc_________ MINIMUM MATERLALREQUIREb 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. •i. Easements, covenants, etc. ' aacLLetter of Credit. Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check p<] those which applv) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 -------- Prelimina.7 Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class IH & all non-resideotial) _____ 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) Totals . Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) . Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivisio.r Application $150.00 (No change from original application) iai ImnrAVAmpnf Foac*B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;' lin. ft. X .50 “ $_ lin. ft. X .50 “ $ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/smb _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 -------- On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees • - . ' _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) X Casemtiii %'t>wativ>ii Assuciated with Subdivision S 100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessaryjQ_^^^ess^^^jsapn^aiion and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Applicant’s Signature Date ^tE/9^ Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Plaiming Commission meeting. Plaiming Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building <8: Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Oct 07 98 12:40p Laurie M. Lundeen 838-0144 p.2 GreenQeld Corporation Lauiie M. Lundeen 3220 Hopkins Crossroads Minnetonka, MN 55305 Hilloway Corporation Jim Fenning 1550 Hunter Drive WajTata, Ms. Liz Vaa Zomeien October 7, 199S City Planner/ Z City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkv^ay Orono, Minnesota 55356 Adnnnistrator Dear Ms.Van Zomeren Thank you for youi- letter of October 1,199S I did not realize that the application was incou^lete. In yovn letter you refened to the access as no longer "via the platted Outlet." It is my intendou to maintain the only access to the lot by way of the outlet. What I am requesting is that we be able to grant a private casement for driveway purposes over the westerly 20 fact of lot 3. This casement would run in favor of Lot 1. When the property was graded and the private road consn-ucted on Outlet A to serve lots 1, 3 and 4, Chadwick w» discovered that a driveway coming off the side of the Outlot was preferable to a driveway that would come off the and of the Outlot. We concluded this because 1 . There would be less removal of n ees directly in the path of the driveway. 2. Because the driveway trav’eises a medium sized ravine there would be less filling of the ravine and less tree removal on the side slopes wher e the 611 would be placed We hav'e since sold Lot I and a house is being constmeted on it. When we sold it, we granted the buyer an easement aver the westerly 20 feet of Lot 3. In other cities where I have dev eloped real estate it has nut been necessary to got appr oval from the City For private casement purposes. But I have since learned that Oiono has had special circumstances occur that have necessitate this ordinance. Ignorance of the ordin.Tnce, of Orono, on my part, is no e.xcuse for my granting of the easement. The easement was only granted to save nees and grading. I am respectfiffly requesting the City of Orono to permit my gxanting of a driveway easement over the westerly portion of Lot 3, Chadwick- in favor of Lot 1, Chadwick. Thank you, I appreciate your consideration of this matter. Sincerely. Laurie M. Lundeen President Greenfield Corpor ation EVAN MELINE' ^ OF LOT 1. BLOCK 1, CHADWICK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA BAYSIDE ROAD S 89*45 ’l W 15.00 N 0*!J0’ 15" W I 30.00 N 89*45'i E 15.00 d‘/r c^rcf4dj I Sfrrfd A fd/rtd/^A^rdy I rnAi f>r<:rRiPTtOM or pprui<^Ff^ Lol 1. Block 1,; CHADWICK |ioi?.a| ^ ^1004 — denoles lr|>n marker denotes existing spot elevation, mcon see level dotum denotes proposed spot elevation, me on seo level datum denotes existing contour line, meon seo level datum Bearings shown ore bosed upon on assumed datum. LOT AREA - 89.944 SO. FT. (2.065 ACRES) This survey Intbnds'to show the boundories of the obove described properly,, ond the proposed locotlon of o proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show ony other Improvements or encroachments. PROPOSED aEVATIQNg : 1) BASEMENT • • 2) TOP OF FOUNDATION ^ |/w.r| 3) GARAGE - i i OESICN^O REVISION Date OC3|CRPTOH (D /•If 19 DRAWN o>At¥./f0 d 9-21 .IF Jtr. /0i¥ft¥A* 0»A I0*€i0>r dAJ J OeeXED .. COFFIN & GRONBERG, WG. C0NSU.TW0 ENCtCERS. LAND SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS 482 TAMARACK AVENUE. LONG LAKE. MN. 55358 812-473-4141 I iCItCBY CtRirY THAI THS PLAM. SPCCTCATIOH. OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR ItCER MY OilECT SUPERVISCN AM) THAT I AM A DULY LCENSCO PROfESSlOMAL CNCtCER ItOER T^C LAWS or the state or mmcsota . Xk__?_rr DATE • 4-23-88 JOe NO. _9a=J02_ ^ m Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & I \ \ Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. Andertik jtndAssociates, tnc Is an Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anaeruk. P£ • M^rvm L Survoi.v PE • Richard E. Turner. PE • Glenn R. Cook. PE • RoOert G Schunicht. PE • Je^^ry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberiin. C PA.. Senior Consultants Associate Pnncpais Howard A. Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferie. PE • Richard W. Foster. PE • David O. Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. AIA • Mark A. Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE. • Kenneth P Anderson. PH • Mark R Rolfs. PE. • Sidney P Williamson. PE. L S • Robert F Kotsmitn • Agnes M. Ring • Michael P Rau. P.E. • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wriimar and St Cloud. MN • Mil waukee. Wl Weosite WWW bonestroo com October 14,1998 Elizabeth VanZomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Greenfield Driveway Easement File No. 139-2432 Dear Liz: We have reviewed the request for a drivev/ay easement for Lot 1, Block 1, Chadwick. The site is located in the southeast comer of the intersection of Bayside Road (C.R.84) and North Shore Drive West (C.R. 19) in the north half of Section 6. Based on a site visit and a review of the Certificate of Survey, we have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: The revised driveway alignment across the pioposed easement appears to be acceptable from an engineering standpoint. The new alignment would result in less tree removal and minimize impacts to the ravine. Our site visit did indicate that a culvert under the driveway may be necessary at a point approximately 120-feet south of Outlot A so that mnoff is not trapped east of the driveway. 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 D 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. P^ul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 mm DATE 09/23/98 BATCH 50<ii PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 34 01-117-29 11 09885 CO RD NO CARY 0 A THERESA CARY 0 S THERESA 9885 CO RO 19 HAPLE PLAIN MN OOOS 19 A REIERSEN A REIERSEN 55359 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 36 01-117-29 11 0006 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GARY 0 < THERESA A REIERSEN CARY 0 < THERESA A REIERSEN 9085 CO RO NO 19 HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 REPORT NO. PI93S901 PACE 7 38 06-117-23 22 0017 09665 DAYSIOE RD I T 8 H L GEFFRE IRVIN S HARJORIE GEFFRE 9665 BAYSIDE RD HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 30 06-117-23 22 0010 00038 ADDRESS PENDING ERVIN A WACHHAN JR ERVIN A WACHHAN JR 2135 SALEH CT LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 06-117-23 22 0021 09755 BAYSIDE RO HILLOWAY CORP ET AL HILLOWAY CORP I GREENFIELD CORP 1551 HUNTER DR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 06-117-23 22 0029 00180 NORTH SHORE DR W RODNEY B COLSON RODNEY B COLSON 180 NORTH SHORE OR HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 31-118-23 33 0007 09790 BAYSIDE RD L YOGERST 8 0 DUNN D DUNN 8 L YOGERST 9790 BAYSIDE RD HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 06-117-23 22 0019 09775 BAYSIDE RD EVAN R HELINE EVAN R HELINE 16901 GRAYS BAY BLVD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 06-117-23 22 0022 09725 BAYSIDE RD J W HORCAN JR 8 D C PULFORD J W HORGAN JR 8 D G PULFORD 815 PINEVIEW LA N PLYHOUTH HN 55991 38 06-117-23 22 0025 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HILLOWAY CORP ET AL HILLOWAY CORP 8 GREENFIELD CORP 1551 HUNTER DR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 31-118-23 33 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED B R LANGE 8 J B BURRELL BRUCE R LANCE SUITE 615 53 W JACKSON BLVD CHICAGO IL 60609 38 06-117-23 22 0020 00070 NORTH SHORE DR W JERRY R BOLDENOW JERRY R BOLDENOW 16912 EXCFLSIOR BLVD HINNETONKA HN 55395 38 06-117-23 22 0023 00150 NORTH SHORE DR W S D 8 J A DZUBAY STEVEN 0 8 JULIE A DZUBAY 900 FORD RD Hill ST LOUIS PARK HN 55926 38 31-118-23 33 0006 09720 BAYSIDE RD B PETER ACHEY ETAL B PETER ACHEY 9720 BAYSIDE RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 31-118-23 33 0012 00150 nCCULLEY RO HARCIA A BARNUH HARCIA A BARNUH 10569 PARKER OR EDEN PRAIRIE HN 55397 ?0 V.- PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 31-118-23 33 0013 09680 BAYSIDE RD H 0 SLETTEN 8 H K SNETSINCER H D SLETTEN 8 H K SNETSINGER 9680 BAYSIDE RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 70 36-118-29 99 0009 00087 HCCULLEY RD LARRY 8 SUSAN VENSEL LARRY 8 SUSAN VENSEL 87 HCCULLEY RD HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 TOTAL BATCH 509 00017 00 RUN DATE 09/23/48 BATCH 509 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATXON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S590I PAGE 8 38 06-117-23 22 0004 100 NORTH SHORE DR W S M CAMP'.ET AL STEPHANIE M & ROBERT E 100 NORTH SHORE DR W MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 CAMP iO I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.. _ _ ^ DATE « '' ^LL5-«Y ■PARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE Bl M IhQjui) ' 11^ / >>'^£6 '<? j9/rm3/r> trrovo >¥ *¥£'i! •>r f iz 'S i V /✓fV Adfj I s0^i^^d Mm . . *•# ; J V*. 1/ V2;^-—^ J J,r / / /\ L/ ..-r ,-6-t"/' o J k J o/ -.K. ► k ' C/D • -•**V ^ I I 4^" \«\ V o :>I » \ • I » I /N i\’^ 9>. A. oS ^ . I 1 o-r"/'f''] °/' o I • 10 / . s ^ / L / / . ’ o& x\ ■W'Ai \ i ' *4*/. \ OOJ2’ I •V aw i; • ■8TP/:V , iOlltyO'* !;^T •'•i; M JAILS' ••j */ Vi' vj »• d8 'm'0'¥,££ 9trff*n»Kd 'i /sn,vu -nwns?;v nv NOt^ 1N itNONO .lOv' V dr 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR OROiNO CITY COUNCH. MEETING HELD ON JUNE 10,1996 ("3 - #2112 Richard and Janet Putnam - Continued) Goetten informed Putnam that she has heard his comments, and the Council is looking into where the process may be speeded up, noting there are places where it cannot. WTiile there may be possible areas for improvement, Goetten said the City tries to be fair and not single out any one property. Goetten says she does not care for after-the-fact variances, but reiterated that Putnam’s comments will be considered in their review of the process for possible changes. Kelley moved, Callahan seconded, to adopt Resolution ^=3730, granting an after-the-fact hardcover variance to Richard and Janet Putnam of 2765 Casco Point Road for replacement in-kind of the existing deck. Vote: Ayes 2, Nays 1, Goetten, noting she did not vote in favor of the variance in 1988 and is not changing her mind at this time. (^#4) #2133 JOHN AND KARLA SPOONER, 1385 ORONO LANE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3731 Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution #3731. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. ('*#5) #2134 ROBERT ALBRECHT, 1810 SHADYWOOD ROAD - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES - REQUEST FOR REFERRAL BACK TO JUNE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to refer the revised proposal of Zoning File #2134 to the Planning Commision for review on June 17th. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. ^ (#6) #2136 GREENFIELD CORPORATION, 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mark Gronberg and Laurie Lundcen were present. Mabusth reported that the 17.2 acre site received preliminary approval for a 2-lot subdivision in 1986 for a single residential lot with a larger outlot for future development, but it was never finalized. The applicant proposes a 6 lot residential division with 3 lots served from North Shore Drive and 3 lots at the north from a private road with a cul-de- sac. The northeast access at Bayside Road was selected as the best access in 1986 review. This access was to serve the subject property and property to east (Bayside Farms 2nd Addition). The extension road, Outlot B, will serve as access to future development within Outlot C, Bayside Farms 2nd Addition. The developer will be asked to grade and seed the roadbed, as current owner of property to east has no immediate plans to build residence or subdivide. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\ COUNCIL MEETING EDELD ON JUNE 10, 1996 (U6 - ??2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Mabusth continued that there are designated wetlands along with type 1 and 2 wetlands, which are not part of the City's mapping but require proteaive covenants. The applicant will be asked to provide detailed plans for access to lot 6. Access for lots 1, 3, and 4 will be served by road outlot A and lots 2, 5, and 6 from two separate curb cuts off of North Shore Drive. The existing residential drive to lot 6 encroaches on the property to the south, is unsafe, and will be eliminated. A new shared access will be located on the shared lot line between lots 5 and 6. A detailed plan of this access will be required from the developer. The 26' setback must be maintained from the wetlands and 20' setback fre Tt the drainfield area. The key issue for this proposal is access. The applicant wants to preserve the 3 obvious building sites and presented a similar plan outlining this arrangement in the sketch plan review. Based on the location of septic sites (2, 3, and 4), location of wetlands, and topography, the developer has asked to create a new curb cut at North Shore Drive and create a private road that would serv e only 3 of the 6 lots. The code provides construction standards for typical section for road serving 3-6 units. The comprehensive plan is less detailed. It notes the general desire of the City to have private, internal roads, , instead of new curb cuts. In this proposal, there would be 1 new curb cut at North Shore Drive. Lot width variances would also be needed for lots 1, 3, and 4. The 12 septic test ' ^ Sites reveal the need for mound systems Mark Gronberg reported that the property consists of 655' at property line adjacent to Bayside Road. The County has asked for 17 additional feet for County Road 19 for a total dedication of 50'. This would allow 200' for each lot. Gronberg said, if the cul-de- sac was extended westward, the lot widths could be achieved. Gronberg did not care to do so. It w'ould result in the elimination of lot Ts building site. Gronberg noted the steep slopes. Gronberg remarked that the frontage along Outlot B would give lot 4 required frontage and argues whether a lot width variance is required. CoRds 19 and 84 also serve as frontage for lot 1. Lot 3 is located at the end of the cul-de-sac and would need a lot width variance. Kelley asked if the proposal could meet the ordinance requirements if the cul-de-sac was extended. Gronberg said this is true. The variances are being asked for in order to pull back the cul-de-sac to put in the road for the adjoining property*. Hurr questioned whether there was a need for a full cul-de-sac or for outlot A? If lots 1 and 3 shared a driveway and lot 4 came off of the outlot road, only a temporary cul-de- sac would be necessary. At this time, there is no idea when the lot to the east would be developed. There are no building plans for the outlot. It would be just graded and seeded. >nNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 10,1996 (#6 - ^^2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Kelley noted that lot 4 access would be in the first 50' of outlot B. Cook said outlot A could be eliminated. Callahan asked what the function of outlot B w-as? Gronberg said it was for the purpose of future development for site distance. Laurie Lundeen asked Mabusth to explain the plans. Mabusth said, based on earlier directions of the City, the northeast comer was selected during the Olson subdivision as the best access for the subject property and property to immediate east. Goetten questioned why this developer has to provide the access for another development which has yet to be planned? Mabusth noted Staff is following directions of Council. Hurr asked why a shared road could not occur. Mabusth said it would eventually happen but would need a turnaround. Mabusth informed Callahan that the cul-de-sac in outlot B is necessary to provide a turnaround for euiergency vehicles. Lots 3 and 4 would be accessed fi-om outlot B if the cut was made from the top. If there was to be a shared driveway for lots 1 and 3 and bring a platted driveway down for lot 4 and the property to the east, a permanent cul-de- sac would be installed at a later date. It was discussed that outlot A could be eliminated, and leave outlot B as the main access road, and an easement taken from lot 4 for a temporary turnaround to eliminate any setback restrictions. The easement would then go away when the future .'■oad was built. Hurr asked if the drainsites meet the setback? Mabusth said they did. They are located mainly downhill. One site is at 8% for lot 6. Hurr was infomied that the average distance fi’om the house to the septic sites w'as 300-400’ for lots 2, 3, and 4. Gaf&on said this was unusual and pumping would occur but was not limiting these sites. Goetten said she was concerned that, when 1 ;oking at the entire subdivision, gerrymandering was occurring to make 6 buildmg lots. Goetten said she was not in favor of the subdivision as proposed. Gronberg likened it to a PUD with clustering of building sites. Lots 5 and 6 were noted to meet standards. Hurr noted that there was no standard in the code that requires lot width to be maintained for a specified distance. Mabusth concurred. Goetten said lots would still need to access a temporary cul-de-sac. Mabusth said lots 1, 3, and 4 would all come in at the northeast comer via the revised road outlot. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCR. MEETING HELD ON JUNE 10,1996 • • (#6 - "2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) ~~ ^ Kelley commented that technically, the subdivision could meet standards but was now dealing with future development and safety issues. Mabusth responded that the Planning Commission was concerned with the internal road and saving the view. To maintain the best sites, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the internal road and lot width variances. Goetten said she disagrees with this assessment and sees it as an attempt to gain 6 lots. Mabusth said Planning Commission members were concerned for lot 4 with its limitations such as septic sites, type I wetlands, and need for a retention pond to treat runoff from new road bed. Mabusth said it was questioned whether there was adequate room for a rural residential building site. Gronberg said there is adequate room for a building site and was conscious of protecting the wildlife area. Mabusth commented that the Planning Commission was also concerned with protecting the alternate sites with the long lots and specified need for protective covenants to protect alternate sites. Kelley inquired why the primary' sites are not located farther down the lots and the alternates up near the building sites. Gronberg said it was just a matter of a longer way to go. Kelley said if the primary fails, the water would seep down to the alternate sites. Gaffron said if the initial systems fail, they would be turned off and would have to wait to be built. He continued that when the first sites are done, care would be taken not to ruin the second sites. Callahan noted that all septic sites seem to be near to the protective wetland areas. He did not suggest changing the sites but questioned how protected the wetlands would be. Gronberg said the land rises 12' from the pond and does not anticipate the systems failing. Council debated whether the proposal was the best use of the property, the highest use, or the most intensive use, and what could be done if all standards were met. Kelley requested that the application be tabled, reconfigured with the cul-de-sac moved downward and outlot A eliminated, and new sketches be brought back to the Council. It was noted that the Planning Commission approved the application in its current form. Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to table Application "2136 to allow the applicant to consider the direction given by the Council and present these changes to the Council at their ne.xt meeting. Callahan asked Goetten what suggestions she might have. Goetten asked for fewer lots noting her concern over access and dra’infields. Goetten did comment that the proposed change by Cook was an improvement but would deny the application at this point. Callahan said he shared the same concerns to some point. Goetten said this would allow the opportunities for changes to be made depending on the majority opinion. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 10,1996 (#6 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ^ Hurr noted that the lot width variances, by not extending the cul-de-sac, would save ^ good building sites. (#7) REQUEST FOR SEWER, JOHN MARESH, 2085 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH/1095 BROWN ROAD NORTH Mr. Maresh was not present during the discussion of this agenda item. Gaffron said the applicant has requested consideration for sewering as part of the MUSA amendment or in addition to the Lakeview Terrace subdivision. . , ' Kelley asked about the west side of North Brown, specifically, the Salem Court area, in reference to sewering. GafSron said this area has mound type septic systems. Gaffron irtformed Callahan that the property in question consists of a vacant 2-acre parcel abutting Brown Road and a 3-acre homestead parcel abutting Co Rd 6. Goetten asked how' the septic was approved for the site without an alternate site. Gaffron said the sites had been approved in 1988, but a new evaluator, who looked at the property in 1996, did not think there were sites actually available. Gafiron said this would need to be rev-iewed further. Kelley said he fell it was a question of management. Callahan noted for purposes of this particular request that the property be placed on a list for consideration for future sewering. When the MUSA is then granted, the City can see what might be done for this property. Kelley said if the North Brown and Salem Court areas want sewering, it would help to defer costs. Callahan said this would not be decided at this time as there were no sewer units available. Callahan said with 5 acres, he found it hard to believe that there would only be one site for a septic system and asked Staff to check it out. Gaffron noted the existing system was not working. The applicant has asked for a building permit. Maresh has agreed to upgrade as necessary. Gaffron said the applicant may want to hold off if the Council wants to go ahead with sewering. Callahan said he was not willing to give a sewer unit if septic sites are available and asked that Staff place Maresh on a list for possible sewering in the future. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\’ COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 22,1996 - -2134 Robert Albrecht - Continued) Jabbcur moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the resolution as presented with the change in larguage wording as noted. He noted, if the motion were to fail, the ne.xt motion would be to table the application. Hurr asked if there was any time frame to which the hardcover restrictions would be limited. Gaffron said no time frame was set but it could be. ■■ lurr said, if the motion were to pass, she would recommend a time frame be indicated. Vote: Ayes 2, Kelley, Jabbour; Nays 3, Goetten, Callahan, Hurr. Motion failed. Jabbour moved, Callahan seconded, to table the application to allow the applicant to consult with his attorney in respect to the denial action. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. The application is tabled to the August 12 meeting of the Council. (^5) mi36 GREENFIELD CORPORATION, 180 NORTH SHORE DRTVT WEST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - SECOND AMENDED PLAN Laurie Lundeen and Mark Gronberg w'ere present. Lundeen asked the Council members if they had been on the site. Goetten said she has been there but not actually walked it. Kelley said he had been there many times. Jabbour and Callahan have also visited the site. Mabusth reported that the applicant has provided an amended plan based on recommendations made by the Council. The original plan proposed a private road with cul-de-sac, and the first amended plan proposed a configuration of private road with driveway outlot. The second amended plan proposes a 30' wide driveway outlot to serv e lots 1, 3, and 4 onl\'. There are no lot width variances required with the amended plan.' The owner of Outlot C, Ba^view Farms, Second Addition, has been advised of the change. A private driveway for that subdivision would be inlalled within outlots B and D. Callahan asked if the Staff had any problems with the proposal. Mabusth responded that the current proposal will not require lot standard variances. She also responded to a previous concern of the Council on why the Staff was so concerned with a road outlot being dedicated within this plat. Mabusth said the northeast access would serve as best^ access for a future N/S through road. This was the City ’s opportunity to plat sections of a future road when surrounding properties are developed. Access from the west would benefit Waukman, as he too would be able to maintain views to lake and open space areas. Waukman was informed of this agenda item on the meeting and asked to attend if he had further concerns. Jabbour asked how this applicant could be expected to cany forward with the needs of another development. Staff responded that this is the basis for planning for future needs. It is Staffs responsibility to address these issues. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 22, 1996 (^5 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Goetten noted that the proposal still results in the same lots. Jabbour thanked Goetten for insisting on no variances. Goetten said she felt the proposal was still gerrymandered. She also noted that the Staff memo did not address her concerns regarding the configuration of the lots, and it should have. Hurr moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve the six lot plat as amended per revised drawings dated July 12, 1996 by Mark S. Gronberg. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetten. WTien asked, Lundeen said she was happy with the results as they were as they originated had w'anted. (*#6) #2137 W BLLLAM DUNKLEV, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE - DENLAL RESOLUTION #3743 Jabbour moved, Hurr seconded, to adopt Resolution #3743 den>ing variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subd. 14(C); 10.22, Subd. 1 & 2; 10.55; Subd. 8; and 10.56, Subd. 16(L) - File #2137, William and Susan Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#7) #2148 WA\'NE M. HOLMES & JACKIE DAHL, 1390 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3744 Jabbour moved, Hurr seconded, to approve Resolution #3744. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) MELANIE ROSE, 1020 BROWN ROAD NORTH - REQUEST TO WAIVE SURVEY REQUIREMENT The applicant was not present. • • Moorse said he has had discussions with the applicant. He reported that he asked Inspector Bruce Vang and Gaffron to visit the property to get an idea of the setbacks. The sketch firom the contractor notes about a 63' setback from the north side. This was found to have been measured from the edge of the paved road. Moorse said, noting that there is a 60* right-of-w’ay and assuming the road was located in the middle of the right- of-way, measuring 30' from center to define the lot line, it was determined that the setback to the proposed deck was 2-3' less than the required 50’. Moorse said he informed Rose she would probably need to reconfigure the deck to meet the setbacks or a variance would be required. In both scenarios, she was informed that at least a partial survey would be required. Rose had told Moorse she would do so but did not necessarily agree to do the survey. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm’ COUNCIL MEETLNG HELD ON AUGUST 12,1996 rr (iii5 - #2134 Robert.Albrecht - Continued) Kelley said, if the intent of the 1991 resolution was not to increase the hardcover, the application before the Council shows a reduction. Goecten agreed but w'as not in favor how it was being handled by adding another deck, and removing hardcover elsewhere. Goetten did not believe the application would have been approved if brought before the Council as a proposal before being built. Goetten said she w as FkOt on the Council in 1985 but was involved with the application in 1991. It was her understanding that there would be no more hardcover allowed on the prop^erty. She added that the driveway, now being proposed for reduction, was installed for safety reasons. Goetten said she agrees with the conditions placed on the propert}' in 1991 and would need to adhere to principles and would not vote for approval. When \Iitchell noted the decrease of hardcover, Goetten responded that she was concern with continuing to approve applications that involve what the Planning Commission said no to in 1991. She also voiced concern with property owners constructing without permits and assuming it will eventually be approved anyw’ays. Mitchell noted that the applicant would not take this same approach again. He also added that the sight lines were not affected by the deck for the neighboring properties. Goetten said she did not like to say no to such an application but would have to in this case. Jabbour asked for the comparisons of hardcover on this property in 1991 and as it exists now. Gaffron said 5030 s.f of hardcover was approved in 1991. There is 5037 s.f of • hardcover e.xisting today. The proposal calls for a total of 4832 s.f. of hardcover, which is less than what was approved in 1991. Jabbour commented that the proposal was then truly a reduction. He noted that the City does not inspect driveways. He also commented that the lack of knowledge from not having grown up in the area was not a valid e.xcuse. Callahan clarified that there was less hardcover today than what was allowed in 1991. Gaffron concurred. Jabbour said this was a key issue. Kelley added that the applicant was following the spirit of the ordinance. Callahan said he was troubled as seeing the application as the applicant trying to get out of a bad situation. Albrecht commented that the past owT>er had used the driveway for parking of vehicles for those renting boat slips. Albrecht said the 22’ of driveway width was not necessary. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution #3749. \ ote. Ayes 3, Nays 1, Goetten. Jabbour's motion to reconsider so application could not be brought back before the Council received no second. (*#6) #2136 GREENFIELD CORP., 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE \VEST- PRELIMLNARY SUBDFVTSION APPROVAL - RESOLUTION #3750 Callahan moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution f3750. Vote; .Ayes 4, Nays 0. MLNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCH MEETLNG HELD ON NOVEMBER 12, 1996 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Wilson stcited the Park Commission is in the process of resieuing the park inventory for final review as well as working with the Antoine Park neighbors to determine the needs of the park. The building on the property and play ground equipment needs are being ev'aluated. Wilson reported that ice rinks will be maintained at Casco Point, Hackberry. and Bederwood Parks. The golf course club house will also be open for activities on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Callahan congratulated Wilson on her appointment as Vice Chair of the Park Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Janice Berg was present, along with Dale Lindquist. Berg had no comments to make at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT t, #2136 GREENFIELD CORPORATION, 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE ^ WEST - FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3798 It was noted that while this resolution was on the Consent Agenda, Goetten had previously voted for denial of this resolution. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3798. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#5) #2176 DANIEL S. PERKINS, 55 LANDMARK DRIVX - RENEWAL OF ANNUAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3799 The applicant was present. Mabusth stated that a conditional use permit was granted during the 1994-95 winter season for the excavation of 200 cubic yards of material. Applicant had originally presented a plan that called for the removal of a total of 2.000 cubic yards of peat over a ten year period. At the time the CUP was granted, the Council did not approve the permit for a ten year period but recommended annual reviews. The applicant was allowed to pay a renwal fee for the reviews rather than what is normally charged for a conditional use permit. Dredging did not take place in 1995-96 season as the need for the peat material was limited. The contractor advised that he would only need 200 cubic yards of peat every two years. V I DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND PRIVATE ROADWAY EASEMENT THIS DECLARATION OF CO\'ENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND PRIVATE ROADWAY EASEMENT ("Declaration") is made eflfective as of October 15, 1996, by Greenfield Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation and Hilloway Corporation, Minnesota Corporations (jointly referred to as "Declarant"). RECITALS: A. Declarant is fee owner of that certain real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota legally described as; Lots 1, 3, and 4, Chadwick (the "Property"). B. Declarant desires to provide, for the benefit of Lots 1, 3, and 4 Chadwick, (the "Lots") an easement for roadway purposes (the "Roadway") over, across, and upon outlot A, (the Outlet' ), and to further provide for the maintenance, ownership, and restrictions relating to the Roadway and the easement herein granted. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Declarant hereby declares that the Lots and the Outlot are and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, and easements hereafter set forth, which shall run with the Propert>' and be binding on all parties, now or hereafter having any right, title, or interest in the Property and any part thereof, their heirs, successors, and assigns (each of whom are hereafter referred to individually as an Owner, or collectively as "Owners"), and shall inure to the benefit of each Owner. Roadway Easement. Declarant hereby declares and creates a perpetual, non-exclusive private road easement over the Outlot for the benefit of the Lots and use by the Owners and their invitees and other public service providers, such as police, fire, bus and ambulance services. Maintenance of Roadway. 1) Each Owner shall pay an equal, proportionate share for any costs for construction, maintenance or repair of the Roadway. Maintenance shall include construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, snow removal, sanding and salting, as necessary, lighting, striping, and curbing as the Owners shall determine necessary; provided, however, that all maintenance shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Orono Municipal Code (the "Code"). Declarant shall be responsible at his/her expense, for initial construction of the Roadway, which shall in all respects conform to the requirements of the City of Orono ("City ). All future maintenance shall be conducted by the Owners or their contractors, at Owners' expense. 2) Each Ovmer's share of costs for maintenance shall be due and payable on the date such costs for maintenance are due and payable to the person or entity rendering an account therefor. Each Owner’s share of such costs shall bear interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from such due date to the date of payment. Any Owner may bring action, on behalf of the non-defaulting Owners, to collect a defaulting Owner's share of such costs which are not paid when due, and shall be entitled to recover such reasonable attorney’s fees as the court may allow, together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith. 3) The plans, specifications and the awarding of contracts for maintenance shall be approved in writing by the Owners of Fifty One (51%) of the Lots. 4) No Owner may exempt himself from the liability for assessments by waiver of the use or enjoyment of the Roadway or by the abandonment of his Lot. 5) Ownership of the Outlot. Each Lot shall be sold, transferred and conveyed together with an undivided one-third (1/3) interest in the Outlot. In the event City shall determine it to be in the public interest to utilize the Roadway as a public street, each Owner shall, after notice in accordance with applicable provisions of Code and Minnesota law, convey its undivided interest in the Outlot to City for no additional consideration therefor. Prohibitions of use of Roadway 1) No Owner shall obstruct or interfere whatever with the rights and privileges of other Owners in the Roadway and except for maintenance of the Roadway, nothing shall be planted, altered, constructed upon or removed from the Roadway. 2) No Owner shall obstruct or interfere with the passage of any school bus or emergency vehicle over or across the Roadway. 3) No vehicles shall be parked in the Roadway for a continuous period of time greater than twenty-four hours. 4) No vehicular repair or maintenance may be conducted in the Roadway. Violation and Enforcement. 1) In the event the Owners tail to conduct maintenance, it is agreed by all Owners that City may undertake such maintenance and assess each Lot an equal, proportionate share of the maintenance conducted by the City. Any such maintenance conducted by the City will not result in the Roadway becoming a 8 public roadway Each Owner will pay to the City its equal, proportionate cost incurred by the City within thirty (30) days after Owner's receipt of such chcirges, or else such charge, including attorneys' fees and costs in collection thereof, shall become a lien upon the Lot for which payment has not been made. 2) If an Owner shall violate any of the obligations, covenants, conditions or restrictions contained in this Declaration, the remaining Owners shall have the right to enforce this Declaration, and in the event an Owner's violation results in damage to the Roadway, Owners may restore the Roadway to its prior condition and assess the costs of such restoration against the violating Owner. Any such assessment shall become due and payable upon the demand of any of said remaining Owners. All of the remaining Owners, or any of them, shall have the right and power to enforce this Declaration and to collect the cost of any maintenance required as a result of an Owner’s violation in a legal proceedings for that purpose. The prevailing party in any such legal proceedings shall further be entitled to recover such reasonable attorney's fees as the court may allow, together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith Nothing contained in this Section is intended to alleviate any obligation of an Owner to pay assessments to the City in accordance with Section 1 above. In the event any assessments are levied by City as a result of violations of an individual Owner or Owners, then such non violating Owners may collect such sums paid to City from any violating Owner, in accordance with this Section. Binding Effect. This covenant shall run with the land and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Owners, their heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. No Amendment This Declaration may be modified or amended only upon the recording of a document setting forth such amendment executed by all of the Owners, their mortgage lenders. City and any other party having a record interest in the Lots. Severability. Invalidation of any covenant, condition, or restriction set forth herein by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions hereof, which shall all remain in full force and effect. 9. Warranties of Title. Declarant represents and warrants that Greenfield Corporation and Hilloway Corporation are the lawful Owners of the Roadway and the Lots and have full right, title and authority to enter into this Declaration. Any mortgage lender, or other party in interest of the Lots of the Outlot, if any, shall consent to this Declaration, which consent shall be attached and made a part of this Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto executed this Declaration and covenant the day and year first above wntten. GREENFIELD CORPORATION Curie M. LunSe^, its President HILLOWAY CORPORATION ^^^2^555^ D. Penning, its President STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15“* day of October, 1996, by Laurie M. Lundeen, President of Greenfield Corporation, a Minnesota corporation. safe JAMIE L BOSMA NOTARY PIIBUC-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Commission Eipims Jan. 31,2000 a Nol^ Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 5“* day of October, 1996, by Corporation, a Minnesota coiJame BARBARAS ANDERSON NGWtYPUBUOMlNNESOIA HBMEPIN COUNTY ^ MyCommisslanE)9lresJaa31.2u00 This document drafted by: Robert R. Roos, tsq. 1800 Rand Tower 527 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 M CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^750 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIMSION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST -FILENO. 2136 WHEREAS, Greenfield Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter the "subdivider") on April 26,1996, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a six lot residential plat of property legally described as: The West half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, EXCEPT that part of the West 274.77 feet of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter of .ne Northwest Quarter which lies South of the North 580.00 feet of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, and which lies North of the South 545.34 feet of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 20, 1996, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and \STIEREAS, at their regular meetings held on June 10, 1996, July 8, 1996 and July 22, 1996, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 17.2 acres with 2.34 acres of designated wetland area. Page 1 of 8 • 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 5jQ—=- 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The proposed plat consists of six residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. All lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities providing both a primary and alternate site for each of the si.x lots. Lots 1, 3 and 4 shall be served by a private driveway designated on the plat as Outlet A. Lot 2 shall be served by an approved access at North Shore Drive or County Road 19. Lots 5 and 6 shall be served by an approved shared access at North Shore Drive or County Road 19. Outlet A shall be expanded to provide a backout pad for emergency vehicles at the east or road entrance side of outlet. The City Engineer, in his report of May 13, 1996, approved the grading and drainage plan for the development of this property. Thomas D. Johnson, a Transportation Planning Engineer for the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, in his report of May 13, 1996, approved the three curb cut locations at the County roads. Orono ’s Community Management Plan, Rural Transportation Policy 7 entitled "Driveway Locations in Rural Street or Private Road Intersections will be Limited for Traffic Safety" states as follows: "Joint use of carefully located private roads will generally be preferred over direct access on to public highways from separate properties." The developer has provided the following unique findings and hardships to support the creation of three new curb cuts (one existing curb cut to be relocated) that shall ser\'e all six residential lots. The Planning Commission has accepted the findings and hardships presented by developer. They are reviewed as follows: Page 2 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 5 0 A. Location of wetlands. B. C. Sloping topography to south and east. Subdivider's responsibility to provide a future access road to serve property to east. D. Property is surrounded by 1,800' of County Road along the north and west sides. E. The existing access serving Lot 6 has been found to be unsafe and encroaches \\ithin property to the south. The new curb cut developed at the shared lot lines of Lots 5 and 6 has been approved by the County and meets the required sighting distance for a 50 mph speed zone. F. New curb cut to serve Lot 2 has been found to meet the sighting/safety standards for the 50 mph speed zone. G. The location of septic sites on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. H. Desire of subdivider to preserve views to the south and southeast for the obvious building sites on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. 10. Orono's Community Management Plan, Transportation Chapter, CMP 7-17 states as follows: “PRIVATE DRIVEWAY A driveway ii « pn‘;aiely owned and privately maintained vehicle path between the street and private property. Private driveways shall be subject to access permits according to the classification of the ■ abutting street. Private driveways -rill not be subject to any public easement or access right, but do require recorded private easements where driveways cross an intervening private lot between the residence served and the street. JURISDICTION: PROPERTY OWNER Page 3 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^750____ DRIVEWAY WIDTH: MAXIMUM SERVICE: 1. RESIDENCE TYPICAL; JOINT DRIVEWAYS ALLOWED WITH MAXIMUM THREE RESIDENTS PER DRIVEWAY IN RURAL AREAS MORE USERS REQUIRE PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS WILL BE REGULATED WHERE MORE THAN ONE USER IS INVOLVED OR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES WHERE THERE IS EXCESSIVE LENGTH BETWEEN THE RESIDENCE AND THE PUBLIC RO.A.D" The Comprehensive Management Plan allows three residential lots to be served by a private driveway. The Management Plan ftirther states that a driveway serving more than one residential lot shall be regulated. The City Engineer shall be asked to provide design specifications for the private driveway within Outlet A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Greenfield Corporation per plat drawings by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surveyor of Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., dated May 3, 1996, most revised date July 12, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. Subdivider to grant a bike trail, drainage and utility easement 10' wide adjacent to Bayside Road (County Road 84) and North Shore Drive West (County Road 19). 2. Subdivider to dedicate 17' of additional right-of-way for North Shore Drive West along the west boundaries of Lots 1 and 2. 3. Subdivider to execute private covenants defining responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of private driveway, Outlot A, by Lots 1, 3 and 4 and covenants to also address owners of all six lots ’ responsibility for maintenance of drainage facilities within plat. Page 4 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OFTHE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 7 50 ^ . 4. Subdivider shall be responsible for dividing equally the share in ownership in driveway Outlot A of Lots 1, 3 and 4 via transfer deed of lots upon sale, 5. All septic sites within subdivision are to be fenced off prior to any land alterations. 6. Subdivider to grant flowage and conservation easement over designated wetland within Lot 6. 7. Subdivider to designate drainage easement at a minimum width of 15' over drainageway that extends westward from Outlot A to sediment pond in northwest comer of Lot 1. Drainage easements are to be taken over all sediment ponds and drainageways within plat. 8. Subdivider to install driveway with backout pad within Outlot A. Plans for drive shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. 9. Subdivider shall be responsible for installing a conforming septic system to serve existing residence on Lot 6 within 90 days of the date of preliminary plat approval (November 12, 1996) or prior to final plat approval, whichever occurs first. 10. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City cannot grant final plat approval until a permit from the MCWD has been approved for all grading and drainage improvements on the property. 11. Subdivider to create private covenants for protection of Types I and II wetlands located within property that are not classified as a designated wetland of the City of Orono. Such covenants to include site plans locating protected area and advismg future owners of need to contact Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the U. S. Corp of Engineers if land alterations are proposed before submitting plan to the City for review and possible permit. Covenants shall include protective language for alternate septic sites along with site plans locating both primary and alternative sites. Applicant to develop language alerting future property owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Covenant shall also advise future owner of Lot 3 that no residential construction shall be allowed to south of primary and alternate septic sites. Page 5 of 8 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 n 12. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval, August 12, 1997. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the fmal plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. dated most revised date, July 12, 1996. B. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10 ’ wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5 ’ along the internal lot line. 10 ’ drainage and utility easements adjacent to County roads to include trail easement in favor of City (refer to special easement form attached). C. Dedication of right-of-way for County Road 84 at 33’ and 50 ’ adjacent to west lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 and 33’ adjacent to the west lot lines of Lots 5 and 6 for County Road 19. D. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as shown on preliminary plat. E. Designation and dedication of drainage easement over the designated wetlands located within Lot 6. ^ F. Designation of Outlot A to serve as a private driveway. Outlot A at a 30 ’ width is a private driveway that will serve Lots 1, 3 and 4. G. The naming of plat. Page 6 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8750 > 2. Legal documents required: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. A. B. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Signed and executed drainage easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat (see sample enclosed). Signed and executed developer ’s agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements and construction of private driveway (Outlet A) and a single address sign locating residences served by Outlet A at Bayside Road entrance (see samples enclosed). Signed and executed Flow'age and Conservation easement over designated wetland within Lot 6. Signed and executed declaration of private covenants dealing with the upkeep and maintenance of private drive (Outlot A), drainage facilities and specifying share of Lots 1, 3 and 4 in ownership of Outlot A (see sample enclosed). Signed and executed trail easement over 10’ wide drzunage and utility easements adjacent to County Roads (see sample enclosed). Completed private covenant for lots involved with protected wetland not included within conservation maps of City which shall include a site plan and metes and bounds descriptions for these areas. Covenants to include protective language for alternate septic sites and to include the site plans locating both the primary' and alternate sites. Subdivider to develop language alerting future owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Covenants must be in a form suitable for filing. The City has samples of protective covenants used by former developers. Subdivider may wish copies and should notify City. Page 7 of 8 Co^ kkV: CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 3750NO. 9.Fees to be paid: Total due: S400.00* A. Final plat fee = S200.00 B.Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 ♦Park dedication fee shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor’s report has been filed with City. Park dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of land within Lots 1 through 5. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 12th day of August, 1996. ATTEST: idfmhy M. Hflliii, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of August, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. //AQJU Notary Public Page 8 of 8 resolution STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF ORONO ) TT If r\tv rierk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, I, Dorothy M. Hal^, City foregoin<^ copy of a resolution of the City Mimesota. do hereby certify “,^1 rtord of Lh resolution in the Minutes of theCouncU of the Cify of Otono with the ort^ina on proceedings of said City Council at »same is a true and correct ttt said meefing. In Witness Whereof. I have hereunto set my hand and seal this ------------• day of ____W3ust---------------------------• (SEAL) CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8798 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF CHADWICK FILE NO. 2136 ^VHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mirmesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a Class III Subdivision of a Six lot plat by the Greenfield Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter (the subdivider); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District, finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 3750. 2. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for a public drive shown as North Shore Drive West (County Road No. 19). 3. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 4. Dedication on the plat of drainage easements over detention ponds. 5. Creation of a shared private driveway with backout apron shown on the plat as Outlot A. ^ 6. Concurrent with the creation of this private driveway, the subdivider has created non exclusive ingress, egress easements over said outlot in favor of all abutting and/'or benefitting lots including a declaration of certain maintenance covenants wherein Page 1 of3 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8798 ^ each of the abutting and/or benefitting lot owners ’ covenants and agrees to permanently maintain and pay the cost of maintenance for said private driveway. 7. Dedication to the City of a 10 foot bike trail drainage and utility easement adjacent to Bayside Road (County Road 84) and North Shore Drive West (County Road 19). 8. Dedication to the City of a flowage and conservation easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands and/or drainage ways described therein and shown on the plat as drainage easements. 9. Subdivider has created covenants for protection of Types 1 and 2 wetlands located within property that are not classified as a designated wetland of the City of Orono. The covenants shall include site plans locating protected areas and advising fiiture owners of need to contact Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and U.S. Corps of Engineers if land alterations are proposed within the protected areas before submitting plan to the City for review and possible permit. Covenants shall also include proiecilve language for alternative septic sites along with site plans locating both primary and alternate sites. Covenants shall include language advising future property owners of need to protect the sites on adjacent properties. 10. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee in the amount of $ 11,664.00. 11. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of $200.00. 12. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District granted Permit No. Application 96-123 to the subdividers on July 25,1996 approving the storm water management plan for the construction of the driveways and the platting of the six lots. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Chadwick, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: ^ 1. Subdivider shall be responsible for dividing equally the share and ownership in driveway, Outlot A, betw-een Lots 1, 3 and 4 via transfer deed of lots upon sale. 2. Subdivider shall execute an agreement providing for the installation of a new primary' septic system on Lot 6 and final driveway improvements. Agreement shall be Page 2 of 3 o,. o CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 79 8 accompanied by a letter of credit \STitten to 150% of the cost of the installation of the mound septic system and final upgrades of driveways. The subdivision and accompanying documents cannot be filed - Jitil the City is in receipt of both agreement and letter of credit. 3. Subdivider shall be responsible for fencing off all septic sites within the subdivision before any land alterations. 4. Access to Lots 1,3 and 4 shall be via Outlot A, the private driveway. Access to Lot 2 shall be via an approved single curb cut at North Shore Drive West or County Road No. 19. Future owner or developer of site shall be responsible for obtaining a permit from Hennepin County Department of Transportation. Access to Lots 5 and 6 shall be via a shared drive along the side shared lot line at North Shore Drive West or County Road 19. Easements over access drive shall be created in favor of both lots. 5. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or a Registrar of Titles' Office on or before May 12,1997 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the covenants and easements noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 12th day of November, 1996. ATTEST:bsi: ^ / )thy M(^ilin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENTJEFIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of November, 1996 by Edw’ard J. Callahan, Jr., and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. LINDA S.VEEV PU8UC-WINNES0TA HENNEPIN COUNTY Notary Public My Commission Expires Jan. 31.2000 Pace 3 of 3 8 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator October 15, 1998 SUBJECT: #2433 Dorie Finn 1640 Shadywood Road Variances—Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC Lot Area: One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) 15,488 square feet (.35 acres) Application:The applicant has applied for several variances to allow replacement of a first story deck, second story deck and stairway. The property owner had contacted a contractor to begin making necessary repairs following a storm in late spring. The City Building Inspector has determined the amount of replacement has exceeded the amount of damage. The City does not have a building permit on file for the first floor deck. The applicant lias stated the deck was constructed in 1968. Several years later the second story deck and stairs were inspected and approved by the City. Referring to the survey completed by Advance Surveying on September 23, 1998 the first story deck and most of the second story deck and stairs are within the 75' lakeshore setback. They also encroach into the average lakeshore setback. The decks were constructed prior to the City adopting the 75' lakeshore setback in 1973. Hardcover was not regulated until 1975. The old decks can be considered legal non-conforming, because they predate ordinances and can remain in place as existing. Any new deck to replace the old deck would be required to conform to current standards. *^2433 Dorie Finn 1640 Shadywood Drive Variances 10/19/98 Page I This application will require the following variances: 1.Section 10.22, Subd 1(B): To permit the reconstruction of a residential deck 56' from the lakeshore where 75 ’ is required, (first story deck) 2.Section 10.22, Subd 1(B): To permit the reconstruction of a residential deck 62’ from the lakeshore where 75 ’ is required, (second stor>' deck) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Section 10.22, Subd. 2: To allow 25.8% hardcover where 0% is normally allowed. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l): To allow 25.8% hardcover where 0% is normally allowed. Section 10.22, Subd. 2: To allow 57.0% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(2): To allow 57.0% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed. Sectior. 10.25, Subd. ^ ): l O allow a deck to encroach 8’ into a required 10’ setback and to allow a deck stairwa> to encroach 7’ into the side yard setback. 8. Section 10.03, Subd 14(C): To allow 3,018 s.f (19.4%) of structure where 15% is allowed. Let History: A variance was granted in 1977 to allow the garage to encroach into the side yard setback. The garage currently exists on the property. It should also be noted the house is a legally conforming duplex. ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC (1 acre) Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard Required 21,780 s.f 100 ’75’10 ’35’ Existing Proposed 15,488 s.f 56 ’ first story deck 62 ’ second story deck NA The applica*'Oii would require side yaid and lakeside yard vaiiances to replace the decks. Dorie Finn J640 Shadyyvood Drive Variances 10/19/98 Page! ■ f Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75'4,669 s.f.l,2'^6rf. (25.<s%) none (0%) 1,206 s.f. (25.8%) To allow replacement of decks partially within 75' of the lake. 75'-250’10,757 s.f.6,134 s.f. (57.02%) 2689 s.f. (25%) 6,134 s.f. (57.02%) To allow replacement of a deck partially within the 75-250 lakeshore setback. 250'-500'62 s.f.48 s.f. (77.4%) 18.6 s.f. (30%) 48 s.f. (77.4%) none 500'- 1000' 0 0 0 (35%) 0 none ihe applicant has requested a hardcover variance to allow an equal replacement of a deck to be located with 75' of the lakeshore and in the 75-250' setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 15,488 s.f.3,018 s.f.19.4% The lot does not meet the 15% allowed lot coverage for structure. U2433 Dorie Finn 1640 Shadyvrood Dn\e Variances ! 0/19/98 Page 3 ANALYSIS Variance STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues 1.The applicants are not proposing to expand any decks they only intend to repair what is existing. 2.The first floor deck and side deck on the second story do not have building permits on file with the City. 3.The decks and hardcover being replaced existed prior to the 75' lakeshore setback and hardcover ordinance. 4. A variance was granted in 1977 to allow the garage to be placed in its existing location. 5.The house is a legal non-conforming duplex that is split between first and second story living areas. 6. Approval of -.ariances would make all existing hardcover legal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow necessary repairs to the first story deck and the second story deck and stairs, subject to possible removal of other unnecessary hardcover. ^2433 Done Finn 1640 Shadywood Drive Variances 10/19/98 Page A ( 1 Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Applicant's Statement of Hardship Survey Location Map Topographic Map Hardcover Worksheets Plat Map Property Owners List Permit Record U2433 Uorle Finn 1640 Shadyyvood Drive Variances 10/19/98 Page 5 Application U A Date Received ^-03 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee^S250.00^ (S50.00 per each additional variance) r Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 , (no change &om original application) Variance for non-conforming structures ‘ $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION « . ^ s;t.AHHr«s IL4.a Rt>.. Property Identification Number (PJ.D.), Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_____ / (month/year)j •s . \ I (de) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___other (specify). Zoning District: Pen eg/vT/ al ------------------ r 1 •— ""rr" < *•* • APPLICANT Name Phone rhome"! Phone fworif> ' — Address: ^Hal1>y\h»»o Ro-j OWNER (if different than applicant) Name '_____a mm________ City : tL/A vxA’rA Phone (home). ____ Phone (work)_ Zip:. ■■■■ Address:. City:.Zip:. Estimated Constmction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: RaPaik. DmmaSa_ ^ yy OAk Pe.Lt- /)seAj^ PuLLm/e aP Tut SvffiKTlifA . 1/ SjAuc.ruM /9#r<attach additional sheets if necessary)PA/f AtMm s,TxSMAMljt A Mb THt. ouTMt ts STAiMS, VARIANCES REQUI^D Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY COI^ITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with 2k)ning Code requirements: __, _____________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) AJiA.jul Z3^ • ^-Tn^/r;t^> ^ Lo4ji^S ^ jjo-^oaXZJ} ^/)n'i^ry<^^^ ~t^ /Uf^ A> (TT'^'^ ciiU^±1^-uj niW7 aJ^w-t>^ AAH>^ '(la^/mw. sn^ ^ l^pu^'tuZ^ oM.% ft a^ ^ -i^ r^ ^JXf . V ^ ^fi^Oiid^/thmaA ' yhii^- XlU^/Iti^''’'*-'^^^ J • ••• • • • .• • lliv'o .. Iheir tmphiyeet arc We «u|!pc*t ihai you review the survey lo conrimi lhat the proposals src wha: vou inirn.l •I a^eiK-iei <i may ^.lve jurisdiclion over your project to gam their approvals if you cati. tivanng Stale License Number 9235. set. if'o’ is I. MRDJNC ON SCPT. 22 tHO OKM - f2f 4 &ASCB NBVOm 0€CK. lOHOt OCCK * CO*ia?CTI ODCATH roOTPRWT 570 SO. n. 0-73 me or under my direct superv'ision aod that I am <?yo' indcr the Laws of the Suie of Minnesota. graphic scale ( w nzT) I lack • fO ft •SEP-22-1953 14:13 fnD'JHrJCE SUPUEYlNG HARDCOVER C.AJLCULATION WORKSHtt. I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) FNISTTNO HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House * 75-2£0'2SO-500* W!d« X X X B. Garage • • C. -P.-^yi" D. Sidewalk £. Paiio/Dec’K F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X S3 w a. o.hcr Ref l^al/s TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN \^o4___ B fPnPOSED HXRDCQ VPR zone t^OME, A. House _____________ ^ ------ Length X X X B. Cari^e C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B ___ 6124749IS7 P.02 04 50&-1000 ’ \CiC) ST. F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3Ea-s.f. ■ S.F. S.F. S.F. -5,7CLS.f. S.F. S.F. S.F. A m ' Agc .j^sf.B X ICO -V, ^ S.F.■f !l ^ ^ .r-v B S.F. V if •*, * » B S.F. S.F. S.F.»• *1 A S.F. _ S.F.‘ • • S.F.. •' ‘ 7\ . V. '•) V S.F. S.F. »S.F. m S.F.•• a S.F. c S.F. m S.F. m •S.F.A m S.F.B X 100 • JoVd 1^0. Dovie. |640 Shadvyuoaod Ro<Xi^ c.FP-o?-! Q-aa 14; 13 kI'','hMCE SLIR'.EYI^^G HARDC0\'^:R CALCLXATION 2SO-500 ‘ Gli474SibT P.Oj C4 500-1000* SETBACK ZO>NE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^YTSTTNO HARDCQVTR TN ZQN£ A, House —--------—------ 0-75' jLES2^s.f. wiWi X X X B Garage • • c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/D«?k F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic C. Other X X X X X X X X X — B ____X 100 “ A ___________— ppr^prYSFD HARPrOVER IN ^QN£ A. House ___________— NO n C- VrMdth X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sldtwaik E. Patio/Deek F, Landscape UndcrhLi By Plasrlc G. Other X X X X X X X X X ♦ B _____X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. '2.^\ O S.F. ------- ^S.F. isji tSmi-rn S.F.n S.F.JS.F. S.F. _S.F.'Ve .. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.fT**» . ofL^yo S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. A _ S.F. B 11 Job No. '5Sl26'a, Dorie *E)V'.«x.ci^woo<^ Roc^A £EP-22-19r3 14:13 ADLWtCE SURt.EYU*3 HARDCOVER CALCJULAIKJIN ^SO-50^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) FXISTTNC HARDCOV1ER TN ZONE A. Kcuse ___________ LinfJt 0-75’7S-250’ Width B. Garas« • • C. Drivc^^’ay D. SidcNval}; E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X s s toNH Aft -B-----X 100 PRnPOSl;0 HARPr<7^*^P ZONE A. House --------------- Ltac:>' Width B. Caroje C. Drivc'v-^y D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X 9 ■I X X X X X X X X X B —X 100 - fcl2-:7-iS2'i7 500-1000’ P.04 CU S.F. S.F. S.F. S.r. S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. S.F. S.F. _____S.F. \ \ •j S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ' ; %.*- \y• rV S.F.. "’N. r'' ‘ S.F.• --------------------- S.F.\*v. S.F...I. ---------------------S.F.•■dS.F. ---------------------S.F. S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. _ S.F. •S.F.A —-----------------S.F.B ♦/* Jo^o No. DorJe l&AO SVto.:^'/woexi TOThL F . 0-1 >2/* 5>2 > 50 5C ‘50-50 V ! i 1I- ! I •30 (60)%% 7 gi 23 SII ;5 B- I 4.^J[ '200•21 O 0i O »Ni 32 8 rj 57 • j |( 53) i !i -:•: I 50 50 !50 50 s: \r^ (15-) (a) 'Cli -------------- ■ - ....................................— — ■ ' ' *— ■ - ■ - , ^^ ^ TT^i'^U ! /{"< ' ' //'A 'X y a -A i (S’-’) ^ A'V, 4XxXv^ -’ '■-;/ ^,/X: isVv ^(52)V ?• Cf LOl - crystal 205. 41 ^ CTi (00.> «o (4) ^3T- ^li —j [UU]S7 ■ 3 T=3 b Lt \63; 215.2 ( 1S) I ttfj 60. 1 ^ " So)'«sl (I t) •\ 195. 1 • • 1 o iO __________ \y 11 \*' 135. 25 N CO \ \<p ( 18;M> Q o> •\ ? ■ RUN DATE 0V22/98 MEtRtfPIM COUNTY PROPERTY IHFORHATIOM SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXA35401 PACE 26 4BATCH Sll PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR SB 17-117-2S 21 dD#l 05605 NORTH SHORE DR JAMES A POWERS JAMES A POWERS 11220 OAK RID6E LA W MINNETONKA MN 55305 36 17-117-23 21 0000 01075 SHADYWOOO RD RICHARD 0 NORUN > WIFE RICHARD NORUM BOX 006 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 6010 01610 SHADYWOOO RD DAG ROGERS GAIL ROGERS 1610 SHADYWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 If 38 17-117-23 21 0011 03705 NORTH SHORE DR J E 8 6 E ERICSON ET AL JOHN ERICSON 1620 SHADYWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 0012 01620 SHADYWOOO RD J C ERICSON ET AL JOHN C ERICSON 1620 SHADYWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 0013 01690 SHADYWOOO RD G T FINN ETAL GERALD T FINN 1690 SHADYWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 0019 01650 SHADYWOOD RD K H ROELOFS ETAL K H ROELOFS 1650 SHADYWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 0015 01670 SHADYWOOD RD DONALD R KIELLEY DONALD R KIELLEY 1670 SHADYWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0012 01635 SHADYWOOO RD RALPH E MILLER ETAL RALPH E MILLER 1635 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 ! J 38 17-117-23 22 0013 01695 SHADYWOOD RD RALPH HARVEY ETAL RALPH HARVEY 1695 SHADYWOOO RD WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 511 00010 i I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE OH THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE M Permit Ho. ..3H0. PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit A!5UJ n TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator October 15,1998 SUBJECT: #2430 Paul R. Phillips 2140 Sixth Avenue North (County Road 6) Sketch Plan Review for a 2-lot subdivision Zoning Dbtrict: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area:4.5 acres Application:The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 4.5 acre parcel into two lots. The front lot is proposed to be 2 acres and the back lot with an existing residence is proposed to be 2.5 acres. The City Council approved a lot line rearrangement in May 1994 to change the east property line of this parcel to provide a septic site for the adjacent parcel. # 2430 Phillips. 2140 Sixth Ave. A'. PC-lO/19/98 page-1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-IB District Standards Front Lot Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front lard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street Rear Yard 2 acres 200'50'30'50'50 Proposed Front Lot Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 372'no structure no structure no structure The proposed front lot meets the minimum lot area requirements for the RR-IB zoning district, however, with the two septic sites proposed in the center of the site, the available building pad is bisected. If an access lot were platted, the lot area of the front lot would be reduced and would most probably not meet the lot area requirements. » 2430 Phillips. 2140 Sixth Ave. N. PC-I0/I9/98 page~2 Back Lot Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 3 acres 200’75'45'75’ Proposed Back Lot Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2.5 acres 240'115'32.6'110' The proposed back lot does not meet the minimum lot area standards of the side yard setback requirements for back lots. Further, the back lot as proposed includes the existing driveway areas for an adjacent lot. Areas that provide access for adjacent property cannot be included in the lot area calculations. ANALYSIS Septic Sites The septic reports for this preliminary ’ plat have been received and have been reviewed by the On- Site Septic Systems Manager. He has indicated that the sites are adequate, however, the two sites on the front lot bisect the building pad on the front lot. Access The preliminary plat does not indicate where the driveway would be located for the front lot. The existing dr^’eway serves the residence on the proposed back lot and the adjacent property to the northwest, 'fhe front lot would need to be served by the existing driveway or have access from Sixth Avenue. Hennepin County needs to review the proposed plan and comment on access. The consulting engineer stated that the minimum paved width of the driveway needs to be 28' to serve 3 units if the front lot has access from the e.xisting driveway. The subdivision ordinance further requires that any driveway be at least 10’ from the side or rear property lines of adjacent properties. The existing driveway is not 10’ from the side property line of the property to the west at the curve to the back lot. # 2430 Phillips. 2140 Sixth Ave. A'. PC‘lO/19/98 page-3 r The proposed plat does not show a platted outlot. The consulting engineer has indicated that it should be platted as a private street which would require a 50' platted outlot with cul-de-sac. This would reduce lot area for both the front and back lots. Drainage City staff has received verbal comments from Jim Hafher, MCWD, that no stormwater ponding would be required. A drainage map, and grading/ erosion control plan will need to be provided before the final plat is submitted. Drainage easements shall be provided across all wetlands, ponds, and drainageways. Easements Utility easements shall be shown as 10' along the exterior lot lines and 5' on the internal lot lines. Screening The front/lot back lot regulations require adequate screening between the front and back lots and along access routes to mitigate vehicular noise and lights. The proposed plan did not show how much screening currently exists or show how the screening may be improved. Park Dedication Fee The Park Commission recommended a park dedication fee in lieu of land. The proposed plat has been sent to the City Assessor for determination of the value. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed 2 lot subdivision does not meet the minimum zoning requirements for a front/back lot subdivision nor does it conform to the subdivision requirements for access. Attachments A B C D E Application Plat Map Engineer’s letter Proposed Plat Back lot/front lot regulations U 2430 Phillips. 2 140 Sixth Ave. 14. PC-lO/19/98 page-4 Application # ^ ^ Date Received / z. 3 / Amount Paid ^ ft CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION r-Clor^C<^ -h staieU pMlr* PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress Q.IHO CCUhJTf Rl>. ^ (U'fi/ A\/E. A/<l Property Identification Number (PID) ' <a'r- //^ - n L Please check one - Property / abstract or Attach legal description to application. l/ft-X'3-31-CO a3 torrens? u'ccDi^AfJO $(CCC/^C> Atomc^j ^ ioTl J5u>c« f APPLICANT Nam e TAc/L R. Ttf\UL'»h<i____________________________________ Address (bc% • 7.1 ho (L Rb 6 Phone (home) h'Ti^S7'iy City Lcf^G A>l/cc Mil______________Zip $53T6 Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address City__Zip Phone (home) _ Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ Present use (check) _________ Present Zoning District _________ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) / Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / Existing Units / New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) / / Units per ^ Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ W;v" Vj c fa MLMMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELLMINARY APPLICATION 1. PavTnent of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (> ou must obtain this list fi-om Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning Official's Signature ___________________________________Date MLMMUM 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 OfTicial’s Signature_________________________ Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pC] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II &. Ill) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 X. Subdivision Application (Class 1 & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.0C/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 Kf. iew Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) Totals 3SO^ B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _ lin. ft. X .50 “ $ lin. ft. X .50 “$ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 X On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) S50.00/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 _____ PkD Application with Subdivision $3 0.00/Dwelling Unit SO s o The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. ^ ^ i « / / Applicant’s Signature Y ____________Date ^ f ______________ Owner’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^ I Bonestroo f^osene Anderlik & |\J| Associates Engineers & Architects October 14,1998 Elizabeth VanZomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Sorfesrroo Rosene. Andefhk ^nd AiSOCtMes. Inc n An AffirmACive Action/BquAl Opportunity Bmpfoyer PnncipA'i Ouo G Bcneitroo. PE • Joseph C AnJerliX. PE • Vtar^in L So'vaia. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R CoC<. P£. • RoOcri G Schunichi. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. P£. • Rooert W Rosene. PE and Susan M E&erim. C PA. Senio/ Consultants AssociAte PrincpAis Howvard A Sarford PE • Keith A Gordon. PE. • RoDeri R Pfefferle. PE. • .Richard W Pester. PE • David O L2s«oia PE • RcOert C Ru$$e*t. A.IA • Mark A. Hanson. PE. • .Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE. • Sidney P Williamson. PE.. L.S. • Rooert P. Kotsmith • Agnes M. Ring • Michael P. Rju. PE. • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE Offices St Paul. Rccnester. Wiiimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl WebSite * #k v hcnestroocom Re: Paul Phillips Subdivision File No. 139-2430 Dear Liz: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed two lot Phillips subdivision. The site is located north of County Road 6 between North Brown Road and Willow Drive in the southwest quarter of Section 27. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: An existing driveway along the west side of the property cmrently provides access to this site and to the property located north and west of the Phillips property. Access to the proposed Lot 2 would either be from the existing driveway or directly off of County Road 6. The private driveway should be reconstructed to a minimum paved width of 28 feet to meet current City standards for a priv-te street serving 3 to 10 units if access to Lot 2 is from the shared driveway. The private street design should include a cul-de-sac to provide room for emergency vehicle turning movements. An Outlot with adequate right-of-way should be platted for the proposed private driveway. Hennepin County should review and comment on the proposed access. Plans and specifications for any street improvements should be provided for review. 2. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the house and septic system. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site drains westerly to an existing wetland identified as LL-P4. Phosphorous loadings leaving the site should be limited to a maximum of 0.28 pounds/acre/year. A majority of the site currently drains to an existing low area west of the septic locations on Lot 2. This depression may provide an ideal location for a water quality pond that could provide rate control and nutrient removal of storm water leaving the site. Plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review. A drainage area map and ponding calculations should be provided with the finai plan set. 4. Easements: Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax; 612-636-1311 5. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono i • • • < f • PROPOSEOPRECiMINARWtPLATFOR PAUL PHILLIPS . OF. LOT 1,'BLOCK 1, PHILLIPS woodLand Thrace second addition HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ................................................/ ... . m •«•••• S 89*54'07" W 422. t8 ■I.. C.c .A . . . I NO. 6.•PLAT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREIi«SES: Lot 1. Blobk 1, r:-ULLPS WOODLAND TERRACE SECOND ADDITION TOTAL LOT .AREA: 4.50+- ACRES t* OCSK^CO DRAWN O€CX£0 98375 RCV6CN OAte OCSCRPTDN . 1 i 1 •• COFFIN k GRONBERG, INC. CONSU.TH; DOfDGL LAM) SJMOVRS, SRC •482 TAMARACK AVEMC, LONG LAKE, IK! 55358 612-473-4141 I >CRCBY CCRTry that THS plan . SPCCTCATIOK or fttPORT WAS PRCPARCD BY UC OR ItCCR UY 0#^CT SIFCRVSION AM> THAr I AM A DULY UCCNSO) PR0fCSSX>4AL OCfC£R AND LA>0 SlKVaQR IMXX T>C UWS OT 1IC STAIC Of IMCSOTA OATC ■ T-tJ-r* UM UCfNSe NUOOt SCAL^ DATE 9/23/98 joe NO. 98375 § 10.03 Subd. 25. Mining. The commercial extraction of sand, gravel, or other material from the land and removal thereof from the site without processing shall be mining. In all districts the conduct of mining shall be permitted only upon issuance of a condi tional use permit. Such permit shall include, as a condition thereof, a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding land or development of the site on which the mining is being conducted, and the route of trucks moving to and from the sites. A bond will be required for restoration. Subd. 26. Soil Processing. The operation of processing of sand, gravel, or other material mined from the land shall be permitted" only by conditional use permit. Such conditional use permit shall include a site plan where the processing is to be done, shewing the location of the plant, disposal of water, route of true; s moving to and from the site in removing processed material from the site, the condition in which the site is intended to be left upon completion, hour of operation, and such permit shall not be granted for a period of longer than twelve (12) months. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 (Sections 10.04 and 10.05, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) Subd. 27. Special Standards for Back Lots Created After January 1, 1994. Back lots as defined in this-^seceftTn which were created as pare of a subdivision that received preliminary subdivision approval after January 1, 1994 are subject to the following special requirements in addition to the standards required in Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 of the Orono Subdivision Code: A. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: Loj shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement, ^ 2.Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requiicment. The street yard or front yard for any back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow access outlet corridor cads and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line, and at the street yard setback line. ORONO CC 259 (4-1-84) I • i I i I ^ h - « j. ^4. oJr B. » The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% ■ of ±e zoning district front yard requirement. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as pan of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, e.xcept that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. C. Access requirements. CMtA> lo4 1.Access outlets shall be 30’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. ■fAxwl’ \j\r jkA" D. 2. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street \vill be a potential safety hazard. 3. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 ’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. 4. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent access outlot e.xcept when the intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. • Screening reouirements. k\of^lUJLTK 1.Driveways constructed in access outlots shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the City, at all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. E. • 2. ■ The street yard of the back lot shadl be adequately screened by fencing or vegetadon at the discredon of the City, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. Standards for accessory strucmres. Accessory structures shall adhere to all requirements of the zoning code, with the following addidonal requirements: 1. j. Accessory structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer than 10 ’ to a neighboring property’s side or rear yard. Accessory structures shall not be allowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor within the required rear yard of a front lot which abuts the street yard of a bade lot. No accessory structure shall be allowed within an access outlet. SECTION 3. Orono Municipal Code Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in its place: Subdivision 5. Double frontage lots, access to lots, and front/back lot divisions. A. Double frontage lots. Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided e.xcept where necessary to provide separation of residential development from traffic arterials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. B. Access from any arterial roadway. Lots shall not, in general, derive access exclusively from an aneriaJ roadway. Where driveway access from any arterial roadway may be necessary for several adjoining lots, the Council may require that such lots be served by a combined access drive in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadway. Where possible, driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiring vehicles to back into traffic on any arterial roadway. C. Front/back lot subdivisions. "Flag lots" and "easement back lots" as defined in this Chapter (see definition of "Lot-Back") shall not be created. Front/back lot divisions shall be allowed only in conjunedon with the creation of an oudot to provide access firom the back lot to the public or private road. Such outlot shall not be allowed as creditable lot area for either the back or front lots. Front/back lot subdivisions shall adhere to the following standards: 1. Applicabiliq^. Hof OippUc»i>-^ a. iu|- b. Front/badc lot divisions may be iiaed whea existing property dimensions are narrow and deeo, such that lot width does not aUow for a side-by-side lot spUt, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a back lot without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot splits",^ but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots ii creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather rnan suoported by unioue site factors. A A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer its affected side lot line than a distance equivalent • to the zoning disnict required front yard depth. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: c. a. b. c. d. Lot area snail be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshore back lot, or at the rear of the front yard setback line of a nonlakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning disuict width requirement. The street yard or front yard for any back lot will be a yard starting where the narrow access outlot corridor ends and the lot begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback line and at the street yard setback line. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoning district front yard requirement. The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots ■ shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. The required lakeshore yard of a lakeshore back lot shall meet the zoning district lakeshore yard requirements. 3. ‘ Dimensional standards for front lots. A front lot created as pan of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area width and setback standards, except that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. 4. Access reouirements: a. Access outlots shall be 30 ’ tninimum* width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. b. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. c. Driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. d. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. 5. 6. e. No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. Screening requirements and accessory structure standards. Front/back lot subdivisions shall be designed in a manner such that the screening requirements and accessory structure s^dards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 27 can be met. Doesn-l-'C.vis't* orot o* I The requirements and standards of this section shall apply only to those front/back lot divisions which receive preliminary plat approval after January 1, 1994. SECTION 4. Adoption and publication. This ordinance shall be published in the Pioneer and the Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication.